A great day for freedom and liberty.

[jazyd]

It should be left to states to decide

This is just another assault on Christianity and all we believe or stand for

This isn't just about gays playing lollipop with each other. This now gives every one of them the right to force any Christian business or any church/ pastor to do something they are opposed to or face legal ramifications. Pastors/ churches will face losing their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry these people when they are opposed based on their Christian faith. Businesses owned by Christians, such as myself, can now legally be forced to do business with groups of oeople who want to do something the Christian opposes

Instead of going to a non Chriatian owned business or a business owned by those who claim to be a Christian but don't believe what the Bible says, or get married in churches who don't preach the Zbible, these people will force the issue with lawsuits! threats! boycotts! etching. We gave already observed it and it will get worse

I asked a social liberal who claimed to be a Christian about the Bible. Her answer was that she didn't believe in the parts that didn't go along with what she wanted to believe in. I had to tell her she wasn't a Christian, you can't pick and choose the parts you like

If you want men who do the things they do to each to marry fine, that's your belief but don't shove It down my throat and force me to serve them. And don't give the belief it's natural, it's not

The court didn't uphold the constitution, they made law which they are not supposed to do. It's my hope they get flooded with all the appeals from the lawsuits this will bring, and they won't be able to take their long vacations but will be forced to actually work 12 months a year. I gave no faith in the court any longer and certainly none in Roberts. He has no standing on anything and makes up things on the fly

Thankfully my daughter and husband are not having any more children, I hate the world and country they are growing up in.

Bad day for the constitution, bad day again for states rights, bad day for Christians, bad day for the country

[kingcat]

In this discussion at least there is a root cause for the difference of opinion. One must ask the question, do I believe in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and more importantly the death, burial and resurrection of His son Jesus.

And then ask, if I do (or did) what should my opinion on this matter be?

There is no room for compromise for Christians..be they Democrat or Republican, Libertarian, or what have you. A national law in direct conflict with God's law is a law that can't be acknowledged as legitimate. And one that clearly and forcefully strikes at the fundamental Christian values this country was founded upon.

The saving grace for us being that, we are in reality Citizens of another land.
And that we know things like this must take place.

[KSRBEvans]

Some Kentucky clerks refusing to issue any marriages licenses to anyone:

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/29/3...sing.html?rh=1

[Krank]

In this discussion at least there is a root cause for the difference of opinion. One must ask the question, do I believe in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and more importantly the death, burial and resurrection of His son Jesus.

And then ask, if I do (or did) what should my opinion on this matter be?

There is no room for compromise for Christians..be they Democrat or Republican, Libertarian, or what have you. A national law in direct conflict with God's law is a law that can't be acknowledged as legitimate. And one that clearly and forcefully strikes at the fundamental Christian values this country was founded upon.

The saving grace for us being that, we are in reality Citizens of another land.
And that we know things like this must take place.

kingcat, what does the Bible say about Hermaphrodites? If one looks like a man, but has both sets of genitalia, can that person have a relationship with a man... or is such a person doomed to asexuality because of what you contend to be an absolute law of god?

[elicat]

Not kingcat, but I'll just offer that the fact that there is ambiguity does not mean there is no norm. The fact that there are hard cases does not mean most are not easy. The fact that there is uncertainty does not mean there is no truth.

[Krank]

Not kingcat, but I'll just offer that the fact that there is ambiguity does not mean there is no norm. The fact that there are hard cases does not mean most are not easy. The fact that there is uncertainty does not mean there is no truth.

I don't really understand that completely so I will ask a different way... If a person has both sets of genitalia, how is there EVER any definition of gender and therefore any definition of what is heterosexuality OR homosexuality when considering those folks?

If they are morphologically "made" to be both genders, then according to the strictness of the religious laws you cite, is not asexuality the only road to salvation?

[bigsky]

The Bible, Koran, and Torah have nothing to do with the civil law, otherwise you get this:

"An Islamic court has sentenced nine people to death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad in the northern Nigerian city of Kano."

[kingcat]

kingcat, what does the Bible say about Hermaphrodites? If one looks like a man, but has both sets of genitalia, can that person have a relationship with a man... or is such a person doomed to asexuality because of what you contend to be an absolute law of god?

I don't know. If they feel they are a woman I don't see why not.

Just to be clear, I am not saying any type individual is condemned. Christ will forgive anyone who believes in, and loves him.

And as that love grows, the tendency is to conform to his example and what he desires for us. We are all a work in progress. What I am saying is that this national law goes against God's command.
And to expect any blessing from God on a country that stands in opposition to His will is folly.

For someone that doesn't believe my position is a silly one I am certain. But from a believer's perspective, any other position is a dangerous one...on an infinite scale.

[Krank]

I don't know. If they feel they are a woman I don't see why not.

I only used an example based on appearance. A hermaphrodite can look like one gender when, in fact, they are not strictly either... or are they both? See what I'm getting at. These are actual people. They have both sets of genitalia, thus gender designation cannot be strictly applied, therefore the meanings of "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", and even "transgender" are, intrinsically at the biological level, different than anyone else.

If a law is absolute, then these folks are sinning no matter what they do, thus I ask if they are expected by a loving god to deny themselves ANY sexual life so as not to offend the creator?

[elicat]

A sports discussion board really is not the place to go into it with the kind of conceptual precision your question requires. It is a good question, and intelligent Christians have thought about it and related questions with cogency. I recommend Robert P George's *Clash of Orthodoxies* as a good place to start. He is the McCormack professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University.

[kingcat]

I only used an example based on appearance. A hermaphrodite can look like one gender when, in fact, they are not strictly either... or are they both? See what I'm getting at. These are actual people. They have both sets of genitalia, thus gender designation cannot be strictly applied, therefore the meanings of "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", and even "transgender" are, intrinsically at the biological level, different than anyone else.

If a law is absolute, then these folks are sinning no matter what they do, thus I ask if they are expected by a loving god to deny themselves ANY sexual life so as not to offend the creator?

Thankfully all judgement has been given completely to Christ by God the Father, Someone who has observed the human condition and will judge the heart of a person and not by the letter of the law. He kept the law in our place...and expects us to try to walk that path as best we can..or according the the grace given each of us.

Part of the good news is that God's law didn't apply to us in the beginning, but through disbelief of what God said (Don't be awakened to the existence of good and evil or you will die) the knowledge of good and evil meant eventual death to our spirit. We had one minor command, and yet with the fist in the face of God we the same as stated We don't believe you
But there is a holy precedent for the scripture.. "Blessed is the man to whom God does not impute sin" It requires acknowledging by effort and action that God's law is good however. Again, to the best of our ability

And now the same choice is offered us as in the garden (metaphorically or otherwise). Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. The other choice is to continue beholding to the law and Commandments, and deny Christ. And whoever lives by the law, shall die by the law.

So I say we have more than hope, ALL of us, unless that person refuses to believe. Because there is no forgiveness for that.

Still, on one commandment hangs all the law, and our confidence in Christ saving us..

This is my long-winded perspective on the individual relationship with God as best as I can explain it. Yet, a nation is a different entity altogether and each one is playing a part on this finite stage.

The believer escapes the Father's wrath, but the nations and unbelievers will not. God has blessed this nation up to this point. But now, for the first time.. our law is contrary to God's law.

Believing this, how can a believer think that blessing would continue?

As for me, I probably struggle more than everyone here at being "Christ like" by the way. But I struggle on none the less.
I honestly have so wanted to post jokes in the color changing condom thread..

[CitizenBBN]

The Bible, Koran, and Torah have nothing to do with the civil law, otherwise you get this:

"An Islamic court has sentenced nine people to death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad in the northern Nigerian city of Kano."

True enough, the Founders never intended us to follow a particular religion as law.

But the way our legal system of "protected classes" works we are at risk of forcing specific performance of a service that would force people to violate their religious beliefs, and that's not what the Founders intended either. In effect it becomes servitude. At common law the courts considered specific performance remedies of a service as all but abhorrent, but it seems to be becoming not just possible but positively celebrated. That's a real concern as well.

In the true Libertarian world the state would issue a license to whoever wanted one, but no church, tax exempt or not, and no photographer or baker would be required to participate.

Will we be TRULY equal before the law now, or will we just shift the imbalance from one side to the other? I'm all for the former, but I fear it will be the latter.

To me many in the LGBT community are no different than so many revolutionaries who overthrow the dictator only to move into his palace and start their own repression. They want to force people to support their life choices whether it violates their personal religious beliefs or not. That's not wanting tolerance or equality before the law. They don't want to tear down the palace, they want to sit in it and make the former occupants gravel a while.

Oh, and I have many gay/lesbian friends and have had the same discussion with them over the years. Some even agree with me, many don't see it. They dont' mean ill, but they don't see it.

[bigsky]

Govt grants too many privileges to married couples not to require equal treatment.

Licensing is the least of it. Taxes, survivorship, visitation, property ownership, child custody, etc, are all bigger.

I was married by a justice of the peace, in a corral. I wasnt "civil unioned". Been married 29 years and what "sanctifies" my marriage is our dedication to each other and our friends' and society's respect for that dedication. Equal treatment is due to all.

[kingcat]

A suggestion for the movers and shakers for relabeling the national currency..

"In God we trust, if it suits us"

[CitizenBBN]

Govt grants too many privileges to married couples not to require equal treatment.

Licensing is the least of it. Taxes, survivorship, visitation, property ownership, child custody, etc, are all bigger.

I was married by a justice of the peace, in a corral. I wasnt "civil unioned". Been married 29 years and what "sanctifies" my marriage is our dedication to each other and our friends' and society's respect for that dedication. Equal treatment is due to all.

Those are all legal matters controlled by the state. What I'm talking about is going to be the non-state issues that impact other people and their rights.

No one's rights are infringed if a same sex couple now gets the legal protection of property transfer and survivorship, but they will if they are forced to perform a marriage they think makes them a sinner.

I'm all for the state getting out of the bias of the marriage business, but that's not where we're going to have issues.

[bigsky]

Weve seen this battle before; slavery justified by the Bible; segregation justified by the Bible; discrimination justified by the Bible, anti miscegenation laws justified by the Bible. Hanging Quakers for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. Jailing Baptists for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. All men, misusing the Bible and mixing it with civil law, to impose tyranny.

I read the opinion as to not require any religion to perform a ceremony. My civil marriage is my way, a church wedding another. The govt cant discriminate between the two.

[kingcat]

Weve seen this battle before; slavery justified by the Bible; segregation justified by the Bible; discrimination justified by the Bible, anti miscegenation laws justified by the Bible. Hanging Quakers for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. Jailing Baptists for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. All men, misusing the Bible and mixing it with civil law, to impose tyranny.

I read the opinion as to not require any religion to perform a ceremony. My civil marriage is my way, a church wedding another. The govt cant discriminate between the two.

Then I submit, the Government must decide if, upon it's precepts and at the heart of what our forefathers intended, was there implication that God really exists.
A simple yes or no and I'll know where I stand as a Christian, and if this is the nation I grew up in.

The above is not the perspective a true believer would have. Are Christian views valid in the eyes of the government, or only allowed?

It's an important question and one that strikes at the heart of the matter imo.

This is entirely different in nature to the examples you give above, also imo.

But that can only be argued if both parties acknowledge inherent truths in the Bible, and that God Himself exists.

P.S
Surely there was a way to accomplish this that accommodates the both the views of the Christian and non believer, because it certainly doesn't come close to hitting that mark. It sets a precedent of utmost concern to many, if not all Christians. And it hints at what might be a coming persecution of Christians for their beliefs.

[bigsky]

Kingcat, did you not pay attention the answer, "to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"? It was exactly this issue, meant as a trap by the questioner, not answered by "pay your taxes", but "dont confuse the two or your separate duties to each."

[elicat]

Are Christian views valid in the eyes of the government, or only allowed?

In light of the Obergefell decision, my question is more basic: Are they allowed, or not allowed?

[bigsky]

Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or none, are all allowed. Government can't favor one and discriminate against the others or by doing so, it establishes an official religion. That's prohibited by the US Constitution.

[elicat]

Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or none, are all allowed. Government can't favor one and discriminate against the others or by doing so, it establishes an official religion. That's prohibited by the US Constitution.

I know that. That's not what I mean. This is what I mean: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshe...ssibility.html

[elicat]

For example, http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-tim...-institutions/

[kingcat]

Caesar has not had Christian or Jewish slaves in many years. They had no choice, nor vote, nor message board platform.

I am a citizen with certain inalienable rights myself.
And I appeal to Caesar!! (jk...is he here?)

I do understand where you are coming from. I'm just trying to make a point about the ramifications of the new law using your input It is certainly a legitimate stance, as well as the law.

But those ramifications are not clearly seen except from the Christians perspective..or the Jewish and the Muslim perspectives

Can't speak for the Buddhists, but in this situation, "or none" stands in direct opposition to the other three, who must also answer to "higher laws" Thus the dilemma this creates.

[bigsky]

For example, http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-tim...-institutions/

Yes, I've seen flat tax advocates say the same thing about all non profit corporations. Is it about the money or the faith for the corporate church?

[Doc]

Govt grants too many privileges to married couples not to require equal treatment.

Licensing is the least of it. Taxes, survivorship, visitation, property ownership, child custody, etc, are all bigger.

I was married by a justice of the peace, in a corral. I wasnt "civil unioned". Been married 29 years and what "sanctifies" my marriage is our dedication to each other and our friends' and society's respect for that dedication. Equal treatment is due to all.

IMO here lies the problem. Why grant privileges to married folks?

[elicat]

Yes, I've seen flat tax advocates say the same thing about all non profit corporations. Is it about the money or the faith for the corporate church?

As you know perfectly well, religious institutions in this country would not survive the loss of tax exemption. The institutions and their funding models have been built with the reasonable expectation that it is permanent. It is merely disingenuous to make snarky comments about faith or money. This is clearly an effort to eliminate religious institutions from American life. It is fortunate that it is highly unlikely to succeed anytime soon, but it does show what some people are increasingly capable of.

[bigsky]

I know that. That's not what I mean. This is what I mean: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshe...ssibility.html

That is a battle we face and those who seek some kind of revenge are wrong.

[bigsky]

As you know perfectly well, religious institutions in this country would not survive the loss of tax exemption. The institutions and their funding models have been built with the reasonable expectation that it is permanent. It is merely disingenuous to make snarky comments about faith or money. This is clearly an effort to eliminate religious institutions from American life. It is fortunate that it is highly unlikely to succeed anytime soon, but it does show what some people are increasingly capable of.

I dont know that. And its one article. Churches are giving up corporate status to allow them to lobby and engage in political activity. As for being "snarky" will you answer the question? should the Catholic or Mormon church be allowed to accumulate immense wealth?

[elicat]

Well, there's no way for American policy makers to keep the Catholic church from accumulating immense wealth. It's not an American institution. What about the liberal, pro-gay Presbyterian Church (USA) and its hundreds of millions of dollars in their foundation? Is that legitimate? Should a liberal, pro-gay congregation like Riverside Church in NY be allowed to accumulate immense wealth?

I'm not really interested in such questions. I'm interested in the continued viability of the local places American Christians as well as people of other faiths turn up to exercise their faith.

[bigsky]

I'm sorry if I was snarky--it's as personal to me as it is to you.

I will answer your questions: no. I'm for eliminating that chapter of IRS code. For all non profits. It is not right that foundations are landlords and businesses and dont pay for the services they use.

It's fine to advocate for a special interest. Its not fine to make policy and law that way.