Maybe I'm not being clear.
Suppose a church decided that no black people could be members...? Suppose you had a "constitution or charter" that stated no blacks were allowed to be members or be married. What exactly does that document get you? The homosexuals are claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation, as I already showed you in the link: the courts see this as equal to minority status. To me, writing down your plan to "discriminate" only makes it more obvious, but then I'm not a lawyer.

This is exactly what's going on. These sissified liberals with a victim mentality want everyone to know how much they suffer because they're homos, and they know that when other liberals see a 'victim' they'll have them hook line and sinker.

If the stink really hits the fan: HOME CHURCHES!

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Okay you sorta lost me on the whole pork thing, but thanks for trying.

My point is, if they are using a CIVIL RIGHTS AGENDA to force private companies, I think it's just a matter of time before churches are sued. This has the potential to tear the nation apart.
It seems behind every homosexual there is a lawyer...

From England:
Vicars could be sued for refusing to bless gay weddings,
fears Church
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-Church.html

New Jersey Lesbians to sue Church for Discrimination
A lesbian couple in New Jersey has filed a complaint against a Methodist-owned campground, claiming illegal discrimination because their request for a civil union ceremony on the property was denied...
http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/...iscrimination/

Gay couples file suit in Seattle
Six gay and lesbian couples sued King County for the right to marry after they were denied marriage licenses. The six couples, some with children in arms, were greeted at the door of the fourth-floor King County Administration Building office by County Executive Ron Sims, who said he supports their right to marry but is forbidden by state law from issuing licenses to partners of the same sex... Sims, appearing at a news conference with the plaintiffs and their lawyers, likened the state's ban on gay marriages to anti-miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriages in some states until the late 1960s.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...arriage08.html

What I'm saying is that if the church's constitution expressly states Biblical reasons (and convictions, like Here Am I said) for certain things, then those have a chance of standing in a court of law. A constitution is a legally-binding document: in it certain things like nursery procedures, church policies, pastoral authority (limits and allowances), money handling and voting procedures should be laid out and followed to the tiniest detail. That constitution is basically the law of the church: if it were to come to a courthouse issue, then that church would be examined against the law of the land and the church's constitution.

If there is no "anti-discriminatory" laws that force pastors to marry whomever wants to be married, the church's constitution will safeguard the church leadership as long as it is expressly stated that homosexual couples are not to be married by the pastor of the church. That's a legal document that a situation will be judged by in addition to the city/county/state/national laws.

If you live in a place with "anti-discriminatory" laws like that...MOVE!! :(

Is this even much of an issue yet? As far as I understand, homosexual marriage is still illegal in most states, therefore pastors don't have to and can't marry them. Times they are a changin though.

I would probably close up shop. They probably can't do that right now.

That isn't a surprise since people use regular "dating" to hook up just for fun. For the most part that is what dating is these days. Having a good time... maybe we'll like each other enough to join our households and bank accounts...

I know several couples who have gotten married to someone they met through eHarmony and I find they know each other better than most couples that go through "today's conventional methods" of finding someone.

Most are too wrapped up in the physical: looks & warm fuzzy feelings, etc to really find out how compatible they are on the important things: God, Bible, morals, family, etc.

Then again I married my pen-pal (before eHarmony was a thang) and I am a strong believer in getting to know the real person before you actually get involved with the person. Cause lets face it once they form an emotional bond with someone they aren't seeing clearly... and those things they ignore while dating don't surface until AFTER they have kids and the differences really become important.

Lawsuit filed against priest for
denying communion to gay activist
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=3136

Doctors Can't Deny Lesbians
Care on Religious Grounds
Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.
http://current.com/items/89214762/do...us_grounds.htm

KJB Princess and I met on a very similar forum to this one (run by Luke :D ) in April of 2006; it took me over a year to convince her that she loved me, and (exactly) two years before she finally married me ( ;) ), but I must say we have probably the best relationship of any newlywed couple I've ever known. There have been some bumps, but those are from outside of our marriage (though related thereto) and not explicitly related to the internet-ish nature of our meeting.

That being said, we haven't have had kids yet...but I don't really think that'll change much. Of course our meeting and relationship is extremely different from that of most internet relationships...we didn't meet on a secular site: we became friends on a Bible discussion site and developed a romance from there. (We're far from shy...people still tell us to "get a room!!" :p )

I'd say to avoid the internet stuff if possible, though for us it was a safeguard: it's hard to get into trouble from 2,300 miles away. :D

Malkin cuts through the haze...

The eHarmony shakedown
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

"Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a Christian-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable “right” to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh? New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide.”Men seeking men” has now been enshrined with “I have a dream” as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

eHarmony founder Neil Warren is the gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A Focus on the Family author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages lasting, healthy unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths, or no faith at all. Don’t like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Web that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it. No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony’s right to operate a lawful business that didn’t give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights in 2005.

To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great “sin” was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley’s legal shakedown artists — and staved off other opportunists as well. eHarmony had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey Attorney General intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000, and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey’s Civil Rights division “to cover investigation-related administrative costs.” Oh, and that’s not all. Yield, yield to the grievance-mongers:

Additional terms of the settlement include:

* eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the “Diversity” section of its Web site as successful relationships are created using the company’s same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services;

* eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company Web sites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation;”

* the company has committed to advertising and public relations/ marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service, and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the “fair, accurate and inclusive” representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.

I have enormous sympathy for eHarmony, whose attorney explained that they gave in to the unfair settlement because “litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.” The recent mob response to the passage of Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure in California, must have also weighed on the eHarmony management’s minds. But capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: More shakedowns of private businesses who hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-At-All-Costs Brigade. Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their businesses. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways."
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/21...e-mau-mau-ers/