| FAQ |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
11-22-2008, 09:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
I would advise every church to review their constitution (or write and ratify one!) and have it reviewed by a lawyer, preferably one from the church. It needs to state that in no uncertain circumstances will the pastor marry someone outside of the church membership (and stick to it) and that the church only recognizes heterosexual couples and individuals for church membership. There must be no loopholes for the sodomites or the ACLU to exploit in order to force churches into marrying queers or prosecute them for not doing so.
It's a messed up world that we live in! |
|
#2
11-22-2008, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Regarding writing down a policy,
why would put something in writing that can be perceived as anti-homosexual? It seems to me that could be just want these activists are looking for. Isn't that kind of what eHarmony tried to do? For years, they had a corporate policy, look at the article... "Now eHarmony has been compelled to CHANGE its nationwide policy toward homosexuals as part of a New Jersey lawsuit settlement." I don't know, it seems to me the legal system is treating homosexuals like minorities or disability cases, you can hire all the attorneys you want and go broke in the process, but if one of these perverts attacks your business and it gets into the courts, it's over. Churches who "discriminate" based on sexual preference will be denied non-profit status or worse. The gears have already started turning on all this... CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 2007 "This bill, co-sponsored by the NAACP California Conference and Equality California, would update various non-discrimination statutes relating to government-funded programs and business services by adding protections against discrimination on the basis of disability, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status and the like... Opponents contend that the bill inappropriately protects against sexual orientation discrimination and DEPRIVES certain persons of their right to religious beliefs." http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil..._asm_comm.html Last edited by Bro. Parrish; 11-22-2008 at 01:56 PM. |
|
#3
11-22-2008, 11:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mainly because if its in writing, you have a legal defense. eHarmony gave up because they didn't want a long, drawn-out legal battle with the sodomites. If the church's constitution, a legally-binding document, disallows the pastor to marry individuals that are not church members, and allows the pastor and the membership of the church to decide who is allowed to become a member, there should be very few loopholes that queers can take advantage of.
Besides, we all know that very few sodomites want legal marriage because they're monogamous; they simply want public, legal verification of their perversion. |
|
#4
11-23-2008, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. |
|
#5
11-23-2008, 12:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If the stink really hits the fan: HOME CHURCHES! Peace and Love, Stephen |
|
#6
11-23-2008, 04:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It needs to be a conviction, however, and not just a preference. The church needs to make clear beliefs against sodomy and those who practice it. Let me try to explain it this way: a Jewish congregation can state that they believe that eating pork is a sin, and can back it up with the Law. They couldn't be accused of discrimination if they don't allow someone to sell BBQ at a church event. Some courts have ruled against churches that forbade sodomy, saying that their beliefs could only be enforced during actual ceremonies. A pastor might be 'forced' to marry two sodomites outside the church, but not within the confines of the building. |
|
#7
11-23-2008, 06:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
11-24-2008, 07:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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!! 
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
