Racism is alive and kicking in Mississippi church

[Drich]

So, then yes. Congress should make rules that restrict the religious beliefs of people.

Hmm. If only their were an amendment baring congress from doing that very thing.

No, they want to stop religious people behaving in a way that is not considered correct for the society now. For example if my religious belief is that I should cut the still beating heart of a human and display the corpse the state be able stop to that. If you agree then you are restricting the religious rights of an Aztec priest, shame on you.

Why did you jump to aztec preists? we are not discussing the azetec preists we are discussing one specific Christian Church. prohibitive or exclusionary practices are apart of ALL Clubs or in this case Churches. One Can't be a mormon and a catholic at the same time. just like in some churches you can not be a unrepentant 'sinner' and a member. To some legalistic 'christians' inter mixing races is a sin. So then the question becomes shall congress pass laws defining what is and is not sin for the church?

[Drich]

No, they want to stop religious people behaving in a way that is not considered correct for the society now. For example if my religious belief is that I should cut the still beating heart of a human and display the corpse the state be able stop to that. If you agree then you are restricting the religious rights of an Aztec priest, shame on you.

[Drich]: Blah, blah, blah . . . pop morality . . . blah, blah, blah . . . cultural and moral relativists . . . blah, blah, blah . . . unchanging standard of righteousness . . . blah, blah, blah . . . *grunts* me not understand difference between a constitutionally protected belief and an illegal action . . . *high pitched brain fart*

swing and a miss.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

No, they want to stop religious people behaving in a way that is not considered correct for the society now. For example if my religious belief is that I should cut the still beating heart of a human and display the corpse the state be able stop to that. If you agree then you are restricting the religious rights of an Aztec priest, shame on you.

Why did you jump to aztec preists? we are not discussing the azetec preists we are discussing one specific Christian Church. prohibitive or exclusionary practices are apart of ALL Clubs or in this case Churches. One Can't be a mormon and a catholic at the same time. just like in some churches you can not be a unrepentant 'sinner' and a member. To some legalistic 'christians' inter mixing races is a sin. So then the question becomes shall congress pass laws defining what is and is not sin for the church?

Yo, Jackass...listen very closely:

No one cares what you or any church considers a "sin". You're free to wear plants on your heads and walk around singing "Ali Baba" for a minimum of three hours a day, if that's what your cult requires.

What you are NOT free to do is to tell other people that they must live according to your practices, to pressure others to do so via legislation or other powers of government (including the use of my tax dollars), or attempt in any other way to make the lives of others harder because of the practice of your religion.

While the government may not tell the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian (aka the official church of the Ku Klux Klan) that they must conduct interracial wedding ceremonies in that church, they may certainly prohibit members of that church from using their businesses or other public services to harm those who do. What they do in the privacy of their homes or sanctuaries is none of our public business. 

This issue was pretty-well settled after they forced the South to stop keeping people of color from being served in restaurants, etc. It appalls me that it's now returning (though generally not over the race issue but over new "sins" Christians have decided to get hot-and-bothered about) to attack those who simply wish to assert the same rights as everyone else already enjoys, under the guise of "Religious Freedom". Horseshit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, they want to stop religious people behaving in a way that is not considered correct for the society now. For example if my religious belief is that I should cut the still beating heart of a human and display the corpse the state be able stop to that. If you agree then you are restricting the religious rights of an Aztec priest, shame on you.

Why did you jump to aztec preists? we are not discussing the azetec preists we are discussing one specific Christian Church. prohibitive or exclusionary practices are apart of ALL Clubs or in this case Churches. One Can't be a mormon and a catholic at the same time. just like in some churches you can not be a unrepentant 'sinner' and a member. To some legalistic 'christians' inter mixing races is a sin. So then the question becomes shall congress pass laws defining what is and is not sin for the church?

The law defines public behavior, not private belief. If you want to believe interracial marriage is a sin, bully for you ... You do not have the right to force your faith, no matter how stupid and indeed evil it may be, onto others.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Or as Prohibition proponent John Finch put it:

This arm is my arm (and my wife’s), it is not yours. Up here I have a right to strike out with it as I please. I go over there with these gentlemen and swing my arm and exercise the natural right which you have granted; I hit one man on the nose, another under the ear, and as I go down the stairs on my head, I cry out:

“Is not this a free country?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Have not I a right to swing my arm?”

“Yes, but your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.”

Here civil government comes in to prevent bloodshed, adjust rights, and settle disputes.

(Emphasis my own. Citation: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/...fist-nose/)

[Drich]

Why did you jump to aztec preists? we are not discussing the azetec preists we are discussing one specific Christian Church. prohibitive or exclusionary practices are apart of ALL Clubs or in this case Churches. One Can't be a mormon and a catholic at the same time. just like in some churches you can not be a unrepentant 'sinner' and a member. To some legalistic 'christians' inter mixing races is a sin. So then the question becomes shall congress pass laws defining what is and is not sin for the church?

Yo, Jackass...listen very closely:

No one cares what you or any church considers a "sin". You're free to wear plants on your heads and walk around singing "Ali Baba" for a minimum of three hours a day, if that's what your cult requires.

What you are NOT free to do is to tell other people that they must live according to your practices, to pressure others to do so via legislation or other powers of government (including the use of my tax dollars), or attempt in any other way to make the lives of others harder because of the practice of your religion.

While the government may not tell the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian (aka the official church of the Ku Klux Klan) that they must conduct interracial wedding ceremonies in that church, they may certainly prohibit members of that church from using their businesses or other public services to harm those who do. What they do in the privacy of their homes or sanctuaries is none of our public business. 

This issue was pretty-well settled after they forced the South to stop keeping people of color from being served in restaurants, etc. It appalls me that it's now returning (though generally not over the race issue but over new "sins" Christians have decided to get hot-and-bothered about) to attack those who simply wish to assert the same rights as everyone else already enjoys, under the guise of "Religious Freedom". Horseshit.

It's real simple. Dude owns X. Dude gets to set rules for 'X'. If religion says no Y on X then dude should be able to live out what he believes.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Yo, Jackass...listen very closely:

No one cares what you or any church considers a "sin". You're free to wear plants on your heads and walk around singing "Ali Baba" for a minimum of three hours a day, if that's what your cult requires.

What you are NOT free to do is to tell other people that they must live according to your practices, to pressure others to do so via legislation or other powers of government (including the use of my tax dollars), or attempt in any other way to make the lives of others harder because of the practice of your religion.

While the government may not tell the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian (aka the official church of the Ku Klux Klan) that they must conduct interracial wedding ceremonies in that church, they may certainly prohibit members of that church from using their businesses or other public services to harm those who do. What they do in the privacy of their homes or sanctuaries is none of our public business. 

This issue was pretty-well settled after they forced the South to stop keeping people of color from being served in restaurants, etc. It appalls me that it's now returning (though generally not over the race issue but over new "sins" Christians have decided to get hot-and-bothered about) to attack those who simply wish to assert the same rights as everyone else already enjoys, under the guise of "Religious Freedom". Horseshit.

It's real simple. Dude owns X. Dude gets to set rules for 'X'. If religion says no Y on X then dude should be able to live out what he believes.

Except. Wait for it. That's not how the law works. That's not how the law has ever worked. That's some kind of mega-libertarian-on-steroids fantasy world that more and more people seem to be living in these days. You can say up and down "that's how it should be", and you can argue for all types of things like repeal of the 14th amendment and other absolutely fringy, crazy half-thought-out "solutions."  That's your right, and it's our (the collective normal sane people) right to laugh at that.  But when you argue that's how it is, well, you're simply, factually, wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's real simple. Dude owns X. Dude gets to set rules for 'X'. If religion says no Y on X then dude should be able to live out what he believes.

If your religion commands you to avoid interracial marriage, then don't marry interracially yourself, and mind your own fucking business.

Your defense of bigotry is almost as disturbing as your defense of chattel slavery, but not surprising. The vast majority of bigots are god-believers of one ilk or another ... from my perspective, you're an average theist.

[Foxaèr]

Am I seriously going to argue Devil's Advocate Style?
Then I guess I shall.
Using MarriageEquality.org
I am not kidding.
http://www.marriageequality.org/religious_vs_civil
"Even after civil marriage becomes available to all same-sex couples in all 50 states, religions will retain the right to decide for themselves whether to perform or recognize any marriage, just as they already do. No court decision or legislative enactment can change the basic tenets of religious faith. For example, some religions will not marry someone who has already been divorced, although the person is free to marry civilly. We respect the right of each faith to decide which marriages it will perform and embrace."
Given that this same logic extends to Interracial Marriage, because the Government doesn't have the right to interpret any religious laws.
Like the Lich named Dritch says, you are going to have to take this up with the Government.

And Dritch?
Make better arguments, you just look like an asshole otherwise.

What you posted is in reference to the church having the decision to marry a couple in the church or recognizing the marriage within that church. What you posted is not in reference to accepting or denying a couple at a place of business outside of stated church, because that would be discrimination and against the law.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

And apparently they're so convinced of the power of the church that they've confused the difference between marriage (which is a contract between partners regulated by the State, and cannot be discriminatory) and a wedding ceremony, which is what churches perform after (or right before) the marriage contracts are signed.

A church cannot be forced to participate in a wedding ceremony for a group they do not like, but they do not have the actual power to recognize (or refuse) a marriage. [Edit to Add: I take that back, somewhat. Preachers/Priests/Imams, etc., are given the power by the state to act as state's representatives for authorizing a marriage contract's finality, in lieu of a Judge, who can also do it. It begs an interesting question, then, about whether a priest who has registered as a representative of a state government must then act with equanimity or be in violation of 42 USC § 1983's Civil Rights "under color of state law" codes.]

A publicly-registered business cannot discriminate in its provision of services based on personal biases like that... it's why we keep mentioning the lunch counter laws. Learn something, dude. For everyone's peace of mind!