So let me get this straight, is this a religious establishment such as a church? If it is then NO they should not be forced to marry these folks, that is setting a precedent I rather not set here in this country. Now if this is a business entity founded by religious people, then possibly an argument can be made and we should let the courts decide here. I honestly am failing to see the zealous nature behind forcing religious establishments to perform rituals against their will. It is like forcing Satanists to perform traditional communion. So can someone link me to the full story here, because I keep getting separate sides that are 100% bias.

(October 23, 2014 at 8:42 am)Heywood Wrote:

(October 23, 2014 at 8:22 am)Chuck Wrote: Hey, wake the fuck up, world progress, all sorts of institutions to by the way side because we do thing better now. what had been done before progress is not an excuse for rejecting progress. if you want the benefit of a modem civil state, don't pretend medieval conceptions and ways of doing things somehow has precedence.

Having to get permission from the state to get married is not progress. It is shackling.

Yes, it shackles the bible thumping slave masters and prevents them from whipping the slaves justified by their own self serving interpretations of the some idiotic Bronze Age tract marinaded in moronic fantasy of a criminal layabout who was executed 2000 years ago.

---

(October 23, 2014 at 9:28 am)bladevalant546 Wrote: So let me get this straight, is this a religious establishment such as a church? If it is then NO they should not be forced to marry these folks, that is setting a precedent I rather not set here in this country. Now if this is a business entity founded by religious people, then possibly an argument can be made and we should let the courts decide here. I honestly am failing to see the zealous nature behind forcing religious establishments to perform rituals against their will. It is like forcing Satanists to perform traditional communion. So can someone link me to the full story here, because I keep getting separate sides that are 100% bias.

Whether they are a business or not is irrelevant. The key factor is whether the want the product of tgeir services to be recognized as being equivalent to those provided by the state.

If it is a religious establishment offering a marriage service whose results has no civil validity, then they can do whatever they want whether they are a business or not.

But if the product of their marriage service is to have civil validity, then that validity mandates whom they must provide the service to (the same as civil marriage) even if there is business aspects to it whatsoever and they do their Iron Age superstitious chants and rituals pro bono.

That is a good point thanks for the clarification on that point.

(October 23, 2014 at 7:47 am)Heywood Wrote: You make it sound like the state granted religion the power to marry people which is bull shit. Marriage ceremonies were being preformed by religious and recognized by society at large well before the state ever got involved. State recognition of religious marriage ceremonies was not some courtesy as you errantly suggest. It was just a convenient way for the state to take over an aspect of peoples lives they previously had no part of.

You have it backwards.

Wikipedia Wrote:In many jurisdictions, a civil marriage may take place as part of the religious marriage ceremony, although they are theoretically distinct. In most American states, a wedding must be officiated by the justice of the peace in order for it to be recognized. However, priests, ministers, rabbis, and many other religious authorities can act as viable agents of the state.

Upon reading the following documents.

http://www.houstontx.gov/equal_rights_ordinance.pdf

And the subpoena

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillSu...equest.pdf

The actual ordinance does not attack religion in anyway. Instead protect public and civil rights. However, the subpoena itself has no basis. I read the whole thing, and the very fact it demands documents about the major with out real justification. I am sorry, it is in black and white. Regardless if this guy Steve Riggle being a dbag, his personal emails and text messages regarding his church are private...in fact protected under the Equal Rights Ordinance.

Having said that, there are lines with in the subpoena, that leads me to believe it is related to employment and the churches link to civil opportunities. I believe this subpoena was a petition by members of his own church. So I believe investigation in his employment is valid...however not his private emails.

This is researching the documents not going on some conservative or liberal websites slant.

Logically, we need only be concerned about pissing of members of the flock of The One True Church.

The Knappites seem not to be that, so fuck 'em.

(October 23, 2014 at 11:10 am)Chas Wrote: You have it backwards.

Sorry McFly.

George and Martha Washington didn't have a marriage license....why?....because back then you didn't need permission from the state to get married. You just did it(usually in a Church).

I thought you still can, you're just unregistered

I think all the laws against cohabitation have been repealed, but for many years pretending to be married was illegal in many places.

That seems to be based on religion