No, i’m not saying that. I have no particular clue as to proportions of the more extreme beliefs of activists or the country or world at large.
That said; I would say, as a liberal person, that it is enough that the existence of people who believe in institutionalising fundamentalist Christian practices - even if they succeed to the extent that some have done on a state and local level - that that is enough for me to say “Well, clearly it’s a slippery slope, so Christians can forget about even the less stringent stuff they’re after.” Likewise, it would seem like it’s not enough just to say “There are activists out there who would force churches to perform gay marriages.” and extrapolate that out into “Aha, so it’s justified for us to deny not just that, but gay marriage in general, because one would mean the other.”
I’ve asked before and I haven’t seen an answer. Since “plenty” of churches charge for a wedding ceremony, Steophan shouldn’t have any problem listing some of those churches. Which churches charge for a wedding? Please be so kind to provide something akin to proof (say, a link) to show they do and it’d be way cool to even show the fee schedule for that wedding.
Irrelevant, it still does not make them a business. If Steophan could demonstrate that 99% of the churches out there charge a fee for weddings, it wouldn’t mean jack. But he’ll find one church out there, and think that proves they’re all businesses - when not even that one is.
We’ve already seen his calculus for determining if something’s a business, laughable as that calculus is; however, since he’s so hell-bent on the issue of churches charging for wedding, I’d like to see which ones do. After all, according to Steophan, “plenty do”. Since there are so all-fired many that do, it shouldn’t be a problem.
Of course, very few–I suspect the actual number is zero–do, this is just another datum to support my assertion that he’s not debating in good faith here. Or, as tomndebb put it, delusional.
Oh, by the way, it’s not the words or any ceremony at all, at least in the US, that creates the marriage. It’s the recording of the marriage on that nifty little marriage license/certificate issued by the church. Oh, wait. That’s absolutely incorrect. The license/certificate is a government-issued thing. Just because the UK asininely gives special status in their legislative body does not mean that every country has a church ruling, or even participating, in ruling the country. Someone else asked Steophan what church is running the US government. Of course, that question will receive the same cricket chirping that mine about which churches charge for wedding and what their fee is has received thus far.
Tell you what - why don’t you stop wasting your time here and start a club of people who agree with you and try to get some laws passed?
Except you can’t discriminate, of course. You have to let anyone in your club, including religious people, bigots, and those of us who just think your ideas are nuts. You have to give them full voting rights in your club too.
Indeed, if we follow this logic to its conclusion, the Catholic church would be obligated to grant ordinations to atheists, who could then give sermons every week from the pulpit about how God doesn’t exist and all religion is “dangerous bullshit”, and they wouldn’t be able to fire him because that would be a bigoted act on their part.
That is not what you originally meant and you damn well know it. Now that you’ve been proven wrong, you’re just moving the goal posts so you can say, “SEE!!! They actually DO get paid, just not DIRECTLY for the wedding!”
And you still have provided no cite that a couple has to pay the church when they get married. This does not happen in the Catholic church. If you’re going to say otherwise, post proof that it does just that, or retract it. (And not some half-assed bullshit about “well, they belong to the church, and they donate as members”…)
And, that’s not bullshit, it’s precisely what the Catholic church says happens.
" If the bride or groom or both are registered parishioners, the suggested amount may be minimal, or none. The assumption is that they are already supporting the parish with their regular financial contributions"
I’m actually surprised that this was controversial. When my sister got married, my father wrote a fairly large check to the church that hosted the affair. It’s like renting any other hall for a social event.
However, I still think you’re completely wrong, on constitutional grounds. Churches have the freedom to discriminate, on religious grounds. This is a really big part of our country’s fundamental freedom. The idea that people could come in and make demands on a church is, to me, ludicrous, just as absurd as if people could come in and demand to attend your child’s birthday party. Just because you paid to hold it at a restaurant, doesn’t mean that I get to come in and force you to give me a slice of cake and a bowl of ice cream. Hey, I brought a gift: you have to let me in!
Nope. Whatever you think of organized religion – and I’m not too far behind you and Der Trihs – I love my liberty more. Religion will never be my friend, but the kind of power that could destroy it is a form of tyranny I can never respect.
I think leave religions alone – don’t allow them to impose their will on others and run things other than churches (especially schools) and over time they will disappear. They need political power to hold onto people. There are some things that churches must not be allowed, including freedom from taxes and the right to run roughshod over the rights of others (such as making lots of noise) and of course when they get crazy medical notions the children need to be protected from them.
Well, in your country maybe so, but nobody in the US gives a flying fuck what happens with an “established church.” Which reminds me, you still haven’t said what church is running the US government.
In case I forget: what church in the US is it that’s charging for the marriage?
Wow. The CoE charges for weddings. How does that have any bearing on the U.S. anti-discrimination laws?
Then you go to the same British site and find that Catholic churches accept donations for the upkeep of the building. (I would hope that you are not going to conflate hall rental for the reception with a charge for the marriage service, thus further lowering your credibility.)
I don’t think it does, but people keep claiming that a free service should be allowed to be offered in a discriminatory fashion, and claiming that my argument is based on weddings being sold. I don’t believe either is the case, but since I’ve repeatedly been challenged on the idea that churches charge for weddings, I thought a link to the third largest church in the world might clear it up.
I’ll state my clear and simple position again. Religion should not be an excuse for bigotry, and laws that allow it are bad laws.
But hey, keep pretending weddings are free, churches are funded by literal manna from heaven, not payments by their members or returns on their investments, and that bigotry is good and right. I’m sure it makes you happy. I hope for your sake, though, that your beliefs are wrong and you don’t ever meet a just god, you might not like what he thinks of you.
I wonder - do you also think the state should intervene in speech too? That there should be laws against bigoted speech that override freedom of speech?
If you could invent a machine that reads minds, would you pass a law against bigoted thoughts too?