April 24, 2012

Freedom of Religion Freedom of worship – or, in ObamaSpeak, you’ll still be able to keep the church you like [Darleen Click]

Anyone with half a brain could see this coming

Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties.

The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month.

According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”

Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.

“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.” (sic)

Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.”

“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.”

He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties.

“What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church,” he said.

It is a pernicious, but typical of progressives, to equate “race” with “sexual orientation/behavior.” Renting a church hall, depending the on the church, comes with any number of behavioral restrictions – from the serving of alcohol to dancing, dependent on the church’s tenets.

As SanFranGran Nancy has shown, Left-Liberals are now very open in their contempt of the Constitution. Their First Amendment is about Government definition and control of speech, press and religion.

Shut up, they say.

Posted by Darleen @ 7:42am
209 comments | Trackback

Tags: ,

Comments (209)

  1. Hate to be a noodge, but the First Amendment is “Congrefs fhall make no law”, not “the Hutchinson KS City Council shall make no law”. I completely disagree with what these proggtards are trying to do, but can we look to the Constitution for remedy of a local matter? Other than general principle, of course, which nowadays? pfffffft

    Of course the KS state constitution may incorporate the 1st, I really don’t know. I’m probably talking out my ass; not enough coffee, and listening one-eared to a really boring WebEx hosted out of NYC.

  2. “What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church,” he said.

    Yes to confronting the bad law, no to the rest. You don’t recognize the unjust law; you don’t compromise your principles; you don’t pay any fines or acknowledge any nagging from City Hall, and you DARE the bastards to pursue legal proceedings against your church.

    They are bullies who pervert the law and then use it as both weapon and shield, and they’ve done too much damage already. Get in their faces. Punch back twice as hard. Bring a flamethrower to their knife fight. It’s the Obama Way(tm)!

  3. Darth, the First Amendment’s been incorporated against the states (and local governments) for a while.

    Squid, the bastards will keep right on doing this crap until they get the same kind of pushback Islam provides. Christians are easy targets.

  4. Pingback: Forcing Churches to Have Gay Weddings « Andrew J. Patrick

  5. The First Amendment doesn’t give you a right to h8, or something. That is what I’ve heard on lefty blogs, anyway.

  6. Darth, even a state/local government doesn’t have the right to legislate religion. *Even if* you argued that the 9th gave them carte blanche to do whatever the heck they feel like without limit, the “laws and Nature and of Nature’s God” still trump.

    Outlaw.

  7. Squid nails it for me, word for word.
    All I have to add is that I’m tired of seeing the word ‘forced ‘ thrown around so liberally. If you have a pair (figuratively, for the ladies here), then no one will be ‘forcing’ you to do anything.

  8. The Left is making it illegal to believe. You can go through those doors and say whatever you want to each other, but when you come out you are in Obama’s world, and you will believe what is fair. The bishops seem to understand the threat and are preparing to respond, but where are the rest of the churches?

    Also from that link

    But James Salt, the executive director of Catholics United, a social justice group aligned with more liberal politics, said the public relations campaign is misguided. …“This is part of a very orchestrated campaign by the bishops to make contraception the focus of the 2012 election,” he said.

  9. Any chance this ordinance is being enacted with the specific intent that it be challenged?

  10. OT: But they didn’t mention the word “target” within 10 miles, so it’s OK.

  11. Of course the KS state constitution may incorporate the 1st, I really don’t know.

    Yep. Perhaps it’s even clearer:

    7. Religious liberty. The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend or support any form of worship; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, nor any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship.

  12. Well shit Pablo, if the Federal Constitution is like a hundred years old, Kansas’s has to be what? At least like seventy-five, right?

  13. Hutchinson City Council web-page.
    Hutchinson Human Relations Ordinance web-page.
    Chapter 3 of the Hutchinson City Code pdf.
    Hutchinson Human Relations brochure pdf.

    Looks to me like leftists have been placed in the City Manager’s Office by naive politicians, just guessing at the origin of this nonsense. These “modern” City Manager systems are ripe for abuse.

  14. Thanks for the input above, folks.

    Hey, aren’t those Fred Phelps nutjobs from around KS? Wait until they hear about this and go to Hutchinson, talk about a perfect storm of crapweaselly mendoucheousness.

  15. Everyone has the freedom of conscious to believe in what the government tells them to believe. That is what the living constitution says today.

  16. I believe that the appropriate response to them passing this law is something about fornication and a horse that had been ridden recently, but maybe that’s just me.

  17. Yes, Westboro is in Kansas. And now it makes sense.

    This is meant to goad the Bull (Connor) into charging right into the cameras.

  18. Completely OT. Outlaw!

    http://johnderbyshire.com/April2012/page.html

    This is so delicious I must quote it.

    • Comment: Here is a typical example of an extremely common response. (I took it from the comment thread on my April 12 TakiMag column, but there are dozens like it elsewhere — given the web-wide volume of commentary on this piece, quite likely hundreds.)

    [begin comment] “Please tell this black woman who is a devoted mother, professional woman, cat lover, and gardener, and Ivy league graduate about her inherent nature and intelligence. Do tell!”

    Now, it’s well known that I hate to give offense — ask anybody! — but the temptation to say the obvious thing here is so strong, I am just going to yield to it.

    Ma’am: If you cannot distinguish between a statistical statement about a population (“On average, men are taller than women”) and a statement about some one particular member of that population (“Sally’s real tall”), then … how intelligent do you expect me to believe you are, actually?

    And if a person who cannot make that elementary logical distinction truly does have an Ivy League degree, Affirmative Action is a greater evil than I thought.

  19. I want to hold a pig roast kegger in conjunction with a dog show in a mosque.

  20. God bless John Derbyshire. May he long remain a defiant pain in the ass.

  21. And a drag queen pageant as the finale for the evenings festivities.

  22. Throw in a Slut-walk and I’m there JD.

  23. JD; someone actually doing something of that nature will be the quickest way to bring this all to a head.
    Make all the usual suspects have to publicly defend the indefensible.

  24. This just can’t be true. /sarc

    One of my progtard friends is constantly bombarding me with pro-gay propaganda, even though she is not gay herself. I finally asked her why this was so important to her and she started in with the “fairness” argument. *sigh*

    I offered up this exact same example used in this article as to the infringment of the Church’s civil liberties, not to mention the afront to faith. Her reply? “Well, there are laws that say they don’t have to perform marriages, etc., blah blah, blah.” I laughed and told her she was really doing a lot of spinning and wishcasting.

  25. all this says is that churches what rent out their buildings can’t discriminate against gay people

    that’s just running a business… same as people what want to open a restaurant or bar or anywhere what’s open to the general public

    if they want to run a business and plus also they want to get their bigot on then for sure they can pony up and pay property taxes I think

    and what the fuck is a drag party and why would anyone want to have one in a fucking church in Kansas please to explain?

  26. Well shit Pablo, if the Federal Constitution is like a hundred years old, Kansas’s has to be what? At least like seventy-five, right?

    Way more than a hundred. I doubt anyone can understand it.

  27. Embrace teh ghey, or pay taxes, Churches! Very Madisonian, that.

  28. From Chapter 3:

    c. It is the policy of the City of Hutchinson, Kansas, that the commission be representative of the many diverse groups within the community, whether such groups be defined by occupation, race, sex, religion, color, age, national origin, ancestry, disability or other criteria. To this end, the mayor shall, in making such appointments as may from time to time be necessary, attempt to establish and preserve this diversity among members of the commission to the fullest extent practicable.

    Preserving a “look” of “diversity” is strange, no? That is, such a “look”, or appearance, first entails discrimination of the sort the law is ostensibly designed to eliminate. In addition, as a simple proposition of proportionality, the weighted skew against the actual population of the city is laughable on its face. (Fucking totalitarians. They’re everywhere.)

  29. Sdferr – done.

  30. and what the fuck is a drag party and why would anyone want to have one in a fucking church in Kansas please to explain?

    Something gay that those fundie (Fun Die… get it?) Xtianist godbotherers hate, so let’s stick it in their hohophobic faces.

    Duh.

  31. Jeff just tweeted that the baby is now outside rather than inside.

  32. But is he still biting?

  33. He may have been chewing his way out. Time will tell.

  34. OT – Jeff just Facebook posted Tanner’s birth at 8:12 AM this morning. With a picture!

  35. Healthy baby. Yeah

  36. Yay! Now tiny Mr. Tanner can start “accommodating” himself to not owning private property, or his own opinions. And to having entered the “Health Care Market”. It’s a big ol’ worl’ the government isn’t giving him.

  37. Picture of the new outlaw.

  38. all this says is that churches what rent out their buildings can’t discriminate against gay people. that’s just running a business… same as people what want to open a restaurant or bar or anywhere what’s open to the general public. if they want to run a business and plus also they want to get their bigot on then for sure they can pony up and pay property taxes I think.

    So heads the proggies win, and tails the churches lose?

    You are staunch, feets…

  39. Nothing ever changes, really.

  40. Minstrel shows at the local AME church?

  41. “Anyone with half a brain could see this coming”

    Barry Goldwater had half a brain (better, even) and he saw it in 1964.

  42. Thanks, Pablo. I tried to link to the picture but apparently just had another html fail moment.

  43. Hey, aren’t those Fred Phelps nutjobs from around KS?

    Topeka.

    When I first read about this I told my wife somebody should try something like this in Topeka, but she didn’t make the connection right away.

    Been married to me all these years and she can only read my mind 93% of the time.

  44. Congratulations, Jeff! Beautiful son you have there!

    Back on topic: The only purpose this serves is to bend nonconformists to the will of the left. I strongly doubt the parish hall of Our Lady of the Plains is the only option for gay folks’ celebrations in Hutchinson.

    Moreover, there is precedent for this in Our Neighbor to the North, where a lesbian couple deliberately raised hell for a Knights of Columbus council in British Columbia (I don’t buy that they had no idea who the KofC was):

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20051129/tribunal_lesbiancouple_051129/

  45. Aw! Congratulations, Jeff and family! What are the stats on the little shaver?

    Kansas Catholics are staunch. They aren’t going to roll over on this. The Protestants? Who knows?

    And, happy, my little brother, the bigotry is on the other foot with trying to force a religious institution to rent its buildings to all. Businesses are allowed to refuse service. This is just stick poking and people are pretty fucking sick of it.

  46. “Businesses are allowed to refuse service.”

    No, I don’t think they are.

  47. leigh I don’t agree I think if you’re gonna rent to these people over here you should offer the same terms to these people over there

    that’s just how we are in America

  48. And, no churches aren’t businesses. However, many churches will not allow persons who are not either members of that faith or that congregation to use their buildings.

    If there are so many gays in Kansas who want church weddings and receptions, they need to start their own church or see if they can rent out the fire hall like a lot of people do. Let them sue the city if the FD says, “eh, no.”

  49. I imagine if you just prohibited alcohol in all your service contracts you’d go along way towards mitigating the “drag party” menace

  50. churches are indeed businesses we established that awhile ago ask Mr. Ernst he had links

  51. There is a difference between a private space and a public space. If the government owns the building, they can set the laws. Otherwise, they need to keep their noses out of it.

  52. this is really a lot the same as how when you bring cookies you should bring enough for everyone

  53. leigh I don’t agree I think if you’re gonna rent to these people over here you should offer the same terms to these people over there

    So, setting aside protected categories of people under local law on up, if I have a hall, I have to I just have to rent it out if Namb*a convention or the local Klavern walks through my door asking to use my facility?

  54. sdferr, all of the restuarants I’ve ever been in have a sign up about reserving the right to refuse service: to anyone. But, I’ll take your word for it.

    Menace, happy? C’mon. At the risk of relying on anecdotal evidence, I will state that I have known many, many gay couples and singles over the years and only one of those couples (wimmins) wanted a “commitment” ceremony. I never heard a one of the others even mention getting married.

  55. Just read the statute leigh. You don’t have to take my word for it.

  56. that is a classic apples and oranges operation error what you got there Mr. Price

  57. Thanks for posting it, sdferr. I read it and I am now more confused.

  58. No, it’s not. You made a broad, categorical statement, to whit:

    “I don’t agree I think if you’re gonna rent to these people over here you should offer the same terms to these people over there.”

    So, apparently, there are situations under which I can refuse to rent out my hall to people whose beliefs (protected under the First Amendment as they are)?

  59. “whose beliefs offend my conscience.”

    Grr. Caffeine time.

  60. I’m not sure how a house of worship qualifies as “public accommodations,” sdferr, but then again, I’m not sure how growing vegetables in my backyard qualifies as “interstate commerce,” either.

  61. If you take those tomatoes to your cousin in the next state, well off to the pokey with ye!

  62. Welcome aboard, young Tanner! Word to the wise: never dare your old man to pick you up by the head. Trust me.

  63. I watched the Curt Flood documentary on HBO the other night that I had DVR’d from some time back. On three separate occasions the Supreme Court of the United states has deemed MLB to not be interstate commerce for the purposes of keeping baseball’s reserve clause in tact. Fascinating, isn’t it?

    MLB and the the Major League Baseball Player’s Association have long since reached labor agreements nullifying the reserve clause and accepting free agency, but to my knowledge, MLB has still never been determined to be interstate commerce by SCOTUS.

  64. that is a classic apples and oranges operation error what you got there Mr. Price

    “Apples being a place where my argument leads to a situation I like, oranges being the opposite.

    They’re completely different.”

  65. We have to repair to the Hutchinson code is my guess Squid:

    CHAPTER 3, Article I. In General,
    Sec. 3-101 Declaration of policy.
    The practice or policy of discrimination against individuals in employment relations, in relation to free and public accommodations, in housing by reason of race, religion, color, age, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry or in housing by reason of familial status is a matter of concern to the city since such discrimination threatens not only the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of the City of Hutchinson but menaces the institutions and foundations of a free democratic state. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Hutchinson to eliminate and prevent discrimination in all employment relations, to eliminate and prevent discrimination, segregation, or separation in all places of public accommodation covered by this section and to eliminate and prevent discrimination, segregation or separation in housing.

    It is also declared to be the policy of this city to assure equal opportunities and encouragement to every citizen regardless of race, religion, color, age, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry, in securing and holding, without discrimination, employment in any field of work or labor for which a person is properly qualified, to assure equal opportunities to all persons within this city to full and equal public accommodations, and to assure equal opportunities in housing without distinction on account of race, religion, color, sex, disability, familial status, national origin or ancestry. It is further declared that the opportunity to secure and to hold employment, the opportunity for full and equal public accommodations as covered by this act and the opportunity for full and equal housing are civil rights of every citizen.

    But yeah, I don’t think they’re singling out the Church halls as “houses of worship” as such, but as if they are distinct as halls of gathering denoting a “commercial” purpose separable from worship (“commerce” is clearly the hook, and so far as I can see has been derived from the ’64 Federal Act). (Mind you, I don’t present any of this in a spirit of agreement with it. I abhor this business of mind and behavior control as anathema to the meaning of the American Republic.)

  66. I guess I’m going from my personal experience, where renting a church hall means renting the physical volume only. I don’t know that I’ve ever attended a wedding reception or similar event that didn’t have an outside caterer and bartender. If the church is not providing lodging, nor food, nor drink, then I just don’t see how it qualifies as a public accommodation.

    I’m virtually certain there is case law stating I’m wrong, in which case I’ll reiterate that we need to kill the sort of lawyers and judges who make such perversions happen.

  67. I don’t agree I think if you’re gonna rent to these people over here you should offer the same terms to these people over there

    It’s not about who they are, it’s about what they’re doing.

    If gay people want to rent a church hall for Bible study, and the church says no, that’s discrimination against people

    But if a straight guy wants to rent the hall so his sister and her girlfriend can get married, and the church says no, that’s discrimination against the event.

    Unless you want to mandate that the LDS church rent out its buildings for wine tastings (gay or straight), stagings of Equus (most LDS chapels have stages), or Klan rallies.

  68. I’m not sure how growing vegetables in my backyard qualifies as “interstate commerce,” either.

    If you eat your own tomatoes, you’re not buying the ones shipped in from out of state.

    Seriously, that’s what it amounted to. I don’t know why that malignant ruling has stood for so long, because it’s so obviously wrong.

  69. I wonder if anyone will bring suit against the Rev Wright’s church, Trinity United, because it bars white people from attending it’s services? How’s about some Skokie Nazis try to rent their hall for an Oktoberfest and silent auction?

    For the fairness!

  70. Next step.

    Churches are now clubs with member dues. Anyone can join but the club does not do drag shows. The church hall will no longer be rented out and supporting dues (formerly voluntary contributions) will be required for continued membership at the club. Anyone who does not act according to the bi-laws (no shouting slogans during services) will be ejected from the club with a warning and if it happens a certain number of times the person will be barred from the club for a year.

    Etc.

  71. I’m still not sure why a property tax-exempt church should get to compete against Real American Small Businesses in the hall-rental space at all, but if they do they should comport themselves with capitalist dignity and focus on providing a good service for a fair price

  72. I think they’re less concerned with your notions of dignity and capitalism and more concerned with being a church that has a set of principles and upholds them. You don’t get into being a church so you can participate in the hall rental market.

  73. Well, feets, if you don’t understand freedom of association, that’s not my problem.

    And paleo, that’s how most if not all synagogues handle it according to Mrs SDN the rabbi’s daughter. You pay a yearly subscription and you have a seat.

  74. In my experience with Houses of Worship, their parish halls are generally on the same property as the Church proper. And nearby to their parish school, if they have one. The congregants have an expectation that the Church will use those properties that are funded by and generally tended to by the faithful will be used in a manner that is in keeping with the teachings of the Church.

    This issue of gays wishing to use Church property to celebrate their unions is nothing but a tyranny of the minority against tradition and teachings of the Church.

  75. OT: SDN, I got a new dog. She’s a foundling, a black lab that we have named Trudy. Low lifes dumped her near our property.

  76. Jeff G. asked me to send his best to everyone.

  77. I’m still not sure why a property tax-exempt church should get to compete against Real American Small Businesses in the hall-rental space at all…

    Their usual competition is the fucking Fire Hall, you cocksucking moron.

  78. what is a Fire Hall? That sounds very of the people.

  79. here is an example of a “Fire Hall” what you can rent

    apparently these “fire halls” have historically been the venue of choice for “drag parties,” as churches have found themselves shut out of this lucrative market, but it is a new day what is dawning my friends. A new era where fire halls and churches will engage in friendly competition for the “drag party” custom, each seeking to innovate and embellish their services such that they become the preferred venue.

    capitalisme!

    (that’s french)

  80. I would suspect that most gay bars in the area available for private functions, especially on otherwise slow weekdays or weeknights.

    I wonder how they’d respond if Fred Phelps called to book an event?

  81. To be honest, I’m not sure Hutchinson, Kansas is big enough to have more than one gay bar, and it’s probably in the closet.

  82. what is a Fire Hall?

    A regular at a dozen cupcake boutiques, but never set foot in a fire hall. Let it never be said that you’ve lost touch with the common man, happy.

  83. Yes, clubfly says Wichita is the nearest option.

  84. I know what a fire hall is now thanks to google. They don’t really have those where I come from… you’re more apt to have a VFW hall for that purpose.

    Fire stations are not big to-dos in south texas and I don’t think they want you traipsing around. I asked NG here too if she knew what a fire hall was and she blanked, so it’s not just me.

  85. I asked NG…

    Science!

  86. Any place where they don’t want you traipsing around at the firehouse is probably not a place with an all-volunteer department overseen by a board elected locally for just that purpose, with regular meetings in a room big enough to be rented for events that might bring in extra revenue and help buy new axes and breathing apparatuses and stuff.

  87. also I checked on messenger and this “fire hall” concept does not appear to have spread up Minnesota way neither

  88. he says they have “elk clubs” in Minnesota

    God love him

  89. The facepalm, it is strong with this one.

  90. I think the elks club is across Main from the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo

  91. Much like all the rest that is California in this country, we are better off that it’s full effect be brought into the open.

    The sooner we can resolve whether this truly is a nation conceived in liberty, or one of enforced ‘equality.’

  92. it all comes out in the wash

  93. There are Fire Halls all over the country or at least in communities that have volunteer fire companies, as McGehee says. Excellent for renting if one is on a tight budget because they will let you use their kitchen most times. If your venue needs to have booze, then you can either go to the VFW or a lodge (Elk, Moose, Eagle, etc.) or one of the ethnic bottle clubs (you need to be a member—there’s that exclusion, again!). There are clubs for the Polish, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Slavs, etc. in Pennsylvania at least. The Knights of Columbus are going to tell gays to get lost. Most VFWs have motorcycle clubs, so I imagine those are out, too.

    Why not save all of this angsting and just rent out the ballroom at the country club? Where you have to be a member? Or a ballroom at a hotel? Where you have to be a guest? Rather than fucking with churches that the parties involved have nothing but contempt for?

  94. the law just says that churches can’t discriminate against people if they’re going to offer rental space… they still have the alternative of not offering rental space, so it’s not like anyone is gonna make them do anything they want to do

  95. they *don’t* wanna do I mean

  96. Rhetorical question much, leigh? Of course it’s being done as agenda item.

  97. Of course it’s an agenda item. The town doesn’t even have a single gay bar. Makes you wonder just how much ‘oppression’ is going on, and whether the ‘oppressed locals’ could even fill a single booth at the town Denny’s.

  98. Heh. It’s just for the record, Red. You should throw in an “asked and answered” later.

  99. Churches I’ve belonged to haven’t “rented out” their social halls — but if someone asks to use it and happens to drop off a donation, well…

  100. hello welcome to church today’s sermon is about the discriminations!

    We are very much for the discriminations because treating people like they are equal is not very America as described by the founding fathers plus also Jesus is everyone on the same page?

    Okeydokey now please everyone take out your hymnbook and turn to page 312 and let us sing unto Him a song about the righteousness of discrimination!

    Thus endeth the lesson!

  101. righteousness of discrimination!

    do you eat dog meat?

  102. Welcome, Satanists!

  103. dog meat is not sustainable is my understanding it takes 12 acres of kibble to raise one pound of dog meat, and 27,624 gallons of water

    compare this to the meat of cow (.5 acre of wheat, 19 gallons of water)…

    or of chicken (2 pounds of birdseed and 4 gallons of water)

  104. Happy, when was the last time you went to a Lutheran church service? I’m here to tell you that they are pretty darned judgey. So judgey are they that anyone who isn’t also a Lutheran, often a certain type of Lutheran, is so going to Hell.

    Catholics get told to love the sinner and to hate the sin. Sinners are supposed knock it off with the sinning. That said, we are all sinners and do our best to live as Jesus taught us. And He was rather a judgey fella, Himself.

  105. righteousness of discrimination!

    do you watch current tv?

  106. nr, he’s just being a dick.

  107. righteousness of discrimination!

    do you buy rotten fruit?

  108. “SDN, I got a new dog. She’s a foundling, a black lab that we have named Trudy. Low lifes dumped her near our property.”

    leigh, that’s great. In my experience, foundling dogs are the best, since they seem to know that they have a better life. The low-lifes never seem to realize their responsibilities.

  109. ‘feets, if you want to follow the rules of the church then come on in. Just don’t expect us to give up our beliefs to accommodate your tender sensibilities.

  110. ” Happy, when was the last time you went to a Lutheran church service? I’m here to tell you that they are pretty darned judgey. So judgey are they that anyone who isn’t also a Lutheran, often a certain type of Lutheran, is so going to Hell.”

    I’m a Lutheran and can’t say that’s how things are in my church. ELCA by the way.

  111. a Lutheran pastor married my sister she has a black boyfriend which causes no end of consternation in the pews in our wee small texas town… (she is white) but then two pastors ago our pastor was a closety gay person but everyone knew – he was there for like 15 years and he was very close to our family… after Christmas services he would always come over for a late dinner and we’d get him all tipsied up… then the next one had a bit too much of a liking for the sauce and he came over sometimes but I was out of the house by then (also I think he got into Amway at one point – my mom was mortified).

    there are several different species of Lutheran – at least 3 to be precise – I am in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America – which is the big one… we think everyone is going to heaven by His Grace alone and so we ordain gay people cause of we do not believe in the Sacrament of Discrimination. Most of us.

  112. SDN, she is so sweet. Dumb as a box of rocks, but she was only about 10 weeks old when I found her. She’s learning to walk on a lead and follow hand commands. I can’t stand people who yell at their dogs, so I do commands with words and hand signals. She will fetch a ball and drop it at your feet, unlike my heeler who won’t give up a toy unless you have a different one in your other hand to give him.

  113. oh. by “married my sister” I mean she did the service – I want back there for it a year or so ago

  114. *went*

  115. pala, I have relatives who are Missouri Synod. They will tell you that you are so going to Hell. They tell me and the rest of the Catholics in the family that we are for sure.

  116. that is so not clear…

    ok the pastor is this delightful young lady and it’s she what has the black boyfriend my sister married a heavily-tatted white person of… humble extraction

  117. righteousness of discrimination!

    “then the next one had a bit too much of a liking for the sauce and he came over sometimes but I was out of the house by then (also I think he got into Amway at one point – my mom was mortified).”

  118. “Just don’t expect us to give up our beliefs to accommodate your tender sensibilities”.
    And there lies the crux of the matter, SDN. The ones screaming ‘discrimination’ the most on race , religion, or any number of things expect exactly that.
    Oh, they won’t say so directly. You are free to have and practice your beliefs; just be sure to check with us first, and we’ll let you know how and how far that freedom extends.
    Take down that nativity scene, it offends my atheist sensibilities ! No matter that the Christians are offended.
    I would say that it never occurs to them that no one is telling the atheist he can’t be an atheist; but the atheist is telling the Christian he can’t believe, or at least how, when and where .
    But I think that they know exactly what they are doing.

  119. One thing is almost certain – ain’t no mosques renting halls in Hutchinson.

  120. BTW the ELCA was made from the debris of multiple regional senates that went broke and consolidated. The Missouri Senate is quite huge and supposedly more conservative (meaning they don’t like to ordain women as preachers, whereas ELCA ordains ‘em but doesn’t like to hire them much except as temporary pastors) thought the ones I’ve actually met seem okay. I received most of my elementary education in two MS religious schools, (Hope Lutheran and Saint Paul Lutheran). My first try at college was at a MS lutheran school (Concordia Lutheran College).

    There was no “everyone but certain types of Lutheran will be damned” doctrine going around then. We had “it is by grace not works by which we are saved but without works faith is dead”.

    I think it was considered pretty plausible that faithful Catholics would be saved since they loved God and tried to be righteous and that meant that God would reach out them and be with them. And faithless Lutherans would probably not be saved since they were just going to church to put on a show and were false about it. Sincerity was a big part of it. And there was no effort to publicly condemn the insincere. There was a bit of pestering and encouragement but it was not about threats of damnation.

    We disagreed with Catholics on a number of points of doctrine. That did not cause us to call Catholics false Christians or to claim that Lutheranism or even Reformationism, or Protestantism to be the only path to salvation.

    We got upset when people made fun of the red jello dishes at our pancake and potluck events. But there really was not much revivalist fire and brimstone condemn the sinner type stuff.

    And I can’t speak for all Lutherans because just about every denomination seems to have it’s own touchy lurking wackos to worry about. But they seemed to be kind of boring easy going folks to me.

    I do think we talked too much smack about Mormons but we still acknowledged that they tended to be decent, honest, hardworking people with strong families and pleasant demeanors.

  121. ” pala, I have relatives who are Missouri Synod. They will tell you that you are so going to Hell. They tell me and the rest of the Catholics in the family that we are for sure.”

    I think the problem with your relatives might not be the Lutheran church. Maybe they are just mean spirited pricks who don’t understand the church they joined. Then again the Lutherans around here are the descendants and spawn of immigrant german and swedish farmers who broke out of their enclaves around WW1 and heavily integrated with the central Texas culture. The other big Lutheran population center (Great lakes) seems to be based around Norwegian fishermen culture and maybe they see things differently. Dour scandi grimness and all that.

  122. I do think we talked too much smack about Mormons…

    That’s funny. I had a priest in California who once told me that Mormons were a cult. He was pretty old school, though, since he was from Scotland.

    I went to Catholic Universities and I don’t recall any smack talk there about other religions, just the general sense that we were the Original and that everyone else would come around eventually.

  123. I suspect that you’re right about my relatives. They were dour Germans who used to be Catholics. I think they were just looking for something to stick it to everyone else about.

  124. Treating people who are not equal as if they were equal is neither just nor responsible.

    The neighbors who live behind me are Muslim, I do not send them a Christmas card.

    Because that would be stupid.

  125. you could send them some tasty sconza lemoncello almonds though and just not say anything about Christmas just say Hi I found these and thought of you! Enjoy!

  126. just not say anything about Christmas just say Hi I found these and thought of you! Enjoy!

    don’t forget about the halal shop keeper. fund worldwide sharia now you “racist”!

  127. oh and the homo dudes drop them toute suite 10 stories. allan ackthingamajing!!11!!

  128. yes they can be very judgey

  129. and what the fuck is a drag party and why would anyone want to have one in a fucking church in Kansas please to explain?

    Kansas has a surfeit of good, religious people, likely more per acre than California has fruits and nuts; therefore necessitating large, open spaces like Fire Halls for to accommodate all of ‘em, so’s they can drag-in all these unrepentant homersexuals for to cure ‘em.

    SEE? SEE?

  130. you know who’s from Kansas is that Bob Dole, who may or may not still be extant

  131. you know who’s from Kansas is that Bob Dole

    you go jerry brownshirts army

  132. cupcake communists. with thai bling.

  133. that is a complete oxymoron Mr. newrouter

  134. HF – I thought I read when you first start posting again that you were sorry about being hypocritical previously on threads dealing with social issues. Obviously that wasn’t true.

  135. it’s very simple the good if you want to run a business you shouldn’t act like a fucking bigot and you shouldn’t need a law to tell you that, it’s just common decency

    if kansas christers really thing homos want to have “drag parties” in their quaint hick-town church halls they’re sorta already retarded beyond salvation

  136. really *think* I mean

  137. it’s very simple the good if you want to run a business you shouldn’t act like a fucking bigot and you shouldn’t need a law to tell you that, it’s just common decency

    Then let the bigots be bigots, and let the chips fall where they may. Why do you feel the need to bring government enforcement of “just be nice” into the picture?

    if kansas christers really thing homos want to have “drag parties” in their quaint hick-town church halls they’re sorta already retarded beyond salvation

    No, what’s retarded is thinking that gay activists won’t flock to Kansas just to rub the Christers’ noses in it. They’ll turn it into a big campy road trip, with pink buses and feathered headdresses and everything. And you’ll be riding along in the giant slipper on top, singing ABBA at the top of your lungs.

  138. that’s not fair Mr. Squid if the law says it’s illegal to refuse to rent your hall to dirty religious people then it should also be illegal to refuse to rent your hall to gay people

    that’s just plain old American America

  139. dirty gay people I mean

  140. I think it was Pablo who said that most parish halls are not available for rental as a separate business venture or revenue stream for the churches in question. They are for use by the members of the church with good faith offerings made for their use.

    Gays are just being whiny little bitches because people don’t want to be around them when they act like demanding little brats.

  141. the way the proposed law reads is that halls what aren’t available to the general public won’t be affected…. the article up there just says that “churches what rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate”

    it doesn’t say about any whiny gay people – the excerpt only features a whiny christer named Matthew Staver – but even if we stipulate that gay people are being whiny, they’re not being any more whiny than what would happen if people were proudly and hatefully proclaiming the right to refuse service to jews or catholics or mormons or those weirdo missouri synods I don’t think

  142. As we established yesterday, this is more theater and manufactured Outrage!™

  143. Mr. Karl has a post on manufactured outrage today at Mr. P’s

  144. This should be no more complicated than who owns the property. That nicely settles the issue across the board covering all possible situations with different owners, different potential renters, and whatever possible disagreements they might have.

  145. But but but bh! The property is a human opinion or prejudice, and as to ownership? Why, only the state can determine that!

  146. That’s about the shape of it, sdferr.

    Luckily we have a state with wisdom and probity beyond any reproach. Otherwise we’d probably be better off letting citizens get on with the task of being messy and conflicted folks.

  147. I like Madison’s view, and offer it here in order to put my thrust forward less sarcastically.

  148. No, what’s retarded is thinking that gay activists won’t flock to Kansas just to rub the Christers’ noses in it. They’ll turn it into a big campy road trip, with pink buses and feathered headdresses and everything. And you’ll be riding along in the giant slipper on top, singing ABBA at the top of your lungs.

    Waaay over the top, but in essence correct. Gay advocacy types handle disapproval from orthodox Christians very, very badly. Anything less than celebration is hate speech. Punish your enemies, and all that. Plowing under religious opposition, even if simply couched in disapproval, is a high priority item. And they have an amen corner happy to scream “Bigot!” in support.

    Frankly, the goal is to either drive people who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian morality entirely from the public square, or to force them to acquiesce. Then the attack will begin in earnest. The effort below was a tad premature:

    http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/03/09/democrats-attempt-to-take-control-of-connecticut-catholic-church/

  149. was that in the right thread Mr. sdferr I think that’s a harvest mouse pic

  150. (In case I didn’t wink back obviously enough, I noted your sarcasm and followed up with more of the same.)

  151. BEER! Ha!

    But no, you’re right happyfeet, I got aholt of the wrong url. Here’s a better: Mr Madison on Property.

  152. something is thwarting your best efforts Mr. sdferr

  153. Quite so bh, I’m on to yer ways.

  154. Damned if it isn’t. ?

    Once more into the breach: Mr Madison, he says abracadabra.

  155. Dale, Squid was referencing a campy movie about drag queens in Australia. It’s called “Priscilla, Queen of the Desert”.

  156. Well, that couldn’t have been any more apt, sdferr.

  157. [Facepalms] I’ve seen Priscilla, actually.

    Years ago. Good film, but I kept thinking “ZOD!” regarding Terrence Stamp (fine bit of acting by him).

    Why that didn’t register…

  158. Missed this last night.

    churches are indeed businesses we established that awhile ago ask Mr. Ernst he had links

    To happyfeet I reply: That’s just what Obama thought.

    MY point was that a religiously affiliated organization organized as a corporation doesn’t give up its First Amendment right to freely exercise its religion because it’s a business.

    So I’ll thank you not to distort my positions in order to shore up your mendoucheous twatwafflery

  159. Where have you been Ernst? You’re very helpful to have around.

  160. My lawn no longer looks like an overgrown jungle.

    It was bad, lemme tell ya.

    My weedwhacker?

    The weeds whacked it

  161. Get a new reel and you’re good to go. I don’t like the weedwhacker, myself. I whacked one of my toes really good once upon a time.

  162. You really think the motor will decide to turn the reel again if I dress it up with a new spool?

  163. I didn’t distort your position in the slightest you made the point that the catholic church was a corporation whereas I said oh I hadn’t realized that – I was apparently on the same page as leigh was here before you disabused me of my ignorance on the matter

    brb

    here is all I was alluding to I certainly never implied that you cited these knowledges for to say that churches should give up any rights

    mostly what this was about in this thread is that I think if churches are running a venue business, competing with other venues for to offer a service to the general public, then they should follow the same rules as other businesses, and if they don’t wanna do that they can do like Pablo said they mostly do and just be available for use by the members of the church with good faith offerings made for their use

    I know my church lets different groups like for example the anonymous alcoholics meet there – but there’s no charge, really

    also sometimes people donate towels and shampoo and body wash and such and we let homeless people shower there but that’s controversial, as it involves naked homeless people

  164. You really think the motor will decide to turn the reel again if I dress it up with a new spool?

    Have you tried swearing at it?

  165. I swore at it, shook it, waved it about, and then I did nothing when the ground started to beat it like a Zimmerman.

  166. Throwing it to the ground?

  167. [M]ostly what this was about in this thread is that I think if churches are running a venue business, competing with other venues for to offer a service to the general public, then they should follow the same rules as other businesse[.]

    And they should also include contraceptives as part of their comprehensive insurance, right?

    Fucking idiot.

  168. Actually the ground reached up and jerked it out of my hands leigh.

    Repeatedly.

  169. where did I ever say that the churches should have to offer contraceptives as part of their insurances?

    never.

  170. Those are some aggressive weeds, Ernst. Beware.

    I have a trimmer thing-a-ma-jig that is on wheels that you push like a mower. It has two reels and a half horse motor and shows those weeds who is boss. I, being a chicken, am afraid of it and make the son use it around the edges of the yard.

    Anyway, it came from Sears and was pretty reasonable. If it weren’t tucked behind a bunch of stuff in the mower shed, I’d go see what kind it is.

  171. You’re the one who keeps bracketing the religious aspect of the religious business in order to treat it like any other business.

  172. That thread was about contraceptives, compulsory insurance coverage and the First Amendment.

    Mostly the First Amendment.

  173. When do we get the danged numbers back on the posts? My last was for happy.

  174. If the only butcher shop in town is halal or kosher (take your pick) should he be required by law to carry pork products so I can indulge my passion for tasty tasty boutique bacon?

  175. To happyfeet I reply: That’s just what Obama thought.

    Until SCOTUS unanimously smacked him in the mouth.

  176. this is getting confuzzling – I don’t think the government should dictate anyone’s health plans, and specifically not those of churches and such

    I think if churches want to engage in a business like hall renting they should play by the same rules as other people what are in that business, and I think it’s as appalling to say no we won;t do business with you cause of you are gay as it is to say go away you’re black or go away you’re a jew.

    It’s better to treat other people the way you would like them to treat you I think. I call this the Happy Rule.

  177. “It’s better to treat . . . ”

    While we might agree that it’s better to treat etc., the political question at hand is whether it is better for the state to exact the manner from people to the extent it demands behavior in line with it’s own contingent decisions as to morality. Which is why, reflecting on the meaning of totalitarianism, people are given pause.

  178. It’s better to treat other people the way you would like them to treat you I think.

    Well, I don’t want people to tell me what I can or can’t do with my property so maybe I shouldn’t do that to them.

  179. If the only butcher shop in town is halal or kosher (take your pick) should he be required by law to carry pork products so I can indulge my passion for tasty tasty boutique bacon?

    no, but he should have to sell his tasty meats to gay people and also christians and also the jewish people and also women what are showing their whole face like slutty little whores

  180. While we might agree that it’s better to treat etc…

    yes this is why I put that part under the general non-binding category of “appalling”

    the prior paragraph is what I think is the answer to the political question here

  181. “the answer to the political question here”

    Thing is, you neatly assume the rule is just, whereas, the question whether the rule is just is precisely the question in play, and which you conveniently ignore. But I shouldn’t have to spell this out to such an extent, as I believe you already understand that on your own.

  182. but also I think this is no more or less totalitarian than telling people they can’t decide not to do business with people cause of their race or religion

  183. Well, I don’t want people to tell me what I can or can’t do with my property so maybe I shouldn’t do that to them.

    I don’t run around telling people what my sexual preference is and I’d like the same courtesy.

  184. but also I think this is no more or less totalitarian than telling people they can’t decide not to do business with people cause of their race or religion

    So Catholics churches should have to give Communion to anyone who wants it? And they should have to marry gay people, because they’re in the marriage business?

  185. It’s better to treat other people the way you would like them to treat you I think.

    Happy, that is an interpretation of the Golden Rule, which is an axiom to live by, but is not a religious teaching nor is it in the bible.

    President Jugears often makes this same mistake.

  186. OT:
    “I can’t stand people who yell at their dogs, so I do commands with words and hand signals. She will fetch a ball and drop it at your feet, unlike my heeler who won’t give up a toy unless you have a different one in your other hand to give him.”

    leigh, you’re still ahead: Fuzzy wouldn’t chase anything that didn’t smell like food or another dog, so I’d throw something for the other dog and Fuzz would chase the other dog. 8-)

    I do mine with words and gestures; a couple of times I had to use the “ultimate sanction”: Fuzzy didn’t like loud noises, so I’d smack a folded newspaper across my palm. Once for trying to chew my computer cables, and once for a paperback chewing.

    After the first six months, all I had to do was look at her and say, “Fuzzy, who’s a bad dog?” and she’d stop whatever she was doing, but it was like living with a permanent three year old: she knew all the things she shouldn’t do…. and occasionally did them anyway.

  187. “It’s better to treat other people the way you would like them to treat you I think.”

    In which case they can leave me alone and do their thing with whoever else they can persuade to put up with them.

  188. I have deliverables what I have to deliver you know

  189. SDN, I clap my hands together when she and the heeler are playing their dog version of cowboys and indians in the house or, like you said, she is chewing on something like my slippers or a chair leg.

    The only thing I can’t seem to get through her head is the jumping. I keep turning away from her, but she’s going to weigh 20 more pounds in a few months, so I’ve got to review what I need to do to make her stop that before she can knock me over. She also gets the “Trudy, who’s a bad dog?” when she’s up to no good. Sniffing at dinner fixings, for instance.

  190. but also I think this is no more or less totalitarian than telling people they can’t decide not to do business with people cause of their race or religion

    Well at least we all agree that this latest attempt to impose morality via legislation is another step down the road to serfdom, so I guess that’s something.

  191. I think the problem here is there are a couple things not being directly addressed that are very pertinent to the issue.

    One is should a tax-exempt organization like a church be allowed to compete with business like hotels for meeting rooms? The second is, should the government be allowed to tell any one, religious or otherwise, who they can and can’t rent rooms to?

  192. stoopid html

  193. The series of Supreme Court opinions (roughly in the period of the ’30s of the last century) sanctioning as “Constitutional” the Fed’s possession of the power to determine or fix wages and prices in the name of “regulating commerce” stand directly in our path B Moe.

  194. If I, as a hypothetical innkeeper, have heard through the grapevine or had personal bad experiences with a certain group of people, say Gypsy Travellers (anyone who has seen “My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding” knows what I’m tlking about), am I still obliged to rent my facilities to them? Can I change them an outrageous deposit for damages? Can I just stick a sign up in my establishment that says “We don’t rent to Travellers”?

  195. I think the real question is do we want to leave it up to government to decide for us what a religiously affiliated organization’s “real business” is.

  196. Oh definately.

    I really don’t want to live the sixties all over again. Of course, on the upside of that, marriage was “just a piece of paper” and we wouldn’t be having these discussions about gays wanting to use religious property to mock a sacrament.

  197. The red-speckled, yellow-breasted metamoron headshitter.

    Beware its fly-by.

  198. I think the real question is do we want to leave it up to government to decide for us what a religiously affiliated organization’s “real business” is.

    If a tax-exempt religious organization is renting meeting space in direct competition with non-tax exempt business, I think it is absolutely the government’s business.

  199. The reason I can bracket out the tax exemption on this particular case is because I’d contend that property rights should preclude governmental meddling with both types of organizations.

    The church cares about this for religious reasons but I view it as part of a whole that ranges from dumb OSHA regulations to Bloomberg’s war on salt.

  200. I do see tax exemptions as a possible problem in other ways though. Haven’t thought about it all that much though and I don’t even have a very good idea on current law in that regard.

  201. Why were (or are) religious organizations subject to tax-exemption in the first place? That is, what was the theoretical justification when the legislation was written? (Too, associated with those questions, as a matter of the legislative history, when did these exemptions come about? Were they always the case? Or were they instituted along the way at some time?) Would that justification possibly extend to other human associations not now covered on the grounds proffered with regard to the religious institutions?

  202. It’s not just property rights, btw. It’s a matter of coerced contracts. The reason we can enforce contract law in this country is because people freely enter into them. If someone doesn’t want to enter into a contract with another person but are forced to do so then it literally erodes the very legal basis of the free market.

    It’s just another mandate to force transactions against the will of one party. We can see that clearly with Obamacare. What’s the difference here other than people might use their liberty in ways we might not desire?

  203. Okay, okay, it’s possible that it doesn’t “literally” erode anything. I’m an idiot.

  204. You know sdferr, it’s funny, but in regards to your post. The church has had tax exempt status for as long as I can remember. But I don’t know for how long this has been the case, or when it came into being. Or under what circumstances. It was always one of those things that just was.

  205. The revocation of tax exempt status would make a fine weapon for the state in any dispute with the church. Just in case they got too ‘uppity’.
    I often wondered why , when the church would interfere with state business, such as sanctuary for illegals, that this hammer wasn’t used, or at least threatened.

  206. sdferr, it goes back to the Reformation or earlier. It was a common practice for the government to levy massive “taxes” on any church/religion it didn’t like. For example, Jews having an early reputation for practicing usury, a king or noble who borrowed too much money from them and didn’t feel like paying it back simply levied a “tax” on the Jews that brought in enough to “repay the principal” plus some.

    When the Reformation rolled around, Christians just extended it to each other.

    Then there’s that whole “jizya” thing Islam loves to impose on non-believers as a “tax”….

    The Founders recognized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy”, and since they were serious about the whole “make no law” against a religion, they pretty much extended it to taxes too.

Leave a Reply