On Friday, June 28, 2013 8:55:58 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:48:28 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:

On 6/27/13 8:53 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:



On 6/27/2013 6:29 PM, Tim wrote:



On Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:05:42 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:











What we will get is activists going from Church to Church suing those







who will not marry them. The long term is to drive the Churches from







their business... They just do it so much better than the Govt, the



left







hates that.















More absurdities.







Not really, Harry.







I have a friend who is a pastor of an old line denomination who's



beliefs have been steering towards social 'gay rights' for some time.



He doesn't believe in 'gay marriage' but stands on the core of 'man



and woman'. However, he is afraid that if the deciding powers of the



church's national, or state (or even regional) council says he must



perform same-sex marriages, then he feels he will be forced to abide.



OR, he feels that there is a chance that he could be civilly charged



in a discrimination suite, maybe lose his retirement and/or possibly



forfeit his ordination license to preach in that denomination.







Seriously.











The folks on the other side of that know what they are after, they are



just not honest enough to face it up front...











Face what...that you shouldn't be discriminating against gays? If you



work for a company and it sets a policy that applies to the company and



is legal and you don't like the policy, your choices are simple...either



go along or get out. Is there something about being an employee of a



church that allows you to thumb your nose at church policy?



Harry, call it what you want, but this is a matter of religious freedom being possibly jeopardized by being forced into compliance.



There are all sorts of laws that people of all religions and beliefs

have to be in compliance of. Do you think we should do away with all of

them?

No, and I didn't imply it. Do you think that a person should be open to lawsuits and have their retirement jeopardized because they don't do the will of "the company?"