Gay Brownshirts on the March

Gay Brownshirts on the March January 19, 2012

Because the purpose of gay “marriage” is to create a legal basis for persecuting Christian belief. Tolerance is not enough. You. MUST. Approve!

Washingtonians, get on the phone.

"Free will to resist grace, available to all, and to reject good. God loves us ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Right, and you ended it."

Dear Prolife Suckers
"I’m at the Super Rica Taqueria and it’s almost a full moon. Ah bliss. I ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Oregon Catholic

    It looks to me like any church that rents out it’s facilities for a fee to the public (i.e., non-members) FOR WEDDINGS will not be allowed to refuse to rent to gays under anti-discrimination laws. Fortunately, the Catholic Church doesn’t do that.

    I think the author took an over-broad interpretation of charging fees – for coke machines, really?

    • The author of the article is an Assemblies of God pastor, and he speaks from the experience of many Protestant, Evangelical, and Pentecostal congregations who provide much more than “church building” in their facilities. These congregations would, I think, be vulnerable under the bill.

      No small number of Catholic parishes offer some space — school halls, parish halls, meeting rooms, athletic fields, etc. — to the public for a donation, perhaps some even for a fee. Most parishes will allow non-parishioners to marry in their church building. And it would not surprise me if the Archdiocese of Seattle, or other dioceses, had meeting facilities that they made available for a fee. I know that non-parish-affiliated groups I’ve worked with have rented A/V equipment from the Archdiocese. Any of these might become a vulnerability if this bill passes.

      This is a very similar “protection” for religion as applies in the HHS mandates and in the so-called “Health Care Reform”: namely, religion is only protected insofar as it has no interaction with the world. Just keep it in your ghetto, say these laws.

      We may be faced with putting into practice the dictum that an unjust law is no law at all.

      • Oregon Catholic

        Did you read the bill? It clearly states that no religious priest, minister, etc. would be forced to perform a SSM. With regards to the facilities it clearly states it pertains only to churches that rent their facilities to the public for weddings and celebrations thereof. If a church is not renting their sanctuary and reception rooms to the public for weddings of non-members then they have nothing to worry about. That is NOT what was portrayed in the posting.

        • S. Murphy

          Yeah, but if the Baptists rented their facilities to a Presbyterian couple, they still shouldn’t be sued if they turn around and say, “no, we can’t countenance a same-sex union being celebrated in our church building, since we see it as wrong.”

          Or if Fr Enthusiastic Ecumenicalist let an Episcopalian couple rent St So-and-So’s, in the Spirit of Vatican II, 20 years ago, St So-and-So’s shouldn’t be vulnerable.

          • If the “facility” offers “goods” for sale to the public, it cannot “discriminate”. My parish has bake sales, a fall fest open to the public with food for sale, car washes by the teens, BBQs run by the Knights, and many other such events all year long. But I’m not worried…. because I’m in Georgia!

            • Oregon Catholic

              It doesn’t apply to just any sales to the public. It is limited to weddings. Don’t get caught up in the spurious hype and fear mongering.

              I am not in favor of any SSM bill but I hate it when people use lies to try and whip people into a fear frenzy. I’m sorry for those protestant or non-denominational churches who have rented out their sanctuaries to the public in the past. It’s unfortunate they don’t hold their worship space in the same respect the Catholic church hold ours.

              • What? I’ve attended weddings at Catholic churches in which the bride and groom were nominally “Catholic” but certainly not members of that particular church.

                The homosexual lobby is moving very fast now.

        • I can only hope that you’re right, and that the bill is merely a moral travesty, and not also a tool of tyranny.

  • ds

    This dude thinks the sky is falling.

  • kenneth

    Nothing sells like fear.

    • Al

      Or the righteousness of “Gay” causes right Kenneth? Or as The astute erudite George clooney put recently… “the last leg of the civil rights cause”………….pssst for material realities and facts of homosexual acts…check out that whiz bang statistical think tank known as the centers for disease control….

  • Brent

    Who are we supposed to call? Our state senators? State reps? The Govenor herself?

    • Mark Shea

      yes.

      • Those of you calling, writing to your state reps might find this instructive: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25129

        You cannot pussyfoot around anymore with people who say things like this: “I believe that our state has a strong interest in not discriminating against — and harming — the families of same-sex couples based on the religious views of a small and dwindling minority.” You have to replace them. Tthat means that while you are fighting this particular bill, you also have to figure out what the boundaries are of this reps district and you have to energetically and deliberately mobilize the community of believers there to toss him on his ear in the next election.

        Your state got into this mess because
        The best lack all conviction, while the worst.
        Are full of passionate intensity.
        Either find some passionate intensity to defend your freedom or prepare to be underground Christians. You need to know yesterday who is running against this twisted soul in the next election. And you need to get behind that person with prayers, money, knocking on doors, etc.

  • Ronald King

    What are you afraid of? I’ve already written to my legislators to support such a bill and one has replied that he will vote against it if it comes up because he is in support of traditional marriage. I responded that I have been married for 36 years and am also in support of traditional marriage unlike those who say they are and are among the vast numbers who have divorced at a rate of better than 50% and leaving in their wake a generation of children who have scars that will take a long time to heal if they have the awareness to identify and confront these scars.

    • S. Murphy

      It’s nice for you that you are not as other men, but why should some ecclesial community that rents out its space to non-members lose that source of (probably needed) income just because they can’t square it with their consciences to host a gay wedding?

      • Ronald King

        That is a problem of religious liberty and it would have to be sorted out.

        • S. Murphy

          It can be avoided in the first place, by stating in the bill that nobody who is opposed as a matter of conscience, will be required to put their property or their labor at the service of a gay wedding.
          Different story than renting apartments or serving people at restaurants – if I own a 3-flat, and a rent to two guys or two gals, even if I know they they’re a couple (married or not), it’s still the case that everybody needs a place to live. But if I’m a wedding photographer, a wedding-cake baker, or the pastor of a parish, I should be able to decline somebody’s business, if they’re asking me to enable something I see as immoral.
          Anyway, if Brian and Kenneth are right, the bill may not be all that bad.

  • Dave Pawlak

    This is likely one area in which the State will pull an Andy Jackson, should SCOTUS rule against them…

  • brian_in_brooklyn

    Yeah, I’ve been outraged by the way Catholic churches in New York, Massachusetts, Iowa, etc. have been forced to host gay wedding and priests have been forced at gunpoint to perform them.

    Oh, wait…

    So, Mark, if the proposed law were changed to allow any profit-making business to discriminate against gays, then you’d be OK with this law? If not, then the whole anti-discrimination in accommodations question raised in this pastor’s demagogic rant is a red herring.

    Don’t believe the hype, read the bill yourself.

  • kenneth

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.91.010

    As I read the Revised Code of Washington’s take on discrimination, churches would not be forced to rent their facilities for gay marriage simply because they hold public fund-raisers and other events from time to time. All the law seems to state is that where you provide public access, you have to do so on a non-discriminatory basis.

    That just means a parish would have to use some brains while drafting its policies on outside space rental. Stay out of the public wedding rent-a-hall business. Simple as that. If you don’t take any outside wedding business, you can’t be forced to take gay wedding business, and the fact that you may hold open bingo nights or sell popcorn for St. Vincent de Paul won’t change that in any way. There may even be a way to finesse that. You might be able to draft policies which limit use, but don’t single out anyone in particular. I’ve seen school districts draft policies which say you can only rent space if you’re a not-for-profit, for example. Washington’s law also seems to grant a blanket exemption to religious schools.
    In any case, the assertion that this is a pogrom against Christians is pure claptrap. Most of the bill codifies very clear language protecting the religious rights of churches not to solemnize weddings they don’t approve of. The possible curtailment of one sort of fund-raising is not an undue hardship. Religious freedom is expansive. It is not absolute, and it is not a free pass to dodge the law for whatever side businesses you can hatch.
    The paranoid rhetoric that Christians are an oppressed minority facing imminent extinction in this country is absurd, and a cynical (if effective) way to muster obedience and money from scared people. Christians represent close to 80% of the population and for all practical purposes, 100% of political leadership above the level of city council in this country.