# Well... can't say I'm surprised by this one...



## J. Dean (Jun 12, 2012)

The next step in gay marriage leads to the state butting heads with the church:http://www.geneveith.com/2012/06/12/danish-law-mandates-church-weddings-for-gays/


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 12, 2012)

I am not surprised. It was only a matter of time and of course it is in a country not like ours, with a government that can and will overstep their boundaries.


----------



## Tim (Jun 12, 2012)

Let us not despair. The Lord is in control.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 12, 2012)

Tim said:


> Let us not despair. The Lord is in control.



Oh there's no doubt there. God is sovereign; even the Lutherans know this. 

That being said, I mentioned to others that we're fools if we don't think such a thing could happen in the U.S., and that the world is becoming more and more hostile to Christianity.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jun 12, 2012)

Christian wedding photographers, I believe in Michigan, have lost their case about refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding. Penalty is a fine at this point, not jail time, but I suppose that is on the horizon.

They apparently have no right, according to the appeals court, to refuse to photograph a homosexual wedding. In my opinion that is near to slavery.

I have also saved links to a story about a Hawaiian B&B being sued for refusing to rent a bed to a lesbian couple, and a Vermont inn that is being sued for not renting out for a homosexual wedding reception. I don't know the results of these suits.

We really must fight this.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Jun 12, 2012)

If the photographers were part of a government institution, it would be a completely different ballgame. However it seems like we have courts and politicians who would not mind applying the Constitution to Private-Private issues rather than the Private-Government and Government-Government issues it was meant to deal with.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 12, 2012)

There is a fairly long history of government interfering when service is denied to a given demographic. I have seen plats of subdivisions from the 1940s and earlier that excluded black persons from residing in the houses of that subdivision except in the capacity of domestic servants. Now title insurance policies have standard verbiage pointing out that such provisions can't be enforced or insured because they are overriden by federal law.

I suspect that it could be considered a just judgment on us for having tolerated such things in the past that now our moral exclusions are struck down by the same instruments previously used to strike down our immoral exclusions.

But in a society such as ours, we must either call for a radical move away from pluralism; accept that we will be forced to provide services we find it immoral to provide; or accept a situation where banks can refuse to lend, property owners to sell or rent, and other businesses to provide goods and services to us, on the score of us being Christians. I don't like option two at all, which is the one we appear to be facing, but given the state of opinion within the church I suspect support for options one and three is going to be rather minimal.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jun 12, 2012)

As a Christian, I try to avoid advertised gay restaurants, businesses and the like. I would imagine that many gays would like to give their business to fellow gays, or "gay friendly" businesses, and not raise a ruckus. However, there is an agenda, from the pit of hell, that desires to make people suffer for not bowing to it. The militant gay activists are part of it. It is like the arrogance of forcing people to bow to a large gold statue when the music starts playing. See Daniel.


----------



## NB3K (Jun 12, 2012)

This is why I believe the marriage ceremony ought to be performed by the state and the parties involved and not the Church.


----------



## Supersillymanable (Jun 12, 2012)

A similar thing is happening over here (or at least, pretty similar), though it's relating more to the Church of England at the moment. The laws aren't forcing anyone as of yet, but I think from reading the article I've put below, you can see where it will lead very soon. It's getting quite ridiculous. It's now a good and honourable thing to approve of the immoral... I guess I should've taken Paul more seriously... 

"Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

Romans 1:32

Saddening...

BBC News - Church of England warning on gay marriage


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 12, 2012)

NB3K said:


> This is why I believe the marriage ceremony ought to be performed by the state and the parties involved and not the Church.



I don't know why they don't just do that since most gays are anti-church and they want the marriage rights from the state.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 12, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> I have also saved links to a story about a Hawaiian B&B being sued for refusing to rent a bed to a lesbian couple, and a Vermont inn that is being sued for not renting out for a homosexual wedding reception. I don't know the results of these suits.
> 
> We really must fight this.



these things are happening in Britain too, only more so. 
I resigned from the C of S when they moved towards accepting practising homosexual ministers, but maybe I ought to have stayed. Then when the church had one of those "weddings", I could have refused to play the organ, and got sent to prison.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 12, 2012)

arap said:


> most gays are anti-church and they want the marriage rights from the state.



I don't know if they want marriage rights separately from the church as much as they want to make sure *everyone* has to dance to their tune


----------



## Supersillymanable (Jun 12, 2012)

JennyG said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > most gays are anti-church and they want the marriage rights from the state.
> ...



Personally, I'd go with everyone. Who else would they be so anti people with any opinion they don't like about them? Even one's kept relatively quiet? As son as anyone finds out that you think homosexuality is wrong, you're denounced as a disgraceful homophobe...


----------



## JennyG (Jun 12, 2012)

Supersillymanable said:


> As son as anyone finds out that you think homosexuality is wrong, you're denounced as a disgraceful homophobe...



only too true, unfortunately. As you say, there's a determined push to eliminate any neutral middle ground. You may be an enthusiastic supporter of what's laughably known as "diversity", or you may be a hate-filled irrational bigot, but those are the only two possibilities.


----------



## Supersillymanable (Jun 12, 2012)

JennyG said:


> Supersillymanable said:
> 
> 
> > As son as anyone finds out that you think homosexuality is wrong, you're denounced as a disgraceful homophobe...
> ...



The Intolerance of "tolerance" right? I'm sure D. A. Carson wrote a book on that...


----------



## JennyG (Jun 12, 2012)

Supersillymanable said:


> The Intolerance of "tolerance" right? I'm sure D. A. Carson wrote a book on that...



haha, yes. and I bet we all sometimes feel we could write a book on it


----------

