Proposed Ordinance Would Force Kansas Churches to Host Gay Weddings
- Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:31pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
According to advocates, religious freedom may be under attack in Hutchinson, Kansas. There’s a controversial ordinance being considered in the local community that would force churches to host gay weddings and parties.
According to Fox News’ Todd Starnes, the Hutchinson City Council is going to consider whether sexual orientation and gender identity should be added to the city’s human relations code. If this action is approved during next month’s expected vote, churches may find themselves in a tough position.
Hutchinson Human Relations Commission has explained that, under the new regulations, churches that make their buildings available for the general public would not be able to refuse gay couples. This essentially means that churches would be forced to, via rental agreements, support gay nuptials.
“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals. That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination,” Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the commission, said in an interview with Fox News. “If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”
But Matthew Staver, chairman of the conservative Liberty Counsel Action, said that the proposal isn’t in line with American values.
“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda. This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment,” he proclaimed. “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.”
So, let’s say the ordinance passes and a church refuses to comply. Unless there’s an exemption for houses of worship when the measures passes, a discrimination complaint can be waged by gay couples or individuals who are refused rental service. If churches are, indeed, found guilty of not complying, fines and other penalties would come into effect.
But, as Starnes notes, it’s not just churches that may be impacted by the proposed ordinance:
The Hutchinson measure would also have a major impact on private businesses and landlords. Restaurants, bars and retail shops would be required to provide special bathrooms for individuals who may have male body parts but identify as a female.
According to a FAQ sheet provided by the city, employers would also be forced to allow workers to dress based on their gender identity…
“Dress codes would not be precluded as long as an employer allows an employee to appear, groom and dress consistent with the employee’s gender identity and gender expression,” the FAQ stated.
As far as bathrooms, the city FAQ stated, “A transgender person must be allowed to use restrooms appropriate to their gender identity rather than their assigned gender at birth without being harassed or questioned.”
The city’s revised ordinance would also require transgender individuals to use the locker room and shower facilities of their choosing.
The FAQ document that highlights all of the information presented within the provision can be read here. There‘s no doubt that religious freedom hounds will be monitoring the vote to assess churches’ rights and to ensure that the government doesn’t overstep First Amendments bounds. On the flip side, supporters of the ordinance will surely fight on for what she see as equal rights in its passage.
(H/T: Fox News)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 577 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 347 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 347 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (227)
LadyLibertykicksASS
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:59pmO. M. G .This is all coming from the Progressives!! Just another nail in the coffin of Our Republic.
Report Post »Bro. Chuck
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:21pmread the FAQ’s…..
http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1332537777_170654.pdf
these people are truly insane…..
just goes to show you what separation from our Creator can do to the human soul…
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:26pmWill this ordinance apply to Islamic Mosques?
Report Post »valarie
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:29pmBro Chuck. This is an outrage. What about the children? What if they saw…OMG. WTF?
Report Post »dan@AL
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:36pmThis could get way ugly!!!! Say I am a pervert and like to watch women urinate, according to this I can say I am Transgender, no wait I dont even have to do that, it says you cant even be questioned. This is getting way out of hand, If you have girl parts you are a girl and vice versa and I dont care what some lib says, all this LGTB or what ever they call it now is a mental illness, it is a choice no one is born gay. If it is genetic it would no longer exist because to males or females cant breed to pass it on. The only way it can be genetic and be passed from generation to generation is that it would have to be a genetic defect (mental Illness)
Report Post »Gorp
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:37pm@ Old Truckers:
Islamic Mosques will be the only ones who get an exemption. It’s Christians that they are going after, not Obummer’s people.
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:47pmHow about forcing them (the church) into having divorce proceedings as well? We have the court for that! If its all about legalisms then by all means get married at the courthouse because its the same place that can have your marriage overturned as well at your request and fees in hand.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:50pm“Just because Rainbows are curved doesn’t mean they are not straight”
Free The Rainbows!!!
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:06pmThis is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. The militant homosexual lobby will litigate the church into submission. They will erode the church’s interests in every way they can and cry “discrimination” each time. Finding another venue isn’t good enough for militant homosexuality.
Report Post »decendentof56
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:07pmThis is a perfect example where Constitution and Freedom-loving Americans could turn this around on anyone who dares to force any church to marry ANYONE they choose to NOT marry.
Report Post »Right now, all churches in Kansas should ban together and announce they WILL NOT abide by any mandate to perform gay marriage in their church. There should call out those who are pushing this mandate. Pickets should be placed near the homes of any council member who supports this insane idea.
People of Kansas……you need to stand against this in a very forceful way.
Walkabout
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:23pm42,000 or so people live in this town. The town has a community college. I would like to know how many people are on the Human rights commission, what they do for a living & how messed up their lives are?
Trannies in bathrooms & shower rooms of their choice? Really? These people need help. We should get a few supercomputers & model the human mind. then we can find why those people are messed up. the answers won’t be pretty.
If course if a high school rents a venue the ACLU will sue unless of course it were a magnet high school that catered to gays. then they would demand that they be able to used said facilities.
Report Post »BLACKDIAMONDSKIER
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:26pmAnd I quote…” If churches are, indeed, found guilty of not complying, fines and other penalties would come into effect.”
So….the church is going to be “FORCED” to violate their concience. Where have I heard this before? Might someone ask….what does the phrase “other penalties” include? Might it consist of jail time, or community service, or worse? But, what if those penalties don’t work? What if those stubborn Christians will not comply with the ordinance after all that? What are your enforcement options then? How about bulldozing the church building? How long till someone proposes getting rid of Christians all together?
Progressives are the dirt-bags of humanity. Evil and deception at their best.
Report Post »PoliticallyRightUs.Com
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 7:42pmKeep Voting Democrat,,,
Report Post »WeekendAtBernankes
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 9:35pmAs long as you let the government define what is or is not marriage, this is what you’re going to get.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on April 24, 2012 at 7:04amI predicted this as soon as the LBTGNKOTB92010 crowd decided that they were going to push marriage rather than accepting 99% of the same thing in civil unions.
Sad to say, but there will be right-minded, God fearing-and-following pastors that will go to jail for foillowing God’s Word on this.
Report Post »Watchingtheweasels
Posted on April 24, 2012 at 8:03amEt tu, Hutchinson? You, the town of 40,000 on the Kansas prarie for whom the “big city” is Wichita? You’ve voted 61% Republican in the last election, even for a loser like McCain. What is wrong with your city government? Perhaps its time to run them out of town on a rail.
While you’re at it, you may want to spend a little time fixing things that matter – like your crime rate, for instance, which runs 1.5 x the national average and is truly a matter of shame for a small town in the middle part of America.
Report Post »grannyrecipe
Posted on April 24, 2012 at 8:24amIn Hutchinson Kansas? Heavenly father, tornado in isle 3 please!
Report Post »CMDR6
Posted on April 24, 2012 at 12:41pmThe Churches can stop “renting” out their facility and only accept donations for their use. Then they can say that only like minded, faith believers can use their facility, not the general public. I personally never liked a church “renting” out the space anyway…..they should be giving it out as outreach, and then if the users want to donate (i.e. give back the give back) then so be it. That would blow the libs minds because they cannot comprehend GIVING, they only know taking. You have to know God and His ways to understand the Gift of Giving.
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 8:07pmI told you they were going to go after the churches. But nooooooooo! They’d NEVER do THAT!
Report Post »tzion
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:58pmMarriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, or at the very least a social construct. Government has no right to define marriage legally OR to force people to recognize marriages that, in their view, aren’t legitimate. The marriage issue should cease to exist at the political level period.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:14pmGovernment officials were licensing marriages and performing wedding since long before any of us were ever born, and nobody ever and a problem with it until they started talking about doing it for same-sex couples. You can’t advance an argument that effectively denies the legitimacy of the millions of couples in America who were married by a judge or justice of the peace while complaining that somebody else is trying to redefine marriage.
Report Post »R4M0N
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:50pmCHET,
Your argument is flawed. “Marriage” is a religious ceremony. What the government put its grubby little hand into was a marriage license because, of course, there was money in it. You get a marriage license in the court house, not a church. These gay couples can go ahead and get married at a court house. A church, by definition, ceases to be a church if it’s forced to go against its principles.
Report Post »bmarchand
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:03pmChet, Those of us who hold to a biblical worldview would argue that the covenant of marriage was established long before governments were formed, when God first brought Adam and Eve together. So, if I understand your point, you are saying that, since governments have been licensing and performing marriages for a long time, an argument saying marriage is a religious institution is denying the legitimacy of those married outside of the church and, therefore, is an invalid argument. I would have to counter and say that, since God established marriage long before the government, government cannot deny the sanctity of marriage by trying to redefine it, thus making your argument invalid.
Report Post »tzion
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:36pmAnd what exactly is a “marriage license”? It’s not a license to get married, it’s more of a government approved contract that declares two people immediate family members, allowing them to file joint tax returns, giving hospital visitation rights, etc. It’s completely unrelated to actual marriage. All the license does is provide a legal framework that provides certain conveniences to married couples. And since it’s just a contract signed by two people, that contact would be considered binding even if all government did was rubber stamp it.
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:37pmChet is not worth engaging….she lacks logic, facts and sensibility.
Report Post »tzion
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:46pm@Chet
My point is that the government has no business defining marriage period. It wouldn’t delegitimize existing marriages because marriage would be defined by society. So if two people decided to get married and did so, as far as the people involved are concerned they‘re married and the government can’t say anything to the contrary.
In this scenario, no church or other religious body could be required to ordain or recognize gay marriage while any religious body that, for whatever reason, wished to have such weddings could do so. This would, of course, also bring polygamy back.
Just to be clear, I oppose gay marriage and I personally believe that polygamy is, at the very least, unnecessary and inefficient (our society is split pretty evenly between men and women). I just don‘t think it’s government’s job to outlaw such practices.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:54pmYep, there is getting to be an awful lot of state finding it’s way into the church in this supposed nation of separation of church and state. The current administration’s thinly veiled attacks just make the state and local democrats brave enough to violate the Constitution too. Might want to read the Kansas state constitution while we are at it.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:04pmThought so. Kansas Bill Of Rigths, number 7. I’m sure an army of liberal lawyers will do to the word “conscience” something like Bill Clinton did to the word “is”.
Report Post »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. No religious test or property qualification shall be required for any office of public trust, nor for any vote at any elections, nor shall any person be incompetent to testify on account of religious belief.
encinom
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:43pmOf course if you read what is being reported, the Churches are not being forced to perform weddings, they are being held to the equal proctection clause and if they rent out hall space to the general public, they can not discriminate as to who they rent to. Basically, if the Church is going to engage in private business and act like a private business they have to follow the same rules as everybody else.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:55pmENCINOM(AN), First of all, I suppose that you refer to that Equal Protection Clause in Section 1. of the 14th Amendment, that the government fails to apply to tax payers? Also, other select or rather non selected groups or races? The government ignores it anyway so, why apply it here. Regardless, it does violate the Kansas State Constitution Bill Of Rights as clearly stated above. But, I suppose that you are just another one of those progressives who says screw the laws and various constitutions if I disagree with it. Yep, that pretty well fits you to a T like many other trolls here.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:58pm@ENCINOM
I find it interesting that the government can tell ANY private business who it needs to cater to.
Kinda takes the ‘private’ right out of it.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:07pmBROTHER-ED…ENCIDIOT is longing for the day when government tells everyone what to do. He’s a piece of statist filth.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:14pmbrother_ed
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:58pm
@ENCINOM
I find it interesting that the government can tell ANY private business who it needs to cater to.
Kinda takes the ‘private’ right out of it.
Report Post »____________________________
Has been the law since the Civil Rights act, you know the one that both of the Pauls would have voted against.
bmarchand
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:16pmRJJINGADSDEN, What I envision is that the argument will be that, by requiring churches to not discriminate against gay couples, it in no way infringes upon a person’s ability or freedom to worship. While I agree that forcing a church to recognize gender identity equal to race and, therefore, cause to force churches to perform gay weddings is, not only ridiculous, but an affront to the sanctity of the church and its core beliefs, it does not prevent someone from worshiping according to their conscience, so, unfortunately, Article 7 can not apply here. Also, the church does have another option here – to not rent it’s facilities to the general public.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:22pmLOL…very good ENCIDIOT. You seem to have mangled militant homosexuality with black civil rights into an unrecongizable pool of liberal goo. Pretty much sums you up to a tee.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:51pmBMARCHAND, my primary point is the use of the word “conscience” regarding any particular church. They are pushing a law that will go against the conscience of many churches. And, the bill of rights of the the state Constitution in my humble opinion covers that quite clearly. Although, I agree. It will be pursued anyway, and “conscience” will go through a wringer or two in their attempt to legally define the word in their new law.
Report Post »TarheelFlyer
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:54pmThere is a way around this ordinance for many churches. Just make it church policy that you do not rent out your facility to non-church members, this must include weddings. By doing this, you will turn away straight and gay couples who are not married, therefore it is not discrimination. In addition, you will need to make signing the doctrinal statement part of membership requirement.
Now, this will not work forever. At some point they will just pass a law to get around this, but it will work for a while. Once it stops, people will go back to house churches…it will be easier.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:40pmYes, that’s what I thought too. But I’m hearing they have been also working on people having “house churches”. There are regulations about how many cars can be parked around your house if you are in a residential area, etc. They will come up with who knows what. They‘ll always be trying to come up with some law or regs to make it so hard you don’t do it. Also working on “homeschooling” if you thought that was an answer also.
Report Post »IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:53pmWhat an ungodly thing to do. They evidently want to do away with the 1st Amendment and could care less about how God will judge them someday. They probably even want to tell us some day who we have to marry.
Fight people for your rights and God will bless those that stand with Him now and forever.
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:53pmMaybe the country is too far gone to be saved at the ballot box ever again?
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:32pmI hope and pray not.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:46pmI think its on the right track, the rights of the individual are being protected from the bigotries of the ancient institutions.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:02pmwhat “rights” would that be ENCIDIOT?
Report Post »bmarchand
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:19pmENCINOM, please tell us where said individual rights originated from?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:26pm@bmarchand
Not from some imgained Sky Father. For Thomas Pain, they were a part of the social contract. But than again in truth what is a right is defined by the age. The right to vote wasn’t universal in US until the 20th Century, even at the start of the Nation, the Right was believed to only be hled in White, Christian, Male, Land Owners, the same group, the White Male were the only universal group beleived to have the right to own property.
Report Post »bmarchand
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:50pmENICINOM, So at some point, if society says it’s a right to murder or commit rape or incest, you’ll be okay with that? Just wondering.
Fact is, even if rights are based on social contracts, those contracts had to originate from somewhere. They don’t just happen. The argument for moral relativism holds no water, unless you’ll be okay when society deems it a right to take your stuff and redistribute it, or that your life is not worth saving because you don’t contribute enough to that society. Moral relativism sounds great in theory, but it never really works. The right to vote was there all along. The old laws simply hindered certain people’s access to it. When it was ten that those laws were wrong, they were changed. The law doesn’t really “grant” rights any more than Congress does. The law simply regulates those rights endowed to us by our Creator, sometime positively, sometimes not.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 6:25pmbmarchand
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:50pm
ENICINOM, So at some point, if society says it’s a right to murder or commit rape or incest, you’ll be okay with that? Just wondering.
____________
Read the Old Testament, it seems as if God didn’t have an issue with honor killings after rapes, genocide (Samson is guide to kill the innocents for alledged wrongs by others).
Here is the problem with your argument, there is no place were the rights granted by this creator are written, it is up to each generation, based on the knowledge of the past to define and redefine what a right is. Until the 1960′s inter-racial couples had no right to marry, until the Civil Rights act, groups other than White Males had no right to Equal Protection under the law. It wasn’t divine intervention it was men see the folly of the past and correcting past mistakes that led to the changes.
Report Post »bmarchand
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 10:11pmWell then, ENCINOM, you must have thought Jefferson and the other founders were real idiots. They didn’t seem to have a problem understanding that their Creator endowed them with certain rights. Also, I have read the Old Testament. I understand what you’re saying, but I was talking about you, not God. Please don’t deflect the question – would YOU be okay with it? I would also suggest that you read the Old Testament – plenty of evidence of God-given rights there. You may not like with Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and other books of the Law say, but to say that there is nothing about God-given rights written is simply disingenuous. And, if you really believe that rights are to be determined by each generation, should we assume you have no regard for the Constitution and believe it is outdated and needs to be thrown out and rewritten?
Report Post »From Virginia
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 8:28pm@Encinom – You are for the stripping of the rights of a VAST majority for a VERY small minority.
When do you want to see us in chains? When would you like the pogroms to start? You want about 240 million of us dead, right? You’d beat China, Russia and Germany combined!
Report Post »china clipper
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:52pmIf Obama Is re elected, he will put several people on the Supreme Court. Christian and home schools will be outlawed, and Christian sexual morals will be outlawed.
Report Post »geomann
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 7:13pmCorrect. I don’t think we are too many years away from mandatory i n t e r c o u r s e in s e x education classes. Students in high school will be required to participate in g a y and straight acts as part of their education and sensitivity training. If you think that is way out there, consider that the governemtent is pushing for vaccines related to s e x u a l activity, and college age students are now asked to make videos of that nature.
Report Post »BigAl78
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 7:50pm@China Clipper
First of all, no, Christian schools and homeschooling will not be outlawed. Even IF Obama did want that, there’s simply no way it could happen. And as far as Christian sexual morals being outlawed, do you seriously think the Obama Administration is going to mandate that all Americans have gay, premarital sex? You seriously think that?
@Geomann
First of all, you can spell out “intercourse” and “sex” without the spaces. They’re not bad words, and human sexuality is not an evil thing. But more to the point, the government will never, ever force kids to actually have intercourse during sex education. That is tantamount to rape. And no, they will not be required to have gay sex either. They probably will be taught, however, that homosexuality is not evil and it’s nothing to be ashamed of.
I do predict that eventually abstinence-only sex education will be outlawed because it has failed so miserably. The CDC stats have confirmed that, as seen here: http://www.upnorthhealth.com/community/0109teenpreg.html
Report Post »Teens are going to have sex, and that is just a fact of life. If abstinence-only education actually worked, Southern, more conservative states wouldn’t have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. The government wants to distribute vaccines for STDs because they understand that teens will have sex, and they want to slow the spread of disease. Maybe if high schoolers were actually effectively taught safe sex, we wouldn’t have these problems.
jungle J
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:52pmThe depravity of their actions come from a mind that is totally self absorbed…the most destructive mental illness…self.
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:54pmCorrect!
Report Post »mrsmileyface
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:51pmThey cannot force ANY CHURCH to do ANYTHING. SAY NO! and take it to the court system.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:13pmAs far as it reads to me, the state’s Bill Of Rights would prohibit this action.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:47pmThey are not forcing the Church to change its doctrine or wed gay couples. They are saying that if the Church acts like a private business and rents space to the general public, than the Church is bound by the same rules as the private business and must respect the Equal Protection Clause.
Report Post »BreeZee
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:51pmThe churches are to blame for their own hell. The Churches have sat silent as the athiest have run wild getting any and all references to God band for public veiw. The Churches sat sleeping until now. They are being destroyed from all sides and it didn’t just start, its been going on for some time. The Churches could still have a lot of power if they would stand up and get in action.
Report Post »sooner12
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:04pmI certainly see your point and agree.
Report Post »IDONTTHINKSO
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:28pmI, for one totally agree! There used to be a saying or wristband going around with WWJD on them! He wouldn’t set on his rear end, he would get up and turn some tables over and speak with the Word of GOD! People who set around and say they are Christians and do not get involved in this struggle to save our religious freedom, they have point blank been the hypocrites that has our Churches being destroyed from within and from the outside. Fire, has been yelled, but no one is doing absolutely anything to change it! Can’t wait to see how they are going to incorporate bestiality into a Sunday service! It’s coming people!
Report Post »2SENSEWORTH
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:51pmThe fact of the matter is if this is true it matters.
Report Post »cookcountypatriot
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:50pmthe progressives are at war with christianity…they know christians wont tolerate anymore queering of our society…to bad for them
Report Post »utterlyamazing
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:50pmBasically what will happen is Churches will just stop renting out their facilities to anyone except their own parishioners.. This may put a burden on some churches that rely on that money for building upkeep etc.
Report Post »grudgywoof
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:50pmWe must stand against them. No gay weddings period! Gays can’t marry anyway because it is a Holy agreement between a man and woman pledging themselves to each other and God. God says homosexuality is an abomination and He hates it. I don’t have anything against gays or transwhatever but they will not do this in the Church I attend.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:17pmIts a civil act that binds the property interests of two individuals together. It comes with tax, care, citizenship, insurance and other rights and obligations.
Also, what the hell is it any of your business how two consenting individuals define their relationship.
Report Post »toto
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 8:34pmEncinom, the behavior of all groups affects society as a whole. While I couldn’t agree more with those that say many heterosexual couples have failed their children and society, society should still strive for the ideal for children. Shouldn’t children ideally have a mother and a father who work in concert to raise them? Homosexual marriages imply the right add to children to the mix. It’s just wrong not to want a mommy and a daddy for children.
Report Post »Hearmenow2
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:49pmWhat a joke the city council can not force a thing on churches. seperation of church and state covers that. Or else church would be allowed to be held in local municipality buildings. Or pray ata a town hall meeting. These low lifes only try to intimidate. I will not comply let it go through the courts many churches one municipality. It will bankrupt the town trying to defend all the churches. Find out the Hutchison city council members homes and let your voices be heard.
Report Post »MittensKittens
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:49pmJust say NO!
Report Post »jungle J
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:48pmWhy do the mentally ill want everyone else to stoop to their level?………oh! ..yes…MISERY LOVES COMPANY!
Report Post »hologram5
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:48pmShouldn’t this fall under the “Freedom of Speech” and the first amendment?
Report Post »MittensKittens
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:47pmHow can the government force anything on a church…what about the separation of church and state.
Commie ba$tards!
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:17pmThe churches don’t have to participate in the weddings. If they are renting their facilities to the general public, they are running a business, and the fact that the business is owned by a religious institution doesn’t completely free it from the regulations that govern every other business in the state.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:47pmThis administrations favorite words, force them. That’s what commies do.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:21pmA city counsel in Kansas has zero to do with Obama or his administration. Lets keep the facts straight.
Report Post »Leader1776
Posted on April 24, 2012 at 10:45am@ENCINOM
Report Post »And the DOJ had nothing to do with a rogue group of ATF folks in AZ. Right? A direct effect? No. Discussions, advice, communications? Very possible. Do you really think the rest of us are as idiotic or misleading as you?
randy
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:44pmI will NOT comply!
Report Post »DIVINEPROVIDENCE1776
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:54pmI will NOT comply either!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:22pmUnless you run a Church that also rents out space to the general public, there is nothing for to comply with.
Report Post »SREGN
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:43pmI think people should be allowed to choose their species, and be provided species-identity-correct facilities freely provided by someone else.
Report Post »Nemo13
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:43pmThere is no gay marriage. There can be no gay weddings. This is all a preverted affair that has NO PLACE in religion and is NOT accepted. Churches, stand up for your faith and freedoms. Stand up to these enemies of faith and DO NOT COMPLY.
Report Post »iampraying4u
Posted on April 24, 2012 at 9:36amAmen
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:42pmJust say “NO”.
Report Post »valarie
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:39pmI called this one a couple of years ago. I knew they weren’t just wanting equal legal rights as partners. They wanted to make it illegal for Churches to choose to not “celebrate” this revolting practice.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:19pmIndeed that this is but one more move of the government to force their ways on all of us; the matter is we have gone past the nudge state, now in shove, and soon they will use these laws to enforce their ideology (the Feds and Progressives in the states) with steel and fire.
Report Post »