White Church Bans Black Couple From Getting Married

SparrowHawk said:
Here's a few points to ponder.

Who owns the Church?
What are the terms of Pastor's employment?
Who is responsible for the decision?

1. The church is a privately held religous institution, ergo they can marry whomever they choose without Government interference
2. Pastor is usually hired by the Board of either Deacons or Trustees or both and as such are "at will" Some have personal services contracts. They are bound by their employers decision.
3. The various Boards are responsible.

Bottom line!!! Their church, their rules and tough darts to anyone who doesn't like it
Click to expand...

1. Wow. Glad you cleared that up.


2. Again. Wow, thanks for clearing that up. How does that in any way justify bigotry? Yes we all know they are a private institution and can do as they choose. I realize my knowledge of religion is limited but I am pretty sure what ever God you believe in would not support bigotry which is what we are talking about. We are not talking about rights, we are talking about what we feel is right or wrong. I believe their actions are wrong, not that they do not have the right to be wrong. You mentioned government interference. Is there any? I was not aware of any legal proceedings launched against them. If there is I am sure the ACLU will volunteer to represent them.


3. So the members of the church have no say? Without the members there is no church. If your pastor or what ever came out and said we will not minister to anyone with the last name of Smith and you disagreed with that, would you stay or find another church? The pastor did not seem indignant at all. What about the other members of the church? They are well with in their rights to do what they want. The question that we are discussing as with most things we discuss on this board is whether we feel it is right or wrong according to our personal codes.


No chit. We know that. I disagree with their actions. Do you?
 
Kev3188 said:
I didn't realize there was anyone over 14 left that still cited Wikipedia as a credible source... Weird...
Click to expand...


Wiki is actually a pretty good starting point as most of their citations are referenced which allows one to back track the information to a source. I think that makes them a far better reference than most.
 
Ms Tree said:
The internet is your friend Try researching things for a change instead of throwing stuff up on the wall and hoping it sticks. Are you arguing that slavery magically started on the day the COTUS was ratified? Surely you are not that stupid.


I do not recall saying that they were and I am not sure how that relates to anything.


The 3/5 had to do with representation and wealth. While the 3/5 had nothing to do with the 'value' of a slave it did mean that their rights were not equal to that of a free person. You can call it BS all you want (you seem to like using that term for things you disagree with) but the bottom line is that the the 3/5 compromise was real.
Click to expand...

Next time your make a statement, give all the facts and not just "Blacks were considered 3/5 of a human being"!
 
southwind said:
Next time your make a statement, give all the facts and not just "Blacks were considered 3/5 of a human being"!
Click to expand...

My bad, I assumed you knew the details on that. To me 3/5th of a human is pretty descriptive when you know the details.
 
Ms Tree said:
1. Wow. Glad you cleared that up.


2. Again. Wow, thanks for clearing that up. How does that in any way justify bigotry? Yes we all know they are a private institution and can do as they choose. I realize my knowledge of religion is limited but I am pretty sure what ever God you believe in would not support bigotry which is what we are talking about. We are not talking about rights, we are talking about what we feel is right or wrong. I believe their actions are wrong, not that they do not have the right to be wrong. You mentioned government interference. Is there any? I was not aware of any legal proceedings launched against them. If there is I am sure the ACLU will volunteer to represent them.


3. So the members of the church have no say? Without the members there is no church. If your pastor or what ever came out and said we will not minister to anyone with the last name of Smith and you disagreed with that, would you stay or find another church? The pastor did not seem indignant at all. What about the other members of the church? They are well with in their rights to do what they want. The question that we are discussing as with most things we discuss on this board is whether we feel it is right or wrong according to our personal codes.


No chit. We know that. I disagree with their actions. Do you?
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't much care as they are a private institution free to act as they see fit.

Would I attend a service there? Not in your lifetime

Point being there is no debate, they did it and people, including the congregation can make their choices. That's what a free society is.
 
eolesen said:
Bears, next time, feel free to put some money on the table when you make a prediction about me, OK? I need money to get the oil changed on the land yacht.

No, I'm not Baptist or Lutheran.... and it's really nobody's business which denomination I follow.

Knowing how churches are managed and governed is something anyone of faith should look into before deciding to become a member. Baptists are pure congregationalists, whereas Lutherans are more like the Catholics, in that seminary graduates are drafted into a synod (similar to an archdiocese) by a bishop, who in turn assigns those pastors to a congregation.
Click to expand...

WOW Eric, all these years I've never known you to be this 'Touchy' .
With that said, your religious affiliation IS no ones business.
 
southwind said:
How do you get 400+ years of enslavement out of a country 236 years old ?

Do you really think blacks were the only people ever enslaved in the history of the world ?

Oh..............that being valued 3/5 of a human is typical bullsh!t, Libtard rhetoric, just like, "If you don't vote for Barrack, you must be racist" !

"Misconception

According to a PBS article, the Three-Fifths Compromise is sometimes erroneously said to mean the founders believed blacks were only partial human beings (i.e. three-fifths of a person). The article also states the compromise had no relation to the individual worth of the black slave.[sup][10]"[/sup]

http://en.wikipedia....fths_Compromise

Now, come up with some more BS to make yourself feel better !
Click to expand...

JESUS, I'm friggin' SHOCKED that a MORON like you even knows what PBS......IS, let alone being able to View liberal/Socialist PBS from the RECTUM of the USA, the 'SE' quadrant !
(Wonder if they are still running repeats of "HEE-HAW" down there) ?
 
Ms Tree said:
The internet is your friend Try researching things for a change instead of throwing stuff up on the wall and hoping it sticks. Are you arguing that slavery magically started on the day the COTUS was ratified? Surely you are not that stupid.


I do not recall saying that they were and I am not sure how that relates to anything.


The 3/5 had to do with representation and wealth. While the 3/5 had nothing to do with the 'value' of a slave it did mean that their rights were not equal to that of a free person. You can call it BS all you want (you seem to like using that term for things you disagree with) but the bottom line is that the the 3/5 compromise was real.
Click to expand...

Yet you come off with this statement?

Well, if i had to make a guess Id go with 400+ years of enslavement, being valued at 3/5 of a human and only being granted full equality in 1964.
Click to expand...

You white folk try and talk about black issues ought to stay out the hood.
 
zoot said:
Yet you come off with this statement?



You white folk try and talk about black issues ought to stay out the hood.
Click to expand...

Does this post come with sub titles or do we just have to guess what you are talking about?
 
tom barry said:
Actually, your screen name says it ALL.

KNOT-BUYIN'-IT !!!

I never could understand (back in the day) how the pastor and congrgants from the local Baptist church could 'Praise his name' (Jesus), then don the 'hoods' and go out a LYNCH some poor Black guy.

Musta been a 'SE Quadrant' thing, aye southwind ?
Click to expand...

People can take religion and twist it around to justify what ever they want. The people hour mention above are no more representative of Christianity than the extremist are of Islam.

Everything I have read seems to indicate that regions are generally peaceful and are about forgiveness. The violence that people perpetrate in the name of religion is nothing more than a perversion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top