Court rules Christian Mingle must allow LGBT couples

[MoonlessNight]

The point is simply that with such a small sample of other religions in the United States, it is impossible to say if it would be ruled the same way or not. There just aren't really enough representatives of various other religions for cases to be brought often. Personally, I believe that it would be ruled identical, but I have no evidence to back that up. Nor do people who think it wouldn't. I am honestly astonished that you failed to see that was the point I was trying to make.

Here it is what you needed to say in your previous post to make that point: "there is such a small sample religions that a case likely wouldn't come up in the first place, and so we cannot know what would happen." You didn't say anything even close to that, but rather started rattling off demographic statistics without context. If you are astonished that I would not be able to see your point without you saying it you need to work on your communication skills.

But if that was your point, I'm not sure that it's true. There are plenty of Muslim focused dating sites out there, and I don't know that any of them help people set up same-sex relationships. All that it would take is one of them being sued to find out whether the case would be ruled the same way, which certainly is possible.

Unless you contend that such sites couldn't be sued, because for whatever reason gay people don't care about what happens on Muslim sites?

 

[DJKWord]

I saw this right after seeing the announcement that someone decided to make Star Trek's Sulu gay. And a minute ago I glimpsed an article on Moviepilot.com questioning why Marvel keeps holding out on introducing any G or L characters.

Some SF stories are prophetic. In 1955 Charles Beaumont wrote a story called "The Crooked Man," about a society where homosexuality is the norm and straights have been pushed into the closet. Not only that, if the straights are caught, they're dragged in for a brain operation. This all started when mankind perfected artificial insemination, pretty much meaning all marriage bets were off.

The story even includes a lengthy quote from Romans 1 at the beginning. It was published in--no surprise I guess--Playboy.

 

[fat wee robin]

I'm fed up with the gay agenda being shoved in my face at every turn.

Total oxymoron....
You can't be a Christian, and practice a homosexual lifestyle.
Satan's war against the Creator is on big time.

Yes it is not possible ,but those so called christians who encourage the young to believe
one can be ,are even more deluded.

 

[LoAmmi]

Here it is what you needed to say in your previous post to make that point: "there is such a small sample religions that a case likely wouldn't come up in the first place, and so we cannot know what would happen." You didn't say anything even close to that, but rather started rattling off demographic statistics without context. If you are astonished that I would not be able to see your point without you saying it you need to work on your communication skills.

In the future I will not imagine people will infer as much as I assume people do.

But if that was your point, I'm not sure that it's true. There are plenty of Muslim focused dating sites out there, and I don't know that any of them help people set up same-sex relationships. All that it would take is one of them being sued to find out whether the case would be ruled the same way, which certainly is possible.

Unless you contend that such sites couldn't be sued, because for whatever reason gay people don't care about what happens on Muslim sites?

I believe it would be ruled the same way, but we'd have to see one sued.

 

[Belledandy]

I find this a tough one. And have hit many barriers im my asking questions. The church I used to attend allows homosexuals and also performs gay blessings. I brought this up with the vicar who told me it wasn't a sin and that Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away. However I feel yes Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away but he would tell them to turn from their sin and fillow him. Many of my Christian friends have the same view as the vicar as the 2 men do a lot for the church. I would like some clarification on this as I have read the bible a lot of times and still feel my old church isn't sticking to the bible.

 

[MoonlessNight]

In the future I will not imagine people will infer as much as I assume people do.

This is an absolutely essential thing to do when making an argument (at least, one from logical principles and observation). If you write in such a way that your reader must only infer what your point is, then your reader is equally free to infer a different point than the one that you had intended. And if that point is supported by or relevant to what you posted, you don't really have any right to complain about it, since by your own intention you wanted the reader to fill in the blanks.

For example, I could have read your original post on the matter as making the point that since the other religions are in the minority, they deserve special rights and the ability to violate rulings that the majority must follow. Such a point would be supported by demographic numbers, since it has to establish that these groups are in the minority, and it is a point that is made be people in today's world (which people all too often divide into pure evil "oppressors" and completely innocent "victims").

Indeed that interpretation had crossed my mind when I read your post, though I rejected it as unlikely based off your past anger at SJWs. However, your intended interpretation never crossed my mind once and so if I had not asked for clarification I would have responded to that point rather than your actual point. And again, had I done that, I don't think that you would have right to complain, since you expected readers to fill in the blanks with likely arguments.

 

[Winter]

Sorry Winter; You are wrong. Paying taxes is absolutely irrelevant to this issue just like in the Hobby Lobby ruling. I do not believe ANY lawyer is concerned about this after passing the Bar. The lawyers you mention might be concerned but these lawyers are poorly educated and I suspect do not really exist anywhere but in your imagination.

I have actually heard constitutional lawyers discuss their concerns that is why I brought this up. Why would you think its my imagination? You think I've got nothing better to do? You are a testy little fellow, aren't you?

 

[Foamhead]

If it's a private business they should be able to conduct themselves however they wish. it's not like there aren't other dating sites.

 

[Cearbhall]

This is another sign that we are in the time of the Antichrist.

Because that's a constructive attitude...

 

[saved24]

I didn't read the article or holding. But here's the problem with Christian Mingle. It isn't a Christian site or organization. It's a targeted dating service and their primary goal is to make money. They own many other niche dating sites, such as Jdate (for Jews), LDSmingle (mormons), BBWpersonals (for people who like to date overweight people), black singles, silver singles, and about 20 more.

They serve Mammon, not God. I've been wary of them ever since I first heard their commercials and their tag line "Find God's match for you". What arrogance to claim their for-profit dating service is somehow an expression of the divine will.

Oh my, really? sad.... but I've heard that not only Christians use that site. Thanks for sharing.

 

[saved24]

If it's a private business they should be able to conduct themselves however they wish. it's not like there aren't other dating sites.

exactly! just people who want to win a law suit, and find someone who seems to be discriminating against them.

 

[Circle Christ]

I would think Christian Mingle would appeal. They're a private members only entity. The religious ideology that supports their business model should take precedent.
I pray they appeal at least.

 

[Foamhead]

My general attitude is that minorities need to be protected from discrimination. If this was a case of there being no alternative I would be on the side of the gay Christians but since this isn't the case I fail to see why they can't just use another site.

 

[rrguy]

If they own other sites that allow LGBT to search for dating etc... Really makes me wonder how the couple already a couple? felt Left Out?

Sorry when I got back to reply, I see that I kinda duplicated other comments.

 

[jackcv]

I find this a tough one. And have hit many barriers im my asking questions. The church I used to attend allows homosexuals and also performs gay blessings. I brought this up with the vicar who told me it wasn't a sin and that Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away. However I feel yes Jesus wouldn't turn anyone away but he would tell them to turn from their sin and fillow him. Many of my Christian friends have the same view as the vicar as the 2 men do a lot for the church. I would like some clarification on this as I have read the bible a lot of times and still feel my old church isn't sticking to the bible.

Did Jesus turn anyone away?

Jn 6:66 "many walked no more after him" Did the Christ not anticipate this effect of his words just preceeding? Did He not know what was going to happen?

The woman of Canaan in Matt 15 was turned away and turned away from multiple times, but persisted and won both her request and the praise of the Master.

In general, though, Jesus invited with conditions. Both Satan and Peter he rather harshly commanded to follow him; is not "Get thee behind me" another way of saying "Come, follow me"?

Another example: The rich young man was given a challenging invitation that he failed, for the moment at least, to accept.

Are we to follow Hs example? Is it appropriate to specify entrance requirements with our invitations? Did Peter do that? Did James? Did Paul?

If so, how do we do that peaceably in a society which is increasingly libertine? Is that not what St. Francis meant when he prayed that God would make us "instruments of [his] peace"?

 

[jackcv]

If it's a private business they should be able to conduct themselves however they wish. it's not like there aren't other dating sites.

The point was made earlier in this thread that the court did not impose this decision. It was an agreement that the two parties made prior to judgement. No one here disputed that, but it appears that many missed it.

 

[Foamhead]

The point was made earlier in this thread that the court did not impose this decision. It was an agreement that the two parties made prior to judgement. No one here disputed that, but it appears that many missed it.

Oh. If they agree to do it then who cares?

 

[jackcv]

Oh. If they agree to do it then who cares?

Well, the misconception brought out a legitimate concern that many of us have had or now have: that secular society is becoming more and more hostile to the disciplined religion(s) of peace. If we are in the Last Days, and I believe we are, then we would be prudent to prayerfully, carefully decide in advance how we can represent the Prince of Peace in a corrupt, licentious, hostile sociopolitical environment, no?

 

[Pickle]

I would think Christian Mingle would appeal. They're a private members only entity. The religious ideology that supports their business model should take precedent.
I pray they appeal at least.

Since they settled the lawsuit, rather than going to trial, there probably isn't any issue to appeal.

I just read the court's judgment. What the judge did was explicitly put the terms of the settlement into the judgment in order to give the court jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement. Otherwise, if a party doesn't follow through, and the court didn't retain jurisdiction, the other party would have to file a new lawsuit.

 

[CurtisNeeley]

I have actually heard constitutional lawyers discuss their concerns that is why I brought this up. Why would you think its my imagination? You think I've got nothing better to do? You are a testy little fellow, aren't you?

. . . . I apologize for revealing a "testy" side. I did not mean to get too close to asserting dishonesty. Sorry. I spent over five years in AR and NY District Courts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and at the Supreme Court. The firms I faced represented the FCC, MSFT, and GOOG. Lawyers specializing in primarily Constitutional cases are extremely rare, but all lawyers have studied the Constitution and could try them. Lawyers could present themselves as Constitutional specialist or imagine themselves to be.
.
. . . . I have no faith in United States Courts to act honorably but it is much less likely to be dishonorable loudly enough to matter. I responded legally to ABC, CBS, EFF, NBC, PBS, FOX, and etc briefs(comments) seeking to broadcast more material many might call obscene, indecent or profane.
.
This law will never be twisted enough to breach the First Amendment. It is time for an amendment to make SCOTUS less political and less senescent. This could be done by defining during "good behavior" perhaps to avoid the ratification process required for an Amendment. America is a dishonorable oligarchy impersonating the United States of America it overthrew since 2010. There is absolutely no chance of being an honorable nation again regardless of who votes for what. The USA's self-rule Humpty-Dumpty experiment has fallen and cannot be restored.