One in five Americans: “Religious institutions Should Be Forced to Perform SSM"

[Wilikon]

The Shocking Proportion of Americans Who Believe That ‘Religious Institutions or Clergy’ Should Be Forced to Perform Gay Weddings



A new survey conducted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage last Friday found that 19 percent — or one in five Americans — believe that “religious institutions or clergy should be required to perform same-sex marriages.”

More specifically, 26 percent of Americans under the age of 40 believe that churches and clergy should be forced to preside over gay nuptials.

The survey, conducted by the Barna Group, a polling firm that studies religion, also found that 94 percent of evangelicals oppose legalization of same-sex marriage, with only 2 percent expressing support for the measure. Meanwhile, 86 percent believe that the decision will have a negative impact on American society, with just 10 percent saying that they believe offering marriage rights is morally acceptable.

Sixty-six percent of practicing Christians overall believe that the Supreme Court erred in its decision. More broadly, 49 percent of Americans agree with the decision, with 43 percent expressing disagreement.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/01/the-shocking-proportion-of-americans-who-believe-that-religious-institutions-or-clergy-should-be-forced-to-perform-gay-weddings/

[MakingMoneyHoney]

How idiotic. What happened to the US? I thought it stood for freedom of religion.....

[Wilikon]

How idiotic. What happened to the US? I thought it stood for freedom of religion.....

[Beliathon]

How idiotic. What happened to the US?

The internet happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/upshot/big-drop-in-share-of-americans-calling-themselves-christian.html?_r=0

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/religion_may_not_survive_the_internet/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/religion-america-decline-low-no-affiliation-report_n_2867626.html

[MakingMoneyHoney]

How idiotic. What happened to the US?

The internet happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/upshot/big-drop-in-share-of-americans-calling-themselves-christian.html?_r=0

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/religion_may_not_survive_the_internet/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/religion-america-decline-low-no-affiliation-report_n_2867626.html

I find it disturbing the people are ok with the idea of forcing someone to go against their religion in the name of the law. Especially when the country was supposed to be a place where everyone could practice their various religions concurrently so long as they don't harm another.

And don't give me crap about a priest not marrying a homosexual couple as harming them, when they can perfectly well get married without a church.

[Beliathon]

I find it disturbing the people are ok with the idea of forcing someone to go against their religion in the name of the law. Especially when the country was supposed to be a place where everyone could practice their various religions concurrently so long as they don't harm another.

One day, if/when Christian ignorance stops hurting and killing others, maybe America will stop cutting away Christianity like a fucking cancer. Don't you get it? It's compassion that's killing Christianity in this country.

Compassion + Internet = Death for ignorance, superstition, perhaps even hatred and violence after enough generations.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

I find it disturbing the people are ok with the idea of forcing someone to go against their religion in the name of the law. Especially when the country was supposed to be a place where everyone could practice their various religions concurrently so long as they don't harm another.

One day, if/when Christian ignorance stops hurting and killing others, maybe America will stop cutting away Christianity like a fucking cancer. Don't you get it? It's compassion that's killing Christianity in this country.

Compassion + Internet = Death for ignorance, superstition, perhaps even hatred and violence after enough generations.

Christianity isn't hurting people (and there's no reason why it should). People hurt people on individual cases.

And this has nothing to do with the forcing of someone to go against their religion. It does NOT hurt a homosexual couple if they can't get married by a priest. No one should ever be forced to go against their religion.

In a time where people are purporting to be so tolerant, it's funny that people continually want to strip others of their rights.

[Wilikon]

I find it disturbing the people are ok with the idea of forcing someone to go against their religion in the name of the law. Especially when the country was supposed to be a place where everyone could practice their various religions concurrently so long as they don't harm another.

One day, if/when Christian ignorance stops hurting and killing others, maybe America will stop cutting away Christianity like a fucking cancer. Don't you get it? It's compassion that's killing Christianity in this country.

Compassion + Internet = Death for ignorance, superstition, perhaps even hatred and violence after enough generations.

Christianity isn't hurting people (and there's no reason why it should). People hurt people on individual cases.

And this has nothing to do with the forcing of someone to go against their religion. It does NOT hurt a homosexual couple if they can't get married by a priest. No one should ever be forced to go against their religion.

In a time where people are purporting to be so tolerant, it's funny that people continually want to strip others of their rights.

Gay couples can always get married by their favorite imam...

[bryant.coleman]

Gay couples can always get married by their favorite imam...

Although only 26% supports this measure now, I am sure that the figure will rise in the future, as more and more brainwashing is unleashed upon the younger population. Ultimately, the SSM will be made mandatory for every religious institution. Just like the case in the UK, where a baker was fined for refusing to serve to the sodomites, in future, the bishops, rabbis, imams, and monks will be sent to jail for refusing to permit SSM.

[Wilikon]

Gay couples can always get married by their favorite imam...

Although only 26% supports this measure now, I am sure that the figure will rise in the future, as more and more brainwashing is unleashed upon the younger population. Ultimately, the SSM will be made mandatory for every religious institution. Just like the case in the UK, where a baker was fined for refusing to serve to the sodomites, in future, the bishops, rabbis, imams, and monks will be sent to jail for refusing to permit SSM.

When was the last time you've read anything about the pink mafia defending the rights of their brothers and sisters and in between being butchered in sharia law based societies?

Never. It is kryptonite to them. SSM in a mosque? I can see the pink mafia proclaiming it is time to respect some faiths, as an exceptional gesture or something...

[BADecker]

Most present day churches are organized under the IRS 501(c)(3) tax exempt corporation status. However, when you look at the wording in 501(c)(3), you find that the churches are first and foremost other kinds of institutions than churches. They may be organized as churches under whatever kind of corporate institution they are organized. But they are not really churches, legally.

The above means that their leaders, their ministers, their priests, their pastors, must obey any ruling that comes down for organizations that are not churches.

A few churches are organized first as churches. They fall under IRS 508(c)(1)(A) exception from taxes, not exemption. They are a church, first, rather than some other kind of corporation first, and then a church under that corporation. They don't have anything to do with 501(c)(3) corporate status.

As a church first, these true church organizations are within the protection of the 1st Amendment. Their people are not required to obey laws that come down for corporations or 501(c)(3) corporatations.

[Tusk]

What's so shocking? Most of roman catholic priests are gay  

If two people of consenting age decide to have their union sanctified, because they share the same sex, it does not diminish their right to do so any less than a hetrosexual couple. The priest is there to do so, in the same way as a architect, doctor, lawyer ....... should provide professional support, irrespective of their clients sexual orientation. Next it will be claimed as shocking that a white priest should marry a black couple. Both attitudes are grounded in bigotry

[pedrog]

The more people churches exclude the better, gay, black, divorced, single moms, whatever, I say let them exclude as many people as they want, eventually churches will be empty, sadly not fast enough...

[TECSHARE]

The more people churches exclude the better, gay, black, divorced, single moms, whatever, I say let them exclude as many people as they want, eventually churches will be empty, sadly not fast enough...

At least this wouldn't violate anyone's rights.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

If two people of consenting age decide to have their union sanctified, because they share the same sex, it does not diminish their right to do so any less than a hetrosexual couple.

It does not diminish homosexuals right, since they can get married.

The priest is there to do so, in the same way as a architect, doctor, lawyer ....... should provide professional support, irrespective of their clients sexual orientation. Next it will be claimed as shocking that a white priest should marry a black couple. Both attitudes are grounded in bigotry

That diminishes the priest's right to religion.

[celestio]

What the world needs is freedom from religion. Religion has no right to impose any sort of restrictions on what one can and cannot do.

The day the majority of people on Earth no longer irrationally believe in god(s) is the day we as a species truly propel forward.

[celestio]

If two people of consenting age decide to have their union sanctified, because they share the same sex, it does not diminish their right to do so any less than a hetrosexual couple.

It does not diminish homosexuals right, since they can get married.

The priest is there to do so, in the same way as a architect, doctor, lawyer ....... should provide professional support, irrespective of their clients sexual orientation. Next it will be claimed as shocking that a white priest should marry a black couple. Both attitudes are grounded in bigotry

That diminishes the priest's right to religion.

The priest has no right to be intolerant. Religious views that imposes intolerance should never be adhered to, absolutely disgusting, especially since over 50% of the worlds population is not heterosexual(Blame religion and denial for this not being common knowledge).

[jlauzon]

If two people of consenting age decide to have their union sanctified, because they share the same sex, it does not diminish their right to do so any less than a hetrosexual couple.

It does not diminish homosexuals right, since they can get married.

The priest is there to do so, in the same way as a architect, doctor, lawyer ....... should provide professional support, irrespective of their clients sexual orientation. Next it will be claimed as shocking that a white priest should marry a black couple. Both attitudes are grounded in bigotry

That diminishes the priest's right to religion.

The priest has no right to be intolerant. Religious views that imposes intolerance should never be adhered to, absolutely disgusting, especially since over 50% of the worlds population is not heterosexual(Blame religion and denial for this not being common knowledge).

Religions make their own rules as long as they don't hurt others, whether you think they're a "cancer" or not. I find it interesting though that Christianity is the religion Americans "pick on" the most often.

[celestio]

If two people of consenting age decide to have their union sanctified, because they share the same sex, it does not diminish their right to do so any less than a hetrosexual couple.

It does not diminish homosexuals right, since they can get married.

The priest is there to do so, in the same way as a architect, doctor, lawyer ....... should provide professional support, irrespective of their clients sexual orientation. Next it will be claimed as shocking that a white priest should marry a black couple. Both attitudes are grounded in bigotry

That diminishes the priest's right to religion.

The priest has no right to be intolerant. Religious views that imposes intolerance should never be adhered to, absolutely disgusting, especially since over 50% of the worlds population is not heterosexual(Blame religion and denial for this not being common knowledge).

Religions make their own rules as long as they don't hurt others, whether you think they're a "cancer" or not. I find it interesting though that Christianity is the religion Americans "pick on" the most often.

That's a joke, correct...? Many religious views and "rules" hurt others. I advise you go look into the various discrimintory and hateful laws found throughout the bible, koran, and torah. Also, it's because Christianity is the biggest reliigon out there so far, largely because most of it's followers had it forced on them. EX: Spain and other Christian countries had Inquisitions, where their residents were forced to turn into Christians, leave the country, or die.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

The priest is there to do so, in the same way as a architect, doctor, lawyer ....... should provide professional support, irrespective of their clients sexual orientation. Next it will be claimed as shocking that a white priest should marry a black couple. Both attitudes are grounded in bigotry

That diminishes the priest's right to religion.

The priest has no right to be intolerant. Religious views that imposes intolerance should never be adhered to, absolutely disgusting, especially since over 50% of the worlds population is not heterosexual(Blame religion and denial for this not being common knowledge).

in·tol·er·ance
ˌinˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun
noun: intolerance; plural noun: intolerances

    unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.


Christians should accept other views, beliefs, or behavior other than their own. Yup! That's what Jesus taught. You are supposed treat others with the same respect you'd like for yourself, and love one another as you would yourself.

Christians should not act in sin, and the priest marrying a homosexual couple would be sinning. That's not intolerance. Christians are supposed to be full of tolerance, but not to sin themselves.

"We hate sin by recognizing it for what it is, refusing to take part in it, and condemning it as contrary to God's nature. Sin is to be hated, not excused or taken lightly. We love sinners by showing them respect (1 Peter 2:17), praying for them (1 Timothy 2:1), and witnessing to them of Christ. It is a true act of love to treat someone with respect and kindness even though you do not approve of his or her lifestyle or sinful choices." (link)