Muslims stirring it

[Hawk]

Of course they can. Religious freedom doesn't mean you can demand any religion will perform their sacred ceremonies on you. They can refuse if they don't think you are of their faith, or for many other reasons.

You seem to be under the impression churches are full of money. While this may be true for CofE/RC (though I am never really sure if it is) independent churches get ALL of their money from the people attending. They don't rely on money to run, beyond the minimum to hire a sports hall once a week or something. They don't exist to get money to because of money, so the only way they lose money anyway is if people stop attending, and if the congregation agree with the church's position on the matter, if anything they'll be more generous to support a cause they believe in.

In Denmark, it is illegal to refuse anyone the right to marriage in any church.

Did you get that? It's just the start, other countries are following.

You can quickly make an organisation illegal, if they continuously break the law. Look to the BNP as to an organisation unwilling to change, but being forced to by law.

It's coming (pun intended), get used to it, prepare for it.

[d000hg]

In Denmark, it is illegal to refuse anyone the right to marriage in any church.

Did you get that? It's just the start, other countries are following.

You can quickly make an organisation illegal, if they continuously break the law. Look to the BNP as to an organisation unwilling to change, but being forced to by law.

It's coming (pun intended), get used to it, prepare for it.

You think a)the church could be made illegal b)people would stop attending if it was?

And when we start using that world power Denmark as an example, that tells us all we need to know

[Hawk]

You think a)the church could be made illegal b)people would stop attending if it was?

And when we start using that world power Denmark as an example, that tells us all we need to know

Yes, I do. Like any other organisation. Remember, secular contries put the church under the law, not in control of it. If they break the law, they will be forced to pay for it. If that means closing them down, then they will be.

And now you mock a country, as it's doing the one thing I said would start happening. What does it's standing as a world power matter? It's stopped the church from controlling whom it marries. You are laughing, but it's stopped all churches discriminating against same sex couples.

In that regard, it's more powerful than the Catholic Church.

Who's laughing now.

[MyUserName]

In that regard, it's more powerful than the Catholic Church.

Who's laughing now.

*Zing*


Although, I honestly cannot see what is wrong with the registry office marriage becoming the only kind and an optional religious one availible for people who want it but that only matters within that religion. It gives no additional legal standing.

Am I missing something?

[Hawk]

The thing is, you are saying something will never happen, and it's happening. You are stating no country is bigger than the RCC, and one tiny country apears to be. You say they can't stop a church, yet they are. All that needs to be done now, is to see how the Church fares at the CHR if they start making noises about it. As the CHR have already indicated they'd not come down on the side of the church, well, it's pretty set in stone.

Your argument is based on suppositions, and what you want to be true, not fact; the facts are, the Church is losing power, that they have been told to conform in one country, with others coming on line. The facts are, in their traditional power bases, same sex marriage is now common place.

The times are a changing. They will have to too.

[Hawk]

*Zing*


Although, I honestly cannot see what is wrong with the registry office marriage becoming the only kind and an optional religious one availible for people who want it but that only matters within that religion. It gives no additional legal standing.

Am I missing something?

For me, it simply opens up the whole sexual discrimination/religious freedom debate in the whole world.

Now, we have the florists not being able to refuse based on sexual orientation, the limosine, the DJ, the hotel, the reception, etc, etc. Now, we're just closing the circle by including the church.

Seriously, no other part of a wedding can be exclusive to hetrosexuals, not one part. except the church; of course it has to change.

[d000hg]

Although, I honestly cannot see what is wrong with the registry office marriage becoming the only kind and an optional religious one availible for people who want it but that only matters within that religion. It gives no additional legal standing.

Am I missing something?

Not as I see it, except that surely then you will get people demanding that the optional religious part should be available to anyone? A bit like how Hawk seems to think he can demand a Rabbi to circumcise him as part of his freedom of religion.

[d000hg]

In Denmark, it is illegal to refuse anyone the right to marriage in any church.

No it isn't. The Church of Denmark is allowed to perform same-sex weddings (in the mainland only). Individual priests are allowed to refuse to perform same sex weddings.

Other religious groups are allowed to perform same-sex weddings but are not obligated to.

So essentially, every part of what you claim is untrue and you're speaking out of your backside about a subject you know nothing about.

[MyUserName]

Not as I see it, except that surely then you will get people demanding that the optional religious part should be available to anyone? A bit like how Hawk seems to think he can demand a Rabbi to circumcise him as part of his freedom of religion.

But the optional religious part would be available to anyone, however not everyone can be accepted by every religion. However, that is not really important as they are still married - I mean there will always be religions somewhere which you do not qualify for.

I am not particularly knowedgable on anything and the law is no exception. Can things like a chess club refuse someone's application to join based upon the sexual orientation or can they refuse to allow them to stand for the committee or anything like that?

[Hawk]

No it isn't. The Church of Denmark is allowed to perform same-sex weddings (in the mainland only). Individual priests are allowed to refuse to perform same sex weddings.

Other religious groups are allowed to perform same-sex weddings but are not obligated to.

So essentially, every part of what you claim is untrue and you're speaking out of your backside about a subject you know nothing about.

Sorry bud, but you are wrong. Again.

The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Denmark's church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote "historic".

"I think it's very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married."

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

A country is more powerful than its church...

I was however wrong to state that it was forcing the RCC to conduct same sex marriages; just a matter of time.