Thread: Church refuses to marry black couple

Originally Posted by Jay0173

Just one thought: Is there truly anyone really surprised that there are people out there who are prejudiced against blacks?

I think a lot of White people in the U.S. like to pretend that racism is no longer an issue because it's protected against in the laws, yes. Which is obviously much easier to do when you're not the target of the continuing social/cultural racism, as Whites generally aren't compared to other racial groups (including Blacks) in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Champion Kouzan

Though discrimination against Blacks isn't as prominent as it was 50 or 40 years ago, it's not surprising this happened in a Southern state who are still highly prejudiced people. Though it's definitely not very Christ-like, the way Christians are told to act, but very expected.

What was the quote from Gandhi?

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.

Gandhi didn't like black people either, though.

Originally Posted by Goodbye Blue Monday

First of all, there's no "LGBT lobby"

Really, then what is the correct term for lobbyists who lobby for LGBT issues? Groups like stonewall etc?

Personally, I am in favour of the state performing Same Sex Marriage ceremonies and any religion or Church which wishes too as well, I am not religious, but I do feel very pasionately about freedom of religion, and while I personally would be fine were gay marriage to be legalised here in the UK for example, I wouldn't want it forced on churches is all I'm saying.

It relates to this because like I said, and you agreed, obviously I'm not racist, and obviously I think what this congregation did is absolutely appalling, my point was that my first reaction would be to force them to perform the marriage, but then it opens the doors for the LGBT Lobby (lobbyists who lobby for lgbt issues) to demand the state forces churches to accept their marriages too.

Originally Posted by Quattro ~ Bajeena

Gandhi didn't like black people either, though.

And what is your source for this claim?

Originally Posted by Therian

Originally Posted by Goodbye Blue Monday

First of all, there's no "LGBT lobby"

Really, then what is the correct term for lobbyists who lobby for LGBT issues? Groups like stonewall etc?

If that's really what you meant, you could have phrased it in a way that did sound so much like "the gay agenda" and coupled by stuff about how LGBT marriage is against the Bible (even though, as @Bikini Miltank; mentioned the Bible doesn't say anything about same-sex marriage and also "LGBT marriage" is not actually a thing).

Also, your whole argument - "They're right about this but if we let them be right the LGBTs will use this to their advantage!" - rests on the assumption that homophobia is somehow not as bad as racism, which is bullshit. Plus, if we're going based on "but the Bible says," it's not that hard to find Bible verses to support racism as well, as any segregationist will tell you. As Shakespeare said, "even the devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose."

And what is your source for this claim?

Well, here's one example about anti-Gandhi feelings among South Africans: Gandhi branded racist as Johannesburg honours freedom fighter | World news | The Guardian

Anyway, he wasn't "KKK" BLACK HATE, but he did harbor negative feelings towards Blacks...mainly upset that they were seen in the same light as Indians such as him by the British Colonialists...more so early on in his life. Not that he's a bad guy because of it, because really, it seems like it was brought on by his own feelings of insecurity due to being discriminated against by the whites.

Thanks. I wasn't trying to suggest it wasn't true, just wanted to know more about it because I'd never heard about it in all the stuff I've learned about Gandhi over the years, including the more critical stuff.

This is why the US needs to have a Constitutional Amendment that essentially says this:
"All races, sexual orientations, fetishes(except those attracted to real, living animals, children under 17 and corpses), religions, subcultures, disabilities and political beliefs(minus those parties and organizations who would undermine this Amendment). are hereby equal, and therefore protected by, all of United States and its dependents Federal, State, County, Municipal and Local Laws. No exceptions unless otherwise stated."

Originally Posted by Bandit Keith

This is why the US needs to have a Constitutional Amendment that essentially says this:
"All races, sexual orientations, fetishes(except those attracted to real, living animals, children under 17 and corpses), religions, subcultures, disabilities and political beliefs(minus those parties and organizations who would undermine this Amendment). are hereby equal, and therefore protected by, all of United States and its dependents Federal, State, County, Municipal and Local Laws. No exceptions unless otherwise stated."

That amendment already exists. It's called the 14th Amendment.

I meant an all-encompassing version.

According to the anti-social justice jerks, 14 does only applies to races. Not everyone else.

It also fails to allow public expression of such things implicitly, as per the 1st's requirement.

I want it so the 14th does not apply only to races in the public's eye, but to all who don't fall under the following categories-White heterosexual married Christian Republican conservative upper and/or upper middle-class male power holders.

@Goodbye Blue Monday;

The 14th needs to be updated to 21st Century standards in that it needs to not only be more overtly inclusive, but to also identify and counter the source of all overt and covert oppression in this country.

Even if you updated it like you wanted, it would still allow this church to choose who it may marry. It would only prevent the government from discriminating (unless that was your whole intent?); plus, such an amendment would have to include everyone, not just those who are not "power holders" for it to have a snowball's chance in hell in passing.

They could probably sue the church actually. Also just to point out this is pure racism and has nothing to do with the christian religion. The only definition the bible has of marriage is between a man and a woman, color is never brought up. To see this makes me sick that those who follow God don't love his other children because of outside appearances. I wonder if that priest tried to make it allowed for them at all or just gave in?

I think the 14th Amendment is pretty inclusive, when you take in the ways that it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court over the years.

Also, as a strong advocate of the First Amendment, I don't agree with anything that would tell a church who they can or cannot marry, just because I don't like this particular application of it.

Originally Posted by mwto

They could probably sue the church actually.

No, they couldn't. Again, as has been pointed out numerous times already in this thread, in the U.S. the government cannot tell a church who they can or cannot marry, that is up to the church and the church alone. So there's no way any legal recourse like suing could give this couple what they wanted.

And iirc the Bible actually doesn't define marriage as "between a man and a woman" anywhere; the parts that apparently condemn homosexuality mostly have to do with sex.

Also, this is a Protestant church so there is no priest.

Originally Posted by Nicoleta01

plus, such an amendment would have to include everyone, not just those who are not "power holders" for it to have a snowball's chance in hell in passing.

Agreed; also part of the problem is that who the "power holders" are can easily change. Better to have a more generally-worded amendment that can adapt for the times than an ultra-specific one that we'll have to amend again in a few decades.

This comes down to an alternate version of that old saying:

I may not like what you have to say but I will fight for your right to say it.

In this case it's not what they say, but what they do. It repulses me that they refuse to marry a couple due to them having what is essentially just darker skin, but I don't support any government involvement with the church or forcing them to go against what they want to do, because then that opens up a whole new can of chaos about what the government can and can't interfere in.

The best we can do is make local people aware of this and try and ask them to boycott it, although as has been mentioned above if the place is that socially conservative, then there probably wouldn't be many willing to boycott.