Hawaii's Civil Union Law Greeted With...

Hawaii's Civil Union Law Greeted With Lawsuit

There are 74 comments on the www.courthousenews.com story from Dec 30, 2011, titled Hawaii's Civil Union Law Greeted With Lawsuit. In it, www.courthousenews.com reports that:

Two Christian churches have filed a federal complaint to stop Hawaii's new civil union law in its tracks, claiming the legislation is unconstitutional.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.courthousenews.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#1 Dec 30, 2011
They've had like 10 months to file this lawsuit and they are doing it 3 days before the law takes affect....WTF?

I hope they lose, not because I want to see their religious freedoms trampled on, but because this is just more BS and eventually there will be FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY for the right to marry!!!
Rick Santorum s Froth

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Dec 30, 2011
I wonder if xstain evilgelicals are insane enough to think they can do away with the entire notion that the government may outlaw invidious discrimination in places of public accommodation or whether the evigelicals really just wish to...oh, nevermind, they're insane enough.

The xstain mullah fundierai$ers can't fathom what "place of public accommodation" means, but that fact of ignorance doesn't rule out the insanity.

IMO.

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

#3 Dec 30, 2011
Their lawsuit is bullshit and they know it. Churches are under no obligation to sacrifice anything to anyone if it goes in contradiction with their religious beliefs. They never have been, probably never will be. If they don't want to rent their churches or facilities to a couple who has been previously divorced they don't have to. Nothing bad happens to the church then. They wouldn't have to open their facilities or their church to a gay couple either. No one has any grounds to sue the church for that. They just have to find a more accommodating one.

This is just maneuvering to maintain the status quo. The "chilling effect" on religion that they're claiming this will allegedly have is no one's fault but their own, and no judge can change people's personal opinions with an injunction. The truth is that this will put their bigotry, prejudice, and hatred on a pedestal and they would be exposed for the haters they are and they're stalling the inevitable.

They'll lose. They have no grounds for an argument at all. No proof, anywhere, of anything. This is a joke.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Dec 31, 2011
From the article:

" ... the complaint states. "Within the last 12 months, private individuals have already initiated complaints with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission against churches and houses of worship for refusing to rent their facilities for same-sex unions and/or marriage ceremonies."

Those complaints were a MISTAKE !!
Sir Andrew

Kapaa, HI

#5 Dec 31, 2011
I live in Hawai'i and I've heard nothing at all about any complaints. I think this is a false claim by these so-called christians. They will do and say anything--and have--to keep gays from enjoying any of the rights these church people claim for themselves. There is adequate protection in the law; this case will be thrown out. They have suffered nothing and have no standing.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#6 Dec 31, 2011
Sir Andrew wrote:
I live in Hawai'i and I've heard nothing at all about any complaints. I think this is a false claim by these so-called christians. They will do and say anything--and have--to keep gays from enjoying any of the rights these church people claim for themselves. There is adequate protection in the law; this case will be thrown out. They have suffered nothing and have no standing.
Could you get in touch with the "Hawaii Civil Rights Commission" and see if there is any heat to their claims and get back to us with it?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#7 Dec 31, 2011
The mind boggles. The pro-gay aren't stupid; so clearly, we know how to deal with this. It is time to bring out the big guns. Time for nonsense is over.

Cross-file in federal court in behalf of three or four priests, pastors or other religious figures who DESIRE to officiate civil unions, and whose religious freedom is now being trampled upon. Take the case all the way to a little outfit known as the United States Supreme Court. Rinse and repeat.

Enough has been enough for years now. Start cross-suing these entities on identical grounds which establish the religious freedom of pro-gay persons who have a constitutional right to their deeply held moral beliefs and are of the firm and unyielding opinion that there is no sin in orientation, end of discussion; and who are being harassed daily by "religious" anti-gay views being forced repeatedly and anti-constitutionally down their throats.

The first amendment expressly prohibits said establishment of any religion or any "religious" view and should be used as the ramrod which will bash against this harassment until its "spine" is broken and it has no legal basis or legitimacy anymore.

The end.
Dayle

United States

#8 Dec 31, 2011
It doesn't matter what you do or what you say, these church people are not gong to budge. They'll take away your healthcare, they'll take away your retirement benefits, they'll take away the very food in your kitchen and if they had their way, they would painfully execute gay people. I am sick to death of their hatred, bigotry and interference in other people's lives in ways that don't effect their own.
It is time these houses of intolerance paid taxes. There is no reason for any government to sanction these hateful people by making them tax free entities.
You want to interfere with my life? Take away my partner's medical care, take away survivor's benefits, take away our freedom, the least you can do is pay taxes.
I see nothing in the messages of Jesus Christ that supports your hatred.

Since: Jan 08

Rayong, Thailand

#9 Dec 31, 2011
Why doesn't someone sue the state to remove these churches from their "tax free" statues since they obviously like to meddle in politics.
RichG

New Port Richey, FL

#10 Dec 31, 2011
Face it Hawaii will have to amend with a court order, language to protect the church from those gays that might sue them, so they can feel all warm and fuzzy in there bigot little harts, I agree with Dubya take away there tax exempt.
Qwerty

Lewes, DE

#11 Dec 31, 2011
Why in the world would a gay couple seek to have their special day hosted by either of these two churches? Perhaps out of ignorance (they didn't know that these two "churches" don't want them)? All these two churches need to do is add a line to their advertising - "We do not like gays and will not host civil unions for any gay couple." That would be enough to keep me away.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Dec 31, 2011
We still need to verify the claims in the suit.
RichG

New Port Richey, FL

#13 Dec 31, 2011
Qwerty wrote:
Why in the world would a gay couple seek to have their special day hosted by either of these two churches? Perhaps out of ignorance (they didn't know that these two "churches" don't want them)? All these two churches need to do is add a line to their advertising - "We do not like gays and will not host civil unions for any gay couple." That would be enough to keep me away.
These are small storefront churches you would they would welcome the income by it, they are both Pentecostal they can be more cult like than church like

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14 Dec 31, 2011
Update: The trial Judge is allowing the case to proceed, but will not grant an injunction to prevent the civil unions law from going into effect:

http://hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid...

Churches and other places of worship which rent their facilities to the general public for weddings, receptions and so forth, but don't want to for the civil unions of same sex couples would quickly run afoul of Hawaii's Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations. I'm not able to read the complaint at the bottom of the article (my computer is a mess and doesn't remember it can read PDF documents) and couldn't find any other articles that proved that the HCRC had already received complaints about any churches discriminating, but I can see where there could be a problem for those who want to be in the rental business. They're seeking a special religious right to discriminate in the public sphere which the civil union's law doesn't allow for, this case is a conservative wet dream.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Dec 31, 2011
Sir Andrew wrote:
I live in Hawai'i and I've heard nothing at all about any complaints. I think this is a false claim by these so-called christians. They will do and say anything--and have--to keep gays from enjoying any of the rights these church people claim for themselves. There is adequate protection in the law; this case will be thrown out. They have suffered nothing and have no standing.
You should get your Democratic controlled legislature to pass marriage equality and be done with it. What's the problem? The Dems have an 86% majority in the House and 96% majority in the Senate, and now a Democratic Governor as well. How can they not come up with a simple majority vote for marriage equality?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Dec 31, 2011
hi hi wrote:
The mind boggles. The pro-gay aren't stupid; so clearly, we know how to deal with this. It is time to bring out the big guns. Time for nonsense is over.
Cross-file in federal court in behalf of three or four priests, pastors or other religious figures who DESIRE to officiate civil unions, and whose religious freedom is now being trampled upon. Take the case all the way to a little outfit known as the United States Supreme Court. Rinse and repeat.
Enough has been enough for years now. Start cross-suing these entities on identical grounds which establish the religious freedom of pro-gay persons who have a constitutional right to their deeply held moral beliefs and are of the firm and unyielding opinion that there is no sin in orientation, end of discussion; and who are being harassed daily by "religious" anti-gay views being forced repeatedly and anti-constitutionally down their throats.
The first amendment expressly prohibits said establishment of any religion or any "religious" view and should be used as the ramrod which will bash against this harassment until its "spine" is broken and it has no legal basis or legitimacy anymore.
The end.
You're off base on this one. Any religious person can currently solemnize any civil union or even marriage in their church already. Preventing the govt from recognizing those unions doesn't actually have any impact on religious freedom, while forcing religious affiliated organizations to host same-sex ceremonies WOULD impact their religious freedom.

That said, this current lawsuit is BS since the govt recognizing civil unions doesn't mean any clergy can be forced to perform those ceremonies. The only part of the suit that may have merit is if religious affiliated organization can be forced to rent out their facilities for any same-sex ceremonies or receptions etc. Now I understand that if you are renting out your space to the general public you can't discriminate, but I don't have a problem if a private religious a group like the Knights of Columbus are exempt from such public accommodation laws.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Dec 31, 2011
Qwerty wrote:
Why in the world would a gay couple seek to have their special day hosted by either of these two churches? Perhaps out of ignorance (they didn't know that these two "churches" don't want them)? All these two churches need to do is add a line to their advertising - "We do not like gays and will not host civil unions for any gay couple." That would be enough to keep me away.
Because some people want to force this issue beyond what is reasonable just to make a point. Every time we sue an organization like the Knights of Columbus or some similiar relgious organization it just reinforces the perception we're trying to force our beliefs on them (I'll let the irony of that claim go for now). A business open to the general public is one thing, but I see no reason why a private religious organization which doesn't take taxpayer money should have to host any reception or ceremony they don't want to.
RichG

New Port Richey, FL

#18 Dec 31, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You're off base on this one. Any religious person can currently solemnize any civil union or even marriage in their church already. Preventing the govt from recognizing those unions doesn't actually have any impact on religious freedom, while forcing religious affiliated organizations to host same-sex ceremonies WOULD impact their religious freedom.
That said, this current lawsuit is BS since the govt recognizing civil unions doesn't mean any clergy can be forced to perform those ceremonies. The only part of the suit that may have merit is if religious affiliated organization can be forced to rent out their facilities for any same-sex ceremonies or receptions etc. Now I understand that if you are renting out your space to the general public you can't discriminate, but I don't have a problem if a private religious a group like the Knights of Columbus are exempt from such public accommodation laws.
It to my understanding religious institutions are of a private origination, the ironic thing is who would choose these storefronts (and one is a real dump) over the many gay affirming churches in Hawaii ( gaychurch.org )

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Dec 31, 2011
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Update: The trial Judge is allowing the case to proceed, but will not grant an injunction to prevent the civil unions law from going into effect:
http://hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid...
Churches and other places of worship which rent their facilities to the general public for weddings, receptions and so forth, but don't want to for the civil unions of same sex couples would quickly run afoul of Hawaii's Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations. I'm not able to read the complaint at the bottom of the article (my computer is a mess and doesn't remember it can read PDF documents) and couldn't find any other articles that proved that the HCRC had already received complaints about any churches discriminating, but I can see where there could be a problem for those who want to be in the rental business. They're seeking a special religious right to discriminate in the public sphere which the civil union's law doesn't allow for, this case is a conservative wet dream.
I realize it is the church bringing the lawsuit, but is this really the fight we need right now? Technically a church is not a private business; what's wrong with making an exemption for them?

I think the reasonable line to draw would be any organization which can qualify for religious tax-exempt status who's primary function isn't running a business open to the general public. In other words, a reception hall owned by the Knights of Columbus would be exempt, but a Catholic Church owned bridal gown shop would NOT be exempt.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Dec 31, 2011
RichG wrote:
<quoted text>
It to my understanding religious institutions are of a private origination, the ironic thing is who would choose these storefronts (and one is a real dump) over the many gay affirming churches in Hawaii ( gaychurch.org )
Since the law isn't even in effect yet these "churches" are obviously taking a preemptive strike against something which hasn't even happened.

I would expect the case to be dismissed as speculative.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hawaii Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Looking forJaqueline Markham 22 hr Lynn 1
Location 3 weeks Oct 8 Yan 1
Trump and Norcross tell America we have NO choice Sep 25 Trumpnorcross 1
Whats it like venturing out of the Ko Olina lag... Sep 20 Daananamis 1
News News 10 Mins Ago Personality, not policy, set t... Sep '17 Cordwainer Trout 11
News Personality, not policy, set to define Hawaii g... Sep '17 American_Infidel 1
News Rising seas will devour Waikiki, wash away bill... Aug '17 Joe Balls 6
More from around the web