Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

As we all have found out, Gays can sue a bakery for nonservice based on sexual orientation..... but can a church be sued for refusing to conduct a funeral for Gays?

A Colorado church refused to hold a funeral service for a lesbian woman after the family declined to remove photos of her showing affection to her wife.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/colorado-church-refuses-to-hold-funeral-for-lesbian-woman-after-dispute-over-%E2%80%98affectionate%E2%80%99-photos/ar-AA88z8F?ocid=answashpost11

Oregon ruled regarding refusal of service.

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon E******y Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the L**T community.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

The story concerning the funeral is still evolving.

The disturbing part of the story, if true, is the individual conducting the service stopped in the middle of the service. As currently told, he had already started the service, then refused to go forward.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

So if I am reading you correct, you believe that the service should have been performed because it had been started.

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

this is not going to stop...unless you actually face the music and stop it by the only means left available to keep the government or anyone else out of my 'basic' human nature...a new hell in this country for these new-age-far-left as*holes who seem to think they can think for everyone else. those are not fighting words...those are dying words.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Well I am not sure where you stand, for or against. What I think is the family should have been up front, telling the church that their loved one was gay. And if as they said, their loved one's life is not subject to abridgement, then why not just be up front. However, if they did not think that the gayness of the individual was an issue, why not select a photograph of the significant other that was not of them kissing? Both people would be represented, therefore not abridging the life of the deceased. I also think that they family knew that this would be an issue and were craving their 15 minutes of fame. The government does not belong in the bedroom and one would think that modesty would preclude an invitation of an entire nation into a dead person's bedroom......

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Once the service was started, stopping it with the entire family, including her kids there was h**eful and traumatizing to all. It would have been better if a photo of that nature had not been used and that the "wife" had been upfront on the subject before the service, so that the preacher could have emphatically said NO. The good will that the church could have gotten would have more than made up for the manipulation that might have been planned by the family. Were I part of the church I would be sure that it is known that homosexuals are not going to be buried on santified ground if that is the church practice. the church has that right, but the whole thing was handled badly. Were I to find out that the "wife" knew the church policy and chose to violate it, I would change my mind and say that what ever the minister did, stopping the funeral or throwing the photo out or what ever would be valid, as the original deceit would then call for it.

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

very well said but just as the government does not belong in the bedroom...the same can be said that government does not belong in the church.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

He failed to do his due diligence before agreeing to perform the service. No, supposed, pastor, worth a pinch of spit, does not meet with the family to have conversation about the deceased, deceased' family life, etc. Had this man performed his duties correctly, this incident would never have occurred. No pastor should cause public humiliation to a family.

moldyoldy

It is my understanding that this church welcomed all of the downtrodden derelicts of society, and tried to lift them up. But this one exception does not seem to fit with that mission. We don't know what was known and when, but I agree with Auntie, that to stop in the middle was cruel and heartless, he could have mentioned his disapproval while continuing the service.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

agreed!

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I just have to ask the questions: Had the relative been asked about the sexual preference of their sister that would not have been an unusual personal question that the sister would have found objectionable? And, would you care if a gay woman's funeral was held in your church complete with an advertisement of their life style?

I do think that in days of old a minister would not need to ask such a personal question like: Was the decedent a homosexual? Whereas a modern day minister most certainly would be treading thin ice if they ask such a question today. So, basically the minister would have made headlines whether he asked or did not ask. If he did, and then told the family no...he would be sued. He did not ask, and probably assumed, although wrongly, that the decedent's family would want to show photographs or a video of less sexual photographs.

And I think it is possible that the sexual preference of the individuals is not customary when making arrangement for funerals? I had a friend who passed away, not of my religion, but due to the fact they had no family I took on the responsibility of finding a church and putting together her services. Not once was I asked if she and I were in a homosexual relationship....so, is it possible that the minister just did not think to ask?

Is it possible that the minister only found out when reviewing the photographs? And do you think it was unreasonable for the church to ask for one photograph, that of the women kissing, be removed or replaced?

And once the video showed the objectionable action, the church paid to have the service moved to a near by funeral home. So, they were sensitive to the family, but the church policy was open homosexuality was condemed. And one would presume that the family had to know the policy because it is part of their web site....

In a nutshell.... this minister was in a no win situation. Had he asked and refused the event, then he would have had the gay community up in arms. Had he turned a blind eye, then how would he answer to the board who controls his money and more than that.....would the funeral be in keeping with his religious beliefs? So...perhaps he did the only thing he could...not ask and hope for some modesty from the family.

And... if the family knew of the church's position.....why did they commission the services at a church that did not approve of homosexual life style....and why include that photograph...surely there must have been picture of the couple where overtones of sex was absent.

Or... do you think that a funeral service falls under the "service" clause of the EOT laws? Dead bodies need to be disposed of... and many survivors of the decedent need closure in the form of funeral. Perhaps this is a function that a church should be obligated to perform regardless of religious beliefs?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

And I can see that you are not religious. First the lifting up the down trodden is a Christian mandate by Jesus. The good Samaritan and so on. However, Christianity does condemn homosexual acts. Had this woman abstained from sexual relations with other women, then she would neatly fit into the category of "Go and sin no more" and thereby would not be committing sinful acts. The evidence was the photograph, apparently she was the spouse of a homosexual....which implies sexual relations. Therefore, she had not abstained and thereby was still in a sinful relationship. So.... the minister was not exacting an exception to the church policy.

Also, of note. One report says that the service was cancelled before the service was scheduled (although the church had mourners) and another said it was stopped at the start, but with the casket and flowers, and mourners seated. In none of the reports does it say that the services had started, was in progress, or in the middle.

One problem many people have is reading into reports and assuming actions or inaction based on personal emotions.

But, your recommendation that the minister "mention his disapproval" during the service would be insulting and shocking. Sorry, that last is my personal opinion.

moldyoldy

You have reasonable arguments, as usual Penny, but Auntie is right, the family customarily meets to decide on the services, maybe he failed to personally take part. Otherwise he should have been aware of any plans concerning the service.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

The true looser no matter how approached was the church. It would loose if it asked about sexual life style and due to law suits if the service was denied based on EOT laws, ie., sexual orientation. If services were performed, then the administrators of the church could withdraw funding because the minister broke the covenant. And because he stopped the service, the Liberals are up in air and condemning the action....even those who say they believe in God are upset because he "traumatized" the family. This minister was in a no win situation. I think that he accepted the duty and crossed his fingers that everything would be all right. Perhaps he should have asked, but the results would be the same. More headlines to promote homosexual life styles and condemnation of those who oppose. I believe that soon no church or minister will be able to say no to marrying same sex partners. No restrictions on communion taken in Christian churches.... in other words, another action where God says no will be embraced by modern day Christians. So, ask yourself.... where should a Christian stand?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Thank you. I am unsure of how to respond. I guess I still have to ask.... was there a right response? Are good and evil the same for all human beings at all times and in all places, as Sophocles' Antigone says, "not of today nor yesterday, but fixed from everlasting to eternity"? Or is it as in Euripides, "What is shameful but thinking makes it so?"

The question is not about what human beings may have said or done here or there, now or then, for that is a question belonging to anthropology, and ethics is not concerned with describing various human customs but with answering the question: what man must do if there is good and evil.

Historically there have been two responses: To ask if there are "absolute values" is to cast this question in a Kantian light, where man is ruled by the irrational force of "conscience" which imposes "categorical imperatives" on him. But the question looks very different when cast in a Socratic light, where the thoroughgoing use of reason finds standards which apply to all mankind by responding to the Delphic precept "Know thyself!", thereby discovering what the excellence proper to man is.