Let the games begin - a must read!

There are some, even on this site, who have asked what harm allowing gay marraige would cause our community.  As you will see in this article from RedState, this would change Utah and the values in this community is such a way as to cause it's down fall.  Just one ruling like California, and one law suit like below, and this community is done for.  You will see fighting, a mass exit, and a crashed economy.

To set the stage, consider for a moment, if this gay couple, desided they wanted to be married in one of the temples or chapels, because they look a nice place to be married.

Via RedState:

Only a man of uncommon obtuseness could fail to predict this. In New Jersey, a homosexual couple wants to get married on a pavilion owned by a Methodist organization.

When Bernstein and Paster asked to celebrate their civil union in the pavilion, the Methodist organization said they could marry on the boardwalk — anywhere but buildings used for religious purposes. In other words, not the pavilion. [Rev. Scott] Hoffman says there was a theological principle at stake.

“The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman,” Hoffman says. “We’re not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It’s just, that’s where we stand, and we’ve always stood that way, and that's why we said no.”

The refusal came as a shock to Bernstein, who says Ocean Grove has been revived by the gay community.

“We were crushed,” she says. “I lived my whole live, fortunately, without having any overt prejudices or discrimination waged against me. So while I knew it was wrong, I never knew how it felt. And after this, I did know how that felt. It was extremely painful.” [. . .]

So the couple filed a complaint with New Jersey’s Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.

“Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they’re religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate,” Lustberg says. “Religion shouldn’t be about violating the law.”

Do I even need to tell you which side the court found for? Read on.

As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.

“What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say ‘No, we’re not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they’re a bad example?” Stern asks.

Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.

Grim indeed. The NPR report adduces quite a number of cases where the liberty of religious believers was emphatically abridged in order to conform to the prevailing Liberal morality often denoted by the dread word Tolerance. Morality imposed; free exercise proscribed. A religious college ordered to allowed homosexual couples in its married dormitory. A doctor ordered to provide IVF services to homosexual couples. A wedding photographer dragged before a human rights tribunal (yes, we have them too) and ordered to pay for refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding. In most of these cases, where religious liberty clashes with Tolerance, the latter, according to a legal expert will “win in a walk.”

The ideology of Tolerance, soon to be a legal doctrine approaching constitution status, is self-evidently tyrannical. Even now it is grinding to dust one of the most cherished of all liberties upon which the Republic was founded; even now it is forcing believers to do what their religion forbids. In the strictest sense, even now it is forcing them to face a choice between becoming a criminal and imperiling their immortal soul.

The words of obloquy to hurl against this monster of a legal doctrine shall soon be exhausted. Rare indeed has a word been used in such manifest contradiction of its meaning. Tolerance is a fraud and a tyrant: its immediate consequence religious persecution, beginning mildly enough, to be sure, but, because it acknowledges nothing outside itself, no hierarchy of ethics, sure to advance by leaps and bounds to firmer methods. Off at the end it augurs the proscription of orthodox Christianity, among other world faiths. Our forefathers rebelled against a tyranny much more mild than this.