Even as the proposition 8 battle lines are being drawn in lawsuits all over California, again we see the Pink agendists have forced a private business to cater to homosexual desires... what if this was your business, school, or church...

Dating site originally promoted by
James Dobson bows to lawsuits

Last week, eHarmony agreed to begin providing an eHarmony-affiliated "Compatible Partners" service to gays and lesbians, with listings labeled "male seeking male" and "female seeking female" by March 31, 2009.

For complying, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has dismissed the complaint against eHarmony, and Warren is considered "absolved of liability." Also, the dating site has been ordered to pay the division $50,000 for investigation-related administrative costs and give McKinley $5,000. It has agreed to provide a free one-year membership to its "gay" service to McKinley, plus free six-month memberships to "the first 10,000 users registering for same-sex matching within one year of the initiation on the same-sex matching service," according to the settlement...

An attorney for eHarmony told WND legal battles required a great deal of effort and resources from the dating organization.

"The company spent three years defending against this proceeding," he said. "It was a burden in terms of the high costs of litigation and the time and resources management devoted to it."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=81446

[Traditional Anglican]

..........., Since it is a private enterprise this is leftist bullying, were I the owner....I would step back, see if I had recovered my up-front capital and made a profit, then I would announce I was closing shutting down the service. I can play hardball too.

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Traditional Anglican

..........., Since it is a private enterprise this is leftist bullying, were I the owner....I would step back, see if I had recovered my up-front capital and made a profit, then I would announce I was closing shutting down the service. I can play hardball too.

Same. I would rather be out of business then help homos find each other and consumate their unholy union.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

I had problems with eHarmony in the first place (I know people who use it just to find partners for one night stands) but this just makes it that much worse in my opinion. Then again, Im not surprised, sodomy is going to pervade every aspect of society soon enough.

[kittn1]

Since it's not a surprise, why is it still so maddening?!?

I'd close down the business too.

How long till a Bible preacher in the US or Canada is before the courts for refusing to "marry" homosexuals?

Sad, sad, sad....even so, come, Lord Jesus!

[Here Am I]

Originally Posted by kittn1

How long till a Bible preacher in the US or Canada is before the courts for refusing to "marry" homosexuals?

I am aware of a lot of churches reviewing with an attorney their 'statement of faith' in order to show their beliefs more clearly.

At this time, if someone tried to force a church's pastor to marry two sodomites, he can refuse if the church has 'marriage is between man and woman only' listed in their beliefs.

But that's for now. Who knows what's next...

Sad, sad, sad....even so, come, Lord Jesus!

Amen, sister. Amen.

[kittn1]

Tweaking the statement of faith is a good idea; I think I'll mention that to our deacons. As it stands now, I know Pastor's policy is that he'll only marry church members. I'm not sure if there's anything on paper about that, though.

[MC1171611]

I would advise every church to review their constitution (or write and ratify one!) and have it reviewed by a lawyer, preferably one from the church. It needs to state that in no uncertain circumstances will the pastor marry someone outside of the church membership (and stick to it) and that the church only recognizes heterosexual couples and individuals for church membership. There must be no loopholes for the sodomites or the ACLU to exploit in order to force churches into marrying queers or prosecute them for not doing so.

It's a messed up world that we live in!

Regarding writing down a policy,
why would put something in writing that can be perceived as anti-homosexual?
It seems to me that could be just want these activists are looking for.

Isn't that kind of what eHarmony tried to do?
For years, they had a corporate policy, look at the article...
"Now eHarmony has been compelled to CHANGE its nationwide policy toward homosexuals as part of a New Jersey lawsuit settlement."

I don't know, it seems to me the legal system is treating homosexuals like minorities or disability cases, you can hire all the attorneys you want and go broke in the process, but if one of these perverts attacks your business and it gets into the courts, it's over.
Churches who "discriminate" based on sexual preference will be denied non-profit status or worse. The gears have already started turning on all this...

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 2007
"This bill, co-sponsored by the NAACP California Conference and Equality California, would update various non-discrimination statutes relating to government-funded programs and business services by adding protections against discrimination on the basis of disability, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status and the like... Opponents contend that the bill inappropriately protects against sexual orientation discrimination and DEPRIVES certain persons of their right to religious beliefs."
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil..._asm_comm.html

[MC1171611]

Mainly because if its in writing, you have a legal defense. eHarmony gave up because they didn't want a long, drawn-out legal battle with the sodomites. If the church's constitution, a legally-binding document, disallows the pastor to marry individuals that are not church members, and allows the pastor and the membership of the church to decide who is allowed to become a member, there should be very few loopholes that queers can take advantage of.

Besides, we all know that very few sodomites want legal marriage because they're monogamous; they simply want public, legal verification of their perversion.