Baptist Church Sued When Active Homosexual Barred from Wedding Party

[ruggerson]

An active homosexual? One who goes to the gym and gets out of the house?

I wonder if this church bans fat people and divorced people from wedding parties, as well.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06031407.html


SARNIA/LAMBTON, March 14, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Observer, the local paper for Sarnia/Lambton Ontario, reports that the pastor of a local church is in hot legal water for his defence of Christian principles.

Tamara Bourgeois, 29, and Jerry Condie, 34, were to marry in June 2007 at Sovereign Grace Community Church and have told the Observer that they are considering legal action against Pastor Glenn Tomlinson when he refused to allow an active homosexual to be part of the wedding party.

Tomlinson said he believes that allowing an unrepentant homosexual in the ceremony is tantamount to sanctioning homosexuality. "I'm OK with a gay person attending in the congregation. We are all sinners," Tomlinson told The Observer. "But the key to me is that a gay man is standing up in an official capacity. If we allowed that, we'd be sanctioning something in the actual ceremony."

Sovereign Grace church bills itself on its website as a church that "believes, teaches, and rejoices in the historic doctrines of Christianity."

(more)

[rooboy]

1. I'd rather have an active homosexual at my wedding...

than one who just lies there and does nothing. ;)

[boobooday]

2. LOL

:rofl:

[shain from kane]

11. That reminds me. I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a

frontal lobotomy.

[Ignis]

29. LOL, great song, thanks for the reminder! :) (nt)

[Bill McBlueState]

3. read the full article

Something tells me this is bs -- that this lifesite.net has an agenda and they're making this up. I can't find the story anywhere else.

For example, who conducted the following interview with Bourgeois:

Bourgeois was apparently expecting the pastor of this conservative congregation to be in full agreement with the liberal doctrines of "tolerance" for sin. Bourgeois reacted with indignant astonishment when Tomlinson said yes when she asked him if having a "gay man" in the wedding party would be a problem.

"He said it is a problem. I couldn't believe it. I can't be part of a church that feels this way."...

[54anickel]

8. Does beg the question, how and why was the wedding planned it

this Baptist church to begin with. I didn't think you could marry in their churches unless you were a member and instruction/indoctrination in the beliefs of the church os part of gaining membership.

As for the source, check out the aboutus page. http://www.lifesite.net/aboutlifesite/

LifeSite's writers and founders have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order.

[donco6]

12. I used to work for a fundie church, and you're right.

The church controlled everything about the wedding, down to the official list of songs that could be performed. They would never have allowed someone to walk in off the street and get married. There'd have been classes, they'd have had to join the church, etc. This smells fishy.

[Scairp]

15. Didn't read the article yet, but this is what how it might be

One or both of their families went to this church during their childhood, so they were members that way. And when they decided to marry, it was the natural choice. Lots of people who aren't regular church-goers feel the need to have their marriage sanctioned by clery. Doesn't mean they believe what they teach necessarily.

[MrPrax]

13. Great Point...

Hardly LBN...it's some creepy Nazi Life site... and it's happening in Canada, to 'bout!!

[Canuckistanian]

21. The story is real - I checked it out

There's a real story in the Sarnia Observer, but it's behind a pay-per-view archive service.

Here's what I found:

Pastor rejects gay man in wedding party
A local couple is considering legal action after the pastor at their church refused to marry them because a gay man is in their wedding party. "I'm just furious," says Tamara Bourgeois, 29, who is...
Byline: Cathy Dobson, Source: The Observer
Page: A1 / FRONT, Edition: Final
$4.95 - The Observer (Sarnia) - Fri, Mar 10, 2006 - 515 words

And here's the homophobic bigot:

[Bill McBlueState]

23. thanks!

I stand corrected.

In the US, the church would have a pretty strong case that the First Amendment allows them to be the moral retards they love to be.

Any idea how such a lawsuit might play out in Canada?

That guy looks like a real winner. :sarcasm:

[Canuckistanian]

25. I'm not sure of the legalities

But socially and culturally, we generally don't put up with this kind of bigoty - this guy is goiong to get an earfull from a lot of people.

[bluestateguy]

4. I'm not so sure that a church can be forced to accept anyone

Maybe I'm missing something from the law here, but as a private organization, a church, officiating a private ceremony such as a wedding is permitted to include or exclude who they please. Bigoted as this policy is, I don't see how a church can be forced to be open to people it does not like. A church is not a public place in the same way that a shopping mall or a restaurant is. Just as I think gay marriage should be legal, I would support the right of a church to refuse to recognize or officiate gay marriages.

[goclark]

26. Outrageous!

Minister "God" should be in Court today on this shameful display.

Correct me if I'm wrong, homosexuals make up about 10% of the population.

That must include a lot of people that MINISTER "GOD" doesn't know about that belong to "his" church and take a vow every Sunday to honor the Lord.

These folks are rolling on no IQ, just like their real God Chimpy Bush and his buddy Victor Ashe.

[Strathos]

43. well, according to some we're only 2% of the pop.

However, most of those that believe that also believe Bush was appointed by God. LOL

[goclark]

47. LOL back

What really is the estimate?

[Xithras]

62. All the estimates are disputed.

Kinsey once said that 90-95% of the males in America have some aspect of bisexuality, or some buried attraction towards males that you can uncover if you try hard enough.

The "real" answer depends on how you define gay. The NORC study in 2003 found that about 5% of men reported having sex with another man after the age of 18. Lots of people look at that and claim the 5% number, but the same study found that only 1% of them were exclusively gay, and that about 4% exhibited some degree of bisexuality. Keep in mind that those numbers are nationally averaged too...the numbers are far higher in urban areas, and fall to nearly 0% in rural ones.

If you define "gay" as including everyone seriosuly attracted to the same sex whether or not they act on it, there are several psychological studies that put the number close to 20%

If you define gay as "having had sex with the same sex during the last decade", a 1993 study put the number at about 2% to 3%

Interestingly, if you ASK people how they self-identify (not what they do physically, but how they mentally view themselves), more than 15% of the population admits to some kind of homosexual/bisexual identification, and about 6% openly declare themselves to be gay.

In the 2004 exit polls, one of the questions asked was about the sexual orientation of the voter. About 4% self-identified as gay or bisexual.

In 2005, the British government had to determine how many gays anb bisexuals were in the UK so they could estimate the impact from their new domestic partnership laws. After extensive study, they found the number to be around 6%


So you see, the actual number depends on which survey you believe and how you define gay. If you want to only consider people who exclusively bond with their own sex, the number is probably very low...like 2-3%. If you open it up to bisexuals and dabblers, the number probably jumps to 5-6% (the numbers most commonly used by the media).

Of course, all of these studies are flawed in that they generally look at gay MEN. The numbers of lesbian women are slightly higher, and if you include permanently or ocassionally bisexual women, the number jumps considerably. The largest number I ever saw, which included even women who had one time flings with other women in college, put the number in the mid twenties (though it would probably be a bit higher today).

[goclark]

63. Thanks for that excellent information

I learned a lot.

I hope the stupid minister learns from his experience.

[cboy4]

45. That's fuckin hilarious!! UNACCEPTING CHURCHES....don't you see the

irony in that? :wtf:

Oh My God. Some of you people.

[Critters2]

55. You're right

The courts have ruled consistently that religious organizations can't be made to accept in any functional way people it considers sinful or immoral. Thus, churches are legally entitled to not hire--or to fire--persons who engage in conduct the church considers immoral. If it's true in hiring practices, so much more so for who can participate in weddings.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's legal. These are often two different matters.

[Warpy]

5. Since when are bigotry and intolerance Christian principles?

Didn't Christ hang out with prostitutes, lepers, and poor folks? Wasn't he completely silent on the subject of gays?

I don't know who these folks are worshipping, but it sure isn't Jesus.

[bluerum]

6. What a hypocritical bastard that pastor is.

"But the key to me is that a gay man is standing up in an official capacity. If we allowed that, we'd be sanctioning something in the actual ceremony."

So instead - lets sanction bigotry and discrimination in the ceremony - it's the principled xtian thing to do.

[bluerum]

7. The article does not say it was a gay marriage. It says that one

of the wedding party was gay and that the pastor said that he could not partcipate.

If you are willing to let that this kind of discrimination where will it go - banning blacks? Banning fats? Banning people that don't feel others people should the rights that I have?

Let me know how feel about wearing a yellow D for democrat in your sleeve for democrat when the time comes.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. More important than the dumb wording is the implication of this

sure, the church can reserve the right not to marry gays, but can they bar them from the church entirely for being gay?

[NaturalHigh]

17. Yes, they can.

I'm pretty uncomfortable with someone being able to sue a church because the pastor refused to violate the tenets of his religion. If this story is on the level, this lawsuit will be bounced out of court in record time.

[goclark]

35. Take it to Court, bring on the judge!

Maybe the Judge will be gay and no one knows it.

That would be great!

[NaturalHigh]

37. So you're in favor of suing this church?

Whatever happened to freedom of religion? Does that still mean anything, or only if it's politically correct?

[goclark]

38. Absolutely, that is what Courts are for ~

Since our Supreme Court "overturned" the entire election~

What ever happened to our Democracy on that one?

[NaturalHigh]

39. What does one have to do with the other, Goclark?

I don't believe in the courts telling churches how they must worship. It goes completely against the Constitution and the way this country was founded.

[goclark]

40. And stealing an election goes against the Constitution as well.

[ruggerson]

41. So freedom of religion trumps human rights?

So, let's say some Baptist minister wants to own slaves, because it's in the bible and he believes in it.

He should be allowed to, right?

Any fucked up thing anyone believes in, as long as we slap "religion" on it, becomes sacrosanct?

[NaturalHigh]

49. Terrible comparison.

Of course he should not be allowed to own slaves. However, he should not be forced to participate in or even allow someone to take part in a ceremony INSIDE THE CHURCH if it would violate his beliefs and the creed of that church.

It is not a human right to be allowed to participate in a religious ceremony of a particular church.

[Critters2]

57. All a matter of whose ox is being gored

So, you favor suing this pastor because he violates your sense of human rights. I'm pastor of a gay-freindly, progressive church. What if someone not a member of my church, but at my church for some event, decides that his/her sensibilities/sensitivities are offended by something I say. What if I say, in the pulpit, that gay people should be able to adopt or marry or be ordained, and someone feels somehow hurt by that? Can they sue?

I support the religious freedoms of even fundies to do what they want in their own churches, for purely selfish reasons. My church is in the minority on a lot of issues. I don't want the majority to believe they have the right to tell us how to conduct worship, or run the church.

Freedom for them means freedom for me. So I says that in their own churches they should be allowed to function according to their faith, however narrow-minded.

In this country, people have the right to be wrong.

[cboy4]

44. Are you kidding me or what? Yea, there's freedom of religion, but

lets hear you condemn this pastor's bigoted behavior just so I don't accidentally consider you a bigot.

Cuzz right now....I dunno. Sounds like you dislike gay people to me.

Otherwise you wouldn't so casually disregard this hurtful story. :hi:

[NaturalHigh]

51. I absolutely will NOT condemn what this pastor did.

He is not obligated to allow the participation of an individual in this ceremony if it violates his religious principles and those of (I would imagine) a large majority of his congregation. No law gives anyone the right to participate in a religious ceremony of a particular church, nor should it.

Freedom of religion is not always popular, but it is protected by the Constitution.

[cboy4]

53. The fact that you even had to capitalize NOT in your response

shows your tolerance toward bigotry. Sorry to break the news to you.

Because anyone who is opposed to bigotry could still say, I condemn what this pastor did but he has the right to ban whomever he wants from his church.

Can you imagine if you were invited to a wedding with all of your friends and the pastor told you couldn't come...how embarrassing and perhaps even devastating that would be to someone?

You can't even say that's wrong or mean or awful or sad.....instead, you find the need to defend this disgusting, pathetic excuse of a man of God. :puke:

[NaturalHigh]

56. I'm defending freedom of religion.

That seems to make me an outcast here. Sorry if you think that makes me a bigot, but I'm big on the Constitution and the freedom to worship as you believe.

Edit for typo.

[mondo joe]

60. Let 'em sue if they like. If the 1st amendment covers the church on this

there will be no problem.

[Harper_is_Bush]

50. But allowing a gay person to participate in the church is not

against the tenets of his religion.

Marrying gays is different. The people getting married here are hetero.

[NaturalHigh]

52. Read what the pastor says.

But the key to me is that a gay man is standing up in an official capacity. If we allowed that, we'd be sanctioning something in the actual ceremony.

That's his call or the call of his congregation to make, not yours, not mine, not the government's.

[hughee99]

10. So the pastor is okay with a gay person attending

because "we're all sinners", but wouldn't allow a gay person to stand up in an official capacity, because of their "sin". Are other people who have also "sinned" (in the churches eyes, like gamblers and adulterers, for instance) also prevented from standing up in an official capacity?

[ruggerson]

14. Or gluttons?

Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins, I believe. Far worse than homosexuality.

Yet, most of the fundie preachers I see, like Falwell, are fat fucking pigs.

Wonder how they rationalize that one.















on edit: typo

[Missy Vixen]

58. Uh, those of us who are fat shouldn't be allowed in a church?

>Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins, I believe. Far worse than homosexuality.<

So's pride.

>Yet, most of the fundie preachers I see, like Falwell, are fat fucking pigs.<

I'm a "fat fucking pig," too.

Julie

[habitual]

61. this is precisely the flaw in the pastors argument

Stated: We are all sinners.
Stated: If someone stands up in an official capacity...we'd be sanctioning something.
Conclusion: No sinner may stand in an official capacity without sanctioning something.

Thus it can be concluded that no one at this ceremony will be allowed to stand. The sinful bride must crawl down the aisle, the groom must be kneeling and the flowergirl should do backrolls. The pastor (big sinner) must lie on the alter while performing the vows.

[queenbdem87]

16. For his defense of christian principles?

That is bullshit! Which gay did Jesus hate? Please show me where the stated beliefs and actions of the propagator of the religion this man claims to be following tell people of faith to treat us like shit because we are different? Oh thats right.....he NEVER DOES!

And that, "we are all sinners" bullshit is just an easy scapegoat for people like this pastor who are ACTUALLY doing bad things to other people!

[noonwitch]

18. I think it's rude of the pastor

A wedding party member is not standing in an official church capacity. I don't agree with his and the church's beliefs about homosexuality, but I also don't think that churches' free speech should be stifled.

This is a matter of manners. The pastor should not deny a couple whose marriage is being approved by church's standards the right to have a friend who is gay in the wedding party. I hope the couple stands up to him, finds another church that won't have an issue with it and get married there.

[genie_weenie]

19. This doesn't make sense

Doesn't a church have the "right" to exclude people? A church is not a democracy. A church does not have to believe in tolerance.

I think the earlier posters have it right, this is fishy.

[area51]

20. "One who goes to the gym and gets out of the house?"

LOL.

[Kber]

22. "active homosexual" sounds like he was having sex right then and there

I guess I'd object to that too.

On the other hand, if they mean that he was just standing there and, well, breathing and talking, etc, what business is it of anyones?

Did the pastor question whether there were any adulterers in the party? What about the unmarried party members - were they all virgins? Just asking.

Or is "sin" OK as long as we keep in in the closet?

What a tool to use this couple's wedding as a platform for his hateful agenda.

[Canuckistanian]

34. Just like the old joke

"Do you believe in sex before marriage?"

"Absolutely not! It blocks the aisles..."

[moobu2]

24. I wouldn’t put much faith in this story.

It’s probably a outright lie or the facts are all twisted with the intention of inflaming and dividing people. It’s from Lifesite, which is well known for being a Right-Wing Christian propaganda rag.

It probably never even happened.

[LeftHander]

27. Sounds like a different church is in order....

I would of said...SEE YA....Baptist Church.

[HuffleClaw]

28. eeep, in MY hometown??

i'm appalled, but not surprised. should be interesting to see which prevails, considering our charter of rights and freedoms has both religious and gay rights in it.

[GeorgiaDem69]

30. Well, whether true or not, I don't think its particlarly surprising.

Lots of "Christian" churches are pretty back-asswards re: gays.

[Orsino]

31. Kudos to the prospective bride and groom...

...for taking their business elsewhere when this church tried to treat their friend as a second-class citizen.

[Kailassa]

32. Must keep ALL of God's laws you know

Cos that theres a pretty evil old man up in them there clouds, an if yer durnt do all he arks he's got some pretty fine punishments awaitin yer.

Let's hope the wedding dress was not made of more than one type of fibre, and the wedding was not held on the Sabboth, and they didn't have crayfish or oysters at the reception, cos then God would get Really mad.

The old testament makes perfect sense ...

... if you read it as a novel about the exploits of a tribe of demon-worshippers.

[apnu]

33. This is why we had a civil ceremony.

And when people asked why not a church we said:

1) Because our marriage and its interaction with religion is between us and our gods. We don't want to saddle people from all over the country and different faiths to be bugged by that. (For the record we had: Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, homosexuals, cross-dressers, and atheists at our wedding)
2) The ceremony can be held at the same place as the reception, so you can get to the food and drinks quicker
3) Its cheaper and easier to schedule.

Honestly, this yapping about homosexuals at church is stupid. But then any religion that excludes a certain group of people is stupid, IMO.

[VegasWolf]

36. Nonsense like this is why I stopped believing in any religion 40 years

ago!!!!

[cboy4]

42. "an unrepentant homosexual." Just thought of a new bumper sticker

Thanks for the idea Pastor A-Hole.

I also love "Active Homosexual" ruggerson :rofl:

[Zhade]

46. Hell, I'd be thrice-dissed: queer (bi), fat, AND divorced!

NT!

[rocktivity]

48. I don't see how this was the church's business

If the man had planned to perform the wedding ceremony himself, I could take the church's side. But a member of a wedding party is hardly an "official."

A friend of mine got her gay cousin to escort her down the aisle because she didn't have a father--would this church have prevented THAT?

:headbang:
rocknation

[KansDem]

54. "I wonder if this church bans fat people and divorced people..."

Well, maybe just active fat people and active divorced people...

[MissMillie]

59. "in defense of Christian principles"

There's nothing Christian about those principles. Those are the principles of hate.