An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

[Syriusly]

Actually, no. It reveals your lack of critical thinking skills.

A black man kissing a black man is the same as a black man kissing a white woman?
Homosexuality and interracial issues are the same?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

I am not saying that they are the same- I am saying that rational for either being against the law is the same.

In the states that outlawed mixed race marraiges, the definition of marriage excluded opposite race couples- that changed.

What I have seen homosexual couples claim that they want is to be treated legally the same way my wife and I are treated.

And I think they should be. Just like I think a mixed race couple should be treated just thee same as my wife and I are legally treated.

Syriusly major issue: race and orientation are not on the same levels
race is physical and determined at birth and cannot be changed

orientation is spiritually determined and can change
\.

Rather immaterial to my point, even if I did agree with your claim about orientation.

What I have seen homosexual couples claim that they want is to be treated legally the same way my wife and I are treated.

And I think they should be. Just like I think a mixed race couple should be treated just the same as my wife and I are legally treated

 

[Syriusly]

And your response had nothing to do with the post I was responding to. Don't move any goalposts yourself.

You are intentionally deflecting. You mentioned ISIS, therefore I responded in kind.

Yes- I did mention ISIS- because an idiot claimed that insane Muslims had control of Iraq.

And?

Hence the irony. You speak of ISIS so casually in a thread pertaining to homosexuality. Yet you remained ignorant or chose not to mention the fact they do more than prevent gay marriage, they kill them.

Again so what? Gays aren't supposed to fight for equal rights here because extremist Muslims want to kill us somewhere else? Extremists in most fundamental monotheistic religions want to kill somebody.

How anti-gay Christians evangelize hate abroad - LA Times

Seawytch if Gays were really for equal rights, where is the support for the people who change their lifestyles
and come out heterosexual?

If someone 'changes' their lifestyle from gay to straight or straight to gay- I still think that they should be treated equally when it comes to marriage.

We are talking marriage- and I think that gay couples and straight couples should be treated exactly equally under the law.

Its that simple.

 

[Syriusly]

For now two decades, I have explained to anyone that would listen that every one of the would-be issues brought by the ANSA cult, can readily be resolved through simple Incorporation.

From "The Right to visit in Hospital" to shared Retirement, etc... ALL of these can be secured by simply forming a LLC, citing the officers and binding assets. The response is then 'such wouldn't do this and that', which simply requires redress with their legislators for a modified entity specifically providing for whatever the hell they want... which could easily be had and HAD they gone that route would be OLD News by now.

But... without exception... the ANSA cult REJECTED that idea. Because: It's NOT MARRIAGE.

And it is from those many hundreds if not thousands of debates, that I conclude that the issue is 'Legitimacy'. And they NEED to legitimacy, personally and individually, as the seawitch demonstrated earlier, but more importantly, the MOVEMENT needs it, because the goal f the movement is vastly more sinister.

The Movement needs it to undermine the legitimacy of marriage.

So... therein, lies your problem Emily.

The individuals of the movement are truly at cross purposes with the movement itself. Much as the Individual Muslim is at cross purposes with the Islamic cult.

I know in my personal situation, my wife and I have been married for over 35 years... . My wife feels that the formality of marriage is important and I couldn't care less. We are one entity... and anyone that gets between us, has a real problem on their hands. Mess with her, you've messed with my wife and odds are recovery is going to be extensive...

If marriage was OUTLAWED tomorrow, that would not change our life one iota. We are one man and woman, who have joined together and we don't ask for, or otherwise require anyone's permission to do that, to which we are entitled.

And ya see... THAT is the difference between > being < rightfully entitled and WANTING to be rightfully entitled.

Anywho... good luck with your pursuit.

I applaud what you did, and ask you to please let me post that online
and keep endorsing such as a solution.

You were ahead of your time, and this is needed in order to be prepared
when everyone else catches up with you.

I also have been fighting for Constitutional equal protections and mediation
for over 15 years, LONG before all this other stuff imploded on a national level.
So solutions I supported compiling locally now applies collectively on a broader scale.

I think the same must be true of you and where all this is heading.

We cannot change natural laws. We cannot change people's beliefs.
So there will be too many people who REFUSE to let other people's beliefs override theirs.

This has to be kept either out of govt, or AGREE how to write the laws neutrally.
I think the laws can be written where they don't push gay marriage but don't exclude it.

And if not, this will have to be removed from the state level, or people will keep fighting and fighting because they cannot HELP their beliefs and cannot CHANGE them. It is CRUEL to keep pitting people up to fight for their beliefs that should be treated equally. So both sets of beliefs must be accommodated equally or keep them both out of the state, period. No one is going to change their minds, and dang sure NOT going to agree to GOVT being abused to force them to.

I think you would see MORE people going through spiritual healing and getting OUT of their
gay lifestyle than you would see people "get over" gay marriage and agree to let that in state laws. Church laws yes, but not state laws.

I think you would sooner see Atheists getting over crosses and God, which can potentially be proven to include them and not to be against them, before you see people getting over gay marriage where not all cases can be proven to be spiritually natural.

Thank you... I felt it was a strong idea, but also the purest essence of the absolute obvious.

I pray that your thesis is correct and that there's time to hash it out, but I fear there is not. I honestly do not see this ending well.

But... I as you say, the story has already been written... all we're doing here, is working out which of the edited cuts we experience.

What I don't think has been tried yet
is to lay the alternative on the table:
and to REMOVE marriage from the state and only have civil unions/contracts for EVERYONE
if that's the only way to be equal and not violate people's beliefs who don't separate church from state.

Instead of just offering this "civil unions" for gays, secularize "marriage" for all people
and keep marriage private.

Heck I'd be the first to sue for this.
Sue to separate it by party or whatever to stop the protests back and forth
and lawsuits that cost taxpayers and the fights in legislatures that waste public resources on BELIEFS.

Either keep them in private, in church or by party, but not fighting to override
others and bully BELIEFS through the govt.

Same with ACA and the 24 billion cost to taxpayers of the deadlock over two equal political beliefs.
Why not sue to get that out of govt and to demand a refund of money wasted on it, and invest
that into VA reform, prison reforms and health care for everyone based on stopping govt waste.

How about if I happen to want a marriage? Not a civil union? What business is it of anyone if I, as a heterosexual, or gay folk, want a marriage license?

Why can't folk mind their own damn business?

They make it our business if when married, they suddenly find it necessary to impose themselves on people with deeply held religious beliefs. That marriage license becomes a weapon, not a symbol of love.

And by 'imposing' you mean asking to be treated equally under the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I applaud what you did, and ask you to please let me post that online
and keep endorsing such as a solution.

You were ahead of your time, and this is needed in order to be prepared
when everyone else catches up with you.

I also have been fighting for Constitutional equal protections and mediation
for over 15 years, LONG before all this other stuff imploded on a national level.
So solutions I supported compiling locally now applies collectively on a broader scale.

I think the same must be true of you and where all this is heading.

We cannot change natural laws. We cannot change people's beliefs.
So there will be too many people who REFUSE to let other people's beliefs override theirs.

This has to be kept either out of govt, or AGREE how to write the laws neutrally.
I think the laws can be written where they don't push gay marriage but don't exclude it.

And if not, this will have to be removed from the state level, or people will keep fighting and fighting because they cannot HELP their beliefs and cannot CHANGE them. It is CRUEL to keep pitting people up to fight for their beliefs that should be treated equally. So both sets of beliefs must be accommodated equally or keep them both out of the state, period. No one is going to change their minds, and dang sure NOT going to agree to GOVT being abused to force them to.

I think you would see MORE people going through spiritual healing and getting OUT of their
gay lifestyle than you would see people "get over" gay marriage and agree to let that in state laws. Church laws yes, but not state laws.

I think you would sooner see Atheists getting over crosses and God, which can potentially be proven to include them and not to be against them, before you see people getting over gay marriage where not all cases can be proven to be spiritually natural.

Thank you... I felt it was a strong idea, but also the purest essence of the absolute obvious.

I pray that your thesis is correct and that there's time to hash it out, but I fear there is not. I honestly do not see this ending well.

But... I as you say, the story has already been written... all we're doing here, is working out which of the edited cuts we experience.

What I don't think has been tried yet
is to lay the alternative on the table:
and to REMOVE marriage from the state and only have civil unions/contracts for EVERYONE
if that's the only way to be equal and not violate people's beliefs who don't separate church from state.

Instead of just offering this "civil unions" for gays, secularize "marriage" for all people
and keep marriage private.

Heck I'd be the first to sue for this.
Sue to separate it by party or whatever to stop the protests back and forth
and lawsuits that cost taxpayers and the fights in legislatures that waste public resources on BELIEFS.

Either keep them in private, in church or by party, but not fighting to override
others and bully BELIEFS through the govt.

Same with ACA and the 24 billion cost to taxpayers of the deadlock over two equal political beliefs.
Why not sue to get that out of govt and to demand a refund of money wasted on it, and invest
that into VA reform, prison reforms and health care for everyone based on stopping govt waste.

How about if I happen to want a marriage? Not a civil union? What business is it of anyone if I, as a heterosexual, or gay folk, want a marriage license?

Why can't folk mind their own damn business?

They make it our business if when married, they suddenly find it necessary to impose themselves on people with deeply held religious beliefs. That marriage license becomes a weapon, not a symbol of love.

And by 'imposing' you mean asking to be treated equally under the law.

No, imposing as in forcing your beliefs on someone else, and that someone else not having a say in the matter. It does work both ways, does it not?

 

[Syriusly]

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

It wasn't redefined when blacks could marry whites and it is not redefined because women can marry women.

One was discrimination based on race, the other gender.

There was no need to redefine it when blacks could marry whites. It was still a MAN and a WOMAN.
...as usually ends a marriage ceremony,
"I now pronounce you Husband and Wife."

Which one of you wants to be the Husband?

There's no need to 'redefine' marriage when same-sex couples marry.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, just as the marriage law is written now, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

C_Clayton_Jones
If the point is the civil union and contract
then why can't that language be agreed upon?

That might have been an interesting discussion 10 years ago- when a civil union might have been acceptable as 'seperate but equal' but same gender marriage is legal in 37 states right now- no need to go backwards.

 

[Syriusly]

Thank you... I felt it was a strong idea, but also the purest essence of the absolute obvious.

I pray that your thesis is correct and that there's time to hash it out, but I fear there is not. I honestly do not see this ending well.

But... I as you say, the story has already been written... all we're doing here, is working out which of the edited cuts we experience.

What I don't think has been tried yet
is to lay the alternative on the table:
and to REMOVE marriage from the state and only have civil unions/contracts for EVERYONE
if that's the only way to be equal and not violate people's beliefs who don't separate church from state.

Instead of just offering this "civil unions" for gays, secularize "marriage" for all people
and keep marriage private.

Heck I'd be the first to sue for this.
Sue to separate it by party or whatever to stop the protests back and forth
and lawsuits that cost taxpayers and the fights in legislatures that waste public resources on BELIEFS.

Either keep them in private, in church or by party, but not fighting to override
others and bully BELIEFS through the govt.

Same with ACA and the 24 billion cost to taxpayers of the deadlock over two equal political beliefs.
Why not sue to get that out of govt and to demand a refund of money wasted on it, and invest
that into VA reform, prison reforms and health care for everyone based on stopping govt waste.

How about if I happen to want a marriage? Not a civil union? What business is it of anyone if I, as a heterosexual, or gay folk, want a marriage license?

Why can't folk mind their own damn business?

They make it our business if when married, they suddenly find it necessary to impose themselves on people with deeply held religious beliefs. That marriage license becomes a weapon, not a symbol of love.

And by 'imposing' you mean asking to be treated equally under the law.

No, imposing as in forcing your beliefs on someone else, and that someone else not having a say in the matter. It does work both ways, does it not?

No one is forcing any belief on anyone.

Business's are being told that they can't violate the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

It wasn't redefined when blacks could marry whites and it is not redefined because women can marry women.

One was discrimination based on race, the other gender.

There was no need to redefine it when blacks could marry whites. It was still a MAN and a WOMAN.
...as usually ends a marriage ceremony,
"I now pronounce you Husband and Wife."

Which one of you wants to be the Husband?

There's no need to 'redefine' marriage when same-sex couples marry.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, just as the marriage law is written now, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

C_Clayton_Jones
If the point is the civil union and contract
then why can't that language be agreed upon?

That might have been an interesting discussion 10 years ago- when a civil union might have been acceptable as 'seperate but equal' but same gender marriage is legal in 37 states right now- no need to go backwards.

We already have. Religious beliefs are no longer considered relevant, something to be overridden in a small circumstance, i.e. Baronelle Stutzman.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What I don't think has been tried yet
is to lay the alternative on the table:
and to REMOVE marriage from the state and only have civil unions/contracts for EVERYONE
if that's the only way to be equal and not violate people's beliefs who don't separate church from state.

Instead of just offering this "civil unions" for gays, secularize "marriage" for all people
and keep marriage private.

Heck I'd be the first to sue for this.
Sue to separate it by party or whatever to stop the protests back and forth
and lawsuits that cost taxpayers and the fights in legislatures that waste public resources on BELIEFS.

Either keep them in private, in church or by party, but not fighting to override
others and bully BELIEFS through the govt.

Same with ACA and the 24 billion cost to taxpayers of the deadlock over two equal political beliefs.
Why not sue to get that out of govt and to demand a refund of money wasted on it, and invest
that into VA reform, prison reforms and health care for everyone based on stopping govt waste.

How about if I happen to want a marriage? Not a civil union? What business is it of anyone if I, as a heterosexual, or gay folk, want a marriage license?

Why can't folk mind their own damn business?

They make it our business if when married, they suddenly find it necessary to impose themselves on people with deeply held religious beliefs. That marriage license becomes a weapon, not a symbol of love.

And by 'imposing' you mean asking to be treated equally under the law.

No, imposing as in forcing your beliefs on someone else, and that someone else not having a say in the matter. It does work both ways, does it not?

Business's are being told that they can't violate the law.

No, they are being told to violate their religious beliefs. See the difference?

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, no. It reveals your lack of critical thinking skills.

A black man kissing a black man is the same as a black man kissing a white woman?
Homosexuality and interracial issues are the same?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

I am not saying that they are the same- I am saying that rational for either being against the law is the same.

In the states that outlawed mixed race marraiges, the definition of marriage excluded opposite race couples- that changed.

What I have seen homosexual couples claim that they want is to be treated legally the same way my wife and I are treated.

And I think they should be. Just like I think a mixed race couple should be treated just thee same as my wife and I are legally treated.

...and I think homosexual couples should be treated legally the same way my wives and I were legally treated. They just don't NEED to be called "married". At least not in the sense that the government benefits are concerned.

Yet the drive is to make society accept the redefinition by having the government pass a law concerning morality. You can't legislate morality.

My wife and I were legally married- being treated equally is being legally married.

No one is going to be forced into gay marriages- no one else's morality is threatened if Bob and Bill are issued the same marriage license as my wife and I were issued.

 

[Syriusly]

How about if I happen to want a marriage? Not a civil union? What business is it of anyone if I, as a heterosexual, or gay folk, want a marriage license?

Why can't folk mind their own damn business?

They make it our business if when married, they suddenly find it necessary to impose themselves on people with deeply held religious beliefs. That marriage license becomes a weapon, not a symbol of love.

And by 'imposing' you mean asking to be treated equally under the law.

No, imposing as in forcing your beliefs on someone else, and that someone else not having a say in the matter. It does work both ways, does it not?

No one is forcing any belief on anyone.

Business's are being told that they can't violate the law.

No, they are being told to violate their religious beliefs. See the difference?

No- business's are being told that they can't violate the law- doesn't matter what the business's owner's religious beliefs are.

If the business owner is a kosher butcher, and he believes that his faith says that he must slaughter his animals in his shop- but local ordinances forbid the killing of livestock in that zone- he can't claim that he can violate the law because of his religion.

A Muslim can't refuse to serve a Jew by claiming that its against his religious beliefs. A Catholic can't refuse to serve a Mormon by claiming it would violate his religious beliefs.

The law is applied equally to all business'

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the business owner is a kosher butcher, and he believes that his faith says that he must slaughter his animals in his shop- but local ordinances forbid the killing of livestock in that zone- he can't claim that he can violate the law because of his religion.

That's just it. The law gets to define when and where you can exercise your religious beliefs. The law isn't perfect.

A Muslim can't refuse to serve a Jew by claiming that its against his religious beliefs. A Catholic can't refuse to serve a Mormon by claiming it would violate his religious beliefs.

Sorry, but they can and will. It might be wrong, but it is their right.

 

[Syriusly]

For now two decades, I have explained to anyone that would listen that every one of the would-be issues brought by the ANSA cult, can readily be resolved through simple Incorporation.

From "The Right to visit in Hospital" to shared Retirement, etc... ALL of these can be secured by simply forming a LLC, citing the officers and binding assets. The response is then 'such wouldn't do this and that', which simply requires redress with their legislators for a modified entity specifically providing for whatever the hell they want... which could easily be had and HAD they gone that route would be OLD News by now.

But... without exception... the ANSA cult REJECTED that idea. Because: It's NOT MARRIAGE.

And it is from those many hundreds if not thousands of debates, that I conclude that the issue is 'Legitimacy'. And they NEED to legitimacy, personally and individually, as the seawitch demonstrated earlier, but more importantly, the MOVEMENT needs it, because the goal f the movement is vastly more sinister.

The Movement needs it to undermine the legitimacy of marriage.

So... therein, lies your problem Emily.

The individuals of the movement are truly at cross purposes with the movement itself. Much as the Individual Muslim is at cross purposes with the Islamic cult.

I know in my personal situation, my wife and I have been married for over 35 years... . My wife feels that the formality of marriage is important and I couldn't care less. We are one entity... and anyone that gets between us, has a real problem on their hands. Mess with her, you've messed with my wife and odds are recovery is going to be extensive...

If marriage was OUTLAWED tomorrow, that would not change our life one iota. We are one man and woman, who have joined together and we don't ask for, or otherwise require anyone's permission to do that, to which we are entitled.

And ya see... THAT is the difference between > being < rightfully entitled and WANTING to be rightfully entitled.

Anywho... good luck with your pursuit.

I applaud what you did, and ask you to please let me post that online
and keep endorsing such as a solution.

You were ahead of your time, and this is needed in order to be prepared
when everyone else catches up with you.

I also have been fighting for Constitutional equal protections and mediation
for over 15 years, LONG before all this other stuff imploded on a national level.
So solutions I supported compiling locally now applies collectively on a broader scale.

I think the same must be true of you and where all this is heading.

We cannot change natural laws. We cannot change people's beliefs.
So there will be too many people who REFUSE to let other people's beliefs override theirs.

This has to be kept either out of govt, or AGREE how to write the laws neutrally.
I think the laws can be written where they don't push gay marriage but don't exclude it.

And if not, this will have to be removed from the state level, or people will keep fighting and fighting because they cannot HELP their beliefs and cannot CHANGE them. It is CRUEL to keep pitting people up to fight for their beliefs that should be treated equally. So both sets of beliefs must be accommodated equally or keep them both out of the state, period. No one is going to change their minds, and dang sure NOT going to agree to GOVT being abused to force them to.

I think you would see MORE people going through spiritual healing and getting OUT of their
gay lifestyle than you would see people "get over" gay marriage and agree to let that in state laws. Church laws yes, but not state laws.

I think you would sooner see Atheists getting over crosses and God, which can potentially be proven to include them and not to be against them, before you see people getting over gay marriage where not all cases can be proven to be spiritually natural.

Thank you... I felt it was a strong idea, but also the purest essence of the absolute obvious.

I pray that your thesis is correct and that there's time to hash it out, but I fear there is not. I honestly do not see this ending well.

But... I as you say, the story has already been written... all we're doing here, is working out which of the edited cuts we experience.

What I don't think has been tried yet
is to lay the alternative on the table:
and to REMOVE marriage from the state and only have civil unions/contracts for EVERYONE
if that's the only way to be equal and not violate people's beliefs who don't separate church from state.

Instead of just offering this "civil unions" for gays, secularize "marriage" for all people
and keep marriage private.

Heck I'd be the first to sue for this.
Sue to separate it by party or whatever to stop the protests back and forth
and lawsuits that cost taxpayers and the fights in legislatures that waste public resources on BELIEFS.

Either keep them in private, in church or by party, but not fighting to override
others and bully BELIEFS through the govt.

Same with ACA and the 24 billion cost to taxpayers of the deadlock over two equal political beliefs.
Why not sue to get that out of govt and to demand a refund of money wasted on it, and invest
that into VA reform, prison reforms and health care for everyone based on stopping govt waste.

How about if I happen to want a marriage? Not a civil union? What business is it of anyone if I, as a heterosexual, or gay folk, want a marriage license?

Why can't folk mind their own damn business?

Then make it the SAME. If Nobody endorses their marriage through the State,
then it's equal. Just stick to civil contracts, keep it secular.

If you want to push to eliminate legal marriage go for it.

Just don't use that as an excuse to treat gay couples legally differently than straight couples.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The law is applied equally to all business'

I'm sorry, but they aren't.

 

[Syriusly]

If the business owner is a kosher butcher, and he believes that his faith says that he must slaughter his animals in his shop- but local ordinances forbid the killing of livestock in that zone- he can't claim that he can violate the law because of his religion.

That's just it. The law gets to define when and where you can exercise your religious beliefs. The law isn't perfect.

A Muslim can't refuse to serve a Jew by claiming that its against his religious beliefs. A Catholic can't refuse to serve a Mormon by claiming it would violate his religious beliefs.

Sorry, but they can and will. It might be wrong, but it is their right.

Their right?

No- not their right- but of course people can break the law using religion as an excuse- there are parents who have killed their children using religion as an excuse.

But its not a right- they are breaking the law- if anyone chooses to break the law, then they are subject to the penalties for breaking that law- just like anyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

The law is applied equally to all business'

I'm sorry, but they aren't.

Well you are sorry, and you are wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

I am off to bed- you can argue that Christians need special exemptions from the law without me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The law is applied equally to all business'

I'm sorry, but they aren't.

Well you are sorry, and you are wrong.

Eh, okay. So tell me when any law has been exactly and equally applied.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am off to bed- you can argue that Christians need special exemptions from the law without me.

You can dream that gays deserve the right to impose their ways of life on Christians also. Sleep well. You need it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

same gender marriage is legal in 37 states right now- no need to go backwards.

ROFLMNAO!

I love this nonsense.

They deceitfully use this '37 states' crap as a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant into 'believing' that the majority of people in 37 states 'voted to normalize sexual abnormality'. Which did NOT happen.

In truth, the vast majority of people in the vast majority of the state, elected the vast majority of the legislators who passed bills to recognize the natural standards of marriage, wherein marriage is defined as the joining of one man and one woman... which was signed into law, often AMENDING STATE CONSTITUTIONS... by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS... which was 'over-turned' by -A- Federal Judge, with absolutely NO Valid basis in law... on PURELY SUBJECTIVE GROUNDS.

LOL! A Supreme Court Judge recently stated her own, prejudiced view, wherein she claimed that 'popularity is sufficient grounds for Federal Judicial correction of State Law...'.

Meaning that she is claiming that pop-culture polling, trumps:

The vast majority of people.

in the vast majority of the states...

who elected the vast majority of the legislators...

who passed bills to recognize the natural standards of marriage, wherein marriage is defined as the joining of one man and one woman...

which was signed into law by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS...

Which for those keeping score, is a US Supreme Court Justice claiming that Virtual, Subjective Popularity trumps LITERAL, OBJECTIVE, LEGISLATIVELY PROVEN POPULARITY.

IT IS INSANITY!

What's more, the Judge, a known active, severe alcoholic, thus a person presently suffering a mental disorder, admits publicly that her reasoning is addled and that she presently possesses firmly established prejudices, on a case of which she is about to sit in judgment.

In any sense of reality, she cannot fairly hear arguments on that case... as she is incapable of being objective, having already made up her mind on the matter, and done so through the most LUDICROUS reasoning.

But, at the end of the day, nature created humanity and the laws that govern such, define marriage as the joining of one man and one woman.

But that's doesn't mean that human governance can't prescribe a means for the sexually abnormal to join together as a group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person), which is recognized as such in law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

They make it our business if when married, they suddenly find it necessary to impose themselves on people with deeply held religious beliefs. That marriage license becomes a weapon, not a symbol of love.

And by 'imposing' you mean asking to be treated equally under the law.

No, imposing as in forcing your beliefs on someone else, and that someone else not having a say in the matter. It does work both ways, does it not?

No one is forcing any belief on anyone.

Business's are being told that they can't violate the law.

No, they are being told to violate their religious beliefs. See the difference?

No- business's are being told that they can't violate the law- doesn't matter what the business's owner's religious beliefs are.

If the business owner is a kosher butcher, and he believes that his faith says that he must slaughter his animals in his shop- but local ordinances forbid the killing of livestock in that zone- he can't claim that he can violate the law because of his religion.

A Muslim can't refuse to serve a Jew by claiming that its against his religious beliefs. A Catholic can't refuse to serve a Mormon by claiming it would violate his religious beliefs.

The law is applied equally to all business'

So if the law is that say... well, let's say that the law says that owning a human being is legal and helping those people who are the property of other people, to flee from their bondage... You're saying that it would be wrong for those people who disagree with that, to say... help those who are enslaved, to find freedom?

REALLY?

You're saying that 'THE LAW' is the law and rejecting the law is wrong?

But THAT would mean that the Federal judiciary was wrong, when it overturned the law in the vast majority of the states, which recognized and sustained the natural standard of marriage...

I mean, that's just one person saying that the vast majority of the people were wrong... just like that florist did, except that florist didn't proclaim that EVERYONE in her state couldn't sell flowers to celebrate that which she 'felt' was wrong... she just said "Not me... ."

You seem very confused about this stuff.