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

[SassyIrishLass]

What are you talking about? I'm referring to those who want to go beyond that, by wanting stop any speech against homosexuality, forcing tolerance on people whether they want to or not. Discrimination is wrong don't misunderstand me, but so is subversion. People can use the law to influence opinion, or even downright suppress it.

What laws have been suggested making speech against homosexuals illegal?

What does "forcing tolerance" even mean?

Ever hear of militant activism?

"Accept us or be destroyed."

I ask again, what laws have been seriously suggested that would make speech against homosexuals illegal?

Perhaps you weren't paying attention when this happened in Houston:

City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons Fox News

Or when the House tried to in essence, tried muzzle Christian pastors who preached against gay marriage by passing a so called "Hate Crimes" bill in 2009, known as H.R. 1913. It never passed the Senate.

Text of H.R. 1913 111th Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 Referred to Senate Committee version - GovTrack.us

And just last year, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts proposed the Hate Crimes Reporting Act, specifically directed at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, in which it would have directed them to

... analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate, as described in the Hate Crime Statistics Act...

and

... include any recommendations, consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that the NTIA determines are appropriate and necessary to address the use of telecommunications...

The opening text of that bill also states:

"To require the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to update a report on the role of telecommunications, including the Internet, in the commission of hate crimes."

http://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2014-04-08_HateCrimes_Legislation1.pdf

So, have I made myself clear now?

So...what happened to all those "laws"? Tell us. Where are they currently in force?

Christ fulfilled the prophecy. Got a headache yet?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

All churches are pretend

Thanks for your opinion

You mean, like your opinion about what is and is not a christian church.

That Bible you quoted earlier calls what you do an abomination...think about it

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

Old Covenant, it was done away with by the New Covenant and it was also Mosaic Law which only applied
to Jews, you've been crushed and your Biblical knowledge is laughable

The verses calling homosexuality an "abomination" are also Mosaic law.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I think Bodey went to Catholic school and the Nuns damaged her. I have watched her go after catholics with angry foaming fever.

She's a lighweight

 

[bodecea]

I think Bodey went to Catholic school and the Nuns damaged her. I have watched her go after catholics with angry foaming fever.

There you are, trying to "think" again. You keep on defending the Catholic Hierarchy and their long-term protection of pedophile priests.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Thanks for your opinion

You mean, like your opinion about what is and is not a christian church.

That Bible you quoted earlier calls what you do an abomination...think about it

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

Old Covenant, it was done away with by the New Covenant and it was also Mosaic Law which only applied
to Jews, you've been crushed and your Biblical knowledge is laughable

The verses calling homosexuality an "abomination" are also Mosaic law.

Except that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. Keep trying old fool

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thanks for your opinion

You mean, like your opinion about what is and is not a christian church.

That Bible you quoted earlier calls what you do an abomination...think about it

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

And shell fish is a major no no....and divorce gives you a one-way ticket to damnation.

Once again, Mosaic Law, part of the Old Covenant and replaced by the New Covenant. You'd be wise to hone up on the Bible before trying to use it against a Christian

And you'd be wise to learn about the 14th Amendment and its case law before trying to discriminate against gay Americans.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Like I said in our previous discussion, I have read the decision more times than I care to. That decision has wide ranging implications on Federal law regarding discrimination and religious conviction. People can now freely exempt themselves from laws they deem violate their religious convictions. Solid case.

However, isn't it ironic that when I'm seriously trying to address your posts, you accuse me of not reading your posts "in context"? So do you want me to read them in your context? That's not how it works, sir.

Accusing me of nonsensical logical fallacies, cutting my posts up looking for a "gotcha", etc are not "seriously trying to address my posts".

And as I've said in other threads, the Hobby Lobby is nowhere near as broad a decision as you seem to think. It wouldn't make murder legal if someone claimed it was part of their religion, for example.

I'm not looking for anything except a good debate. As far as Hobby Lobby goes, I'm not talking out of my backside here. The scope is very wide:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/u...have-reach-far-beyond-womens-rights.html?_r=0

Religion run amok Hobby Lobby apos s case comes to the Supreme Court - LA Times

And that last sentence is reductio ad absurdum. You resort to extremes to pose an argument. Also, notice how I quoted your post in it's entirety. I multiquote for a reason, because trying to address an essay is a bit hard to do. They have multiple points I want to address, so I quote them point by point. I have no intention of blowing anything out of context.

I used an absurd example to show that your interpretation of the decision ("People can now freely exempt themselves from laws they deem violate their religious convictions. Solid case.") was absurd.

It isn't. You can call it absurd all you want to, but having a general sense of how the law actually works, I can tell you for a fact that this ruling will impact federal law regarding discrimination against homosexuals. Trust me, I know.

The law specifically impacted will be this one:

42 U.S.C. 2000a

(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

It can be gleaned here that people can and will file for an exemption based on this law, because such compliance would violate their religious beliefs, they will cite the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case as precedent.

Filing an "exemption" is not the same as receiving one.

And please don't try to act like an expert on the law. I know you're not a lawyer, you're no more an expert on how the law works than any of us are.

You don't need to be a lawyer to know about the law. But you seem to think you are an expert on Supreme Court rulings, so please, be my guest and show me why the scope of this SCOTUS ruling will only be limited to contraception?

Moreover, simply filing an exemption will, in the process of consideration, allow the proprietor to continue his or her desired practice unless granted a reprieve or denied and ordered to comply with the law. Simple.

 

[NLT]

I think Bodey went to Catholic school and the Nuns damaged her. I have watched her go after catholics with angry foaming fever.

There you are, trying to "think" again. You keep on defending the Catholic Hierarchy and their long-term protection of pedophile priests.

No I dont, stop lying. Post a link where I have defended any pedophile. When you are losing, do you allways resort to lying?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I think Bodey went to Catholic school and the Nuns damaged her. I have watched her go after catholics with angry foaming fever.

There you are, trying to "think" again. You keep on defending the Catholic Hierarchy and their long-term protection of pedophile priests.

The percentage of pedophile priests in the Church is lower than in the general population

 

[theDoctorisIn]

All churches are pretend

Thanks for your opinion

You mean, like your opinion about what is and is not a christian church.

That Bible you quoted earlier calls what you do an abomination...think about it

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

See, another attack on christians, Dr. Quack is not fooling anyone. Go tell your christian gay friends how thier religion is bs.

How is paraphrasing the Old testament an "attack" on Christians?

I didn't realize you were so sensative. Do you need a hug?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You mean, like your opinion about what is and is not a christian church.

That Bible you quoted earlier calls what you do an abomination...think about it

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

Old Covenant, it was done away with by the New Covenant and it was also Mosaic Law which only applied
to Jews, you've been crushed and your Biblical knowledge is laughable

The verses calling homosexuality an "abomination" are also Mosaic law.

Except that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. Keep trying old fool

Quote?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You mean, like your opinion about what is and is not a christian church.

That Bible you quoted earlier calls what you do an abomination...think about it

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

And shell fish is a major no no....and divorce gives you a one-way ticket to damnation.

Once again, Mosaic Law, part of the Old Covenant and replaced by the New Covenant. You'd be wise to hone up on the Bible before trying to use it against a Christian

And you'd be wise to learn about the 14th Amendment and its case law before trying to discriminate against gay Americans.

The 14th mentions homos? Where?

 

[rightwinger]

Our first marriage, in 1990, was in a Christian church with a minister, etc.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you mean pretend marriage in a pretend Christian "church"

All churches are pretend

Thanks for your opinion

Your "faith" has no more credibility than anyone else's faith

Why don't you sit this one out ankle snapper?

Quitting so easily?

Your personal faith is based on hatred of others. I have faith that God hates you

 

[bodecea]

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

Old Covenant, it was done away with by the New Covenant and it was also Mosaic Law which only applied
to Jews, you've been crushed and your Biblical knowledge is laughable

Yeah yeah yeah....we've heard that before...the OT doesn't matter unless when it does.

Not Testaments...Covenants. You're really not very good at this are you?

Says the member of Our Lady of St. Lubys who didn't even know what the bible said about S & G and why they were "destroyed".

I know exactly why it was destroyed, it's you trying to use the GLAAD talking points

So you know this:
What was the sin or sins of Sodom and Gomorrah

In ancient Jewish literature, such as the Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud, there are many references to Sodom. The phrase"middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the way the people of Sodom thought". It meant a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc. In the Middle East, a person's survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty of paramount importance. See Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.

Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorrah in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.

Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.

Ezekeiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.

Now...how about you give me the quotes from the bible that state they were destroyed based on homosexuality.

 

[NLT]

Accusing me of nonsensical logical fallacies, cutting my posts up looking for a "gotcha", etc are not "seriously trying to address my posts".

And as I've said in other threads, the Hobby Lobby is nowhere near as broad a decision as you seem to think. It wouldn't make murder legal if someone claimed it was part of their religion, for example.

I'm not looking for anything except a good debate. As far as Hobby Lobby goes, I'm not talking out of my backside here. The scope is very wide:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/u...have-reach-far-beyond-womens-rights.html?_r=0

Religion run amok Hobby Lobby apos s case comes to the Supreme Court - LA Times

And that last sentence is reductio ad absurdum. You resort to extremes to pose an argument. Also, notice how I quoted your post in it's entirety. I multiquote for a reason, because trying to address an essay is a bit hard to do. They have multiple points I want to address, so I quote them point by point. I have no intention of blowing anything out of context.

I used an absurd example to show that your interpretation of the decision ("People can now freely exempt themselves from laws they deem violate their religious convictions. Solid case.") was absurd.

It isn't. You can call it absurd all you want to, but having a general sense of how the law actually works, I can tell you for a fact that this ruling will impact federal law regarding discrimination against homosexuals. Trust me, I know.

The law specifically impacted will be this one:

42 U.S.C. 2000a

(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

It can be gleaned here that people can and will file for an exemption based on this law, because such compliance would violate their religious beliefs, they will cite the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case as precedent.

Filing an "exemption" is not the same as receiving one.

And please don't try to act like an expert on the law. I know you're not a lawyer, you're no more an expert on how the law works than any of us are.

You don't need to be a lawyer to know about the law. But you seem to think you are an expert on Supreme Court rulings, so please, be my guest and show me why the scope of this SCOTUS ruling will only be limited to contraception?

Moreover, simply filing an exemption will, in the process of consideration, allow the proprietor to continue his or her desired practice unless granted a reprieve or denied and ordered to comply with the law. Simple.

Dr.Quack thinks he is an expert on every thing, haven't you noticed?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That Bible you quoted earlier calls what you do an abomination...think about it

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

Old Covenant, it was done away with by the New Covenant and it was also Mosaic Law which only applied
to Jews, you've been crushed and your Biblical knowledge is laughable

The verses calling homosexuality an "abomination" are also Mosaic law.

Except that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. Keep trying old fool

Quote?

Romans Chapter 1
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[rightwinger]

That Bible you quoted earlier calls what you do an abomination...think about it

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

And shell fish is a major no no....and divorce gives you a one-way ticket to damnation.

Once again, Mosaic Law, part of the Old Covenant and replaced by the New Covenant. You'd be wise to hone up on the Bible before trying to use it against a Christian

And you'd be wise to learn about the 14th Amendment and its case law before trying to discriminate against gay Americans.

The 14th mentions homos? Where?

Something about all persons

Do you know what a person is?

 

[NLT]

I think Bodey went to Catholic school and the Nuns damaged her. I have watched her go after catholics with angry foaming fever.

There you are, trying to "think" again. You keep on defending the Catholic Hierarchy and their long-term protection of pedophile priests.

The percentage of pedophile priests in the Church is lower than in the general population

and lower than the percentage in the gay population

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm not looking for anything except a good debate. As far as Hobby Lobby goes, I'm not talking out of my backside here. The scope is very wide:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/u...have-reach-far-beyond-womens-rights.html?_r=0

Religion run amok Hobby Lobby apos s case comes to the Supreme Court - LA Times

And that last sentence is reductio ad absurdum. You resort to extremes to pose an argument. Also, notice how I quoted your post in it's entirety. I multiquote for a reason, because trying to address an essay is a bit hard to do. They have multiple points I want to address, so I quote them point by point. I have no intention of blowing anything out of context.

I used an absurd example to show that your interpretation of the decision ("People can now freely exempt themselves from laws they deem violate their religious convictions. Solid case.") was absurd.

It isn't. You can call it absurd all you want to, but having a general sense of how the law actually works, I can tell you for a fact that this ruling will impact federal law regarding discrimination against homosexuals. Trust me, I know.

The law specifically impacted will be this one:

42 U.S.C. 2000a

(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

It can be gleaned here that people can and will file for an exemption based on this law, because such compliance would violate their religious beliefs, they will cite the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case as precedent.

Filing an "exemption" is not the same as receiving one.

And please don't try to act like an expert on the law. I know you're not a lawyer, you're no more an expert on how the law works than any of us are.

You don't need to be a lawyer to know about the law. But you seem to think you are an expert on Supreme Court rulings, so please, be my guest and show me why the scope of this SCOTUS ruling will only be limited to contraception?

Moreover, simply filing an exemption will, in the process of consideration, allow the proprietor to continue his or her desired practice unless granted a reprieve or denied and ordered to comply with the law. Simple.

Dr.Quack thinks he is an expert on every thing, haven't you noticed?

The fool is getting massacred

 

[bodecea]

That Bible you quoted earlier calls what you do an abomination...think about it

It also says that wearing a cotton/polyester blend is an abomination.

And shell fish is a major no no....and divorce gives you a one-way ticket to damnation.

Once again, Mosaic Law, part of the Old Covenant and replaced by the New Covenant. You'd be wise to hone up on the Bible before trying to use it against a Christian

And you'd be wise to learn about the 14th Amendment and its case law before trying to discriminate against gay Americans.

The 14th mentions homos? Where?

Ah...here you are:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Gay Americans are citizens. Gay Americans are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Gay Americans cannot be denied the equal protection of the laws.