Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[Uncensored2008]

[


Name one time anyone but a right winger said anything about making churches celebrate homosexuality. A bakery is not a church.

Read the OP, sparky.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Another fail. Misleading OP title and the OPster doesn't like that everyone won't fall for the nonsense.

Is the author suggesting churches be made to accept homosexuality as normal? Why yes, yes he is.

It's all part of the homosexual's large plan, force it as normal and it never will be normal. You CANNOT force acceptance

you can however persecute christains

Holding Christians to the same laws that everyone else is held to isn't 'persecuting them'.

Getting rid of all "public accommodation" laws and protected classes in the private sector would have everyone, including Christians, treated equally. Somehow I don't think you really want equality.

 

[koshergrl]

The Catholic Church has a process by which a divorced person can remarry in the Church.....annulment.

What power does Sassy have to silence the column writer?

Are you mental?

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Please, show us where the writer called for government action.

What I said is that the writer called for government action against churches by the government. I did not say that a "call for government action" was sedition, you loons.

What is sedition is calling for the people to rebel against our Constitution and our government, to restrict freedom of religion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just because it is libertarianism taken to it's logical extreme doesn't mean it's not nuts.

Ah yes, to you of the anti-liberty left, civil rights are "nuts."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

He can say it all he wants....just like columnist can say "Christian churches 'must be made' to affirm inter-racial marriages." Doesn't make it legally happen.

Your church can continue to reject people for marriage....just like they do right now. The law can't and shouldn't touch them.

Do you agree that force should be used to make Churches celebrate homosexuality?

We have already seen that the law is shit upon when it suits the left. Bakers are forced into involuntary servitude in complete disregard of the 13th. Laws are only meaningful if our rulers are constrained by them.

Name one time anyone but a right winger said anything about making churches celebrate homosexuality. A bakery is not a church.

A bakery is not the government either and isn't constrained by the Constitution as government is.

 

[eots]

Another fail. Misleading OP title and the OPster doesn't like that everyone won't fall for the nonsense.

depends who is writing the laws
Is the author suggesting churches be made to accept homosexuality as normal? Why yes, yes he is.

It's all part of the homosexual's large plan, force it as normal and it never will be normal. You CANNOT force acceptance

you can however persecute christains

Holding Christians to the same laws that everyone else is held to isn't 'persecuting them'.

depends who is writing the laws, enforcing ,judging...like so called hate speech laws

 

[paperview]

Now you're just being stupid.

in·vol·un·tar·y
inˈvälənˌterē/
adjective

1. 2.
   done against someone's will; compulsory.

service1

How did that work out in Heart of Atlanta Motel v US?

 

[Skylar]

Says you.

So, what would George Soros' (thus your) definition of "involuntary servitude" be? (I can wait while you ask your masters.)

All laws are compulsory. By that logic speeding tickets are a violation of the 13th amendment. Alas, what you imagine 'involuntary servitude' to be and its legal and historic definition have nothing to do with each other.

The problem is,

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." }

Now, I realize you have no idea what that is, and I further realize that your party is dedicated to eradicating the United State Constitution: Still - you are in direct violation of that amendment, no wiggle room.

We are not a nation of law, we are a nation ruled by the whim of rulers. The law is ignored and discarded routinely.

In short, your made up definitions are irrelevant to this discussion.

Now you're just being stupid.

in·vol·un·tar·y
inˈvälənˌterē/
adjective

1. 2.
   done against someone's will; compulsory.

service1
[sur-vis]
IPA Syllables

• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
3.
the providing or a provider of accommodation and activities required by the public, as maintenance, repair, etc.:

An argument that might carry some weight if your personal opinion and imagination defined reality. Alas, that's not how reality works. Your pseudo-legal gibberish is legally meaningless. It defines nothing, affirms nothing, effects nothing.

Disagree to your heart's content. No one really gives a shit.

You of the anti-liberty left are at war with civil rights. The infringement of speech and religion are legendary. The encroachment on the right of association and the right of free trade are also well known. The leftist democrats seek an authoritarian system where privilege based on group association replaces the concept of rights. Already we see that homosexuals have greater privilege than do Christians. Membership in the favored group determines the privilege. "Rights" which accrue to individuals regardless of affiliation are denied by the left.

This civil war we fight in this nation is based upon the question of whether law and rights will continue to be the basis of our society, or whether privilege based on favor group membership will determine the status of one in the eyes of the law.

All laws are compulsory. If applying force to enforce a law is a violation of the 13th amendment then all laws are unconstitutional. Which clearly isn't the case.

History, the law, the founders, the courts and common reason has recognized a distinction between enforcement of laws and involuntary servitude. In fact, your exact argument has been weight and measured by the USSC, and rejected.

"We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of "involuntary servitude." As we have seen, 32 States prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. These laws but codify the common-law innkeeper rule which long predated the Thirteenth Amendment. It is difficult to believe that the Amendment was intended to abrogate this principle. Indeed, the opinion of the Court in the Civil Rights Cases is to the contrary as we have seen, it having noted with approval the laws of "all the States" prohibiting discrimination. We could not say that the requirements of the Act in this regard are in any way "akin to African slavery." Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 332 (1916).

Its not the entire federal judiciary, Congress, and the Supreme Court that doesn't understand the 13th amendment.

Its just you.

 

[BULLDOG]

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Full Definition of SEDITION
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Sedition - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority:
Wouldn't that include every right wing rally?

Name one.

The first that comes to mind is a woman's right to have an abortion. That right was given to her by Roe V Wade. There are literally hundreds of other examples of right wingers inciting resistance to lawful authority. Look them up.

 

[bodecea]

Relax. That is an opinion piece not the law of the land. The fact is change - if it is to come - must originate from the pews where real Christians with real Christian beliefs recognize that gay people are indeed people and that their sins - as one might describe their life's choices - are for God to judge, not us. We mere mortals are charged with deconstructing the walls we've built to separate us from "the others."

Excuse me but relax is the wrong message to send someone who is letting the world know that the homosexual agenda is now moving towards forcing Christian Churches into affirming homosexuality. It begins with "discussion" and the next thing you know, they are moving towards making it a law, Sayit. It is the Christians who are being judged here - for standing on the Word of God and refusing to acknowledge homosexuality as anything than what it is - an abomination before God Almighty and a sin. The Bible does not say, Love the sinner / hate the sin. Ghandi said that and Ghandi is in hell today. The Bible says God is angry with the wicked every day. The Bible says the wicked shall be destroyed. The Bible says no homosexual will enter the kingdom of heaven. The Bible never teaches any group of believers to invite homosexuals to join their church and live in sin before the congregation. If you will read the 1 Corinthians 5:1 - 5 you'll find that the Apostle Paul rebuked the Church in Corinth for not removing a man who was in sexual sin - from the congregation! What was Pauls command? Put him out of the church - turn him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. That's what. Do not tell her she is wrong when she is right. She's right. This begins with someone's opinion and the next step is they'll move to make it a law. People have every right to be alarmed and speak up!

Oh come now jeremiah, if anyone should be a fan of changing biblical interpretation it ought to be you. Your faith is based on it.

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.

I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.

It is kind of fun to watch Catholics attack Protestants and Protestants attack Catholics. Christians can't even get their own shit together....and yet they want our laws to protect their "right to hate".

 

[BULLDOG]

That you willingly believe the left has utter contempt for civil rights shows you to be a mentally defective idiot.

Derp derp derp indeed, sploogy.

Perfect example of a well thought out right wing remark.

 

[bodecea]

[
The Catholic Church is not flexible and will never compromise her teachings even if Christ should tarry another 2000 years. We don't rely on individual interpretation of the Bible to have its meaning changed like lawyers change the meaning of the law.

In 2000 years, do you really think this is the first time we've been besieged by popular tides pressuring us to change?

Didn't Pope Lenin the 1st (or whatever the fucking commies' name is) recently come out in favor of gay unions?

"Pope Lenin the 1st"......

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Full Definition of SEDITION
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Sedition - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority:
Wouldn't that include every right wing rally?

Name one.

The first that comes to mind is a woman's right to have an abortion. That right was given to her by Roe V Wade. There are literally hundreds of other examples of right wingers inciting resistance to lawful authority. Look them up.

That's your example of anti government rallies inciting violence? I would have thought you would at least try to cite the neo nazi rallies in North Idaho in the 1980's, which would have had some merit, but apparently you really can't come up with anything on your own. Sad.

 

[BULLDOG]

[


Name one time anyone but a right winger said anything about making churches celebrate homosexuality. A bakery is not a church.

Read the OP, sparky.

I did dumbass

 

[ogibillm]

What power did the column writer have to modify church behavior?

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Please, show us where the writer called for government action.

What I said is that the writer called for government action against churches by the government. I did not say that a "call for government action" was sedition, you loons.

What is sedition is calling for the people to rebel against our Constitution and our government, to restrict freedom of religion.

Please, show us where "the writer called for government action against churches by the government."

 

[Skylar]

Another fail. Misleading OP title and the OPster doesn't like that everyone won't fall for the nonsense.

depends who is writing the laws
Is the author suggesting churches be made to accept homosexuality as normal? Why yes, yes he is.

It's all part of the homosexual's large plan, force it as normal and it never will be normal. You CANNOT force acceptance

you can however persecute christains

Holding Christians to the same laws that everyone else is held to isn't 'persecuting them'.

depends who is writing the laws, enforcing ,judging...like so called hate speech laws

Christians are subject to the same laws as anyone else. We don't have one more lenient set of laws for Christians. And a second, harsher set of laws for everyone else.

There's the same law for everyone. And Christians are subject to PA laws.

If a Christian's beliefs make it impossible for them to do their job, then they should find another job. As compatibility of one's religion and their profession is the responsibility of the faithful. Not everyone else.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Good grief, it's not only the homos now it's "climate-change deniers". You idiot left loons would be wise to relax.

Another call to arrest climate “deniers”

Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker, has added his voice to the growing list of greens, who demand a brutal authoritarian response to the vexing problem of people who have a different opinion.

According to Weinstein;

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.

Another call to arrest climate deniers Watts Up With That

 

[BULLDOG]

He can say it all he wants....just like columnist can say "Christian churches 'must be made' to affirm inter-racial marriages." Doesn't make it legally happen.

Your church can continue to reject people for marriage....just like they do right now. The law can't and shouldn't touch them.

Do you agree that force should be used to make Churches celebrate homosexuality?

We have already seen that the law is shit upon when it suits the left. Bakers are forced into involuntary servitude in complete disregard of the 13th. Laws are only meaningful if our rulers are constrained by them.

Name one time anyone but a right winger said anything about making churches celebrate homosexuality. A bakery is not a church.

A bakery is not the government either and isn't constrained by the Constitution as government is.

So business don't have to abide by the constitution? What ever you say silly.

 

[Skylar]

Good grief, it's not only the homos now it's "climate-change deniers". You idiot left loons would be wise to relax.

Another call to arrest climate “deniers”

Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker, has added his voice to the growing list of greens, who demand a brutal authoritarian response to the vexing problem of people who have a different opinion.

According to Weinstein;

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.

Another call to arrest climate deniers Watts Up With That

A 'growing list', huh? How many people are on this 'growing list'. And will I need more than one hand to count them?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

He can say it all he wants....just like columnist can say "Christian churches 'must be made' to affirm inter-racial marriages." Doesn't make it legally happen.

Your church can continue to reject people for marriage....just like they do right now. The law can't and shouldn't touch them.

Do you agree that force should be used to make Churches celebrate homosexuality?

We have already seen that the law is shit upon when it suits the left. Bakers are forced into involuntary servitude in complete disregard of the 13th. Laws are only meaningful if our rulers are constrained by them.

Name one time anyone but a right winger said anything about making churches celebrate homosexuality. A bakery is not a church.

A bakery is not the government either and isn't constrained by the Constitution as government is.

So business don't have to abide by the constitution? What ever you say silly.

No they don't. And you're an ass if you don't know the Constitution only applies to government.