Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Madeline]

Immie wrote:

Are you seriously asking that question?

Does Roe v. Wade ring a bell?

Immie

Ya, sorry, should have gotten the reference. I had a bad moment when I thought you might mean Brown v. Board of Eduction.

 

[CurveLight]

One would have to be stupid to think that judges do not legislate from the bench.

Which is what I am afraid may ultimately happen here. Thirty eight years ago the Supreme Court did and costs the lives of nearly 50 million Americans and that number is still growing.

He may think Freedom of/from religion is untouchable. I don't.

Immie

50 million people died from a judicial decision 38 years ago, Immie? Which one are you referring to?

Are you seriously asking that question?

Does Roe v. Wade ring a bell?

Immie

What was the birthday of just ten of those people you referenced? You claimed 50 million Americans were killed so surely you can give the birth dates of just ten.
(Doesn't it suck when you get beat at your own childish games?)

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, if we add abortion to this thread it is likely to go completely sideways. But yes, I suppose it would be fair to say it stands out as an decision that might be viewed as "legislating from the bench". (Let's leave of this topic...we know we disagree about abortion.)

I'm not sure what direction you feel the Gang of Nine could possibly go in that would be analogous, though. It seems to me you fear GLBT people will be able to sue fundamentalist churches, etc. for some sort of injury. For what, exactly? Not conducting gay marriages? It's perfectly clear they cannot be sued for withholding ceremonies from inter-faith couples, or even inter-racial ones.

I have more confidence in Freedom of Religion, Immie. I think you worry too much.

And I don't think you worry enough.

What direction can the "gang of five" take us? Meaning the five liberals on the bench.

Who knows? It really is hard to say. I have always believed until very recently that all three branches of our government, believed in the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. It was not until mid point of Bush 43 that I began to see that is not the case.

It could simply be that the court removes the right of churches to deny wedding ceremonies to homosexual couples. Maybe they will even force pastors to perform those weddings as they did the photographer? Maybe they will find some hidden "right" such as the right to privacy that was concocted in Roe to give them grounds to strike down the churches right not to perform these weddings.

Who knows, maybe they will rule that the First Amendment was only written to keep the government from establishing a national religion and it does not give churches the right to discriminate against homosexual couples? Stranger things than that have happened in the last 40 years.

Immie

 

[Valerie]

Asking someone to marshal facts in support of their POV might be persuasive to a few. Most times, it is better to use them yourself....

As Valerie has pointed out, there is (some) fear that someday, a judge somewhere will step on religious freedom at the behest of GLBT people regarding weddings. Much as I'd like to, I cannot tell her "that will never happen", as judges can be unpredictable and stupid. I did say such action would be unconstitutional and corrected by any appeals court.

Is this a blind alley, concealing latent bigotry in Valerie? I don't think so. Many, many people have expressed similar anxieties and I think it's better to air them out than it is to dismiss them as stupid.

Ahhh hello? Anyone read the thread? I was arguing against Immie's concerns as I believe it is not really a threat to the 1st Amendment.


Still you and Curve insist on being dishonest about Immie and now me too.


Good to know..Knock yourself out.

 

[Immanuel]

You just got done saying he wants to deny civil rights to gays. That makes him a bigot by your own words. What the fuck is up with people being so damn PC sensitive they can't even be honest about simple things? For the tenth time....I have tried to persuade him to seeing his error which is why I asked him to provide evidence to support his position and he fell flat on his face and he has yet to be honest about that.

No you have not. All you have done is attacked my point of view.

You have not shown a damned bit of proof that you are correct in your point of view. You have given no evidence to support your claim that homosexuals will be satisfied the day "gay marriage" finally becomes legal.

You may think I am wrong and quite frankly I respect your right to do so, but you have not supported your own point of view.

Immie

Do you understand how it works you dishonest fuckwad? You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. You've had ample opportunity and haven't even come close. Your bigotry defense is on the claim gays would force churches to marry them and you have nothing to show that is a reasonable enough concern to justify denying marriage to gays. Keep dancing....the bigot-hop is on loop.

Where's your post saying you've never responded to my challenge? Either you edited/removed it or someone else said it.

I've proven my position repeatedly. The fact that you disagree with it not my problem.

Cases have been lost before for lack of evidence and maybe in the future my case will not be proven correct, but I think you are off your rocker if you think that the Elaine Photography case and the NJ Church case are not sufficient evidence to show that activists do not simply want marriage equality.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

What direction can the "gang of five" take us? Meaning the five liberals on the bench.



Immie

just curious
who are the 5 liberals on the current SCOTUS?

 

[Immanuel]

What direction can the "gang of five" take us? Meaning the five liberals on the bench.



Immie

just curious
who are the 5 liberals on the current SCOTUS?

Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomeyer, now Kagan and Kennedy the swing vote.

Of course, with Kennedy being considered a swing vote, he is not always liberal, but to push this issue into that extreme, he would need to align himself with the liberals in this case.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

Because he can't so he is attempting to show that my responses to you were in fact a response to his challenge, which they were not.

Instead, he has to attack my point of view rather than attempting to show me where I am wrong.

I have already stated several times (once today and a couple times the other day) that I understand I may be wrong, but that I do not trust the extremists. I highly doubt, there is anything he can do to build my trust in that area.

Immie

This is where respect for you is lost because you have already quoted me and claimed you responded to my challenge because you cited a photography business as your proof. For the last fucking time: show where any church has been forced to marry any couple. It's that simple. A photography biz is not a church. A pavillion rented to the public is not a church and neither of those cases showed where any church was forced to marry anyone.

I'm attacking your position on the fact it is pure bullshit and you will keep proving it by not being honest and laughably claiming the photog business case somehow equates to a church being forced to marry someone.

Sorry, but you are being dishonest here. Perhaps, you think others will not read the entire thread and simply take your word for this shit.

I repeatedly stated that my responses were in reference to Madeline's posts and at the time I posted those links I had not read your "challenge".

You had the audacity and continue to do so, to claim that my posts were in response to your "challenge". The only thing I stated when I read your challenge was that my previous post (the one regarding the NJ couple attempting to force the church to marry them) was applicable to your challenge.

You have also been dishonest in regards to my position on this. I have never once stated that any church has been forced to marry any homosexual couples. The two issues I presented were only being used to back up my belief that in the future extremists will attempt to do so.

The case of Elaine Photography was exactly what I stated to Madeline. An attempt to force a Christian business to perform services that they did not wish to perform. The NJ complaint was again what I had said it was from the beginning... an attempt by activists to force compliance by religious organizations. I never claimed any church had been forced to, rather my belief is that in the future, activists will attempt to do so and I have used these very real cases as support for my claim.

You have done a piss poor job of defending your point of view and since you can't defend your point of view, because the evidence is out there that once homosexual marriage is legalized (as it was in the NJ case at the time) activists will seek to further their cause and require those who do not support their right to marriage to perform services and I believe that eventually this MAY happen to a church which could threaten the Separation of Church and State.

What I have purported to show is that activists will not be happy with this win. They will want more than the right to be married. They will insist that conservative churches and conservatives perform services for them. That may be okay with you, but I have always landed on the side of it being a business' right to decide who they will perform services for as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class indiscriminately.

Immie

See if you can keep up. I specifically asked for it to be shown where any church had been forced to marry any couple. You claimed you responded to that with this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2586434-post435.html

You cited a photography business. In case you didn't know, gays have been suing businesses for discrimination on everything from employment to services and guess what....that has nothing to do with gay marriage.


Now, you are trying to change your claim. Why? Because it was stoopid but instead of being honest you hope you can fool people. You have repeatedly stated you don't want gays to have the title of "marriage" out of fear they would force CHURCHES to marry them. Since you can't support that claim you are now trying to change to say Christian "businesses." Keep embarrassing yourself you fucking bigot.

 

[Valerie]

This is where respect for you is lost because you have already quoted me and claimed you responded to my challenge because you cited a photography business as your proof. For the last fucking time: show where any church has been forced to marry any couple. It's that simple. A photography biz is not a church. A pavillion rented to the public is not a church and neither of those cases showed where any church was forced to marry anyone.

I'm attacking your position on the fact it is pure bullshit and you will keep proving it by not being honest and laughably claiming the photog business case somehow equates to a church being forced to marry someone.

Sorry, but you are being dishonest here. Perhaps, you think others will not read the entire thread and simply take your word for this shit.

I repeatedly stated that my responses were in reference to Madeline's posts and at the time I posted those links I had not read your "challenge".

You had the audacity and continue to do so, to claim that my posts were in response to your "challenge". The only thing I stated when I read your challenge was that my previous post (the one regarding the NJ couple attempting to force the church to marry them) was applicable to your challenge.

You have also been dishonest in regards to my position on this. I have never once stated that any church has been forced to marry any homosexual couples. The two issues I presented were only being used to back up my belief that in the future extremists will attempt to do so.

The case of Elaine Photography was exactly what I stated to Madeline. An attempt to force a Christian business to perform services that they did not wish to perform. The NJ complaint was again what I had said it was from the beginning... an attempt by activists to force compliance by religious organizations. I never claimed any church had been forced to, rather my belief is that in the future, activists will attempt to do so and I have used these very real cases as support for my claim.

You have done a piss poor job of defending your point of view and since you can't defend your point of view, because the evidence is out there that once homosexual marriage is legalized (as it was in the NJ case at the time) activists will seek to further their cause and require those who do not support their right to marriage to perform services and I believe that eventually this MAY happen to a church which could threaten the Separation of Church and State.

What I have purported to show is that activists will not be happy with this win. They will want more than the right to be married. They will insist that conservative churches and conservatives perform services for them. That may be okay with you, but I have always landed on the side of it being a business' right to decide who they will perform services for as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class indiscriminately.

Immie

See if you can keep up. I specifically asked for it to be shown where any church had been forced to marry any couple. You claimed you responded to that with this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2586434-post435.html

You cited a photography business. In case you didn't know, gays have been suing businesses for discrimination on everything from employment to services and guess what....that has nothing to do with gay marriage.


Now, you are trying to change your claim. Why? Because it was stoopid but instead of being honest you hope you can fool people. You have repeatedly stated you don't want gays to have the title of "marriage" out of fear they would force CHURCHES to marry them. Since you can't support that claim you are now trying to change to say Christian "businesses." Keep embarrassing yourself you fucking bigot.

It's not that complicated really...What claim did he change, pray tell...?

 

[DiveCon]

What direction can the "gang of five" take us? Meaning the five liberals on the bench.



Immie

just curious
who are the 5 liberals on the current SCOTUS?

Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomeyer, now Kagan and Kennedy the swing vote.

Of course, with Kennedy being considered a swing vote, he is not always liberal, but to push this issue into that extreme, he would need to align himself with the liberals in this case.

Immie

Kagan is an unknown entity at this point, but the person she replaced was very liberal

and kennedy tends to be more conservative than liberal

 

[CurveLight]

No you have not. All you have done is attacked my point of view.

You have not shown a damned bit of proof that you are correct in your point of view. You have given no evidence to support your claim that homosexuals will be satisfied the day "gay marriage" finally becomes legal.

You may think I am wrong and quite frankly I respect your right to do so, but you have not supported your own point of view.

Immie

Do you understand how it works you dishonest fuckwad? You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. You've had ample opportunity and haven't even come close. Your bigotry defense is on the claim gays would force churches to marry them and you have nothing to show that is a reasonable enough concern to justify denying marriage to gays. Keep dancing....the bigot-hop is on loop.

Where's your post saying you've never responded to my challenge? Either you edited/removed it or someone else said it.

I've proven my position repeatedly. The fact that you disagree with it not my problem.

Cases have been lost before for lack of evidence and maybe in the future my case will not be proven correct, but I think you are off your rocker if you think that the Elaine Photography case and the NJ Church case are not sufficient evidence to show that activists do not simply want marriage equality.

Immie

Holy shit your dishonesty is sickening. Once again.....you claimed gays would try to force churches to marry them. You have not provided a single case of that happening. Then you dishonestly call the NJ case the "Church" case when it was about a Pavillion that had been rented to the public. Both cases you cited are in the fucking public business arena and neither even came close to trying to force churches to marry them.

Since gay marriage has been legal in MA for over five years it should be easy to prove your claim gays would force churches to marry them. Cite just one case where a church in MA has been forced to marry a gay couple you dishonest wanker.

 

[Sky Dancer]

just curious
who are the 5 liberals on the current SCOTUS?

Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomeyer, now Kagan and Kennedy the swing vote.

Of course, with Kennedy being considered a swing vote, he is not always liberal, but to push this issue into that extreme, he would need to align himself with the liberals in this case.

Immie

Kagan is an unknown entity at this point, but the person she replaced was very liberal

and kennedy tends to be more conservative than liberal

The Supreme Court is not liberal.

 

[CurveLight]

Sorry, but you are being dishonest here. Perhaps, you think others will not read the entire thread and simply take your word for this shit.

I repeatedly stated that my responses were in reference to Madeline's posts and at the time I posted those links I had not read your "challenge".

You had the audacity and continue to do so, to claim that my posts were in response to your "challenge". The only thing I stated when I read your challenge was that my previous post (the one regarding the NJ couple attempting to force the church to marry them) was applicable to your challenge.

You have also been dishonest in regards to my position on this. I have never once stated that any church has been forced to marry any homosexual couples. The two issues I presented were only being used to back up my belief that in the future extremists will attempt to do so.

The case of Elaine Photography was exactly what I stated to Madeline. An attempt to force a Christian business to perform services that they did not wish to perform. The NJ complaint was again what I had said it was from the beginning... an attempt by activists to force compliance by religious organizations. I never claimed any church had been forced to, rather my belief is that in the future, activists will attempt to do so and I have used these very real cases as support for my claim.

You have done a piss poor job of defending your point of view and since you can't defend your point of view, because the evidence is out there that once homosexual marriage is legalized (as it was in the NJ case at the time) activists will seek to further their cause and require those who do not support their right to marriage to perform services and I believe that eventually this MAY happen to a church which could threaten the Separation of Church and State.

What I have purported to show is that activists will not be happy with this win. They will want more than the right to be married. They will insist that conservative churches and conservatives perform services for them. That may be okay with you, but I have always landed on the side of it being a business' right to decide who they will perform services for as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class indiscriminately.

Immie

See if you can keep up. I specifically asked for it to be shown where any church had been forced to marry any couple. You claimed you responded to that with this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2586434-post435.html

You cited a photography business. In case you didn't know, gays have been suing businesses for discrimination on everything from employment to services and guess what....that has nothing to do with gay marriage.


Now, you are trying to change your claim. Why? Because it was stoopid but instead of being honest you hope you can fool people. You have repeatedly stated you don't want gays to have the title of "marriage" out of fear they would force CHURCHES to marry them. Since you can't support that claim you are now trying to change to say Christian "businesses." Keep embarrassing yourself you fucking bigot.

It's not that complicated really...What claim did he change, pray tell...?

Did you miss it because you have a bad habit of abusing the bold function to compensate for your lack of brain function? It's in the post you quoted.

 

[Immanuel]

Do you understand how it works you dishonest fuckwad? You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. You've had ample opportunity and haven't even come close. Your bigotry defense is on the claim gays would force churches to marry them and you have nothing to show that is a reasonable enough concern to justify denying marriage to gays. Keep dancing....the bigot-hop is on loop.

Where's your post saying you've never responded to my challenge? Either you edited/removed it or someone else said it.

I've proven my position repeatedly. The fact that you disagree with it not my problem.

Cases have been lost before for lack of evidence and maybe in the future my case will not be proven correct, but I think you are off your rocker if you think that the Elaine Photography case and the NJ Church case are not sufficient evidence to show that activists do not simply want marriage equality.

Immie

Holy shit your dishonesty is sickening. Once again.....you claimed gays would try to force churches to marry them. You have not provided a single case of that happening. Then you dishonestly call the NJ case the "Church" case when it was about a Pavillion that had been rented to the public. Both cases you cited are in the fucking public business arena and neither even came close to trying to force churches to marry them.

Since gay marriage has been legal in MA for over five years it should be easy to prove your claim gays would force churches to marry them. Cite just one case where a church in MA has been forced to marry a gay couple you dishonest wanker.

Why are you always so dishonest? Can't you argue your own point of view without constantly changing other people's words? No, I don't suppose you can.

I claimed that both of those cases were instances that backed up my belief that activists would push their agenda against the church. The NJ Case was against property owned by the church. It is irrelevant that it was rented to the public. The fact is the church has the right to rent it to whomever they want to and not rent it to.

The point about MA having legalized gay marriage for five years proves nothing. There have been other battles going on and pushing that agenda would be detrimental to the cause of gay marriage at this time.

I have never claimed there has been such a case and I am not going hunting for one, because I have stated dozens of times that this is a future concern.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomeyer, now Kagan and Kennedy the swing vote.

Of course, with Kennedy being considered a swing vote, he is not always liberal, but to push this issue into that extreme, he would need to align himself with the liberals in this case.

Immie

Kagan is an unknown entity at this point, but the person she replaced was very liberal

and kennedy tends to be more conservative than liberal

The Supreme Court is not liberal.

I didnt say it was

 

[Sky Dancer]

I've proven my position repeatedly. The fact that you disagree with it not my problem.

Cases have been lost before for lack of evidence and maybe in the future my case will not be proven correct, but I think you are off your rocker if you think that the Elaine Photography case and the NJ Church case are not sufficient evidence to show that activists do not simply want marriage equality.

Immie

Holy shit your dishonesty is sickening. Once again.....you claimed gays would try to force churches to marry them. You have not provided a single case of that happening. Then you dishonestly call the NJ case the "Church" case when it was about a Pavillion that had been rented to the public. Both cases you cited are in the fucking public business arena and neither even came close to trying to force churches to marry them.

Since gay marriage has been legal in MA for over five years it should be easy to prove your claim gays would force churches to marry them. Cite just one case where a church in MA has been forced to marry a gay couple you dishonest wanker.

Why are you always so dishonest? Can't you argue your own point of view without constantly changing other people's words? No, I don't suppose you can.

I claimed that both of those cases were instances that backed up my belief that activists would push their agenda against the church. The NJ Case was against property owned by the church. It is irrelevant that it was rented to the public. The fact is the church has the right to rent it to whomever they want to and not rent it to.

The point about MA having legalized gay marriage for five years proves nothing. There have been other battles going on and pushing that agenda would be detrimental to the cause of gay marriage at this time.

I have never claimed there has been such a case and I am not going hunting for one, because I have stated dozens of times that this is a future concern.

Immie

The case you picked for activiists suing the Church turned out to be no such case. YOu did claim there was a case of lesbians suing the church for not marrying them and it wasnt' true. So far you've had nothing to back up your paranoia about polical gay activists.

 

[CurveLight]

I've proven my position repeatedly. The fact that you disagree with it not my problem.

Cases have been lost before for lack of evidence and maybe in the future my case will not be proven correct, but I think you are off your rocker if you think that the Elaine Photography case and the NJ Church case are not sufficient evidence to show that activists do not simply want marriage equality.

Immie

Holy shit your dishonesty is sickening. Once again.....you claimed gays would try to force churches to marry them. You have not provided a single case of that happening. Then you dishonestly call the NJ case the "Church" case when it was about a Pavillion that had been rented to the public. Both cases you cited are in the fucking public business arena and neither even came close to trying to force churches to marry them.

Since gay marriage has been legal in MA for over five years it should be easy to prove your claim gays would force churches to marry them. Cite just one case where a church in MA has been forced to marry a gay couple you dishonest wanker.

Why are you always so dishonest? Can't you argue your own point of view without constantly changing other people's words? No, I don't suppose you can.

I claimed that both of those cases were instances that backed up my belief that activists would push their agenda against the church. The NJ Case was against property owned by the church. It is irrelevant that it was rented to the public. The fact is the church has the right to rent it to whomever they want to and not rent it to.

The point about MA having legalized gay marriage for five years proves nothing. There have been other battles going on and pushing that agenda would be detrimental to the cause of gay marriage at this time.

I have never claimed there has been such a case and I am not going hunting for one, because I have stated dozens of times that this is a future concern.

Immie

The church rented the pavillion to the public therefore it fell within the public anti-discrimination laws.

Basically, you don't have anything to justify your position of bigotry so you whine, toss out red herrings, change your claims, backtrack your own statements, then have the audacity to accuse others of being dishonest. Thank God there are honest people out there who don't let fantasy based future concerns trample the Rights of people living in the here and now. Know what pisses me off the most about people like you Immie? You like to dress up in Sunday school clothes but you never actually take them anywhere.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Holy shit your dishonesty is sickening. Once again.....you claimed gays would try to force churches to marry them. You have not provided a single case of that happening. Then you dishonestly call the NJ case the "Church" case when it was about a Pavillion that had been rented to the public. Both cases you cited are in the fucking public business arena and neither even came close to trying to force churches to marry them.

Since gay marriage has been legal in MA for over five years it should be easy to prove your claim gays would force churches to marry them. Cite just one case where a church in MA has been forced to marry a gay couple you dishonest wanker.

Why are you always so dishonest? Can't you argue your own point of view without constantly changing other people's words? No, I don't suppose you can.

I claimed that both of those cases were instances that backed up my belief that activists would push their agenda against the church. The NJ Case was against property owned by the church. It is irrelevant that it was rented to the public. The fact is the church has the right to rent it to whomever they want to and not rent it to.

The point about MA having legalized gay marriage for five years proves nothing. There have been other battles going on and pushing that agenda would be detrimental to the cause of gay marriage at this time.

I have never claimed there has been such a case and I am not going hunting for one, because I have stated dozens of times that this is a future concern.

Immie

The church rented the pavillion to the public therefore it fell within the public anti-discrimination laws.

Basically, you don't have anything to justify your position of bigotry so you whine, toss out red herrings, change your claims, backtrack your own statements, then have the audacity to accuse others of being dishonest. Thank God there are honest people out there who don't let fantasy based future concerns trample the Rights of people living in the here and now. Know what pisses me off the most about people like you Immie? You like to dress up in Sunday school clothes but you never actually take them anywhere.

I don't feel Immie's a bigot. I do think he's afraid of gay activists suing churches.

 

[Valerie]

Do you understand how it works you dishonest fuckwad? You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. You've had ample opportunity and haven't even come close. Your bigotry defense is on the claim gays would force churches to marry them and you have nothing to show that is a reasonable enough concern to justify denying marriage to gays. Keep dancing....the bigot-hop is on loop.

Where's your post saying you've never responded to my challenge? Either you edited/removed it or someone else said it.

I've proven my position repeatedly. The fact that you disagree with it not my problem.

Cases have been lost before for lack of evidence and maybe in the future my case will not be proven correct, but I think you are off your rocker if you think that the Elaine Photography case and the NJ Church case are not sufficient evidence to show that activists do not simply want marriage equality.

Immie

Holy shit your dishonesty is sickening. Once again.....you claimed gays would try to force churches to marry them. You have not provided a single case of that happening. Then you dishonestly call the NJ case the "Church" case when it was about a Pavillion that had been rented to the public. Both cases you cited are in the fucking public business arena and neither even came close to trying to force churches to marry them.

Since gay marriage has been legal in MA for over five years it should be easy to prove your claim gays would force churches to marry them. Cite just one case where a church in MA has been forced to marry a gay couple you dishonest wanker.

Nice that Sky thanked you for saying Immie's dishonesty is sickening.

 

[Valerie]

This is where respect for you is lost


because you have already quoted me and claimed you responded to my challenge because you cited a photography business as your proof.


For the last fucking time: show where any church has been forced to marry any couple. It's that simple. A photography biz is not a church.


A pavillion rented to the public is not a church and neither of those cases showed where any church was forced to marry anyone.

I'm attacking your position on the fact it is pure bullshit and you will keep proving it by not being honest and laughably claiming the photog business case somehow equates to a church being forced to marry someone.

Sorry, but you are being dishonest here. Perhaps, you think others will not read the entire thread and simply take your word for this shit.

I repeatedly stated that my responses were in reference to Madeline's posts and at the time I posted those links I had not read your "challenge".

You had the audacity and continue to do so, to claim that my posts were in response to your "challenge". The only thing I stated when I read your challenge was that my previous post (the one regarding the NJ couple attempting to force the church to marry them) was applicable to your challenge.

You have also been dishonest in regards to my position on this. I have never once stated that any church has been forced to marry any homosexual couples. The two issues I presented were only being used to back up my belief that in the future extremists will attempt to do so.

The case of Elaine Photography was exactly what I stated to Madeline. An attempt to force a Christian business to perform services that they did not wish to perform. The NJ complaint was again what I had said it was from the beginning... an attempt by activists to force compliance by religious organizations. I never claimed any church had been forced to, rather my belief is that in the future, activists will attempt to do so and I have used these very real cases as support for my claim.

You have done a piss poor job of defending your point of view and since you can't defend your point of view, because the evidence is out there that once homosexual marriage is legalized (as it was in the NJ case at the time) activists will seek to further their cause and require those who do not support their right to marriage to perform services and I believe that eventually this MAY happen to a church which could threaten the Separation of Church and State.

What I have purported to show is that activists will not be happy with this win. They will want more than the right to be married. They will insist that conservative churches and conservatives perform services for them. That may be okay with you, but I have always landed on the side of it being a business' right to decide who they will perform services for as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class indiscriminately.

Immie

See if you can keep up.


I specifically asked for it to be shown where any church had been forced to marry any couple. You claimed you responded to that with this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2586434-post435.html

You cited a photography business.


In case you didn't know, gays have been suing businesses for discrimination on everything from employment to services and guess what....that has nothing to do with gay marriage.


Now, you are trying to change your claim. Why?


Because it was stoopid but instead of being honest you hope you can fool people.


You have repeatedly stated you don't want gays to have the title of "marriage" out of fear they would force CHURCHES to marry them.



Since you can't support that claim you are now trying to change to say Christian "businesses."


Keep embarrassing yourself you fucking bigot.

See if you can keep up.



Immie's posts in this thread are not all about you and your imaginary challenge.


Immie posted a case which no one was fooled into equating with marriage, except for apparently you...

Immie's subsequent posting in this thread, again, not all about YOU and your "challenge", have shown his views as a Christian extending friendship to the gay community.


Since you can't find another Christian to bash you cry BIGOT to a friend of the gay community.


Keep embarrassing yourself, jerk.