LGBT Staff Won't Serve Christians

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe, but I’m not to question motives, right?

Of course not.
The only people who can determine if a marriage is legitimate are those in the marriage - if two straight people want to get married so one can quickly, easily, and w/o tax issues, transfer his property to the other upon death - or divorce - who is to stop them?

(This was a plot point in the final Boston Legal epsisode, BTW)

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess you didn't know that in a couple of states it's required for marriage.

Which ones?
Cite?

 

[martybegan]

.

I would love to see the look on someone's face ...
When they try to eat something they forced me to prepare for them against my will.

It wouldn't kill them necessarily ...
But I am liable to be very creative with the ingredients ...
They are going to have paid way too much for whatever it is I give them ...
And it will stand a good chance of being the worst choice they ever made.

.​

A person shouldn't be forced to do that, thereby ruining the event for the people in question.

We have moved on from tolerance to compelled acceptance, and are on our way to forced celebration of whatever moral code the left decides is "correct".

 

[martybegan]

This is valid.

Refuse the EVENT, not the people.

However, the restaurant should have declined from the beginning--not 90 min before.

That makes this a simple breach of contract case, if they had a signed or verbal agreement for the place to host them.

 

[BlackSand]

We have moved on from tolerance to compelled acceptance, and are on our way to forced celebration of whatever moral code the left decides is "correct".

.

Look ... There is only one way to stop it.
Enough people have to be willing to take the simple position of ...

"Just Stop ... I am in no reasonable way compelled to continue playing along with your nonsense."

.​

 

[HeyNorm]

LOL. First of all I'm a lapsed Catholic at best. I don't agree with the baker, I agree with the baker's right to free exercise.

Even the baker is willing to compromise, saying he doesn't deny anyone point of sale items to anyone.

The left is the group with the tribalism issue, not the right. You guys lost the "live and let live" high ground decades ago and keep digging yourself deeper holes.

live and let live as long as you bow to us. That’s my read anyway.

 

[insolent imp]

And those marriages may be annulled.

Fun fact: consumation is considered to be the first act of intercourse AFTER the ceremony has been conducted.

So, you and the rest of same sex supporters would deny legal marriage to the Sailor who marries his spouse on the dock, then boards the ship to go to war?

Guess what Bro, even though they did not consumate, the state and federal govt will not insist on proof they consummated before both partners get marriage benefits.

Oh, and there is no time limit as to when this first consumation exists, nor proof of consumation.



So let’s take this further to illustrate your absurdity. And yes, it needs illustrated.

This sailor boards the ship or any military transport, without first consummating his/her marriage and dies in combat prior to consumation. And we have all the evidence in the world they could not possibly have consumated. I have no doubt in the world the partner left behind would be considered to have had a valid marriage and receive full survivor benefits.

Now argue against that and show what a pathetic, desperate argument looks like.

it sucks to he a sailer.

 

[insolent imp]

Which ones?
Cite?

scroll up
I already did

 

[HeyNorm]

it sucks to he a sailer.

Shot down again?

 

[insolent imp]

Shot down again?

not even close.

 

[BULLDOG]

My example was on point, and you are too stupid to get it, or too dogmatic to even attempt to admit it.

That's funny, coming from a conspiracy theory nutbag, such as yourself.

 

[HeyNorm]

not even close.

Here’s a clue then, no tax form had ever included a line asking for a date of marriage consumation.

 

[insolent imp]

Here’s a clue then, no tax form had ever included a line asking for a date of marriage consumation.

you're just full of nonsense analogy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

scroll up
I already did

Scroll up
You didn't cite anything, you just listed states.
Listing states doesn't mean anything because you haven't actually demosttated they require consumation, and even if they do the specifics of the laws - that is, the text of the law - in that respect make a difference.
So..
What states?
Cite?
And even then: How does the state prove the couple did not consumate the marriage?

 

[insolent imp]

Scroll up
You didn't cite anything, you just listed states.
Listing states doesn't mean anything because you haven't actually demosttated they require consumation, and even if they do the specifics of the laws - that is, the text of the law - in that respect make a difference.
So..
What states?
Cite?
And even then: How does the state prove the couple did not consumate the marriage?

click the links and read it yourself I don't research for you uncompensated.

 

[HeyNorm]

you're just full of nonsense analogy.

I know this is tough for you to understand, but proof of consummation is done by proclamation of the parties.

There is no other proof requirement.

It’s kind of like saying your gay. The only proof required is proclaiming one is so.

 

[insolent imp]

I know this is tough for you to understand, but proof of consummation is done by proclamation of the parties.

There is no proof requirement.

It’s kind of like saying your gay. The only proof required is proclaiming one is so.

I never said proof was required only that a few states require consumation of marriage. You really are stupid aren't you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

click the links and read it yourself I don't research for you uncompensated.

I did.
Nothing in any of those links support your claim that those states require the consumation of a marriage.
Your claim, onus is on you to support it.
So..
What states?
Cite?
And even then: How does the state prove the couple did not consumate the marriage?

 

[HeyNorm]

I never said proof was required only that a few states require consumation of marriage. You really are stupid aren't you?

To continue a conversation with someone so desperate as you? Yes, that is stupid.

 

[HeyNorm]

I did.
Nothing in any of those links support your claim that those states require the consumation of a marriage.
Your claim, onus is on you to support it.
So..
What states?
Cite?
And even then: How does the state prove the couple did not consumate the marriage?

The same way the state proves an individual is gay. They have to take the persons word for it.