Religious Tolerance: Church kicks whole family out for supporting their gay daughter

[LittleNipper]

I support the rights of the individual, not the power of government.
You support majority mob rule referendums that give the power to government to ban gay marriage.
The big government closet liberal that you are.

You have never taken the side of individual rights over the power of the state.

I always do. I oppose you and your mob rule referendums where you use the power of the state to deny folks to marry.
Same as the war on drugs and dozens of other things.
You want to use the power of government to push your agenda against gay marriage. I support the rights of the individual.
Do you support referendums on the ballot to ban gay marriage?
Do you support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman?
If so you do not support the rights of the individual.
How fitting of you to want to use the Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the rights of the individual and twist, distort and bastardize it to tell a certain group of people what it CAN NOT DO, rather than tell THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
Go ahead and admit. You hate gay folks and believe them to be 2nd class citizens.
At least others here have the balls to admit it.

I support the rights of an individual insofar as such doesn't preclude the rights of other individuals from banding together to form a community and set their own standards. These standards may be exclusive or inclusive but I feel that the majority has the right to establish their own guidelines with indifference to what some individuals might respect or expect within the boundaries of their community. In other words, I feel that a community can and should have the freedom to ban homosexual behavior, just as conversely, I feel another community can embrace homosexuality and ban heterosexuals. The proof of validity is demonstrated by how well each community flourishes. However, when the Federal government intervenes, it can only make blanket rulings that can do more harm than good, in that there is no room for experimentation, ideals, independent thinking, or trial and error. It comes down to Federal absolutes and this only, and everyone else can think what they wish as long as they keep it to themselves but accept all governmental mandates........................................................................ This is why religious beliefs were removed from public schools. It wasn't that the schools were bad or the education was inferior, it was that the Federal Government had taken over Public Education in 1946 and couldn't mandate God according to the Constitution but could mandate secularism. And this it did to great upheavals in education --- to the point of eliminating the freedom of real choice and absolutes.

 

[Agent.Tom]

Those of you who propose to force YOUR way of thinking upon a church, or any other voluntary, non-business group, are the intolerant ones here. By your way of thinking, an all-gay club/organization should be forced to allow Christians as members.

If the church didn't react to congregation members openly supporting an anti-biblical lifestyle, then the church would be hypocritical and unworthy of even being a Christian church.

You can cry "intolerance!" and "hate!" all you want but again, your intolerance of a church abiding by its own rules is the most telling issue here. And besides, since you all obviously hate the Christian Church, you should be overjoyed and consider it a badge of honor for anyone to be asked to leave the Church body. I mean, if an Atheist group or Muslim group kicked someone out of their ranks, I would be happy for that person. Y'all are just looking for a reason to gin up hostility against an organization that you hate and are intolerant toward.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have never taken the side of individual rights over the power of the state.

I always do. I oppose you and your mob rule referendums where you use the power of the state to deny folks to marry.
Same as the war on drugs and dozens of other things.
You want to use the power of government to push your agenda against gay marriage. I support the rights of the individual.
Do you support referendums on the ballot to ban gay marriage?
Do you support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman?
If so you do not support the rights of the individual.
How fitting of you to want to use the Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the rights of the individual and twist, distort and bastardize it to tell a certain group of people what it CAN NOT DO, rather than tell THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
Go ahead and admit. You hate gay folks and believe them to be 2nd class citizens.
At least others here have the balls to admit it.

I support the rights of an individual insofar as such doesn't preclude the rights of other individuals from banding together to form a community and set their own standards. These standards may be exclusive or inclusive but I feel that the majority has the right to establish their own guidelines with indifference to what some individuals might respect or expect within the boundaries of their community. In other words, I feel that a community can and should have the freedom to ban homosexual behavior, just as conversely, I feel another community can embrace homosexuality and ban heterosexuals. The proof of validity is demonstrated by how well each community flourishes. However, when the Federal government intervenes, it can only make blanket rulings that can do more harm than good, in that there is no room for experimentation, ideals, independent thinking, or trial and error. It comes down to Federal absolutes and this only, and everyone else can think what they wish as long as they keep it to themselves but accept all governmental mandates........................................................................ This is why religious beliefs were removed from public schools. It wasn't that the schools were bad or the education was inferior, it was that the Federal Government had taken over Public Education in 1946 and couldn't mandate God according to the Constitution but could mandate secularism. And this it did to great upheavals in education --- to the point of eliminating the freedom of real choice and absolutes.

And, again, this is thankfully why we have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this sort of ignorance and hate.

What you ‘feel’ is irrelevant, no jurisdiction may criminalize homosexuality, to do so would be un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those of you who propose to force YOUR way of thinking upon a church, or any other voluntary, non-business group, are the intolerant ones here. By your way of thinking, an all-gay club/organization should be forced to allow Christians as members.

If the church didn't react to congregation members openly supporting an anti-biblical lifestyle, then the church would be hypocritical and unworthy of even being a Christian church.

You can cry "intolerance!" and "hate!" all you want but again, your intolerance of a church abiding by its own rules is the most telling issue here. And besides, since you all obviously hate the Christian Church, you should be overjoyed and consider it a badge of honor for anyone to be asked to leave the Church body. I mean, if an Atheist group or Muslim group kicked someone out of their ranks, I would be happy for that person. Y'all are just looking for a reason to gin up hostility against an organization that you hate and are intolerant toward.

No one’s proposing ‘forcing’ anything on churches.

So this post is pointless and meaningless.

 

[Unkotare]

That family should try going to a Christian church next time.

 

[Moonglow]

You do not need a church to;

1. Get married.
2. Have a relationship with God.
3. transubstantiation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I always do. I oppose you and your mob rule referendums where you use the power of the state to deny folks to marry.
Same as the war on drugs and dozens of other things.
You want to use the power of government to push your agenda against gay marriage. I support the rights of the individual.
Do you support referendums on the ballot to ban gay marriage?
Do you support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman?
If so you do not support the rights of the individual.
How fitting of you to want to use the Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the rights of the individual and twist, distort and bastardize it to tell a certain group of people what it CAN NOT DO, rather than tell THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
Go ahead and admit. You hate gay folks and believe them to be 2nd class citizens.
At least others here have the balls to admit it.

I support the rights of an individual insofar as such doesn't preclude the rights of other individuals from banding together to form a community and set their own standards. These standards may be exclusive or inclusive but I feel that the majority has the right to establish their own guidelines with indifference to what some individuals might respect or expect within the boundaries of their community. In other words, I feel that a community can and should have the freedom to ban homosexual behavior, just as conversely, I feel another community can embrace homosexuality and ban heterosexuals. The proof of validity is demonstrated by how well each community flourishes. However, when the Federal government intervenes, it can only make blanket rulings that can do more harm than good, in that there is no room for experimentation, ideals, independent thinking, or trial and error. It comes down to Federal absolutes and this only, and everyone else can think what they wish as long as they keep it to themselves but accept all governmental mandates........................................................................ This is why religious beliefs were removed from public schools. It wasn't that the schools were bad or the education was inferior, it was that the Federal Government had taken over Public Education in 1946 and couldn't mandate God according to the Constitution but could mandate secularism. And this it did to great upheavals in education --- to the point of eliminating the freedom of real choice and absolutes.

And, again, this is thankfully why we have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this sort of ignorance and hate.

What you ‘feel’ is irrelevant, no jurisdiction may criminalize homosexuality, to do so would be un-Constitutional.

That is not why we have a Constitution. The Constitution is not there to tell the Amish community, or any other community, that they have to go along with your idea of what life is about, it is there so that the Amish can live the way they want even if you don't like it. The nice thing about that is that it lets people who don't want to be around Christians get together and build a community also.

Funny how you think the government should shove your point of view down my throat, then accuse me of doing the same to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those of you who propose to force YOUR way of thinking upon a church, or any other voluntary, non-business group, are the intolerant ones here. By your way of thinking, an all-gay club/organization should be forced to allow Christians as members.

If the church didn't react to congregation members openly supporting an anti-biblical lifestyle, then the church would be hypocritical and unworthy of even being a Christian church.

You can cry "intolerance!" and "hate!" all you want but again, your intolerance of a church abiding by its own rules is the most telling issue here. And besides, since you all obviously hate the Christian Church, you should be overjoyed and consider it a badge of honor for anyone to be asked to leave the Church body. I mean, if an Atheist group or Muslim group kicked someone out of their ranks, I would be happy for that person. Y'all are just looking for a reason to gin up hostility against an organization that you hate and are intolerant toward.

No one’s proposing ‘forcing’ anything on churches.

So this post is pointless and meaningless.

No one? Are you declaring a unilateral ability to speak for all 314 million people in the US? All 7 billion people on the planet? Or are you just blathering along in an attempt to look intelligent and demonstrating how pathetic you are as a result?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do not need a church to;

1. Get married.
2. Have a relationship with God.
3. transubstantiation.

How do you expect to get number 3 without a church?

 

[theHawk]

After same-sex couple victory in Collegedale, church ousts gay detective's family | timesfreepress.com

Collegedale's decision to grant benefits to same-sex couples was a victory for Kat Cooper, a gay detective who championed the months-long effort that made the Chattanooga suburb the first city in Tennessee to offer benefits to same-sex spouses of its government employees.

Cooper's mother, Linda, stood by her side throughout the process. She held tight to her daughter's hand at a July meeting over the issue. And the two embraced after the City Council's 4-1 vote on Aug. 5.

But those small acts of support translated into collateral damage that left Linda Cooper and other relatives separated from their church family of more than 60 years. And one local advocate for gay families says the church's stance was the most extreme he's heard of in years.

Leaders at Ridgedale Church of Christ met in private with Kat Cooper's mother, aunt and uncle on Sunday after the regular worship service. They were given an ultimatum: They could repent for their sins and ask forgiveness in front of the congregation. Or leave the church.

Copyright violation edited.

God hates fags....

Obviously you think a Church should be forced to condone and support homosexuality.

 

[theHawk]

I always do. I oppose you and your mob rule referendums where you use the power of the state to deny folks to marry.
Same as the war on drugs and dozens of other things.
You want to use the power of government to push your agenda against gay marriage. I support the rights of the individual.
Do you support referendums on the ballot to ban gay marriage?
Do you support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman?
If so you do not support the rights of the individual.
How fitting of you to want to use the Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the rights of the individual and twist, distort and bastardize it to tell a certain group of people what it CAN NOT DO, rather than tell THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
Go ahead and admit. You hate gay folks and believe them to be 2nd class citizens.
At least others here have the balls to admit it.

I support the rights of an individual insofar as such doesn't preclude the rights of other individuals from banding together to form a community and set their own standards. These standards may be exclusive or inclusive but I feel that the majority has the right to establish their own guidelines with indifference to what some individuals might respect or expect within the boundaries of their community. In other words, I feel that a community can and should have the freedom to ban homosexual behavior, just as conversely, I feel another community can embrace homosexuality and ban heterosexuals. The proof of validity is demonstrated by how well each community flourishes. However, when the Federal government intervenes, it can only make blanket rulings that can do more harm than good, in that there is no room for experimentation, ideals, independent thinking, or trial and error. It comes down to Federal absolutes and this only, and everyone else can think what they wish as long as they keep it to themselves but accept all governmental mandates........................................................................ This is why religious beliefs were removed from public schools. It wasn't that the schools were bad or the education was inferior, it was that the Federal Government had taken over Public Education in 1946 and couldn't mandate God according to the Constitution but could mandate secularism. And this it did to great upheavals in education --- to the point of eliminating the freedom of real choice and absolutes.

And, again, this is thankfully why we have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this sort of ignorance and hate.

What you ‘feel’ is irrelevant, no jurisdiction may criminalize homosexuality, to do so would be un-Constitutional.

So the Congressional Black Caucus denying a person entry because they aren't the right skin color is un-constitutional?

 

[LittleNipper]

I always do. I oppose you and your mob rule referendums where you use the power of the state to deny folks to marry.
Same as the war on drugs and dozens of other things.
You want to use the power of government to push your agenda against gay marriage. I support the rights of the individual.
Do you support referendums on the ballot to ban gay marriage?
Do you support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman?
If so you do not support the rights of the individual.
How fitting of you to want to use the Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the rights of the individual and twist, distort and bastardize it to tell a certain group of people what it CAN NOT DO, rather than tell THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
Go ahead and admit. You hate gay folks and believe them to be 2nd class citizens.
At least others here have the balls to admit it.

I support the rights of an individual insofar as such doesn't preclude the rights of other individuals from banding together to form a community and set their own standards. These standards may be exclusive or inclusive but I feel that the majority has the right to establish their own guidelines with indifference to what some individuals might respect or expect within the boundaries of their community. In other words, I feel that a community can and should have the freedom to ban homosexual behavior, just as conversely, I feel another community can embrace homosexuality and ban heterosexuals. The proof of validity is demonstrated by how well each community flourishes. However, when the Federal government intervenes, it can only make blanket rulings that can do more harm than good, in that there is no room for experimentation, ideals, independent thinking, or trial and error. It comes down to Federal absolutes and this only, and everyone else can think what they wish as long as they keep it to themselves but accept all governmental mandates........................................................................ This is why religious beliefs were removed from public schools. It wasn't that the schools were bad or the education was inferior, it was that the Federal Government had taken over Public Education in 1946 and couldn't mandate God according to the Constitution but could mandate secularism. And this it did to great upheavals in education --- to the point of eliminating the freedom of real choice and absolutes.

And, again, this is thankfully why we have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this sort of ignorance and hate.

What you ‘feel’ is irrelevant, no jurisdiction may criminalize homosexuality, to do so would be un-Constitutional.

I do not see anything in the Constitution that says Homosexuality is either legal or illegal. I see nothing in the Constitution that legitimatizes bad behavior nor prevents spanking a spoiled brat either. What you "feel" is irresponsible to the welfare of impressionable youngsters and those that happen to disagree with letting people do whatever they please. Sorry, homosexuality is a learned habit and just as undesirable as smoking to one's health and sanity.

 

[LittleNipper]

Those of you who propose to force YOUR way of thinking upon a church, or any other voluntary, non-business group, are the intolerant ones here. By your way of thinking, an all-gay club/organization should be forced to allow Christians as members.

If the church didn't react to congregation members openly supporting an anti-biblical lifestyle, then the church would be hypocritical and unworthy of even being a Christian church.

You can cry "intolerance!" and "hate!" all you want but again, your intolerance of a church abiding by its own rules is the most telling issue here. And besides, since you all obviously hate the Christian Church, you should be overjoyed and consider it a badge of honor for anyone to be asked to leave the Church body. I mean, if an Atheist group or Muslim group kicked someone out of their ranks, I would be happy for that person. Y'all are just looking for a reason to gin up hostility against an organization that you hate and are intolerant toward.

No one’s proposing ‘forcing’ anything on churches.

So this post is pointless and meaningless.

No, "they" are simply going to force the issue everywhere else, until "everyone" is taught and learns to be accepting of the "new morality." And you thought there was a separation of Church and State? What happens when the State begins to play god....?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I support the rights of an individual insofar as such doesn't preclude the rights of other individuals from banding together to form a community and set their own standards. These standards may be exclusive or inclusive but I feel that the majority has the right to establish their own guidelines with indifference to what some individuals might respect or expect within the boundaries of their community. In other words, I feel that a community can and should have the freedom to ban homosexual behavior, just as conversely, I feel another community can embrace homosexuality and ban heterosexuals. The proof of validity is demonstrated by how well each community flourishes. However, when the Federal government intervenes, it can only make blanket rulings that can do more harm than good, in that there is no room for experimentation, ideals, independent thinking, or trial and error. It comes down to Federal absolutes and this only, and everyone else can think what they wish as long as they keep it to themselves but accept all governmental mandates........................................................................ This is why religious beliefs were removed from public schools. It wasn't that the schools were bad or the education was inferior, it was that the Federal Government had taken over Public Education in 1946 and couldn't mandate God according to the Constitution but could mandate secularism. And this it did to great upheavals in education --- to the point of eliminating the freedom of real choice and absolutes.

And, again, this is thankfully why we have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this sort of ignorance and hate.

What you ‘feel’ is irrelevant, no jurisdiction may criminalize homosexuality, to do so would be un-Constitutional.

I do not see anything in the Constitution that says Homosexuality is either legal or illegal. I see nothing in the Constitution that legitimatizes bad behavior nor prevents spanking a spoiled brat either. What you "feel" is irresponsible to the welfare of impressionable youngsters and those that happen to disagree with letting people do whatever they please. Sorry, homosexuality is a learned habit and just as undesirable as smoking to one's health and sanity.

Here is where the Founding Document says criminalizing homosexuality is un-Constitutional:

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those of you who propose to force YOUR way of thinking upon a church, or any other voluntary, non-business group, are the intolerant ones here. By your way of thinking, an all-gay club/organization should be forced to allow Christians as members.

If the church didn't react to congregation members openly supporting an anti-biblical lifestyle, then the church would be hypocritical and unworthy of even being a Christian church.

You can cry "intolerance!" and "hate!" all you want but again, your intolerance of a church abiding by its own rules is the most telling issue here. And besides, since you all obviously hate the Christian Church, you should be overjoyed and consider it a badge of honor for anyone to be asked to leave the Church body. I mean, if an Atheist group or Muslim group kicked someone out of their ranks, I would be happy for that person. Y'all are just looking for a reason to gin up hostility against an organization that you hate and are intolerant toward.

No one’s proposing ‘forcing’ anything on churches.

So this post is pointless and meaningless.

No, "they" are simply going to force the issue everywhere else, until "everyone" is taught and learns to be accepting of the "new morality." And you thought there was a separation of Church and State? What happens when the State begins to play god....?

And yet again, again: no one’s ‘forcing’ anything on anyone, including churches. 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to state and local jurisdictions, not the private sector.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the contracts that are marriage law, they meet all the qualifications of those contracts. There is no logical, rational, objective, or factual reason why same-sex couples should be denied their equal protection rights concerning marriage.

This also has nothing to do with ‘morality,’ new or old. Nor does this have anything to do with something being ‘taught.’ It’s a simple matter of the states obeying the Constitution, and acknowledging the civil liberties of same-sex couples.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I support the rights of an individual insofar as such doesn't preclude the rights of other individuals from banding together to form a community and set their own standards. These standards may be exclusive or inclusive but I feel that the majority has the right to establish their own guidelines with indifference to what some individuals might respect or expect within the boundaries of their community. In other words, I feel that a community can and should have the freedom to ban homosexual behavior, just as conversely, I feel another community can embrace homosexuality and ban heterosexuals. The proof of validity is demonstrated by how well each community flourishes. However, when the Federal government intervenes, it can only make blanket rulings that can do more harm than good, in that there is no room for experimentation, ideals, independent thinking, or trial and error. It comes down to Federal absolutes and this only, and everyone else can think what they wish as long as they keep it to themselves but accept all governmental mandates........................................................................ This is why religious beliefs were removed from public schools. It wasn't that the schools were bad or the education was inferior, it was that the Federal Government had taken over Public Education in 1946 and couldn't mandate God according to the Constitution but could mandate secularism. And this it did to great upheavals in education --- to the point of eliminating the freedom of real choice and absolutes.

And, again, this is thankfully why we have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this sort of ignorance and hate.

What you ‘feel’ is irrelevant, no jurisdiction may criminalize homosexuality, to do so would be un-Constitutional.

So the Congressional Black Caucus denying a person entry because they aren't the right skin color is un-constitutional?

Is the Congressional black caucus a state or local jurisdiction?

The First Amendment affords citizens the right to free association, and to compose those associations as their members see fit, absent interference by the state. See: BSA v. Dale (2000).

This is why no church can be compelled to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage rituals in accordance with religious dogma.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And, again, this is thankfully why we have a Constitution, to protect citizens from this sort of ignorance and hate.

What you ‘feel’ is irrelevant, no jurisdiction may criminalize homosexuality, to do so would be un-Constitutional.

So the Congressional Black Caucus denying a person entry because they aren't the right skin color is un-constitutional?

Is the Congressional black caucus a state or local jurisdiction?

The First Amendment affords citizens the right to free association, and to compose those associations as their members see fit, absent interference by the state. See: BSA v. Dale (2000).

This is why no church can be compelled to allow same-sex couples access to their marriage rituals in accordance with religious dogma.

The Supreme Court has said that the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution is only protected by heightened scrutiny while discrimination laws are protected by strict scrutiny. Want to guess which one would win a showdown under those rules? Or do you want to pretend I don't know what I am talking about again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one’s proposing ‘forcing’ anything on churches.

So this post is pointless and meaningless.

No, "they" are simply going to force the issue everywhere else, until "everyone" is taught and learns to be accepting of the "new morality." And you thought there was a separation of Church and State? What happens when the State begins to play god....?

And yet again, again: no one’s ‘forcing’ anything on anyone, including churches. 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to state and local jurisdictions, not the private sector.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the contracts that are marriage law, they meet all the qualifications of those contracts. There is no logical, rational, objective, or factual reason why same-sex couples should be denied their equal protection rights concerning marriage.

This also has nothing to do with ‘morality,’ new or old. Nor does this have anything to do with something being ‘taught.’ It’s a simple matter of the states obeying the Constitution, and acknowledging the civil liberties of same-sex couples.

Tell that to the photographer that is required to show up at a wedding ceremony they object to. If those assholes want Christians at their wedding why don't they invite Westboro Baptist Church?

 

[Gadawg73]

No, "they" are simply going to force the issue everywhere else, until "everyone" is taught and learns to be accepting of the "new morality." And you thought there was a separation of Church and State? What happens when the State begins to play god....?

And yet again, again: no one’s ‘forcing’ anything on anyone, including churches. 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to state and local jurisdictions, not the private sector.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the contracts that are marriage law, they meet all the qualifications of those contracts. There is no logical, rational, objective, or factual reason why same-sex couples should be denied their equal protection rights concerning marriage.

This also has nothing to do with ‘morality,’ new or old. Nor does this have anything to do with something being ‘taught.’ It’s a simple matter of the states obeying the Constitution, and acknowledging the civil liberties of same-sex couples.

Tell that to the photographer that is required to show up at a wedding ceremony they object to. If those assholes want Christians at their wedding why don't they invite Westboro Baptist Church?

OK, let us run with the play that a photographer is forced by THE LAW to go somewhere, a gay wedding, to take photos of the wedding.
Of course this is after some form of litigation, compliant against the photographer, fine, SOMETHING that forces them to go.
And then the photos that the photographer took were just terrible photos, awful and the day is over.
And the caterer did not want to go and the food was cold, some undercooked, not enough ice and everyone was upset.
I am sure that is exactly what gay couples want at their wedding. A massive fuck up of their special day just to force someone to "accept them".
Is this all you have Windbag? Please tell us you have some other argument, somewhere, someplace, ANYWHERE to back up your claims.

Because do date you are getting your ass pancaked, no pun intended, with your foolish arguments.

Anti discrimination include gay people, get used to it. But in ALL the rulings the court has ruled that the business can post and advertise that their beliefs are that they oppose same sex marriage. That is legal.
And no same sex couple is going to risk hiring someone for their special day when they know that. In fact in the NM case they hired another photographer.

 

[NLT]

Gee...I wonder why membership is dwindling at churches?

I see no difference in your bigotry against christians than my bigotry against loud mouth bull dykes.