Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[Seawytch]

1. Freedom to practice my faith without being accosted as "intolerant" or "bigoted" which can technically be seen as an affront on my 1st Amendment rights.

You are not, nor will you be prevented from practicing your faith. You just can't use it as justification to break laws.



And naturally you can cite a case where a church was successfully sued into providing religious services to interfaith or interracial couples?



Bullshit. You aren't being fined or jailed, just being called an intolerant bigot for being an intolerant bigot. Free speech runs two directions.



As suspected, you can't cite a single example of your rights being violated.

First of all, you quoted this earlier:

In 1871, Representative Andrew King (D-Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nation-wide. King proposed this amendment because he feared that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Can I ask you what this has to do with gay marriage?

Discrimination is discrimination. He was right you know, that the 14 was used to legalize interracial marriage by judicial fiat no less. It will be used again for marriage equality.

Second as to your points

1. Um, if you want to see people using their faith to break the law, look no further than ISLAM.

Cite them. What laws have Muslims broken in this country, used their religion to justify braking those laws and were not prosecuted as a result?

2. No, the precedent has now just been set. You will see.

Want to bet? When the first gay couple sues a church to perform their wedding ceremony and wins, I'll give you anything you want, I swear.

3. It "runs in two directions" huh? So, why is it you call me "hateful" and "ignorant' or "bigoted" each time I express my opinion in disagreement with homosexuality? Sure, it "runs in two directions" my ass.

Because your "disagreement" stems from hatred and bigotry. I don't want to legislate you away from your intolerance, but I'm allowed to call you out on it.

4. Ha, I notice how you failed to rebut that little nugget. You seem to think the Civil Rights act applies to gays and minorities. How naive you are.

You haven't been discriminated against. The claim was ludicrous on its face.

 

[bodecea]

I am offended by almost everything that seawytch says, but I do not want to restrict her ability to say whatever she wants as many times as she wants------------you, on the other hand are not only trying to restrict speech, you want the govt to invoke thought control on everyone who disagrees with the gay agenda.

Bull pucky.

your non-response verifies the accuracy of my statement.

you know thats what you want, you want it to be a crime to be opposed to the gay agenda. you want anyone who disagrees with you to be punished by the government.

Nope...do not want it to be a crime at all...1st Amendment trumps. You can be as hateful as you personally want to be towards gays as long as you don't envoke civil law against us or are physically violent towards us.

 

[bodecea]

OK, here are a couple

-overruling the will of the people of california--twice
-making it a crime to refuse to cater a gay wedding

Still waiting for examples. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. That's not a violation of your right. You don't have the right to violate the Constitution.

Public Accommodation laws have been in place since at least 1964 and found constitutional.

We'll keep waiting for real examples, not your agenda driven hyperbole.

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

So...list the lawsuits against the Catholic Church for refusing to marry previously divorced couples.

List:

1.

2.

3.

etc.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Still waiting for examples. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. That's not a violation of your right. You don't have the right to violate the Constitution.

Public Accommodation laws have been in place since at least 1964 and found constitutional.

We'll keep waiting for real examples, not your agenda driven hyperbole.

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

So...list the lawsuits against the Catholic Church for refusing to marry previously divorced couples.

List:

1.

2.

3.

etc.

Red herring, non sequitur. No reply is warranted.

 

[Seawytch]

OK, here are a couple

-overruling the will of the people of california--twice
-making it a crime to refuse to cater a gay wedding

Still waiting for examples. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. That's not a violation of your right. You don't have the right to violate the Constitution.

Public Accommodation laws have been in place since at least 1964 and found constitutional.

We'll keep waiting for real examples, not your agenda driven hyperbole.

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

Your ignorance of the law is duly noted. Churches are free, have been free and always will be free to discriminate as they see fit. It has been and always will be public pressure that causes churches to change their stances on discrimination.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If this is your response to C_Clayton_Jones....show us exactly what rights and privileges under the law YOU LOSE when gays are given the right to marry.

List them here:

1.

2.

3.

4.

1. Freedom to practice my faith without being accosted as "intolerant" or "bigoted" which can technically be seen as an affront on my 1st Amendment rights.

2. Freedom to worship in my own way (yes, if my church refuses to marry you, its lawsuit city).

3. Freedom of speech, since my political views on the topic are no longer acceptable to people like you, I can open myself up to a lawsuit just by saying something as harmless as "I don't support gay marriage"

4. And since our country has grown more favorable to people of your type, the job environment has become more hostile to people of my moral standing. I am open to more discrimination. Which violates my rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anything else?

First Amendment restrictions apply to government, law-making entities only, not private individuals or organizations. 14th Amendment jurisprudence doesn’t apply to persons or religious organizations, Christian denominations may continue to refuse to perform marriage rituals for same-sex couples.

A private citizen accusing you of being intolerant and bigoted as a consequence of your hate and ignorance toward homosexuals does not constitute a First Amendment rights violation.



Incorrect.

Again, 14th Amendment jurisprudence doesn’t apply to private religious organizations.



No, you won’t be subject to a ‘lawsuit’ for exhibiting your hate and ignorance concerning same-sex couples' right to access marriage law. Indeed, you have the Constitutional right to be hateful and ignorant – and most conservatives exercise that right often and vigorously.

If your state, however, should attempt to enact a measure denying same-sex couples access to your state’s marriage law, yes, a lawsuit seeking remedy to an equal protection rights violation is both likely and warranted.


And you’re also at liberty to file a complaint in Federal court accordingly.

Anything else?

Yes.

Given the response to this thread by conservative subscribers, clearly the OP’s efforts were futile.

I would lend this more credence, if it weren't for the fact that you never addressed my first post to you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OK, here are a couple

-overruling the will of the people of california--twice
-making it a crime to refuse to cater a gay wedding

Still waiting for examples. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. That's not a violation of your right. You don't have the right to violate the Constitution.

Public Accommodation laws have been in place since at least 1964 and found constitutional.

We'll keep waiting for real examples, not your agenda driven hyperbole.

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

Public accommodations laws vary from state to state – currently only 13 states prohibit such discrimination concerning sexual orientation.

Public accommodations laws on the Federal level are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964). The law specifies certain businesses that may not discriminate based on certain criteria – churches are not subject to the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Still waiting for examples. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. That's not a violation of your right. You don't have the right to violate the Constitution.

Public Accommodation laws have been in place since at least 1964 and found constitutional.

We'll keep waiting for real examples, not your agenda driven hyperbole.

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

Your ignorance of the law is duly noted. Churches are free, have been free and always will be free to discriminate as they see fit. It has been and always will be public pressure that causes churches to change their stances on discrimination.

Your ignorance of all things is duly noted. Can you not see the precedent that's already been set here? Just by the SCOTUS ruling alone, churches are under more pressure to conform to the whims of people such as yourself. You really want to pull the wool over my eyes don't you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Still waiting for examples. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. That's not a violation of your right. You don't have the right to violate the Constitution.

Public Accommodation laws have been in place since at least 1964 and found constitutional.

We'll keep waiting for real examples, not your agenda driven hyperbole.

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

Public accommodations laws vary from state to state – currently only 13 states prohibit such discrimination concerning sexual orientation.

Public accommodations laws on the Federal level are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964). The law specifies certain businesses that may not discriminate based on certain criteria – churches are not subject to the law.

But as I (being a member of my church for 23 years) have witnessed, people are free to join my church, we are glad to take anyone in. Shouldn't such activity be seen as "public accommodation?"

 

[Seawytch]

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

So...list the lawsuits against the Catholic Church for refusing to marry previously divorced couples.
.

Red herring, non sequitur. No reply is warranted.

Where are the lawsuits?

Texas Church Pushes Racist Doctrine

 

[JustSomeGuy]

The premise of this thread is ridiculous.

Sanctimonious liberals are bad, but sanctimonious "conservatives" are worse. You know who decided to pick the gay marriage fight? It wasn't conservatives. I get tired of reading crap about how conservatives should "let things go", when those things were only brought up to begin with because one side decided to make it an issue. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Oh, and for real. This thread isn't aimed at conservatives, but rather at getting "brownie points" from the other side.

 

[bodecea]

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

So...list the lawsuits against the Catholic Church for refusing to marry previously divorced couples.

List:

1.

2.

3.

etc.

Red herring, non sequitur. No reply is warranted.

Not at all...and you know it. Being divorced is TOTALLY legal....remarriage after divorce is TOTALLY legal. And yet, the Catholic Church has a clear right to refuse to marry previously divorced people. Just like churches have a clear right to refuse to marry gay couples, divorced couples, interfaith couples, interracial couples....pretty much anyone they don't want to marry. It's the 1st amendment.

Your argument is based on a LIE.

 

[bodecea]

The premise of this thread is ridiculous.

Sanctimonious liberals are bad, but sanctimonious "conservatives" are worse. You know who decided to pick the gay marriage fight? It wasn't conservatives. I get tired of reading crap about how conservatives should "let things go", when those things were only brought up to begin with because one side decided to make it an issue. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Oh, and for real. This thread isn't aimed at conservatives, but rather at getting "brownie points" from the other side.

Hey! I didn't know we had brownie points to give out.

 

[Seawytch]

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

Your ignorance of the law is duly noted. Churches are free, have been free and always will be free to discriminate as they see fit. It has been and always will be public pressure that causes churches to change their stances on discrimination.

Your ignorance of all things is duly noted. Can you not see the precedent that's already been set here? Just by the SCOTUS ruling alone, churches are under more pressure to conform to the whims of people such as yourself. You really want to pull the wool over my eyes don't you?

Loving v Virginia was decided by the SCOTUS in 1965 and a church in Texas won't marry interracial couples TODAY. You're making shit up. No church will ever be compelled by law to marry gays.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am offended by almost everything that seawytch says, but I do not want to restrict her ability to say whatever she wants as many times as she wants------------you, on the other hand are not only trying to restrict speech, you want the govt to invoke thought control on everyone who disagrees with the gay agenda.

Bull pucky.

your non-response verifies the accuracy of my statement.

you know thats what you want, you want it to be a crime to be opposed to the gay agenda. you want anyone who disagrees with you to be punished by the government.

Nonsense.

There is no ‘gay agenda.’ Unless one considers seeking his civil liberties an ‘agenda.’

And as the courts have confirmed time and again, citizens are at liberty to express their hate for one another absent government interference, provided that hate speech doesn’t advocate for imminent lawless actions.

It’s ignorant idiocy to state anyone wants to ‘criminalize’ hate speech.

 

[rightwinger]

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

Your ignorance of the law is duly noted. Churches are free, have been free and always will be free to discriminate as they see fit. It has been and always will be public pressure that causes churches to change their stances on discrimination.

Your ignorance of all things is duly noted. Can you not see the precedent that's already been set here? Just by the SCOTUS ruling alone, churches are under more pressure to conform to the whims of people such as yourself. You really want to pull the wool over my eyes don't you?

You have yet to list a single lawsuit despite your whining

It appears your ass is being handed to you

 

[TemplarKormac]

So...list the lawsuits against the Catholic Church for refusing to marry previously divorced couples.
.

Red herring, non sequitur. No reply is warranted.

Where are the lawsuits?

Texas Church Pushes Racist Doctrine

Racism has nothing to do with this discussion. Non sequitur.

 

[bodecea]

Funny, under your logic the church is subject to the same Public Accomodation Laws, yet you say "you will not lose your right to practice your faith."

Care to explain that little conundrum?

Your ignorance of the law is duly noted. Churches are free, have been free and always will be free to discriminate as they see fit. It has been and always will be public pressure that causes churches to change their stances on discrimination.

Your ignorance of all things is duly noted. Can you not see the precedent that's already been set here? Just by the SCOTUS ruling alone, churches are under more pressure to conform to the whims of people such as yourself. You really want to pull the wool over my eyes don't you?

C'mon, Templar....where are those lawsuits against churches.....

 

[Seawytch]

The premise of this thread is ridiculous.

Sanctimonious liberals are bad, but sanctimonious "conservatives" are worse. You know who decided to pick the gay marriage fight? It wasn't conservatives. I get tired of reading crap about how conservatives should "let things go", when those things were only brought up to begin with because one side decided to make it an issue. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Oh, and for real. This thread isn't aimed at conservatives, but rather at getting "brownie points" from the other side.

So saying "hey, we should have equal rights" is "picking a fight"? Yes..a fight for our rights. Kind of like America "picking a fight" with Mother England.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your ignorance of the law is duly noted. Churches are free, have been free and always will be free to discriminate as they see fit. It has been and always will be public pressure that causes churches to change their stances on discrimination.

Your ignorance of all things is duly noted. Can you not see the precedent that's already been set here? Just by the SCOTUS ruling alone, churches are under more pressure to conform to the whims of people such as yourself. You really want to pull the wool over my eyes don't you?

You have yet to list a single lawsuit despite your whining

It appears your ass is being handed to you

Nope. There have been no lawsuits yet. There will be. Legal precedent is being set as we speak, as the SCOTUS ruling no doubt established. The loopholes and caveats are there to be exploited. You are trolling as you always are, and contribute nothing to this discussion, save for parroting the talking points of your buddies here in this thread.