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

[Soggy in NOLA]

What's your fucking problem?? Why do you always think you can start threads preaching to conservatives about what they're allowed to believe, and what's off fucking limits according to you? Why don't you mind your own damn biznez for once, worry about your girlfriend or wife who collects welfare which almost caused you to leave her.. blah blah blah.. STFU already Gramps.. DAMN


You sound like Bloomberg telling people what to do.. Get over yourself!

Because if I can't call out my own I have no business bitching at the other side. I'm not a fucking drone. If you don't like it find the ignore feature and utilize it.

You do realize that you're doing exactly what you're bitching about others doing.. that is, telling others what to believe is right or wrong.

So, in a nutshell, you're a hypocrite... on this one.

 

[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?

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

Read my above post.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Wow...you really make no sense. Are you saying that gays are the most powerfullest ever in the history of forever? The blacks couldn't force churches to marry them. Divorcees can't force the church, but the all powerful gays will?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Exactly.. conservatives are always supposed to come around while the left acquiesces on nothing.. it's their way or go eat shit and die in a motherfucking fire your racist, homophobe, sexist assholes.

 

[rightwinger]

you hit the nail on the head. true freedom of speech does not hold one accountable for saying something that offends someone else.

its the political correctness bullshit that does that--not freedom.

You cannot be more wrong. Everything you say has consequences. May be good consequences may be bad

You can tell everyone at work that your bosses wife looks like a fat whore. You can claim " true freedom of speech" ....but you will be held accountable

I would not be held legally accountable, thats the difference. you want to make any disagreement with the gay agenda illegal.

Who is holding you legally responsible for hating gays? You can hate anyone you please.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where are the lawsuits?

Texas Church Pushes Racist Doctrine

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

Wow...you really make no sense. Are you saying that gays are the most powerfullest ever in the history of forever? The blacks couldn't force churches to marry them. Divorcees can't force the church, but the all powerful gays will?

Sarcasm. The first sign of a weak argument. Please silence yourself. According to you, yes, they are "the most powerfullest ever in the history of forever".

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

No, simply put, your post is irrelevant. You want to trap me in the proverbial scenarios, and trap questions that have nothing to do with this discussion in any way at all. You should really try pulling that crap on someone else.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Seriously dude...if Loving didn't set a precedent to force churches to marry interracial couples, how do you make the stretch from striking down section 3 of DOMA to churches being legally forced to marry gays? (They will be forced by public opinion though).

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Seriously dude...if Loving didn't set a precedent to force churches to marry interracial couples, how do you make the stretch from striking down section 3 of DOMA to churches being legally forced to marry gays? (They will be forced by public opinion though).

This is precisely my point. By striking down DOMA, the court set all the precedent. Thank you Seawytch for making my argument for me.

Have a good afternoon.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Seriously dude...if Loving didn't set a precedent to force churches to marry interracial couples, how do you make the stretch from striking down section 3 of DOMA to churches being legally forced to marry gays? (They will be forced by public opinion though).

In addition, public opinion has no legal bearing. Next.

 

[Freewill]

Here us and article concerning gays suing a church. Has happened can happen. What would happen, I think, is that unless they were a member of the church then it would be thrown out as them not having standing to sue. But since the SCOTUS decided to be an activist court then who freakin' knows what rights future courts will trample. In other words if a court ruled that a church must perform the ceremony against church policy that would seem to me to be against first amendment rights if not freedom of thought. Of course liberals won't think that way, their mantra is "believe as me or perish."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110626124749AAN9VDi

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.....

LMAO....You have way too much time on your hands and keyboard.

 

[bodecea]

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.

What makes you think there will be lawsuits in the future.

Interracial marriage has been legal since the 1960s...where are the lawsuits?

Interfaith marriage has been legal since....pretty much forever...where are the lawsuits?

Marriages between divorced people have been legal for a very long time...where are the lawsuits?

So....your argument is based on a LIE, Templar. A big fat lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

It’s a perfectly legitimate question, it’s your claim that a church which refuses to marry a same-sex couple would be subject to a lawsuit on 14th Amendment grounds.

If that’s true you should have no trouble citing such a case.

 

[bodecea]

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

Wow...you really make no sense. Are you saying that gays are the most powerfullest ever in the history of forever? The blacks couldn't force churches to marry them. Divorcees can't force the church, but the all powerful gays will?

Sarcasm. The first sign of a weak argument. Please silence yourself. According to you, yes, they are "the most powerfullest ever in the history of forever".

Not sarcasm...where oh where are those lawsuits, Templar?

 

[Freewill]

Here's the answer since most don't follow links:

Yes, they can. There have been several legal precedences for things like this stemming from activist judiciaries in places like Massachusetts, which snuck in a provision [1] for banning "discrimination" on all public grounds, and churches do indeed qualify as public.

A New Jersey couple already attempted it back in 2007 [2]. Although they may not have won, such frivolous lawsuits still take time and money away from the church and are seen as such while Gay activists often benefit from Pro-Bono legal support from GLAAD and the ACLU. Even if Gays lose the case, they still succeed in bankrupting the church.

This is one of the reasons that conservative legislators in NY fought so hard for provisions against these type of predatory lawsuits against the religious institutions.

Massachusetts is an excellent case-study of what happens when the state attempts to commandeer a social phenomenon. The promotion of gay marriage rather than civil unions resulted in an immediate firestorm of lawsuits against the church, most famously one that culminated in the Catholic church shutting down its adoption agency rather than accepting a state dictum on whom they had to allow to adopt [3].

Many think the church has it out for gay people. This may or may not be true. However what is certain is that the gay community definitely has it out for the church. Every instance of legalized marriage is followed by a barrage of legal activism against local religious denominations.

Source(s):

1. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section98

2. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/jul/07071011

3. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2006/feb/06022010

 

[bodecea]

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.

No, simply put, your post is irrelevant. You want to trap me in the proverbial scenarios, and trap questions that have nothing to do with this discussion in any way at all. You should really try pulling that crap on someone else.

Nope....your whole argument is based on a LIE. Why would one group be able to sue churches for not marrying them when OTHER groups cannot, nor have they ever been able to?

Where does the ability pop up?

You've been had by the anti-gay marriage propaganda. If you took a moment, you'd see it.

 

[Mr Natural]

The right wing should continue it's policy of alienating as many groups as it can.

 

[Vox]

Wow...you really make no sense. Are you saying that gays are the most powerfullest ever in the history of forever? The blacks couldn't force churches to marry them. Divorcees can't force the church, but the all powerful gays will?

Sarcasm. The first sign of a weak argument. Please silence yourself. According to you, yes, they are "the most powerfullest ever in the history of forever".

Not sarcasm...where oh where are those lawsuits, Templar?

lawsuits are usually in courts, if you don't know.

and it is has already happened - check the links by Freewill
the argument that if one gropup didn't sue the churches then the other won't idoes not stand any ground as one gropu could have been just more decent than the other. gay activists already have proved their maliciousness so yes, there will be much more lawsuits from this gropu as they exhibit abnormal level of hatred towards anybody not agreeing with them - clear psychopathology, btw.

 

[bodecea]

Sarcasm. The first sign of a weak argument. Please silence yourself. According to you, yes, they are "the most powerfullest ever in the history of forever".

Not sarcasm...where oh where are those lawsuits, Templar?

lawsuits are usually in courts, if you don't know.

And there's a record of them too....if they exist. Imagine that.