Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Its a perfectly legitimate question, its your claim that a church which refuses to marry a same-sex couple would be subject to a lawsuit on 14th Amendment grounds.
If thats true you should have no trouble citing such a case.
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.
Red herring, non sequitur. No reply is warranted.
Its a perfectly legitimate question, its your claim that a church which refuses to marry a same-sex couple would be subject to a lawsuit on 14th Amendment grounds.
If thats true you should have no trouble citing such a case.
I just explained myself. Only you, Seawytch, and bodecea would be blind enough not to see the precedent being established in our court system. I merely presented it as a hypothetical situation. Can you people not read?
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.
I just explained myself. Only you, Seawytch, and bodecea would be blind enough not to see the precedent being established in our court system. I merely presented it as a hypothetical situation. Can you people not read?
Where is that precedent, Templar? Where is/are the law suit(s) making churches marry people that their faith is against? Where are they? List some.....list one.....
Hypothetical is fun, btw. I can hypothetically state that the only difference between the way Christians treat gays and muslims treat gays is because our secular laws prevent them from lynching us. Isn't hypothetical fun?
Its a perfectly legitimate question, its your claim that a church which refuses to marry a same-sex couple would be subject to a lawsuit on 14th Amendment grounds.
If thats true you should have no trouble citing such a case.
I just explained myself. Only you, Seawytch, and bodecea would be blind enough not to see the precedent being established in our court system. I merely presented it as a hypothetical situation. Can you people not read?
Where is that precedent, Templar? Where is/are the law suit(s) making churches marry people that their faith is against? Where are they? List some.....list one.....
Hypothetical is fun, btw. I can hypothetically state that the only difference between the way Christians treat gays and muslims treat gays is because our secular laws prevent them from lynching us. Isn't hypothetical fun?
It is something thst should be let alone. I'm happy to. Just as soon as gays start respecting the religious beliefs and practices of others and as soon as gay guys stop demanding the right to wag their weenies in women's rest rooms and dressing rooms.
Deal????
It is something thst should be let alone. I'm happy to. Just as soon as gays start respecting the religious beliefs and practices of others and as soon as gay guys stop demanding the right to wag their weenies in women's rest rooms and dressing rooms.
Deal????
LOL! Why should gays or anyone else respect religion or your practices? And what about heteros screwing away in restrooms, and tapping toes like your sen Craig boy with wife and two kids? Religions are full of closet hiding sexual perverts, why should I respect them? Like Jimmy Baker sleeping with his dog, Swaggart watching lil girls vagina's, Falwell doing his grandma in the restroom. Come on dude, why should I respect a cult that makes pedophiles available to boys in their church?
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.
You folks need to read the first link concerning the law. Hell they discriminate right in the law. See if you can find where.
Anyway I showed you folks where both sides were wrong, there were law suits and there will be law suits if history teaches us anything.
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."
Can a gay couple win a lawsuit against a Church for refusing to marry them? - Yahoo! Answers
Who said anything about white or black?
Poverty is still poverty and Republicans offer nothing but ridicule. People want jobs that they can support their families on and all Republucans are offering is tax cuts for the wealthy
You missed my point, and I think you did it on purpose, since you have no valid answer to my post.
The Democrat party has been spending probably trillions, but at least billions in its war on poverty. Admittedly, it is /was just as futile as the Republican efforts on the War on Drugs.
When you used the term "impoverished areas" I have seen them. I did volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity in black Overtown in Miami as well as with Apaplachian Service Project in white Chavies, KY.
I am not sure if your personal experience to help poor people, black or white, is similar to my experience, but I give you the benefit of doubt.
Like you say, poverty is poverty. And the ridicule Democrats heap on blacks (male or female) and women Black or white) is still ridicule.
When I hear from you or anyone like you even the slightest recognition and admittance that women and blacks who happen to be conservatives are not bigots, racists, Uncle Toms, traitors to their gender/race, I will give you credit for your posts.
I don't think we are that far apart on this. Poverty exists and it is a blight on our great society. The Republic Party says ......pick yourself up by your bootstraps, get a job......if you have a job, get a better job.......just don't bother me when I push for further tax cuts for the wealthy
The Republic Partymay mock the war on poverty, but it was effective in raising people out of poverty. Interview anyone who has risen from poor to middle class and find out how they did it. Yes, hard work and initiative played a part......but so did jobs training and jobs programs. So did small business loans and initiatives.
The main whipping boy for the Republic Party remains safety net programs. Aid for families with dependent children, food stamps, housing allowances and yes, even a $30 cell phone
I just explained myself. Only you, Seawytch, and bodecea would be blind enough not to see the precedent being established in our court system. I merely presented it as a hypothetical situation. Can you people not read?
Where is that precedent, Templar? Where is/are the law suit(s) making churches marry people that their faith is against? Where are they? List some.....list one.....
Hypothetical is fun, btw. I can hypothetically state that the only difference between the way Christians treat gays and muslims treat gays is because our secular laws prevent them from lynching us. Isn't hypothetical fun?
Provided above but you just keep on keeping on....interesting.
1. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...r272/Section98
2. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...7/jul/07071011
3. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...6/feb/06022010
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.
Keep it up, hater dupes- you're the greatest! Great fun watching the GOP implode...
Where is that precedent, Templar? Where is/are the law suit(s) making churches marry people that their faith is against? Where are they? List some.....list one.....
Hypothetical is fun, btw. I can hypothetically state that the only difference between the way Christians treat gays and muslims treat gays is because our secular laws prevent them from lynching us. Isn't hypothetical fun?
Provided above but you just keep on keeping on....interesting.
1. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...r272/Section98
2. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...7/jul/07071011
3. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...6/feb/06022010
You need to post the full links, this site has a bad habit of editing them. This results in the links not working.
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.
So, calling me a liar is all you have to throw at me? Sigh
