Same sex marriage OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[frigidweirdo]

The freedom to deny what their religion calls sin. That is their protected right that is being threatened.

Er... so, how can they not deny this? It's simple? They have the freedom to say they deny this, they have the freedom to think they deny it too.

The Bible says adulterers should be executed. They can deny that adulterers not only don't get executed, but they can also deny that adulterers can get divorced and remarry.

There's plenty in the Bible which is allowed by law and has been for a while which they have the RIGHT to deny if they choose to do so.

Try again.

Ignore.

You're putting me on ignore because..... you said something that isn't true and I showed you that it's not true?

Fine, I mean, if you come on to a political forum and you're not willing to listen to other people, then you might as well just stick EVERYONE on ignore.

I don't really need to be trying to debate with pussy cats and chickens, so, it's probably for the best.

 

[HappyJoy]

OK, when has a church ever been forced by government to perform any wedding?

Did you not see my last comment to you?

Yep. I'll ask again and be clearer. When has any church ever been forced by the government to perform ANY wedding that was against their beliefs?

I don't think I could be any clearer. Maybe I should get some crayons and put it in big block letters for you. Go back and read it again, this time real slow, and study it. You might get it.

I'm asking you when a church has ever been forced to marry someone for any reason. I'm looking for precedence or whatever way you think this could happen on legal grounds. I just don't see it and I don't think anything like it has ever happened before. You don't have to try to prove your point and without doing so nobody should take you seriously.

Asking me the same question is pointless and answering the same question is pointless so I guess this ridiculous and redundant exchange is pointless. Bye bye.

What you are saying is you can't think of any time where the government forced a church to marry anyone but for whatever reason, gay marriage is going to change that.

 

[S.J.]

Did you not see my last comment to you?

Yep. I'll ask again and be clearer. When has any church ever been forced by the government to perform ANY wedding that was against their beliefs?

I don't think I could be any clearer. Maybe I should get some crayons and put it in big block letters for you. Go back and read it again, this time real slow, and study it. You might get it.

I'm asking you when a church has ever been forced to marry someone for any reason. I'm looking for precedence or whatever way you think this could happen on legal grounds. I just don't see it and I don't think anything like it has ever happened before. You don't have to try to prove your point and without doing so nobody should take you seriously.

Asking me the same question is pointless and answering the same question is pointless so I guess this ridiculous and redundant exchange is pointless. Bye bye.

What you are saying is you can't think of any time where the government forced a church to marry anyone but for whatever reason, gay marriage is going to change that.

No, what I'm saying is that they JUST MADE the ruling. They haven't had TIME to force a church to marry homosexuals yet. Of course they didn't try to force them before the SC ruling, it hadn't been DECIDED YET. If they are consistent, they will now try to force churches to accommodate them the same way they forced bakers and photographers to accommodate them in states that had gay marriage. Wait a few months and I guarantee you will see these cases crop up now that it's legal in all 50 states (or 57, depending on who's counting). This ruling has pitted gay rights against first amendment rights and that's exactly what Obama wanted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, what I'm saying is that they JUST MADE the ruling. They haven't had TIME to force a church to marry homosexuals yet. Of course they didn't try to force them before the SC ruling, it hadn't been DECIDED YET. If they are consistent, they will now try to force churches to accommodate them the same way they forced bakers and photographers to accommodate them in states that had gay marriage. Wait a few months and I guarantee you will see these cases crop up now that it's legal in all 50 states (or 57, depending on who's counting). This ruling has pitted gay rights against first amendment rights and that's exactly what Obama wanted.

Are churches forced to accept marriage of straight couples that they don't like?

 

[S.J.]

No, what I'm saying is that they JUST MADE the ruling. They haven't had TIME to force a church to marry homosexuals yet. Of course they didn't try to force them before the SC ruling, it hadn't been DECIDED YET. If they are consistent, they will now try to force churches to accommodate them the same way they forced bakers and photographers to accommodate them in states that had gay marriage. Wait a few months and I guarantee you will see these cases crop up now that it's legal in all 50 states (or 57, depending on who's counting). This ruling has pitted gay rights against first amendment rights and that's exactly what Obama wanted.

Are churches forced to accept marriage of straight couples that they don't like?

Please don't be silly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, what I'm saying is that they JUST MADE the ruling. They haven't had TIME to force a church to marry homosexuals yet. Of course they didn't try to force them before the SC ruling, it hadn't been DECIDED YET. If they are consistent, they will now try to force churches to accommodate them the same way they forced bakers and photographers to accommodate them in states that had gay marriage. Wait a few months and I guarantee you will see these cases crop up now that it's legal in all 50 states (or 57, depending on who's counting). This ruling has pitted gay rights against first amendment rights and that's exactly what Obama wanted.

Are churches forced to accept marriage of straight couples that they don't like?

Please don't be silly.

It's a question.

 

[Seawytch]

No, what I'm saying is that they JUST MADE the ruling. They haven't had TIME to force a church to marry homosexuals yet. Of course they didn't try to force them before the SC ruling, it hadn't been DECIDED YET. If they are consistent, they will now try to force churches to accommodate them the same way they forced bakers and photographers to accommodate them in states that had gay marriage. Wait a few months and I guarantee you will see these cases crop up now that it's legal in all 50 states (or 57, depending on who's counting). This ruling has pitted gay rights against first amendment rights and that's exactly what Obama wanted.

Are churches forced to accept marriage of straight couples that they don't like?

Please don't be silly.

It's a valid question. Has a church in the United States ever had to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith at the direction of any Federal or state government?

 

[deltex1]

Take your pick. This is the decision that the Supreme Court just forced itself to hvae to make in the future by ruling same sex marriage as a right equal to freedom of religion, speech and protest as stated in the 1st amendment or if you will the 1st bill of rights. It should have NEVER listened to this case for THIS exact reason. Period.

Secularists and gays and religion avoiders can have their version of marriage. It is not the same as traditional marriage and never will be. That a man can be recognized and accepted as a woman is something you can choose to believe, but it will never be reality.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't really need to be trying to debate with pussy cats and chickens, so, it's probably for the best.

OK, then debate me

Explain how a cult of deviant sex acts and self-mutilating players-of-pretend will be able to coexist legally with PA laws in place with Christians who have a mandate in Jude 1 of the New Testament to in no way shape or form aide or abet the spread of a cult of deviant sex acts? Already your cult has sued and won against individual Christians. What is a church if not simply a building where individual Christians congregate?

Does the 1st Amendment say "freedom of church"? Or does it say "freedom of religion"? Religion is in the heart of each of the parishoners, not in a gathering of them in a stone, wood or brick building..


The OP of this thread is 100% factually correct. Kennedy thought he was escaping the hot seat by caving in to the cult's pressures. He thought it would be done. I assure you, it's just begun. The Court yesterday opened up a can of whoop ass on itself, ironically. I would not want to be in Kennedy's shoes when he has to face either 1. All citizens of the US and explain why he alone (essentially, if you do the math) has to do away with the 1st Amendment or 2. Face the cult of LGBT and explain why he alone (essentially, if you do the math) has to overturn yesterday's Decision and allow discrimination against gay marriages.

Have fun with that shit Kennedy, you waffling coward.

He SHOULD HAVE left it up to the states, whereby a more lengthy conversation could've removed him from the hot seat. Over time, states hearts and minds would've either 1. made gay marriage legal or 2. Thought about children instead. And in either case, democratic process and rule would've been preserved. Instead, we have King Kennedy issuing a mandate from his throne, cutting off this conversation about BEHAVIORS usurping the 1,000s year old physical structure/static definition of marriage as "father/mother" for children's sake.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yep. I'll ask again and be clearer. When has any church ever been forced by the government to perform ANY wedding that was against their beliefs?

I don't think I could be any clearer. Maybe I should get some crayons and put it in big block letters for you. Go back and read it again, this time real slow, and study it. You might get it.

I'm asking you when a church has ever been forced to marry someone for any reason. I'm looking for precedence or whatever way you think this could happen on legal grounds. I just don't see it and I don't think anything like it has ever happened before. You don't have to try to prove your point and without doing so nobody should take you seriously.

Asking me the same question is pointless and answering the same question is pointless so I guess this ridiculous and redundant exchange is pointless. Bye bye.

What you are saying is you can't think of any time where the government forced a church to marry anyone but for whatever reason, gay marriage is going to change that.

No, what I'm saying is that they JUST MADE the ruling. They haven't had TIME to force a church to marry homosexuals yet. Of course they didn't try to force them before the SC ruling, it hadn't been DECIDED YET. If they are consistent, they will now try to force churches to accommodate them the same way they forced bakers and photographers to accommodate them in states that had gay marriage. Wait a few months and I guarantee you will see these cases crop up now that it's legal in all 50 states (or 57, depending on who's counting). This ruling has pitted gay rights against first amendment rights and that's exactly what Obama wanted.

I get it, what you are saying is that in our history as far as you know churches have never been forced to marry anyone due to government coercion but somehow you think this recent gay marriage ruling by the Supreme Court has unlocked some mythical secret within the judicial system that will now force churches to do the bidding of the so called homosexual agenda. Did I get that right? Because it's a pretty stupid conspiracy theory.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't really need to be trying to debate with pussy cats and chickens, so, it's probably for the best.

OK, then debate me

Explain how a cult of deviant sex acts and self-mutilating players-of-pretend will be able to coexist legally with PA laws in place with Christians who have a mandate in Jude 1 of the New Testament to in no way shape or form aide or abet the spread of a cult of deviant sex acts? Already your cult has sued and won against individual Christians. What is a church if not simply a building where individual Christians congregate?

Does the 1st Amendment say "freedom of church"? Or does it say "freedom of religion"? Religion is in the heart of each of the parishoners, not in a gathering of them in a stone, wood or brick building..


The OP of this thread is 100% factually correct. Kennedy thought he was escaping the hot seat by caving in to the cult's pressures. He thought it would be done. I assure you, it's just begun. The Court yesterday opened up a can of whoop ass on itself, ironically. I would not want to be in Kennedy's shoes when he has to face either 1. All citizens of the US and explain why he alone (essentially, if you do the math) has to do away with the 1st Amendment or 2. Face the cult of LGBT and explain why he alone (essentially, if you do the math) has to overturn yesterday's Decision and allow discrimination against gay marriages.

Have fun with that shit Kennedy, you waffling coward.

My religion tells me that Christian fundamentalists shouldn't be on the internet. Why are you violating my religious beliefs?

 

[Silhouette]

I don't really need to be trying to debate with pussy cats and chickens, so, it's probably for the best.

OK, then debate me

Explain how a cult of deviant sex acts and self-mutilating players-of-pretend will be able to coexist legally with PA laws in place with Christians who have a mandate in Jude 1 of the New Testament to in no way shape or form aide or abet the spread of a cult of deviant sex acts? Already your cult has sued and won against individual Christians. What is a church if not simply a building where individual Christians congregate?

Does the 1st Amendment say "freedom of church"? Or does it say "freedom of religion"? Religion is in the heart of each of the parishoners, not in a gathering of them in a stone, wood or brick building..

The OP of this thread is 100% factually correct. Kennedy thought he was escaping the hot seat by caving in to the cult's pressures. He thought it would be done. I assure you, it's just begun. The Court yesterday opened up a can of whoop ass on itself, ironically. I would not want to be in Kennedy's shoes when he has to face either 1. All citizens of the US and explain why he alone (essentially, if you do the math) has to do away with the 1st Amendment or 2. Face the cult of LGBT and explain why he alone (essentially, if you do the math) has to overturn yesterday's Decision and allow discrimination against gay marriages.

Have fun with that shit Kennedy, you waffling coward.

He SHOULD HAVE left it up to the states, whereby a more lengthy conversation could've removed him from the hot seat. Over time, states hearts and minds would've either 1. made gay marriage legal or 2. Thought about children instead. And in either case, democratic process and rule would've been preserved. Instead, we have King Kennedy issuing a mandate from his throne, cutting off this conversation about BEHAVIORS usurping the 1,000s year old physical structure/static definition of marriage as "father/mother" for children's sake.

My religion tells me that Christian fundamentalists shouldn't be on the internet. Why are you violating my religious beliefs?

I can cite Jude 1 for the Specific Command from the Christian Gospels of the New Testament to support why Christans must not in any way, shape or form abet a deviant sex cult to take over society. You cannot cite a single verse to support your position. The Jude 1 mandates are especially potent in that they carry the warning and promise of eternal damnation and the fires of hell for any Christian who fails.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Take your pick. This is the decision that the Supreme Court just forced itself to hvae to make in the future by ruling same sex marriage as a right equal to freedom of religion, speech and protest as stated in the 1st amendment or if you will the 1st bill of rights. It should have NEVER listened to this case for THIS exact reason. Period.

They aren't mutually exclusive. You're using the false choice fallacy.

Correct.

Indicating that either the OP is incapable of sound reasoning or is seeking in bad faith to contrive a controversy where none exists.

Obergefell has no bearing whatsoever on 'religious liberty,' the issue concerned the 14th Amendment, not the First, where private citizens remain at liberty to not afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals.

 

[HappyJoy]

My religion tells me that Christian fundamentalists shouldn't be on the internet. Why are you violating my religious beliefs?

I can cite Jude 1 for the Specific Command from the Christian Gospels of the New Testament to support why Christans must not in any way, shape or form abet a deviant sex cult to take over society. You cannot cite a single verse to support your position. The Jude 1 mandates are especially potent in that they carry the warning and promise of eternal damnation and the fires of hell for any Christian who fails.

Why should I care about Jude 1 as it means nothing to me? I'm not living by your religion and now gays have been able to move one step away as well.

Would you still feel faux-persecuted if your state voted in gay marriage?

But, according to my brand new religion, you're offending me, please get off the internet.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Take your pick. This is the decision that the Supreme Court just forced itself to hvae to make in the future by ruling same sex marriage as a right equal to freedom of religion, speech and protest as stated in the 1st amendment or if you will the 1st bill of rights. It should have NEVER listened to this case for THIS exact reason. Period.

They aren't mutually exclusive. You're using the false choice fallacy.

They are separate rights now guaranteed. They will be forced to go up against one another and any ruling in favor of one or the other make the other one null and void.

Ignorant nonsense.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It appears 'kristians' seem to want every 'kristian' to be able to refuse to do anything because of their religion. Well this would have to extend to every single person.
Muslims in government jobs could refuse people service based on their religion, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists.

And atheist could refuse service to kristians or any other religion.

The whole thing is, the population is moving slowly away from Christianity as the dominant religion in the country, and cons want to burn themselves to keep that dominance.

Its over cons, get used to it. And be carefull, you may get a world where YOU are treated as second class citizens, you know exactly how you want to treat everyone else.

 

[LoneLaugher]

religion does not have a monopoly on social contracts or constructs...in the USA...

It has the right to not perform them due to their religious beliefs. BOOM! You just got blown the fuck up.

Hello retard.

Churches can refuse to marry same sex couples. Why are you so stupid?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's an incremental step toward dismantling religion. Churches will be forced to marry homosexuals or be shut down.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

This is also ignorant idiocy.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence reaffirmed by Obergefell applies only to states and local governments, not private citizens or originators such as churches.

 

[Silhouette]

It appears 'kristians' seem to want every 'kristian' to be able to refuse to do anything because of their religion. Well this would have to extend to every single person.
Muslims in government jobs could refuse people service based on their religion, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists.

And atheist could refuse service to kristians or any other religion..

In what way is a baker, photographer or florist a "government employee"? And in what way should a state benefit by being forced to lose money on tax breaks to marriage which they only subsidize to entice the best benefits to the only people they care about in marriage as to those losses: children? Why MUST a state incentivize either fatherless or motherless "marriages"? So that the only people in marriage a state cares about can be deprived to their social detriment?

The considerations of the most important people in marriage have been completely deleted from the conversation by King Kennedy and his two impeachable consorts Kagan and Ginsburg. He has told children's 300 million custodians in 50 states "you have no say in this matter henceforth, by Royal Decree"

 

[sealybobo]

Take your pick. This is the decision that the Supreme Court just forced itself to hvae to make in the future by ruling same sex marriage as a right equal to freedom of religion, speech and protest as stated in the 1st amendment or if you will the 1st bill of rights. It should have NEVER listened to this case for THIS exact reason. Period.

I choose same sex marriage. and from now on let's just call it marriage. when gay people go shopping you call it gay shopping? When gay people eat do you call it then eating? when they eat are you worried about the sanctity of eating? are you really worried about this issue? Then you're pathetic