Same sex marriage OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Skylar]

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.

Jude 1 makes no mentions of gay marriage, cakes, nor prohibits the sale of the latter to the former. You've hallucinated all of that. Nor are you a Christian, by your own admission.

So what you're actually arguing is that if you IMAGINE a religious tenet, Gays shouldn't be allowed to legally coexist with you.

Um.....that's not how religious freedom works. Your religious freedom imposes no burden on anyone else. And you have no religion, so there's nothing to impose. Rendering your entire argument pointless.

 

[Skylar]

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"?

In what way has someone claimed that bakers, photographers and florists are 'government employees? You're just Mr. Strawman today.

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?

Read the Obergefell ruling. Specifically the 4 principles that Kennedy articulated. If you're not even going to bother to inform yourself on the ruling you are railing against, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

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"

The most important people according to who? Remember, you citing yourself is legally meaningless. As for Kagan and Ginsburg......you have no idea what you're talking about. They performed weddings in states that already legalized it. Its simply impossible for them to have demonstrated a bias against same sex marriage bans when no such ban existed.

Once again, you merely imagine it must be so. And then laughably conclude that the law is bound to whatever you imagine.

As yesterday's ruling so elegantly demonstrated, no...its not.

 

[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.

Jude 1 makes no mentions of gay marriage, cakes, nor prohibits the sale of the latter to the former. You've hallucinated all of that. Nor are you a Christian, by your own admission. .

Correct, I was a Christian. By my own choice I'm now like a lawyer for Christians: advocating their cause because I happen to agree with it.

Jude one speaks exactly and precisely about deviant sex cults and their attempts to take over a Christian society. That is the whole of the passage. Since marriage is the hub of any culture, any attempt by a deviant sex cult to overtake marriage is precisely one and the same as their attempt to take over the entire culture. Time + coup = permanence. The Almighty Decreed that His society not be permanently affected by deviant sex cults.

ERGO, Jude 1 is a mandate to ALL Christians to not participate in gay weddings. Not baking a cake for them. Not delivering flowers. Not photographing them. Not catering them. And most certainly not performing them. Any person peforming a gay marriage has committed an unforgivable blasphemy and will not be delivered into the Kingdom of Heaven. And they are not a Christian thereafter by definition, no matter what they tell themselves or others. It's like an abortion doctor who also performs christenings for babies, telling people they're "Christian" and qualified to baptize.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

“… marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one.” (Quran 4:3)

Are you defending polygamy for Muslims in your defense of religious beliefs taking precedence over the law of the land?

 

[Skylar]

Jude 1 makes no mentions of gay marriage, cakes, nor prohibits the sale of the latter to the former. You've hallucinated all of that. Nor are you a Christian, by your own admission. .

Correct, I was a Christian. By my own choice I'm now like a lawyer for Christians: advocating their cause because I happen to agree with it.

You have no religious conviction. Thus, you have nothing for the PA laws to conflict with per your own argument.

Jude one speaks exactly and precisely about deviant sex cults and their attempts to take over a Christian society

Jude says nothing about cake, gay marriages, or any of the silliness you're speaking of. You've hallucinated all of it. Nor does your religious conviction somehow mean that Gays can't legally coexist in the same society as you.

If your religion makes your job impossible....find another job. Its your responsibility to work in a profession that is compatible with your beliefs. Not society's responsibility to adapt itself to whatever you imagine.

Your argument is akin to Steve Young demanding that the Superbowl be played on a Saturday because he doesn't work on Sundays. Or a buddhist getting a job at a slaughteryard and then demanding that they stop killing animals because it offends his religion.

Um, no. Your religion is your responsibility. Not ours.

 

[Skylar]

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.

“… marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one.” (Quran 4:3)

Are you defending polygamy for Muslims in your defense of religious beliefs taking precedence over the law of the land?

That passage doesn't attack gays. So it meaningless to Sil. The only time religion is relevant is when it allows him to treat gays like shit. If it doesn't, then its discarded.

 

[Silhouette]

That passage doesn't attack gays. So it meaningless to Sil. The only time religion is relevant is when it allows him to treat gays like shit. If it doesn't, then its discarded.

Keep whistling that tune until 2016. Hope your candidates can find funding cuz I for one am not giving one red cent to the traitors who are destroying the good platforms in my party via association with the deviant sex cult. Gonna lose 2016 anyway now. Might as well gain something back out of it.

 

[Skylar]

That passage doesn't attack gays. So it meaningless to Sil. The only time religion is relevant is when it allows him to treat gays like shit. If it doesn't, then its discarded.

Keep whistling that tune until 2016. Hope your candidates can find funding cuz I for one am not giving one red cent to the traitors who are destroying the good platforms in my party via association with the deviant sex cult. Gonna lose 2016 anyway now. Might as well gain something back out of it.

Sil...your predictions of the future were comically, laughably, perfectly wrong. There wasn't a single point you got right. You were wrong on the ruling, on its basis, on how the justices would rule, on the cases being cited, on the court's take on state's rights, on the court's take on children, on everything.

Your record of failure on predicting the future was perfect.

But now you expect us to accept the same baseless musings about 2016, a bare 24 hours after this ruling demonstrated that your predictions are essentially shit?

Um, you can't be serious. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

But now you expect us to accept the same baseless musings about 2016, a bare 24 hours after this ruling demonstrated that your predictions are essentially shit?

Um, you can't be serious. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

mmm hmm... And how did that election 2014 thing work out for you?...

 

[Skylar]

But now you expect us to accept the same baseless musings about 2016, a bare 24 hours after this ruling demonstrated that your predictions are essentially shit?

Um, you can't be serious. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

mmm hmm... And how did that election 2014 thing work out for you?...

Laughing..I didn't predict the democrats would win in 2014. So as far my ability to predict future outcomes, it worked out fine.

You on the other hand predicted same sex marriage bans would be upheld by the courts. You gave us a variety of pseudo-legal bases that you predicted the courts would use.

You were perfectly wrong. On every point. You were wrong on the ruling, you were wrong on the split, you were wrong on the basis, you were wrong on the cases cited, you were wrong on the court's take on state's rights, you were wrong on the court's take on children. You didn't get a single thing right.

Demonstrating how useless your predictions of the future are. And yet barely 24 hours later.....here you are again. Making brand new predictions based on the same jack shit.

 

[Silhouette]

But now you expect us to accept the same baseless musings about 2016, a bare 24 hours after this ruling demonstrated that your predictions are essentially shit?

Um, you can't be serious. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

mmm hmm... And how did that election 2014 thing work out for you?...

Laughing..I didn't predict the democrats would win in 2014. So as far my ability to predict future outcomes, it worked out fine.

So, why did you predict a loss for dems in 2014 with all this groovy support for gay marriage in the significant majority and the GOP spouting off at the time about how they were against it? With all the sudden flurry of "OMG" posts shocked at yesterday's Ruling, the topic was at least a little important to the average Joe.

 

[there4eyeM]

It's all rather ridiculous. Who really cares if some confused individuals want to call their union by the same name as traditionally was reserved for heterosexual pairs?
Their right to equal protection should have always been in place anyway.

 

[Judicial review]

This is very troublesome for America.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

You want debate, then go on to insult. Most of what you say makes no sense. But the insult means I won't respond to you any further.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Your twisted version of "Christianity" is not in danger of becoming untwisted or... real Christian.

 

[AceRothstein]

What a dumb thread.

 

[Silhouette]

You want debate, then go on to insult. Most of what you say makes no sense. But the insult means I won't respond to you any further.

Turning over a new leaf are you? Or is it good for the goose but not for the gander?


Meanwhile, I notice you gave no substantive rebuttal to my post. Let me know when you're ready dear.. Tell the readers here how bakers, florists and photographers are getting sucker punched in court already, but we're supposed to sit safe and secure in the 1st Amendment?

Bonus points for predicting what Kennedy's opinion's going to be when, and not if, the "gay sex cult vs Christians" case makes it to SCOTUS? LOVE to hear your rendition of that one. Wanna parse it out or keep sulking so you can divert that you have no legitimate rebuttal to my solid points?

I'll give you a hint "Hobby Lobby".. which makes yesterday's Ruling proof that our Supreme Court has the collective legal acumen of a turnip. Did they not ancitipate that those two semi trucks going opposite directions on a one lane narrow road would eventually collide?

 

[chikenwing]

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

You don't even understand, churches won't be forced to hold marriages.

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

You can't actually believe what you're post says, that's fear mongering and idiocy.

Tell that to the bakers and photographers who were sued for not bowing to the radical homosexual agenda.

They violated state PA laws. If your religion makes it impossible to do your job, find another job.

Church isn't job or a business. It's a protected non profit under the constitution to practice it's religion. It accepts donations not charges a members fee. You are what is wrong with a democracy not what is right.

The bakers and photographers in question weren't a church or a non-profit. But for profit businesses. Remember, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Churches aren't businesses. And are explicity exempt from PA laws. Nixing your entire premise.

Then explain the recent ruling in favor of hobby lobby ? People business owners have regiohousr beliefs that are just as valued as anyone else's.

 

[SwimExpert]

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 am a wedding officiant who has performed over a thousand wedding ceremonies. Not once was either party required to opt out of their religious freedoms under the constitution. And nothing about that changes if the it's two boys, or two girls, standing in front of me.

 

[norwegen]

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

Yup, that day is coming. Many of us will be alive to see it.