Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Cecilie1200]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.

It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.

 

[mdk]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.

It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.

I've never once been to or participated in a gay pride event. Its not my style. And yes, people have every right to be offended over anything they wish.

I find it ironic that many people that try to deny gays the right to marry do so because they find gays freakish and repulsive. Again they have that right to be offended, just doesn't use that right to try and limit the freedoms of others as result.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

The blind don't have a right to drive. People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender. The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive. That omits the blind. The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.

Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".

Get a dictionary. Look up the word "forced". It does not mean what you think it means.

 

[mdk]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

The blind don't have a right to drive. People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender. The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive. That omits the blind. The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.

If only I was doing any that. If only...

What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.

Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".

why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.

Is that really such a hard concept?

Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.

I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word? At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable. Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.

Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".

why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.

Is that really such a hard concept?

Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.

I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word? At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable. Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?

exactly right, I don't care if gays "marry" but why should I have to fear that one of them will come in and ruin my business because I don't want to serve them? Go somewhere else, how difficult is that?

 

[kaz]

[What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.

Others think their idea of charity allows them to confiscate other people's money with force and give it for them

 

[mdk]

[What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.

Others think their idea of charity allows them to confiscate other people's money with force and give it for them

On this issue you'll find that I completely agree with you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.

It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.

I've never once been to or participated in a gay pride event. Its not my style. And yes, people have every right to be offended over anything they wish.

I find it ironic that many people that try to deny gays the right to marry do so because they find gays freakish and repulsive. Again they have that right to be offended, just doesn't use that right to try and limit the freedoms of others as result.

You might want to look up the word "ironic", because your usage clearly indicates you have no clue what it means.

Could you also please explain to me what IS

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

The blind don't have a right to drive. People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender. The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive. That omits the blind. The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.

If only I was doing any that. If only...

What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.

This is only scary to people who are incapable of forming and holding their own personal moral standard. Those with the brains and backbone to say, "This is right and this is wrong in my eyes, and this is why", rather than vacillating wildly according to whatever they are being told by others at the moment, are not the least bit frightened or threatened by the exercise of personal conviction in others. They can also accept the reality that, as social beings, humans are always going to be subject, to one extent or the other, to the moral standards of those around them.

And before you get your panties in a ruffle and start pontificating about how we should each be free of others' beliefs so we can do whatever we want, don't even bother. I already know that people who say that really just mean that THEY want to be the ones to dictate the moral standard for society at large; if you're honest with yourself, you know it, too. That's what this argument is REALLY all about: not freedom for everyone to do as they please, but power to make others conform to one's worldview. The only question is whether the majority gets to make that decision, or a self-deluding and spoiled minority gets to.

 

[mdk]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.

It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.

I've never once been to or participated in a gay pride event. Its not my style. And yes, people have every right to be offended over anything they wish.

I find it ironic that many people that try to deny gays the right to marry do so because they find gays freakish and repulsive. Again they have that right to be offended, just doesn't use that right to try and limit the freedoms of others as result.

You might want to look up the word "ironic", because your usage clearly indicates you have no clue what it means.

Could you also please explain to me what IS

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

The blind don't have a right to drive. People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender. The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive. That omits the blind. The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.

If only I was doing any that. If only...

What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.

This is only scary to people who are incapable of forming and holding their own personal moral standard. Those with the brains and backbone to say, "This is right and this is wrong in my eyes, and this is why", rather than vacillating wildly according to whatever they are being told by others at the moment, are not the least bit frightened or threatened by the exercise of personal conviction in others. They can also accept the reality that, as social beings, humans are always going to be subject, to one extent or the other, to the moral standards of those around them.

And before you get your panties in a ruffle and start pontificating about how we should each be free of others' beliefs so we can do whatever we want, don't even bother. I already know that people who say that really just mean that THEY want to be the ones to dictate the moral standard for society at large; if you're honest with yourself, you know it, too. That's what this argument is REALLY all about: not freedom for everyone to do as they please, but power to make others conform to one's worldview. The only question is whether the majority gets to make that decision, or a self-deluding and spoiled minority gets to.

Your post is inaccurate because you assume that I don't have my own set of moral standards. I already stated that you have every right to be offended by the actions of others. But guess what? You being offended isn't a compelling enough reason to curtail the freedoms of your fellow citizens that are breaking no laws. Besides, It doesn't seem like anyone is forcing you to conform to any world view against your wishes. Whine, cry, and flail all you wish but gay citizens have every right to the public square as you do. You have every right to whine about it and I have every right to ignore it. Isn't freedom grand?

 

[Silhouette]

If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?

Ahem, Seawytch, when you get around to it, I'd like you to answer the question above..

And OK, anyone else too. It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[RKMBrown]

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.

It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.

I've never once been to or participated in a gay pride event. Its not my style. And yes, people have every right to be offended over anything they wish.

I find it ironic that many people that try to deny gays the right to marry do so because they find gays freakish and repulsive. Again they have that right to be offended, just doesn't use that right to try and limit the freedoms of others as result.

You might want to look up the word "ironic", because your usage clearly indicates you have no clue what it means.

Could you also please explain to me what IS

The blind don't have a right to drive. People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender. The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive. That omits the blind. The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.

If only I was doing any that. If only...

What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.

This is only scary to people who are incapable of forming and holding their own personal moral standard. Those with the brains and backbone to say, "This is right and this is wrong in my eyes, and this is why", rather than vacillating wildly according to whatever they are being told by others at the moment, are not the least bit frightened or threatened by the exercise of personal conviction in others. They can also accept the reality that, as social beings, humans are always going to be subject, to one extent or the other, to the moral standards of those around them.

And before you get your panties in a ruffle and start pontificating about how we should each be free of others' beliefs so we can do whatever we want, don't even bother. I already know that people who say that really just mean that THEY want to be the ones to dictate the moral standard for society at large; if you're honest with yourself, you know it, too. That's what this argument is REALLY all about: not freedom for everyone to do as they please, but power to make others conform to one's worldview. The only question is whether the majority gets to make that decision, or a self-deluding and spoiled minority gets to.

Your post is inaccurate because you assume that I don't have my own set of moral standards. I already stated that you have every right to be offended by the actions of others. But guess what? You being offended isn't a compelling enough reason to curtail the freedoms of your fellow citizens that are breaking no laws. Besides, It doesn't seem like anyone is forcing you to conform to any world view against your wishes. Whine, cry, and flail all you wish but gay citizens have every right to the public square as you do. You have every right to whine about it and I have every right to ignore it. Isn't freedom grand?

Most authoritarians, like cec.. just don't believe that everyone isn't just like them. These are the people who don't really believe in the concept of liberty because they claim liberty means authority. Authoritarians are for the most part, afraid of the unknown, the uncontrolled. They can't stand liberty.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's a world turned upside down when American social conservatives have to cite a court ruling from the European Union as justification for their anti-equality positions here in the states. It seems you're position is we shouldn't allow gays to marry in the US because the EU doesn't believe in the right to marry equality and we do not want to offend them. Laughable claptrap.

I have many reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry [and via that loophole gain legal access to adopt orphans]. All-of-our-remaining-allies' stance is but one of them. Gay pride parades are another reason. Harvey Milk is yet another. The refusal of any gay ever to publicly denounce either the parades or the pedophile-as-messiah representing their group is yet another reason. Shall I go on?

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

Actually, people have every right to be offended by any damned thing they like, and one of the big problems I see with our society these days is dimwits who think they can revoke other people's right to find them offensive.

It is true that I don't have the right to STOP you from being an exhibitionistic mental train wreck, if you feel utterly compelled to do so, but please learn to separate your right to be freakish and repulsive from an imagined right to force others to pretend you aren't.

I've never once been to or participated in a gay pride event. Its not my style. And yes, people have every right to be offended over anything they wish.

I find it ironic that many people that try to deny gays the right to marry do so because they find gays freakish and repulsive. Again they have that right to be offended, just doesn't use that right to try and limit the freedoms of others as result.

You might want to look up the word "ironic", because your usage clearly indicates you have no clue what it means.

Could you also please explain to me what IS

I noticed how you snipped out the part where you got called to task for never answering the question I asked of you? You don't have answer so you've yet again decided to change the topic.

Like it or lump gays have every right to the public square as any other law abiding group. Any person found breaking the law should be held accountable at any parade or event. Walking around in speedo down a street isn't illegal. It may offended your delicate constitution and make you cultch your pearls but you don't have a right to be offended by law abiding citizens.

The blind don't have a right to drive. People of all walks don't have a right to marry the same gender. The words "driver's license" means a privilege extended ONLY to those who qualify legally to drive. That omits the blind. The word "marriage" means a privilege extended ONLY to those in each sovereign state who fit that state's qualifiers.

A faulty comparison. The SC has ruled 14 times since 1888 that marriage is a right. Driving however isn't a right. Can you name a SC case that has stated that driving is a right?

It really scares me that there are so many people in this country who are blissfully happy with the idea of delegating all thought, reason, and morality to someone else, particularly when they do so on the mind-boggling belief that that other person (or group of people) is better-qualified than they themselves are.

If only I was doing any that. If only...

What is also scary is that some people feel that their idea of morality trumps the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.

This is only scary to people who are incapable of forming and holding their own personal moral standard. Those with the brains and backbone to say, "This is right and this is wrong in my eyes, and this is why", rather than vacillating wildly according to whatever they are being told by others at the moment, are not the least bit frightened or threatened by the exercise of personal conviction in others. They can also accept the reality that, as social beings, humans are always going to be subject, to one extent or the other, to the moral standards of those around them.

And before you get your panties in a ruffle and start pontificating about how we should each be free of others' beliefs so we can do whatever we want, don't even bother. I already know that people who say that really just mean that THEY want to be the ones to dictate the moral standard for society at large; if you're honest with yourself, you know it, too. That's what this argument is REALLY all about: not freedom for everyone to do as they please, but power to make others conform to one's worldview. The only question is whether the majority gets to make that decision, or a self-deluding and spoiled minority gets to.

Typical... AUTHORITARIAN declares all people who want liberty to be authoritarians. ROFL yeah cause liberty can't exist without authoritarian tyranny. ROFL

 

[mdk]

If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?

Ahem, Seawytch, when you get around to it, I'd like you to answer the question above..

And OK, anyone else too. It's a simple yes or no question.

No, I wouldn't support them suing the church. The church has every to deny a marriage to any couple. They shouldn't be forced to marry anyone against their wishes. They can try and sue but the case would get quickly dismissed by the courts.

 

[Seawytch]

One more time, for the really, really, REALLY slow kid: many supporters of gay marriage DO NOT support forcing churches to marry ANYONE.

Well, I do support forcing churches to marry gays...but I believe in doing it through public opinion, not government action...just like changes to church doctrine have always been "forced".

why in hell do you care what churches do? Mind your own business, just as they should mind their own business about who you marry.

Is that really such a hard concept?

Perhaps I'm a Christian who wants my church to be inclusive of my family. Maybe I just happen to care for Christians who are being hurt by the churches exclusion of them.

I also cared when churches changed their stance on blacks marrying whites...and?

Here's a thought. Instead of trying to make people "be inclusive", why don't you just go find some people to hang out with who already meet your definition of that word? At what point in Western culture did we acquire this odd notion of "I don't like what you think and believe, therefore I am compelled to make you change"?

Consider the hypocrisy inherent here, since your need to force others to be what you think is acceptable stems out of your objection to others forcing YOU to be what THEY think is acceptable. Why should I be tolerant of you if you refuse to be tolerant of me?

So that's how you combat racism and other bigotries...don't try to change hearts and minds...just go find people that don't hate you instead. Brilliant!

 

[Seawytch]

If a church refused to marry black people because of their race, would you be behind supporting them suing that church? Yes or no?

Ahem, Seawytch, when you get around to it, I'd like you to answer the question above..

And OK, anyone else too. It's a simple yes or no question.

No, I wouldn't support them suing the church. The church has every to deny a marriage to any couple. They shouldn't be forced to marry anyone against their wishes. They can try and sue but the case would get quickly dismissed by the courts.

Nor would I. It's a silly question. I live in the United States where there is a 1st Amendment protecting the freedom of religion. Religion has always and will always be free to discriminate.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Oh, here we go with the bogus "discrimination" argument to deny basic constitutional rights, topped off with the absurd comparison to racial minorities.

In other words, we just chuck the Constitution out the door to cater to a small, deviant minority that's intent on forcing others to accept their lifestyle.

Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?

The Constitution is just fine.

The idea of freedom of religion is that no one can force you to violate your religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm others. A Christian photographer politely declining to photograph a lesbian ceremony does not constitute "harm" to the lesbian couple since the couple could have quickly and easily simply found another photographer. The lesbian couple did not "have" to have their ceremony; they wanted it. Their desire for a ceremony should never trump another person's right to practice their religion and it certainly should not mean that a Christian business person can be fined for not attending and servicing an event that they find morally offensive.

Now, if we're talking about grocery stores, department stores, doctors, dentists, i.e., services that provide life essentials of food, clothing, and medical care, etc., then, yes, all such businesses should be required to service anyone, be they lesbians, gays, trannies, cross-dressers, whatever.

Forcing a church to host a gay wedding is a drastically different thing and clearly violates basic constitutional rights and principles. No one has a "right" to force a church to marry them against its will.

 

[Seawytch]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Oh, here we go with the bogus "discrimination" argument to deny basic constitutional rights, topped off with the absurd comparison to racial minorities.

In other words, we just chuck the Constitution out the door to cater to a small, deviant minority that's intent on forcing others to accept their lifestyle.

Boy did you miss the whole thread. Has a church ever been required to perform an interracial or interfaith marriage in the United States?

The Constitution is just fine.

The idea of freedom of religion is that no one can force you to violate your religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not harm others. A Christian photographer politely declining to photograph a lesbian ceremony does not constitute "harm" to the lesbian couple since the couple could have quickly and easily simply found another photographer. The lesbian couple did not "have" to have their ceremony; they wanted it. Their desire for a ceremony should never trump another person's right to practice their religion and it certainly should not mean that a Christian business person can be fined for not attending and servicing an event that they find morally offensive.

Now, if we're talking about grocery stores, department stores, doctors, dentists, i.e., services that provide life essentials of food, clothing, and medical care, etc., then, yes, all such businesses should be required to service anyone, be they lesbians, gays, trannies, cross-dressers, whatever.

Forcing a church to host a gay wedding is a drastically different thing and clearly violates basic constitutional rights and principles. No one has a "right" to force a church to marry them against its will.

Now you're conflating topics. A business operating in the public sphere is not a church.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is forcing anyone to be "inclusive" in their private lives, but when the laws are created, they will be enforced.

One might not like whites or Christians, but one cannot discriminate against them publicly. But one can hate them privately and not associate with them in private matters.

And those principals apply to all Americans.