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.
And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
Why not? Gays are forcing florists and cake makers who are religious to violate their faith and enable/serve their gay marriage. They'll sue churches the moment any ink is dry on federal protection for gay marriage. Churches and adoption agencies. Mark my words. You can set your watch by it.I don't see the corollary. Just because you believe that someone should have the right to be married doesn't mean they should be able to force someone else to perform the ceremony against their will. The two don't connect.
And your poll only measures the latter. Not the former. Your once again projecting your own beliefs and feelings onto other people with little regard for what believe themselves.
Why not? Gays are forcing florists and cake makers who are religious to violate their faith and enable/serve their gay marriage. They'll sue churches the moment any ink is dry on federal protection for gay marriage. Churches and adoption agencies. Mark my words. You can set your watch by it.I don't see the corollary. Just because you believe that someone should have the right to be married doesn't mean they should be able to force someone else to perform the ceremony against their will. The two don't connect.
And your poll only measures the latter. Not the former. Your once again projecting your own beliefs and feelings onto other people with little regard for what believe themselves.
Why not? Gays are forcing florists and cake makers who are religious to violate their faith and enable/serve their gay marriage. They'll sue churches the moment any ink is dry on federal protection for gay marriage. Churches and adoption agencies. Mark my words. You can set your watch by it.I don't see the corollary. Just because you believe that someone should have the right to be married doesn't mean they should be able to force someone else to perform the ceremony against their will. The two don't connect.
And your poll only measures the latter. Not the former. Your once again projecting your own beliefs and feelings onto other people with little regard for what believe themselves.
I'll mark your words and gladly eat crow if a church is ever forced to marry a couple against their wishes. It would be a monstrous injustice if they did. This scenario you predict is highly improbable.
Churches are explicitly protected under the 1st amendments religious protections. And someone may sue. Its very unlikely they will win.
And can I take it from your complete and utter abandonment regarding what your informal poll 'really means' that you recognize that the corollary you're insinuating....just doesn't exist?
And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
That isn't what this polling asking though. The poll doesn't ask if you support gay marriage. It asks if you would support a church being forced to marry a gay couple. I think it is interesting question though. Maybe another poll that asks if you support gay marriage and the right of churches to not marry them is in order. Perhaps a layered question would shed more light on the topic. It could prove for some interesting discussion.
And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
Silhoette
Well hmm... Imagine if this was a question of "do you think churches should have to perform interracial marriages" [race and behaviors are not in the same legal class BTW] and 82% of the responders said "hell no!". [That's kind of how that question is posed]. Then would you feel comfortable extrapolating that of that group, most of them also weren't in support of interracial marriage in general?And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
That isn't what this polling asking though. The poll doesn't ask if you support gay marriage. It asks if you would support a church being forced to marry a gay couple. I think it is interesting question though. Maybe another poll that asks if you support gay marriage and the right of churches to not marry them is in order. Perhaps a layered question would shed more light on the topic. It could prove for some interesting discussion.
Well hmm... Imagine if this was a question of "do you think churches should have to perform interracial marriages" [race and behaviors are not in the same legal class BTW] and 82% of the responders said "hell no!". [That's kind of how that question is posed]. Then would you feel comfortable extrapolating that of that group, most of them also weren't in support of interracial marriage in general?And don't forget one of the highest turnouts of any USMB poll I've ever seen. The results of that poll say that 82% of Americans feel that gay marriage should not be forced upon churches. What does that say about how they feel about gay marriage in general? I would say the word "tepid" was the hottest temperature you could assign their zeal.
That isn't what this polling asking though. The poll doesn't ask if you support gay marriage. It asks if you would support a church being forced to marry a gay couple. I think it is interesting question though. Maybe another poll that asks if you support gay marriage and the right of churches to not marry them is in order. Perhaps a layered question would shed more light on the topic. It could prove for some interesting discussion.
Yes, you would. It's kind of like your idea for a thread was already done in the way the question was posed. People could've just not voted. But they did. In the hundreds. And 82% of that number said "hell no" to gays marrying in churches..
Define avide. I'm not familiar with that term. And even if I assume you meant avid. I don't know how you are applying the term. The number of people who will likely want to get a gay-marriage or who will be invited to one is probably very very small. So if by avid you mean will become or participate, not many. If by avid you mean are willing to defend the rights of ... well I would think that percentage is growing by the day. A large percentage of Americans like to defend liberty it's what we do. It may take a while for some to figure out that they have been duped into attacking liberty based on bigotry, but they will, just like they did regarding racism.Then how many of those 82% would you say are avide gay-marriage supporters RKMBrown?
No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.
No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.
Churches don't have protection. Individual religious parishoners do. It could easily be argued that churches hold their doors open to everyone. And a lawyer will argue that means gays to marry there. The LGBT lawsuit machine will win that one. And it would be brought. Again, you can set your watch by it as a fact.
What about the faithful? They won Hobby Lobby. But in the SCOTUS'/fed system's ever more alarming trend of completely arbitrary and conflicting decisions, some florists and cake makers are forced against their faith to enable the spread of homosexuality by catering to "gay marriage".No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.
Churches don't have protection. Individual religious parishoners do. It could easily be argued that churches hold their doors open to everyone. And a lawyer will argue that means gays to marry there. The LGBT lawsuit machine will win that one. And it would be brought. Again, you can set your watch by it as a fact.
Churches are in fact exempt from public accommodation laws and are not forced to marry anyone against their wishes. I haven't come across a single suit where a church was sued and ordered to marry...anyone. If I set my watch every time you made a doom and gloom prediction I would spend most of my days setting my watch.
Churches are explicitly protected under the 1st amendments religious protections. And someone may sue. Its very unlikely they will win.
And can I take it from your complete and utter abandonment regarding what your informal poll 'really means' that you recognize that the corollary you're insinuating....just doesn't exist?
That isn't accurate. Tsk tsk..
The first Amendment protects the right to practice the religion of one's choice. It doesn't specify any church as an institution that gets protection. It's the individual parishoners who get that protection..
Try again.
What about the faithful? They won Hobby Lobby. But in the SCOTUS'/fed system's ever more alarming trend of completely arbitrary and conflicting decisions, some florists and cake makers are forced against their faith to enable the spread of homosexuality by catering to "gay marriage".No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.
Churches don't have protection. Individual religious parishoners do. It could easily be argued that churches hold their doors open to everyone. And a lawyer will argue that means gays to marry there. The LGBT lawsuit machine will win that one. And it would be brought. Again, you can set your watch by it as a fact.
Churches are in fact exempt from public accommodation laws and are not forced to marry anyone against their wishes. I haven't come across a single suit where a church was sued and ordered to marry...anyone. If I set my watch every time you made a doom and gloom prediction I would spend most of my days setting my watch.
What about the faithful? They won Hobby Lobby. But in the SCOTUS'/fed system's ever more alarming trend of completely arbitrary and conflicting decisions, some florists and cake makers are forced against their faith to enable the spread of homosexuality by catering to "gay marriage".No, I would assume that most of the people feel that government has no right ordering a church to marry anyone against their wishes. The correlation you are claiming cannot be surmised from this poll alone. I was one of the voters that said, 'hell no" to churches being forced to marry gays despite the fact that I am gay and presently married. I think a more layered question could shed more light on the topic.
Churches don't have protection. Individual religious parishoners do. It could easily be argued that churches hold their doors open to everyone. And a lawyer will argue that means gays to marry there. The LGBT lawsuit machine will win that one. And it would be brought. Again, you can set your watch by it as a fact.
Churches are in fact exempt from public accommodation laws and are not forced to marry anyone against their wishes. I haven't come across a single suit where a church was sued and ordered to marry...anyone. If I set my watch every time you made a doom and gloom prediction I would spend most of my days setting my watch.
You don't understand the issues that were being adjuciated in the Hobby Lobby decision. The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was could the religious conviction of an individual business owner exempt some from commonly applied laws. And the answer was yes, in the case of Hobby Lobby. The part you fail to recognize is......Churches were already exempt. The scenario you describe where churches are forced to perform marriages is ridiculously unlikey for the very reasons that mdk describes.
As for the 'disturbing trend of conflicting decisions' you describe......what contradiction? You *assumed* that the USSC had declared that gay marriage bans were legal when they granted a stay while the issues were adjudicated. But the USSC never said this. You made it up. And the stay certainly didn't make gay marriage bans constitutional. It was a delay of implementation.
You imagined elaborate motivations for the courts, made up a fantastically specific set of beliefs for the court.....none of which the Court ever stated. You made it up. Nor did they give any reason for their stay. They simply granted it. And then allowed the lower court rulings to stand as the issue made its way through the courts. With gay marriage now legal in about a dozen more states. In explicit contradiction of the elaborate beliefs and motivations you invented for the court, pulled sideways from your own ass.
You were simply wrong.
Which means that the people are emphatic about their support for liberty.You don't understand the issues that were being adjuciated in the Hobby Lobby decision. The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was could the religious conviction of an individual business owner exempt some from commonly applied laws. And the answer was yes, in the case of Hobby Lobby. The part you fail to recognize is......Churches were already exempt. The scenario you describe where churches are forced to perform marriages is ridiculously unlikey for the very reasons that mdk describes.
As for the 'disturbing trend of conflicting decisions' you describe......what contradiction? You *assumed* that the USSC had declared that gay marriage bans were legal when they granted a stay while the issues were adjudicated. But the USSC never said this. You made it up. And the stay certainly didn't make gay marriage bans constitutional. It was a delay of implementation.
You imagined elaborate motivations for the courts, made up a fantastically specific set of beliefs for the court.....none of which the Court ever stated. You made it up. Nor did they give any reason for their stay. They simply granted it. And then allowed the lower court rulings to stand as the issue made its way through the courts. With gay marriage now legal in about a dozen more states. In explicit contradiction of the elaborate beliefs and motivations you invented for the court, pulled sideways from your own ass.
You were simply wrong.
OK, let's assume you're right, that churches cannot be forced to marry gays. The more important part of this thread is how many people voted and HOW they voted in the poll. Seems to conflict with what we've been told. Again, the answer chosen wasn't merely just "no" it was "oh, HELL no!"..
You don't understand the issues that were being adjuciated in the Hobby Lobby decision. The issue in the Hobby Lobby case was could the religious conviction of an individual business owner exempt some from commonly applied laws. And the answer was yes, in the case of Hobby Lobby. The part you fail to recognize is......Churches were already exempt. The scenario you describe where churches are forced to perform marriages is ridiculously unlikey for the very reasons that mdk describes.
As for the 'disturbing trend of conflicting decisions' you describe......what contradiction? You *assumed* that the USSC had declared that gay marriage bans were legal when they granted a stay while the issues were adjudicated. But the USSC never said this. You made it up. And the stay certainly didn't make gay marriage bans constitutional. It was a delay of implementation.
You imagined elaborate motivations for the courts, made up a fantastically specific set of beliefs for the court.....none of which the Court ever stated. You made it up. Nor did they give any reason for their stay. They simply granted it. And then allowed the lower court rulings to stand as the issue made its way through the courts. With gay marriage now legal in about a dozen more states. In explicit contradiction of the elaborate beliefs and motivations you invented for the court, pulled sideways from your own ass.
You were simply wrong.
OK, let's assume you're right, that churches cannot be forced to marry gays. The more important part of this thread is how many people voted and HOW they voted in the poll. Seems to conflict with what we've been told. Again, the answer chosen wasn't merely just "no" it was "oh, HELL no!"..
