Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

which leads to what you REALLY want. forcing churches to allow gays to get married in their churches.

So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.

You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.

Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I am pro gay marriage Jake. I merely point out that they have an agenda, and forcing churches to marry them is on that agenda.

On that note, why the hell are churches exempt from SOME laws? I mean that is ridiculous. If the separation of church and state that allegedly was meant to exist in this country allows churches to be exempt from SOME laws, then they should be exempt from ALL laws because let's say for instance a Church that believes in killing non believers should be exempt from laws against murder . Oh , people have a right to not be murdered you say? Well, allegedly people have a right to force businesses to do business with them to, how are Churches exempt from those laws?

And I believe that is EXACTLY the route faggots are going to take , and they will be legally correct. The government IS picking and choosing religions when they say "okay if you don't believe in gay marriage you don't have to perform gay marriages" to one religion while telling another religion " oh you believe murder is acceptable? Too fucking bad" to another religion.


and churches ARE businesses

Mega churches mean big business - CNN.com

Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment. The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.

Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.

Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws. If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.

The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.

You're not looking at it clearly.

We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.

How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?

And dude, this took me two minutes to find

Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church

That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?

Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.

Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.

You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"

The simple answer is you are correct. Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to. Mormons come to mind.

I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully. Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas. If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private. My internet is going down every 30sec. I can't do shit on the net right now. Will look into that church in the morning.

I never said dumb asses won't sue. My point is they won't stand a chance at this one. Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen. If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance. I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.

I wouldn't take your bet, But to pretend like gays wouldn't LOVE to force them to by law is foolish. SeaBitch has admitted she'd love to force churches to comply.

Not by law douchnozzle, by public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.

But you're cute when you lie.

Not one person who has read this thread believes you wouldn't LOVE to force Christians by law to marry gays . NO ONE. We ALL know you'd love to exactly that.

 

[Seawytch]

So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.

You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.

Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Oh? So you don't think that the people that supported slavery and opposed interracial marriage laws on religious grounds weren't bigots?

 

[RKMBrown]

So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.

You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.

Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Define disagree with homosexuality. If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term. If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Oh? So you don't think that the people that supported slavery and opposed interracial marriage laws on religious grounds weren't bigots?

I know they weren't , because words have meanings. Apparently those meanings allude you

bigot

[big-uh t]
noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Christians, as a whole, are very tolerant people even if they disagree with someone or something.

For example, I think "gay marriage" is hilarious, you are no more married than if I "married" my car, but hey live and let live if you want to call yourself married, I don't care.

You on the other hand, are COMPLETELY intolerant to my views and would love to FORCE me to conform to yours. YOU are the bigot, not me.

So, to answer your original question. Certainly those who championed slavery and opposed interracial marriage were racists, but they weren't bigots.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Define disagree with homosexuality. If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term. If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.

Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.

 

[Skylar]

The simple answer is you are correct. Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to. Mormons come to mind.

A superb example. Mormons have temple weddings. In order to have a temple wedding you have to have a temple recommend, essentially a license from the church verifying you are a member in good standing. If you don't have such a recommend, you can't have a temple wedding.

Homosexuality is against the tenet of the mormon faith. So if you engaged in homosexuality or were in a homosexual relationship, you would be in violation of church teachings and thus not a member in good standing. Consequently, if you wanted to have a gay wedding you wouldn't have a temple recommend and wouldn't be able to have a temple wedding.

There is 0.0% chance that the government will or can force the mormons to perform a temple wedding for a gay couple for this very reason. Exclusion from ceremonies of those that don't abide the faith is intrinsic to most religious practices. Hell, the mormons could exclude blacks from such temple weddings until the late 70s. Probably still could if they wanted to.

 

[Seawytch]

Churches are exempt from some laws, because they are "private" organizations, and because they are protected by the 1st Amendment. The constitution is VERY CLEAR regarding the protections afforded to religion in this country.

Liberty does not mean the liberty to KILL people.

Churches are not exempt from public accommodation laws. If a church puts up a table selling pumpkins at the local farmers market, they can't discriminate who they sell to.

The religious ceremonies held in a church are not for sale to the public.

You're not looking at it clearly.

We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.

How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?

And dude, this took me two minutes to find

Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church

That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?

Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.

Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.

You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"

The simple answer is you are correct. Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to. Mormons come to mind.

I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully. Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas. If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private. My internet is going down every 30sec. I can't do shit on the net right now. Will look into that church in the morning.

I never said dumb asses won't sue. My point is they won't stand a chance at this one. Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen. If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance. I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.

I wouldn't take your bet, But to pretend like gays wouldn't LOVE to force them to by law is foolish. SeaBitch has admitted she'd love to force churches to comply.

Not by law douchnozzle, by public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.

But you're cute when you lie.

Not one person who has read this thread believes you wouldn't LOVE to force Christians by law to marry gays . NO ONE. We ALL know you'd love to exactly that.

Look at you, stretching the truth again just 'cause I said you were cute when you do it. That is toats adorbs!

No, I don't want to do it by law. I'm glad we have a 1st Amendment. I would never want to force a church, by law, to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. That would be contrary to being a liberal American. I do want them to bend to public opinion though. Go ahead, sue me.

 

[RKMBrown]

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Define disagree with homosexuality. If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term. If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.

Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.

What type of marriage are you talking about. The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?

News flash: NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.

 

[mdk]

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Define disagree with homosexuality. If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term. If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.

Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.

This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold in my opinion. One can oppose gay marriage for spiritual reasons all the while respecting their right to marry without government interference.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You're not looking at it clearly.

We agree, not being murdered is a right. Legally at least public accommodations are a right.

How can a church be exempt from not violating one right, but not the other? If Church A sues and says "hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we?" How would they be wrong?

And dude, this took me two minutes to find

Wedding Ceremonies - All Souls Church

That church is CLEARLY offering church weddings to the public. I mean that isn't even at question is it?

Once again, MANY churches are BUSINESSES and thus how are they exempt from public accommodation laws? Answer, they won't be when some fag sues.

Your belief that it won't happen is naive at best.

You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"

The simple answer is you are correct. Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to. Mormons come to mind.

I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully. Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas. If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private. My internet is going down every 30sec. I can't do shit on the net right now. Will look into that church in the morning.

I never said dumb asses won't sue. My point is they won't stand a chance at this one. Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen. If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance. I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.

I wouldn't take your bet, But to pretend like gays wouldn't LOVE to force them to by law is foolish. SeaBitch has admitted she'd love to force churches to comply.

Not by law douchnozzle, by public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.

But you're cute when you lie.

Not one person who has read this thread believes you wouldn't LOVE to force Christians by law to marry gays . NO ONE. We ALL know you'd love to exactly that.

Look at you, stretching the truth again just 'cause I said you were cute when you do it. That is toats adorbs!

No, I don't want to do it by law. I'm glad we have a 1st Amendment. I would never want to force a church, by law, to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. That would be contrary to being a liberal American. I do want them to bend to public opinion though. Go ahead, sue me.

again, NO ONE believes you. You are an intolerant bigot who is just too cowardly to admit the truth, you hate Christians for whatever reason and yoo would love to force them to accept your gay lifestyle by force of law.

 

[Seawytch]

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Oh? So you don't think that the people that supported slavery and opposed interracial marriage laws on religious grounds weren't bigots?

I know they weren't , because words have meanings. Apparently those meanings allude you

bigot

[big-uh t]
noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Christians, as a whole, are very tolerant people even if they disagree with someone or something.

For example, I think "gay marriage" is hilarious, you are no more married than if I "married" my car, but hey live and let live if you want to call yourself married, I don't care.

You on the other hand, are COMPLETELY intolerant to my views and would love to FORCE me to conform to yours. YOU are the bigot, not me.

So, to answer your original question. Certainly those who championed slavery and opposed interracial marriage were racists, but they weren't bigots.

I'm sorry...homophobe better? Gayist? Nah...ya'll freak out over homophobe and I just don't think "gayist" will take off. What would you call discrimination based on animus?

Please explain how you believe that I would try to force you to conform? Do you really believe public opinion is force?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Define disagree with homosexuality. If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term. If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.

Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.

What type of marriage are you talking about. The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?

News flash: NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.

WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.

You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .

Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such

 

[RKMBrown]

So you can point out where the Public Accommodation laws that have been in place since the 60s have led to churches being forced to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.

You're right though, I do want churches to be "forced" into being more inclusive...through public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.

Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Hey big guy.. again it depends how you disagree. If you call a spade a ****** with bile on your tongue it's bigotry... If you call a gay guy a faggot with bile on your tongue it's bigtory. Having a religious excuse is... just an excuse for the bigotry. What did the gay guy do to harm you? Casting stones makes you a bigot...

 

[Seawytch]

You asked, "If Church A sues and says hey if Church B gets to ignore rights that violate their beliefs, why can't we? How would they be wrong?"

The simple answer is you are correct. Church B would not be wrong. There are a number of situations ATM where some members of some religions have won certain exemptions from the law that other members of other religions are subject to. Mormons come to mind.

I'd have to look into the "public" thing for that particular church more carefully. Are they a real church or a wedding outlet like the ones at vegas. If they have to be a member of or join the church to get married.. then it's private. My internet is going down every 30sec. I can't do shit on the net right now. Will look into that church in the morning.

I never said dumb asses won't sue. My point is they won't stand a chance at this one. Forcing the catholic church to marry gays against their will.. yeah not gonna happen. If they want to do it, then it will happen, otherwise... nah not even a small chance. I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that the catholic and protestant churches will not be forced to marry gays in our lifetime.

I wouldn't take your bet, But to pretend like gays wouldn't LOVE to force them to by law is foolish. SeaBitch has admitted she'd love to force churches to comply.

Not by law douchnozzle, by public opinion just like they ALWAYS have.

But you're cute when you lie.

Not one person who has read this thread believes you wouldn't LOVE to force Christians by law to marry gays . NO ONE. We ALL know you'd love to exactly that.

Look at you, stretching the truth again just 'cause I said you were cute when you do it. That is toats adorbs!

No, I don't want to do it by law. I'm glad we have a 1st Amendment. I would never want to force a church, by law, to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. That would be contrary to being a liberal American. I do want them to bend to public opinion though. Go ahead, sue me.

again, NO ONE believes you. You are an intolerant bigot who is just too cowardly to admit the truth, you hate Christians for whatever reason and yoo would love to force them to accept your gay lifestyle by force of law.

Using an absolute like "nobody" is kinda like lying. (getting less cute and just silly now)

No, I would not like to force them by law, just public opinion...which you are apparently opposed to. Why? Was the public being "mean" when they forced the Mormons to change?

 

[RKMBrown]

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Define disagree with homosexuality. If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term. If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.

Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.

What type of marriage are you talking about. The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?

News flash: NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.

WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.

You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .

Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such

It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words. As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages. For example, I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child. I'm good with government regulating that. I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse. I'm good with government being involved in matters of property. While I'm good with plural marriages.. the property thing, to me, means that the plural marriage must be agreed upon by all parties.... you shouldn't be able to have two marriages, with both wives expecting the property ... only to find out later on that there's another wife.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Define disagree with homosexuality. If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term. If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.

Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.

What type of marriage are you talking about. The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?

News flash: NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.

WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.

You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .

Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such

It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words. As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages. For example, I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child. I'm good with government regulating that. I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse. I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.

A child can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why do you want to force anyone to include you? Do you have any idea how childish that is? Are you so immature that you can't just leave people who disagree with your lifestyle alone? I'm quite sure you don't want Christians trying to force you to be a Christian.

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Hey big guy.. again it depends how you disagree. If you call a spade a ****** with bile on your tongue it's bigotry... If you call a gay guy a faggot with bile on your tongue it's bigtory. Having a religious excuse is... just an excuse for the bigotry. What did the gay guy do to harm you? Casting stones makes you a bigot...

Good, tell that to SeaBytch, she's full of bile.

I have none, I'm a live and let live kinda guy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Did you see the quotations around "force". Weren't the Mormons "forced" into accepting blacks into their church and then into positions of authority? Why, yes, yes they were. Not by the government though, but by the rest of the country that thought they were assholes about it.

Guess what young folks think about churches these days?

Who cares what young folks think?

About anything

Not a church that has integrity. I realize you have none and so don't understand when others do, but I don't change my stances on issues based on how popular I am or how old fashioned my views seem, and only a jerk thinks other people should have to.

Here's a fucking idea. You mind your own business , I'll mind mine. You want to "marry" another woman, go ahead, but don't be fucking trying to tell me or mine that we're wrong for not agreeing with you.

The stupid part is that you are too stupid to uphold your part of the bargain while insisting that others leave you alone...

Either that, or you PURPOSELY want to tell others what to do, nah that couldn't be it...

Churches will that's who. When the old bigots die off...the church is still going to need money, honey.

Churches need butts in the seats to survive. That's not rocket surgery.

Hmmmm, no comment on the Mormons? Should they have "stuck to their guns" or do you agree with them falling to public pressure?

It's not us that will be "forcing" churchesp to change, darling, it will be our family members that want to worship with us. (Watch and see...history repeats)

People who disagree with homosexuality for religious reasons are not bigots you jerk. YOU are the bigot

Hey big guy.. again it depends how you disagree. If you call a spade a ****** with bile on your tongue it's bigotry... If you call a gay guy a faggot with bile on your tongue it's bigtory. Having a religious excuse is... just an excuse for the bigotry. What did the gay guy do to harm you? Casting stones makes you a bigot...

Good, tell that to SeaBytch, she's full of bile.

I have none, I'm a live and let live kinda guy.

I'm a live and let live guy too, for the most part... but if I see a woman getting beat by a man in the street I'm gonna butt in. My guess is she's full of bile for good reason. I've got more than a little bile for democrats.... I have zero patience for them on economic issues, but only because their idea of a good economy is to rape my income.

 

[RKMBrown]

Define disagree with homosexuality. If by disagree you mean you are pro traditional marriage, which apparently currently means you are for banning gay marriage by majority vote within each particular state, which is the current Republican party plank, well then yeah that's bigoted by the definition of the term. If by disagree with homosexuality you mean you're a guy that likes women... and are not interested in getting your ass worked by a guy.... well yeah that's not bigotry, that's natural.

Here's my opinion on "gay marriage"

I think homosexuality is a sick disgusting sin. However more importantly I think the government has no business defining marriage. So therefor it is COMPLETELY consistent that I can oppose queers while defending their right to not have the government define marriage.


It's no different than defending the right to freedom of speech of someone who is saying something that is absolutely disgusting to me.

What type of marriage are you talking about. The religious ceremony of certain churches, or the marriage license you get from your local government?

News flash: NO ONE IS REDEFINING RELIGION... NO ONE IS ASKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CHANGE CATHOLIC WEDDINGS TO START MEANING TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. NO ONE.

WHy aren't you understanding me? I don't think there should even BE government marriage licenses. The word marriage should not exist on any government document.

You want to get "married" find a group that will marry you and have at .

Then the government could do whatever as far as benefits and such

It's not a matter of understanding your view.. It's being able to agree with your words. As for this post you just made... I disagree with your view that government should not be involved in regulating marriages. For example, I disagree with a religion that allows a 60year old man marry and have sex with a child. I'm good with government regulating that. I'm also good with government regulating disbursement of assets on the death of a spouse. I'm good with government being involved in matters of property.

A child can't consent and thus no one could marry an adult and a child without the government regulating marriage, they already regulate contracts, and have laws against statutory rape.

Parents can consent for the child... that's how they used to get away with child brides. Thus you are back to the same issue... do you want government regulating marriage or no. Yes, a marriage recognized by the government is a contract. A special type of contract, but a contract nonetheless. Thus is in the scope of what the government regulates. Again... you are confusing the "religious ceremony" for which government has no regulatory control... to the "marriage license" distributed by the justice of the peace. The only thing common between the two concepts is the term marriage. But really you can get married in a church and not have a legal marriage in the eyes of the law... and vice versa... just because the government says you are married does not mean your church is forced to bless it.