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.
Except that that is not true since we have the stupid, and unconstitutional, public accommodation laws.
You can deny it all you want Jake, one day a gay will sue a Christian Church to force them to allow their wedding. People are assholes and do shit like that just to prove they are assholes.
I mean I never thought I'd see the day when a court ordered a school to let a boy use the girl's restroom either. And honestly, I doubt that even 5 years ago YOU would thought it would have happened, or supported it either.
I agree with your reasoning. If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.
There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.
When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response? There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
I agree with your reasoning. If a private bakery can be told what they did by denying to do a cake for a same sex couple is wrong and illegal, don't think an activist, same sex marriage supporting judge won't tell a church that says no to such a wedding the same thing.
There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.
When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response? There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
The very same argument you're employing now was also used after Loving. Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church
You are confusing facts with your fears.
And churches with business's.
No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.?
Also, have you ever heard an inter racial couple say that they would like to force (through public pressure heehehehe) churches to marry them? No, you have not, but there is a perverted fag woman in this thread who has said..
Should they be forced to adopt to any married couple against their wishes also? Just checking. Because you know, that's next...
Churches are not orphanages.
Orphanages are not churches.
OK, I'll take that code as a "yes, we LGBT militant activists will be soon suing church run orphanages for access to those kids".
Thanks for your honesty.
The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church
You are confusing facts with your fears.
And churches with business's.
No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.?
Which law would that be?
Anyone can sue anyone. That doesn't mean that they have a case.
As I said- you confuse facts with your fears.
No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
Churches are not business's so long as they meet the criteria for church's.
Business's are not church's if they don't meet the criteria for church's.
You can try to sue the Catholic Church for not allowing you to marry in the Cathedral because you are not a Catholic, but all you will do is waste everyone's time.
you are attempting to disguise the fact that fags will sue by continually claiming that they won't win.
Why you can't just admit that the giant vaginas probably will sue like a bunch of whiny vadges is beyond me.
The fact is that if a church that advertises weddings to the public gets sued by a gay , the church WILL lose and there will be a church who is forced to allow a gay wedding in their church
You are confusing facts with your fears.
And churches with business's.
No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
Under the same law, a Jew COULD sue a Catholic church who refused to allow him or her to marry. Why do you ignore the fact that there are churches who advertise weddings for profit which makes them a BUSINESS.?
Which law would that be?
Anyone can sue anyone. That doesn't mean that they have a case.
As I said- you confuse facts with your fears.
No more than a Catholic Church that 'adverstises weddings' will be successfully sued by a Jew for not being allowed to be married in the Cathedral.
Churches are not business's so long as they meet the criteria for church's.
Business's are not church's if they don't meet the criteria for church's.
You can try to sue the Catholic Church for not allowing you to marry in the Cathedral because you are not a Catholic, but all you will do is waste everyone's time.
[
you are attempting to disguise the fact that fags will sue by continually claiming that they won't win..
You are attempting to attack homosexuals by claiming that they will sue churches when there is absolutely no evidence, other than your imagination that any such suits will be made, and with absolutely no basis for believing that they would be successful.
[
t the giant vaginas probably will sue like a bunch of whiny vadges is beyond me.
Is that like a giant panda?
[
you are attempting to disguise the fact that fags will sue by continually claiming that they won't win..
[
t the giant vaginas probably will sue like a bunch of whiny vadges is beyond me.
There hasn't been a single church that has been forced to marry a couple against their wishes, gay, straight, black, white, interracial, etc. Not one. Gays have been getting married in MA for over decade and not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. All you have are slippery slopes and Pandora's Box types scenarios that have not come to pass.
When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response? There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
The very same argument you're employing now was also used after Loving. Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
You are attempting to attack homosexuals by claiming that they will sue churches when there is absolutely no evidence, other than your imagination that any such suits will be made, and with absolutely no basis for believing that they would be successful.
You are attempting to attack homosexuals by claiming that they will sue churches when there is absolutely no evidence, other than your imagination that any such suits will be made, and with absolutely no basis for believing that they would be successful.
Suits are merely accusations. I think its a near certainty that at some point, some gay guy is going to sue to try and force a church to perform a wedding.
That's only slightly less certain than the suit being laughed out of court.
When, and it will happen because all it will take is some activists judge, will that be your response? There are lots of things that the government now mandates that people said exactly what you said when those who think like me expressed concern over them.
The question is SHOULD churches be forced to do so not have they.
As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
The very same argument you're employing now was also used after Loving. Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
Corporations are not people ... what a dumb ass thing to say.Very relevant, guys. No church has been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry. If there is not a 9 or 14 public interest that compels the 1st protection of religious association be avoided, then churches are safe.
Of course corporations are people now.
Texas Presbyterian should be sued for willful negligence in the death of the patient and the illness of the two nurses. The chief administrators should go to prison for ten years and ten years of dividends should be diverted to Dallas public health systems.
As I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread, churches should not be forced to marry any couple against their wishes.
If by some improbable chance a couple (any couple) sued a church on the bias they wouldn't marry them I would side with the church. Whom a church marries is a matter for the church not the government. Even if your scenario came to pass it would never survive on appeals. A church has never been ordered by the courts to marry some against their wishes.
Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
The very same argument you're employing now was also used after Loving. Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
Unless your a federal judge, what you would do is irrelevant.
A church has never been ordered to marry some against their wishes, YET.
You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
The very same argument you're employing now was also used after Loving. Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
Again, I will say that five years ago MOST people would have thought that suing a school so that your son could use the girls' restroom was frivolous.
You asked my opinion and I answered, so you can the snark.
The very same argument you're employing now was also used after Loving. Since then not a single church has been forced to marry an interracial couple by the courts against their wishes. Not one. That same hyperbole didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
Again, I will say that five years ago MOST people would have thought that suing a school so that your son could use the girls' restroom was frivolous.
Again I will say
Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
The same reason no one forces the Catholic Church to marry Jews is the same reason why no one will be forcing the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals.
you dont actually KNOW that no church has been forced to, you merely know that no case has been of note
I have searched on numerous occasions for such a case and I have been unable to find one. I've been debating this topic for many years now and each time I am unable to locate one. Something tells me a church being forced to marry an interracial couple (or any couple) would have garnered quite a bit of attention. Enough attention to make it worthy of note in the annals of legal history. I can't find one. As it stands not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, interracial or otherwise, against their wishes. If you can find one I would love to know because legal history is sort of a hobby as mine.
Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
Again, I will say that five years ago MOST people would have thought that suing a school so that your son could use the girls' restroom was frivolous.
Again I will say
Many churches will only perform marriages for those who are either members of their church or belong to their faith.
I am fairly confident that is the case for Catholics for example- my wife and I could never get married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest because we are not Catholics- does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?
No- it means I would probably be paying court costs if I tried. Most people would look at such a lawsuit as frivolous.
The same reason no one forces the Catholic Church to marry Jews is the same reason why no one will be forcing the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals.
Can you show me a SINGLE example of a Jew suing the Catholic Church? No? I didn't think so, but you have admitted that gays will sue Christian churches. .
[
but fags have .
