Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[deltex1]

Churches should burn in Hell because religion is the single greatest lie in all of human history.

Thanks for your opinion, douche bag.

 

[koshergrl]

Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.

Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,

then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.

read your Bible and learn.

NYC may or may not be able to read...but learning is out of the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.

Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,

then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.

read your Bible and learn.

Churches don't teach that sex outside of marriage is bad, but sex within the marriage is good?

Prove that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.

Anal is the new oral. Get with it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Reminder.. This is a Zone2 thread.
Every post must have a nugget of the topic
that moves the convo forwards.

If you have had posts deleted on the last few pages --
you are hereby warned to stay on topic..

FlaCalTenn

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Actually fake isn't it just the opposite? YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural. You will have it no other way then YOUR way.

If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.

Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.

Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.

Exactly.

The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nope. The 14th amendment only mandates equal protection of the laws. It prevents the government from discriminating, not private citizens.

Unless they are involved in Interstate Commerce, or run public businesses. Of course churches are not businesses, and cannot be forced to violate their faith, a moot point.

The interstate commerce justification by the SC is a load of horsecrap. When written, interstate commerce did not mean any kind of business activity whatsoever. It referred only the the transportation and exchange of goods across state lines. It gave the federal government the authority only to regulate those activities.

Incorrect.

This is subjective and irrelevant opinion – and absent case law in support, wrong.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers.

Regulatory policy pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence is necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as it reflects the wisdom of the Founding Generation and their desire to safeguard the markets and ensure their integrity.

We will never return to a pre-Lochner economic paradigm, to believe such is reactionary nonsense, where ‘liberty to contract’ is an anachronistic relic, as the relationship between the employer and employee has forever changed, with the advantage clearly going to the former (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)).

Regulatory policy is therefore appropriate to protect workers and consumers alike from capricious business owners willing to maximize profits at the expense of safety and the viability of the markets.

Again, unless you can cite case law where the Supreme Court has overturned the whole of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, your post is factually and comprehensively wrong.

 

[eflatminor]

The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.

The government has no right to be involved in marriage at all. How about that one?!

This is, even if by happenstance, the true libertarian take on marriage, which is to say that we believe anyone should be able to "marry" anyone they like, but the government should have no place in the definition of or the market for marriage.

If the Church of the Sacred Beaver is cool with marrying two of a it's female parishioners, that should be nobody's business.

In other words, we have free speech here, so if you and another consenting adult want to call yourself married, have at it. You need not be granted such status by government, state or federal. No government needs to know your personal relationships with the possible exception of the military.

If governments stopped attempting to define who can and who cannot be married and stopped giving tax credits or other incentives to couples they deemed married, this wouldn't be an issue. This shouldn't be an issue. It is only an issue because of meddlers...those that are just SURE they know what's best for everyone else. The institution of marriage has been around a lot longer than any current government. It requires no defense by bureaucrats!

Gay people are misguided to seek approval from government. Liberals are wrong to support such inclusion from central planners. Conservatives are wrong to attempt to exclude some and include others in government's definition of married. Once again, this is a problem of meddlers...but isn't that always the case...

 

[eflatminor]

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers.

Incorrect.

The PEOPLE ultimately decide. Either through new law, nullification or when necessary, revolution. The SC is NOT the final words on what is and what is not Constitutional. If that were the case, we'd still have slavery.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Gay Americans seek only to realize their comprehensive civil liberties and conduct their private lives free of harassment from you and other deranged social rightists seeking to codify your ignorance and hate.

And that you and others on the right would refer to gay Americans as ‘homos’ serves only as confirmation of your bigotry, ignorance, and hate.

 

[GISMYS]

If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Gay Americans seek only to realize their comprehensive civil liberties and conduct their private lives free of harassment from you and other deranged social rightists seeking to codify your ignorance and hate.

And that you and others on the right would refer to gay Americans as ‘homos’ serves only as confirmation of your bigotry, ignorance, and hate.

lol!!! thieves just want to steal!!!

 

[Freewill]

If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.

What do you think the parades are all about?

 

[Ibentoken]

If we refuse to endorse anal screwing, the homos will (are) bombard us with images and comments about it, until we become so desensitized to it, we will no longer notice when lefty loons are screwing in the streets, schools and on our doorsteps.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Gay Americans seek only to realize their comprehensive civil liberties and conduct their private lives free of harassment from you and other deranged social rightists seeking to codify your ignorance and hate.

And that you and others on the right would refer to gay Americans as ‘homos’ serves only as confirmation of your bigotry, ignorance, and hate.

Queers and fags works. It's worked for generations. I'm not gonna change regardless of how many times you call me a bigot. You're a Christophobic bigot. There, were even. Queer.

 

[Papageorgio]

If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.

Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.

Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.

Exactly.

The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.

And the government has no right or force religion to perform marriage they have no belief in.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The statist here is kg who wants to use big government to enforce her moral beliefs.

Won't happen, sis.

Actually fake isn't it just the opposite? YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural. You will have it no other way then YOUR way.

Yep, you use the language of the KKK, the anti-women lobby, so forth and so on.

You want to use Big Government, just like kg, to deny people the same civil rights you have.

You don't get to discriminate in a business in the public sector.

You make cakes, then you make them for everybody.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.

Exactly.

The constitution doesn't say 'equality for some'. Its equality for all. Glad you agree the government has no right to say who can and cannot get married.

And the government has no right or force religion to perform marriage they have no belief in.


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

No one ever said it could or should.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or organizations, such as churches.

One of the many reasons why the OP’s premise is ignorant idiocy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake and his left wing drama.

The flamers are far right fools. Not to worry: they were doused.

You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights. My Constitution limits government. No me.

You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.

The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.

You disagree? Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.

Go find a time machine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually fake isn't it just the opposite? YOU want to force YOUR morals onto bakers, Priest, Rabbis, and anyone else who doesn't believe that anal sex is natural. You will have it no other way then YOUR way.

If we care about our freedom and our Constitution, neither side will want government to control our morals or our choices sexual activity. If you love your country you'll fight for the rights of ALL Americans.

Between consenting adults - nobody's business but those involved.

Good then do not force other to accept gay "marriage", get the government out of the business of marriage.

Marriage equality is for everybody, including you. You don't get to define it for others is the point.

Step along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Churches tend to teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but marriage removes the sin from the sex.

Common sense would suggest that if churches logically applied that thinking to gay sex,

then gay sex would be a sin outside of marriage, but gay marriage would remove the sin from the sex.

read your Bible and learn.

The Constitution is secular, and the Bible is for the church.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is not a "right"

Another far left myth that needs to be dispelled...

You are obviously a product of home schooling.

It is not a myth. SCOTUS has said so.

Step along.