Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

No it isn't.

That has been explained to you before.

The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.

You can't force me to violate my religious bel

If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery. Duh.

Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.

I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.

But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.

Your law violates my rights. Round and round you go.

So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.

The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.

Of course they were.

We are all protected by the Constitution.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

You can't force me to violate my religious bel

If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery. Duh.

Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.

I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.

But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.

Your law violates my rights. Round and round you go.

So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.

The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.

Of course they were.

We are all protected by the Constitution.

You just lost your credibility.

High Court Rules Bus Segregation Unconstitutional

 

[Skylar]

Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.

I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.

But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.

Your law violates my rights. Round and round you go.

So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.

The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.

Of course they were.

We are all protected by the Constitution.

You just lost your credibility.

No he didn't. He just corrected you.

 

[Syriusly]

You can't force me to violate my religious bel

If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery. Duh.

Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.

I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.

But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.

Your law violates my rights. Round and round you go.

So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.

The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.

Of course they were.

We are all protected by the Constitution.

LOL you don't get it.

Segregationist are protected by the Constitution too.

They were wrong. And they, like you, believed the Constitution supported them.

But we are all protected by the Constitution.

Even when you disagree with it.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Your law violates my rights. Round and round you go.

So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.

The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.

Of course they were.

We are all protected by the Constitution.

You just lost your credibility.

No he didn't. He just corrected you.

Now you just lost your credibility.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Sort of like saying- if you want a black wedding cake then go to a black bakery- or a jewish wedding cake- go to a jewish bakery.

I will just point out once again- your argument is with the law- not with me. You can hold whatever discriminatory beliefs you want to hold.

But you can't break the law just because you can claim it violates your religious beliefs.

Your law violates my rights. Round and round you go.

So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.

The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.

Of course they were.

We are all protected by the Constitution.

LOL you don't get it.

Segregationist are protected by the Constitution too.

They were wrong. And they, like you, believed the Constitution supported them.

But we are all protected by the Constitution.

Even when you disagree with it.

High Court Rules Bus Segregation Unconstitutional

 

[Seawytch]

My constitution trumps your law.

Well if you believe that Public Accomadation laws violate your Constitutional rights- I will say once again for maybe the 20th time- you have the same options as gay couples who believed that laws against same gender marriage violated their rights.

You can either
a) legislatively move to change the law- i.e. repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequaint PA laws or
b) file a lawsuit against the specific law arguing that it is unconstitutional.

That is how you argue that 'your constitution' trumps the law- its working for homosexual couples right now.

These cases are going to the USSC.

Which cases are those? Gay marriage cases? Almost inevitably. I am not aware of any PA cases on their way to the Supreme Court.

The bakery cases.

I don't believe that they have even been appealed yet. But let me know how that goes- I absolutely support the rights of these business men to go to court for what they believe- just as gay couples did.

The Elaine Photography case went...the SCOTUS didn't hear it, leaving the lower court ruling in place. The court ruled against the bigots.

 

[koshergrl]

No it isn't.

That has been explained to you before.

The issue is public accomodation laws and whether business's can use a religious argument to discriminate against customers.

You can't force me to violate my religious bel

If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery. Duh.

And where does the Bible prohibit gay wedding cakes? I've read Leviticus. It never mentions wedding cakes.

Maybe its in the section where it says not to eat shellfish?

Travel to the Midian desert and chow on some shellfish and see where that lands you, before you scoff.

Observant Jews do not eat the freshest shellfish regardless how safe it is.

An omnipotent God would know that shellfish can be safe to eat.

But he told all Jews- not just the ones in the desert, not to eat shellfish.

Or pigs. And a number of other things.

Ever- not for safety reasons- because they are abominations.

Good for them.

But Leviticus was a set of directions for a very specific group of Hebrews, at a very specific time, and those rules were meant to keep the people on the right path until the law was fulfilled.

 

[Syriusly]

You can't force me to violate my religious bel

If you want a gay wedding cake then go to a gay bakery. Duh.

And where does the Bible prohibit gay wedding cakes? I've read Leviticus. It never mentions wedding cakes.

Maybe its in the section where it says not to eat shellfish?

Travel to the Midian desert and chow on some shellfish and see where that lands you, before you scoff.

Observant Jews do not eat the freshest shellfish regardless how safe it is.

An omnipotent God would know that shellfish can be safe to eat.

But he told all Jews- not just the ones in the desert, not to eat shellfish.

Or pigs. And a number of other things.

Ever- not for safety reasons- because they are abominations.

Good for them.

But Leviticus was a set of directions for a very specific group of Hebrews, at a very specific time, and those rules were meant to keep the people on the right path until the law was fulfilled.

And as far as Jews are concerned those laws are still in effect, and they are still waiting for the law to be fulfilled.

Nothing to do with safety reasons.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.

Not synagogues and temples.

 

[Syriusly]

Your law violates my rights. Round and round you go.

So said the segregationists. The argument didn't carry much water then. I doubt its going to hold much more water now.

The segregationists were not protected by the constitution.

Of course they were.

We are all protected by the Constitution.

LOL you don't get it.

Segregationist are protected by the Constitution too.

They were wrong. And they, like you, believed the Constitution supported them.

But we are all protected by the Constitution.

Even when you disagree with it.

High Court Rules Bus Segregation Unconstitutional

Clearly you don't get it. That ruling doesn't say that Segregationists are not protected by the Constitution.

Segregationist they were- and are protected by the Constitution.

They were wrong. And they, like you, believed the Constitution supported them.

But we are all protected by the Constitution.

Even when you disagree with it.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.

Not synagogues and temples.

Talking to yourself again?

 

[koshergrl]

Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.

Not synagogues and temples.

Talking to yourself again?

No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.

Not synagogues and temples.

Talking to yourself again?

No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.

The quote function works so well when you want to pretend like you are responding to someone's post.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.

Not synagogues and temples.

Talking to yourself again?

No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.

The quote function works so well when you want to pretend like you are responding to someone's post.

Meh. People tend to fixate on that when they can't make their point.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.

Not synagogues and temples.

Talking to yourself again?

No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.

The quote function works so well when you want to pretend like you are responding to someone's post.

Meh. People tend to fixate on that when they can't make their point.

Meh. People tend to ignore the quote function when they don't want people to see their response.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes well last I heard, this thread was about Christian churches.

Not synagogues and temples.

Talking to yourself again?

No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.

The quote function works so well when you want to pretend like you are responding to someone's post.

Meh. People tend to fixate on that when they can't make their point.

Meh. People tend to ignore the quote function when they don't want people to see their response.

Riiight. That's it, lol.

Nice distraction. But you still lose.

 

[Silhouette]

No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.

Leviticus=Old Testament + shellfish = Venial Sin and doing penance

Jude 1 = New Testament + promoting a homosexual cultural spread = Mortal Sin and eternity in the pit of fire.

 

[Skylar]

No, I was responding to your nonsensical garbage about Leviticus and shellfish.

Leviticus=Old Testament + shellfish = Venial Sin and doing penance

Jude 1 = New Testament + promoting a homosexual cultural spread = Mortal Sin and eternity in the pit of fire.

And thank you for affirming for us what we all already knew: that your opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the law. And everything to do with your religion.

As I've said so many times before, there is a reason why opponents of gay marriage tend to do poorly in court: because they can't argue their actual motivation. They have to come up with a litany of second string nonsense arguments that they can neither defend nor make much sense.

 

[beagle9]

Nope, just want equality. Intolerant Christians get to discriminate against me....I should get to return the favor don't you think?

Um you're wrong SeaBytch, I dont want anyone to discriminate against anyone, I simply want the government to mind their own fucking business.

The same EXACT situation with how I feel about gay "marriage" I don't want gays "marrying" , but it certainly is no concern of the governments.

And OF COURSE you would have the same right to discriminate as anyone else.

Narcissistic much? I didn't say YOU...I said intolerant Christians. Guilty conscience?

Jesus was an intolerant Christian, huh.

He wasn't...he would bake the cake. It's not Jesus that has the problem, just some of his fans.

Yeah, like he "baked the cake" on the temple steps.

He flogged the pigs away from the temple. Jesus wouldn't bake the cake. He wasn't about submitting to depravity, ever.

He went into the publicans house as he was invited, and the disciples became very distraught over the incident, but it was just another test found in the Bible, and it was also a chance to get the work of the Lord done as was intended it be done by him.