Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[koshergrl]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?

Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?

Meanwhile:

As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.

What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.

Man, I've let you be this entire thread, but holy fuck you are an idiot. The poll in THIS thread has ZERO to do with if most people support gay marriage or not. I know for absolute fact that of 10 posters, myself included, who support legalized gay "marriage" who voted no in THIS poll.

 

[Conservative65]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

So churches should have the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

How about against racial minorities as well?

Are you saying if two homos ask a church to do their wedding the church should have to do it?

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

Jury nullification.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.

In some instances, armed confrontation is.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.

In some instances, armed confrontation is.

The black "protesters" certainly would agree

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

Jury nullification.

Juries determine guilt or no guilt not change laws.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

Jury nullification.

Juries determine guilt or no guilt not change laws.

And that has WHAT to do with what I posted?

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.

In some instances, armed confrontation is.

Who determines whether or not it's a bad law, YOU? Seems you are saying if you don't like it you can disobey it and not be punished. You are more than welcome to use civil disobedience to protest what you call bad laws or overreach. However, that doens't mean you are exempt from being punished for it.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

Jury nullification.

Juries determine guilt or no guilt not change laws.

And that has WHAT to do with what I posted?

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by jury nullification.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

Jury nullification.

Juries determine guilt or no guilt not change laws.

And that has WHAT to do with what I posted?

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by jury nullification.

Are you serious here?

Jury nullification is when you broke the law, and EVERYONE - including the jury - knows it and the jury finds you not guilty anyway based on the belief that the law is unjust.

 

[mdk]

You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?

Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?

Meanwhile:

As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.

What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.

It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.

 

[Skylar]

What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).

It wouldn't be particularly interesting in California, where gay marriage is legal and gay marriage bans were overturned as unconstitutional. As California recognizes gays and lesbians as a protected class in terms of public accommodation. The outcome would be drolly predictable.

And why would I deny paying clients? Especially those so enamored with my work that they are willing to purchase some of my most expensive designs or include lucrative custom upgrades? I've done cake toppers for 2 gays weddings (no lesbian weddings yet) and they were among the most expensive, most profitable projects I've done in that side of my business.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

The issue was already settled. The Federal Judiciary overturned prop 8 as unconstitutional. And the USSC preserved that ruling by denying cert.. And the Attorney General of California isn't appealing the lower court ruling, so there are no pending anything. There is no credible legal question as to whether gay marriage is legal in California.

You've imagined it.

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.

I've read the Bible cover to cover. And I found not a single mention of cake toppers. God, it seems, is mute on the topic. My customers aren't.

 

[koshergrl]

You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?

Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?

Meanwhile:

As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.

What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.

It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.

This is the intellect we have to work with.

In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.

She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.

Because they are straight up idiots.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).

It wouldn't be particularly interesting in California, where gay marriage is legal and gay marriage bans were overturned as unconstitutional. As California recognizes gays and lesbians as a protected class in terms of public accommodation. The outcome would be drolly predictable.

And why would I deny paying clients? Especially those so enamored with my work that they are willing to purchase some of my most expensive designs or include lucrative custom upgrades? I've done cake toppers for 2 gays weddings (no lesbian weddings yet) and they were among the most expensive, most profitable projects I've done in that side of my business.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

The issue was already settled. The Federal Judiciary overturned prop 8 as unconstitutional. And the USSC preserved that ruling by denying cert.. And the Attorney General of California isn't appealing the lower court ruling, so there are no pending anything. There is no credible legal question as to whether gay marriage is legal in California.

You've imagined it.

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.

I've read the Bible cover to cover. And I found not a single mention of cake toppers. God, it seems, is mute on the topic. My customers aren't.

I assume you own a retail store?

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.

In some instances, armed confrontation is.

The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.

Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.

Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?

Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?

Meanwhile:

As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.

What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.

It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.

This is the intellect we have to work with.

In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.

She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.

Because they are straight up idiots.

Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

Yes, it used to be against the law to hide slaves from their masters, or harbor them when they were running away.

The law is frequently wrong, and should be #1, disobeyed, and #2, changed.

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.

In some instances, armed confrontation is.

The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.

Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.

Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.

Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.

 

[koshergrl]

You two trying to "kill thread by manufactured flame war" again?

Tsk Tsk. I know the numbers in the poll at the top are rattling you. Got to keep those buried if the "most people support gay marriage" myth is to exact the "fake it till you make it" strategy, eh?

Meanwhile:

As part of my business, I make cake toppers professionally. And many gay couples are willing to pay top dollar for my work.

What would be interesting, legally speaking, would be to deny providing a wedding service to gay couples on religious grounds (Jude 1, New Testament) in a state where the electors decided to make marriage only legal between a man and a woman, like California or any of the other numerous states being told illegally that they don't have a right to have the "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage or not (Windsor 2013).
Then the gay couple would sue, of course, and the business owner would defend, of course, and then the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court where it would be forced to determine two things.

1. If gay marriage was even legal in the state in question at the time and

2. If gays lifestyles have a right to force any person in the US to abdicate and defy core religious concepts of their faith via "public accomodation" laws.

It is only a myth to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. You have been shown countless polls from credible and scientific sources that state differently then what you claim. You've dismissed every single one. Instead you rely on a USMB poll that doesn't even ask about gay marriage, long lines at Chick-Fil-A, and Duck Dynasty Facebook "likes" as some sort of compelling evidence of your claim. It isn't compelling but you have every right to be willfully obtuse.

This is the intellect we have to work with.

In another thread, one of these retards is acting superior, while telling me that when I used the term "magnaminous" I was mispelling "monogamous" and I should return to school.

She didn't recognize the word magnaminous, or understand it's meaning, even in context.

Because they are straight up idiots.

Sadly they exist on both sides here to. Just dummies

No, primarily they exist on the left. They are uneducated ignorami who honestly believe that what they have picked up off youtube and middle school can be disguised as intelligence, knowledge, and education.

Rightwingers who are lacking in education do not typically try to convince people that they know more than they actually do.

And progressive douches actually think people can't see through their ignorance.