Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Conservative65]

PA laws excepts religions.

As of now but that is how the push will take place. It won't the church as a church but as a public accommodation.

Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses.

You're literally arguing your imagination.

AGAIN, as of now.\

So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist, that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?

Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.

30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying. It has happened.

 

[Conservative65]

No one is saying that a church should have to perform weddings it doesn't want to. Only that anyone conducting business with the public should treat its customers fairly and equally. Regardless of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.

Not yet. WHEN it happens they won't be going after the church as a church but as a public accommodation. My church is open to anyone that walks through the doors at anytime a service is conducted.

CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court.

There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread.

Its just fearmongering.

OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL

30 years ago, a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state. Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.

And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.

And? What's your point?

And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.

You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary. The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.

 

[Skylar]

PA laws excepts religions.

As of now but that is how the push will take place. It won't the church as a church but as a public accommodation.

Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses.

You're literally arguing your imagination.

AGAIN, as of now.\

So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist, that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?

Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.

30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying. It has happened.

Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.

As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.

 

[Skylar]

Not yet. WHEN it happens they won't be going after the church as a church but as a public accommodation. My church is open to anyone that walks through the doors at anytime a service is conducted.

CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court.

There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread.

Its just fearmongering.

OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL

30 years ago, a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state. Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.

And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.

And? What's your point?

And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.

You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary. The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.

Your point is that anything can happen at some unspecified date in the future....unless it doesn't? That's a useless standard, as it isn't predictive. It doesn't demonstrate the likelihood of anything. It could happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, or never. Which makes discussion of it uselessly speculative. As there's no bridge from your speculation to reality.

Which is my point.

 

[Conservative65]

As of now but that is how the push will take place. It won't the church as a church but as a public accommodation.

Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses.

You're literally arguing your imagination.

AGAIN, as of now.\

So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist, that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?

Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.

30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying. It has happened.

Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.

As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.

When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you. You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".

 

[Conservative65]

CHurches aren't businesses. They are explicitedly exempted from public accommodation laws. Someone will inevitably sue a church under public accomodation. And just as inevitably, everyone from the judge to the balliff to the court reporter will point and laugh as they toss the case out of court.

There are zero cases of public accommodation laws being used to force churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform. Nor is there a single advocate of such in 660 pages of this thread.

Its just fearmongering.

OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL

30 years ago, a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state. Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.

And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.

And? What's your point?

And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.

You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary. The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.

Your point is that anything can happen at some unspecified date in the future....unless it doesn't? That's a useless standard, as it isn't predictive. It doesn't demonstrate the likelihood of anything. It could happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, or never. Which makes discussion of it uselessly speculative. As there's no bridge from your speculation to reality.

Which is my point.

Your statement is that because it hasn't, it means it won't.

I never said it would happen tomorrow or next year but it will happen.

 

[Skylar]

Again, churches are explicitly exempted from public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws apply only to public businesses. Churches aren't public businesses.

You're literally arguing your imagination.

AGAIN, as of now.\

So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist, that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?

Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.

30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying. It has happened.

Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.

As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.

When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you. You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".

History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.

You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.

That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.

 

[Skylar]

OK, I'll give you a task then, umm I mean since you are so good at making so many excuses as to why something won't happen in your mind, then why not trying to give us the many excuses as to why it might surely occur, and this from within your mind about the foreseeable future maybe ? I know in that mind of yours you can come up with something... Try playing the opposite advocate for a change, because an open mind is never a good thing to waist right..LOL

30 years ago, a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state. Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.

And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.

And? What's your point?

And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.

You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary. The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.

Your point is that anything can happen at some unspecified date in the future....unless it doesn't? That's a useless standard, as it isn't predictive. It doesn't demonstrate the likelihood of anything. It could happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, or never. Which makes discussion of it uselessly speculative. As there's no bridge from your speculation to reality.

Which is my point.

Your statement is that because it hasn't, it means it won't.

Again, anything is possible. Dinosaurs created from reclomated frog DNA taking over the earth during a meteor shower is possible. But isn't terribly likely.

Nor is there the slightest evidence that such an event will happen. Compare that with say, the 2016 election. You can say, with some assurance of evidence, that there will be a presidential election in that year. As people are announcing for this election, we've had elections just like it on a regular cycle, as its written into our law.

Can you see the difference between mathematically possible...........and even remotely likely?

I never said it would happen tomorrow or next year but it will happen.

And that's where you run into problems. You're claim that it 'will' happen. There's nothing that indicates that it will. You're jumping from 'you can't prove it won't ever happen' to 'it must happen'. And that's a leap of logic that Willie E. Coyote couldn't jump with a pair of rocket skates.

As the former doesn't support the latter.

 

[Conservative65]

AGAIN, as of now.\

So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist, that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?

Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.

30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying. It has happened.

Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.

As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.

When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you. You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".

History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.

You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.

That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.

History has shown that things people said would never change have.

Your problem is you say things can change then refuse to believe that this can also change. What's in dispute is whether or not you have the ability to understand it.

 

[Conservative65]

30 years ago, a judge would have thrown out a case where two homos wanted him/her to overturn a State law against same sex marriage within that state. Skylar wants to make it out as if this can't change.

And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.

And? What's your point?

And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.

You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary. The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.

Your point is that anything can happen at some unspecified date in the future....unless it doesn't? That's a useless standard, as it isn't predictive. It doesn't demonstrate the likelihood of anything. It could happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, or never. Which makes discussion of it uselessly speculative. As there's no bridge from your speculation to reality.

Which is my point.

Your statement is that because it hasn't, it means it won't.

Again, anything is possible. Dinosaurs created from reclomated frog DNA taking over the earth during a meteor shower is possible. But isn't terribly likely.

Nor is there the slightest evidence that such an event will happen. Compare that with say, the 2016 election. You can say, with some assurance of evidence, that there will be a presidential election in that year. As people are announcing for this election, we've had elections just like it on a regular cycle, as its written into our law.

Can you see the difference between mathematically possible...........and even remotely likely?

I never said it would happen tomorrow or next year but it will happen.

And that's where you run into problems. You're claim that it 'will' happen. There's nothing that indicates that it will. You're jumping from 'you can't prove it won't ever happen' to 'it must happen'. And that's a leap of logic that Willie E. Coyote couldn't jump with a pair of rocket skates.

As the former doesn't support the latter.

Can you see a judge ruling overrulling PA laws and a judge overturning today what he wouldn't have done 30 years is equally likely. It's not unlikely because you say it won't happen.

 

[Skylar]

So you're arguing against something that doesn't exist, that hasn't happened and there's no indication ever will, that the laws explicitly forbid, and there's no significant support for?

Okay.....I don't know to tell you. As your entire argument begins and ends in your own head. There's no external evidence to support your fear. So you just keep imagining harder.

30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying. It has happened.

Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.

As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.

When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you. You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".

History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.

You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.

That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.

History has shown that things people said would never change have.

There's no indication that history will change on this issue. You have nothing. No public support, no changes in the law, no credibly proposed changes, no history of this ever happening.

Your argument is quite literally 'because you can't prove it won't happen, it must happen'. That's not logical. As the former doesn't support the latter.

 

[Skylar]

And 50 years ago, judges did throw out interracial marriages, imprisoning those who were engaged in them.

And? What's your point?

And with Loving v. Virginia, a court threw out laws doing that.

You keep saying because it hasn't happened, thinking it can is imaginary. The point is that because it happened doesn't mean it won't and thinking it can't simply because it hasn't is imaginary.

Your point is that anything can happen at some unspecified date in the future....unless it doesn't? That's a useless standard, as it isn't predictive. It doesn't demonstrate the likelihood of anything. It could happen in a hundred years or 10,000 years, or never. Which makes discussion of it uselessly speculative. As there's no bridge from your speculation to reality.

Which is my point.

Your statement is that because it hasn't, it means it won't.

Again, anything is possible. Dinosaurs created from reclomated frog DNA taking over the earth during a meteor shower is possible. But isn't terribly likely.

Nor is there the slightest evidence that such an event will happen. Compare that with say, the 2016 election. You can say, with some assurance of evidence, that there will be a presidential election in that year. As people are announcing for this election, we've had elections just like it on a regular cycle, as its written into our law.

Can you see the difference between mathematically possible...........and even remotely likely?

I never said it would happen tomorrow or next year but it will happen.

And that's where you run into problems. You're claim that it 'will' happen. There's nothing that indicates that it will. You're jumping from 'you can't prove it won't ever happen' to 'it must happen'. And that's a leap of logic that Willie E. Coyote couldn't jump with a pair of rocket skates.

As the former doesn't support the latter.

Can you see a judge ruling overrulling PA laws and a judge overturning today what he wouldn't have done 30 years is equally likely. It's not unlikely because you say it won't happen.

Again, you're offering us speculation based on nothing. You claim that churches will be forced to accommodate gay weddings. But you have no evidence of it. You simply assume that it must be......um, because 'history'.

That's not a rational basis of anything. Your logic also doesn't work. As you're arguing that since something can't be proven never to happen, it must happen. That doesn't follow either.

So what evidence do you have that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall. Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.

 

[Seawytch]

Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall. Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.

Or that it happened in the United States in the past. Surely they can cite all the times a church has been forced by the government to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. An interracial or interfaith marriage perhaps? A baptism? A Bris? Anything?

 

[Conservative65]

30 years ago there was no indication that a judge would overturn state law prohibiting two fags marrying. It has happened.

Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.

As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.

When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you. You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".

History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.

You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.

That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.

History has shown that things people said would never change have.

There's no indication that history will change on this issue. You have nothing. No public support, no changes in the law, no credibly proposed changes, no history of this ever happening.

Your argument is quite literally 'because you can't prove it won't happen, it must happen'. That's not logical. As the former doesn't support the latter.

My argument is that things people said would never happen have and this is no different. There is history to prove that things change and this is as likely as anything else whether you agree or not. You agreement isn't necessary. All you need to do is accept that it can and be willing to admit you were wrong when it does.

 

[Conservative65]

Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall. Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.

You say the same thing people said 30 years ago, even 5 years ago, when people like me said federal judges will overstep their bounds and tell States they can't prohibit same sex marriages.

 

[Skylar]

Talk to me when there is any indication of PA laws being applied to churches to force them to perform weddings.

As there isn't any. If that changes, show us.

When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you. You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".

History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.

You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.

That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.

History has shown that things people said would never change have.

There's no indication that history will change on this issue. You have nothing. No public support, no changes in the law, no credibly proposed changes, no history of this ever happening.

Your argument is quite literally 'because you can't prove it won't happen, it must happen'. That's not logical. As the former doesn't support the latter.

My argument is that things people said would never happen have and this is no different. There is history to prove that things change and this is as likely as anything else whether you agree or not. You agreement isn't necessary. All you need to do is accept that it can and be willing to admit you were wrong when it does.

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't demonstrate any particular future outcome. As things people said would never happen.....still haven't happened. So 'things people have said would never happen' isn't a predictive model. As it produces both results. With almost all of those results contradicting you.

So what evidence do you have that churches will be required to perform gay weddings? Show us, don't tell us.

 

[Skylar]

Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall. Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.

You say the same thing people said 30 years ago, even 5 years ago, when people like me said federal judges will overstep their bounds and tell States they can't prohibit same sex marriages.

You're not simply claiming that churches MAY be forced to perform gay weddings in the future. You're insisting that churches WILL be forced to perform gay marriages in the future. And there's nothing that indicates that this is even likely. Let alone certain.

So what is your evidence that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings? Specifically.

 

[Conservative65]

Conservative, stop the silly argument that the sky might fall. Give us clear and concise proof that this is happening now or will happen soon.

You say the same thing people said 30 years ago, even 5 years ago, when people like me said federal judges will overstep their bounds and tell States they can't prohibit same sex marriages.

You're not simply claiming that churches MAY be forced to perform gay weddings in the future. You're insisting that churches WILL be forced to perform gay marriages in the future. And there's nothing that indicates that this is even likely. Let alone certain.

So what is your evidence that churches will be forced to perform gay weddings? Specifically.

That's what I've been saying and gave an example of how it would be approached when it does. I also gave examples of situations where people said on other issues that "there's nothing that indicates that is even likely to happen" yet is has happened. You can't say the future is ever changing then claim that it does except on something you aren't willing to admit.

I'm claiming ti will happen and how I think it will come about. Will you, when it does, be man enough to admit you're wrong? Doubt it.

 

[Conservative65]

When that changes, and it will as history has shown, I won't have to show you. You'll be the first one in line claiming you support it and it's the "equal thing to do".

History has never shown churches being forced to perform gay marriages. That history changes is indisputable. That history changes in the exact manner you're lamenting about is very much in dispute. As there's exactly nothing indicating it will.

You're simply offering us your imagination of some future event that may happen at some future time.....unless it doesn't. Because, you know, history.

That's silly. You're not predicting anything, you're offering us the likelihood of anything. You're simply verbalizing emotion.

History has shown that things people said would never change have.

There's no indication that history will change on this issue. You have nothing. No public support, no changes in the law, no credibly proposed changes, no history of this ever happening.

Your argument is quite literally 'because you can't prove it won't happen, it must happen'. That's not logical. As the former doesn't support the latter.

My argument is that things people said would never happen have and this is no different. There is history to prove that things change and this is as likely as anything else whether you agree or not. You agreement isn't necessary. All you need to do is accept that it can and be willing to admit you were wrong when it does.

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't demonstrate any particular future outcome. As things people said would never happen.....still haven't happened. So 'things people have said would never happen' isn't a predictive model. As it produces both results. With almost all of those results contradicting you.

So what evidence do you have that churches will be required to perform gay weddings? Show us, don't tell us.

A lot of things people said would never happen have and are somewhat related to what I say the peter puffers and carpet munchers will attempt. You're simply unwilling to acknowledge that is can, say now that this shouldn't, but will be right up front when it does claiming you supported it all the time.