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.
Blacks are a race. Lifestyles are behaviors. There is no provision in the Constitution for lifestyles. There is for race. Do make a note of that for setting up your future premises for argument...
Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
So you agree then that "marriage" (whose definition we currently disagree on) is a right, and not a privilege?
Only for pairs of man/woman of any race, yes, it's a right. As long as they are old enough, not polysexual or all the other qualifiers. The structure of man/woman is not dissolvable by alternative lifestyles if it is set by the state as such. The fed limits the states to who they can exclude with regard to RACE. With regards to lifestyles however, the state defines marriage as a privelege; with the wellbeing of children in mind. The structure of man/woman isn't harmed by how well one of the spouses can tan at the beach. It is defined however by if the two or more people involved present zero complimentary-gendered adult/parent role model.
No- those cases were not about 'race'- only Loving v. Virginia were about a couple that wanted to get married but were prevented by State laws against mixed race marriage.
The other cases had to do with among other things: regulations against prisoners marrying, laws preventing a parent with unpaid child support from getting married- by the way that is an interesting case- and not a good one for you...
And all knew and understood at the time those decisions were made that the word "marriage" meant, without exception or even innuendo at anything else, "a lifelong union between a man and a woman for the benefit of a family in which children almost certainly will arrive".
Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to defin..
So you agree then that "marriage" (whose definition we currently disagree on) is a right, and not a privilege?
Only for pairs of man/woman of any race, yes, it's a right..
Look at your own post. You take umbrage at having your position described as delusional, then explain how the government wants to destroy Christmas. And you want me to believe a handful of especially charismatic individuals have taken the reigns of government, which is basically what the Illuminati is. It's a Dan Brown novel.
The fact that there is an attack by a group of mind-numbingly obtuse bureaucrats, who simultaneously find a basis that someone is offended by Christianity, but find no basis in Christians being offended by them... provides that 'it', is reality.
See how that works?
Doesn't this get exhausting? Look how much work goes into keeping your position viable in your own mind. You literally have to create two (at least) government conspiracies to sustain it.
Reality sustains itself... so, there's no effort involved, given that we're not the one's doing 'it'.
But you have to know this part is fiction: "True "Christians" just want to be left alone in order to practice their religion as they have always done." This whole issue ONLY exists because Christians want to control who else can get married. Just think of the arrogance: They want to control marriage itself in this country, as if Jesus invented that shit.
Christians did not create the universe, we do not set the laws of nature... and the laws of nature define the standard for marriage, as it has defined the species.
Wherein two distinct, but complimenting genders join together, forming one sustainable body from two, through which is conceived a new body, to be sustained through that union, until it becomes able to sustain itself... and the process begins anew.
So, if you've a grievance with Nature's design of humanity... you should probably take it up with the Creator of Humanity. We're merely those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the laws which nature has established, to govern human behavior.
If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
We're not the aggressor... and the aggressor determines when the conflict is over. So at the moment, you've the choice to stop and where ya take that choice, it will stop.
But we're human beings... and we have limits. And I want you to think about this... That closet is one which you people created for yourselves. We didn't create... you did.
For the vast majority of human existence, you people have been locked in there.
Now why do you suppose that is?
Do you suppose that in the brief, interval periods throughout that history, the normalization of sexual abnormality produced a long and distinguished list of cultural benefits, which when set against a tiny short list of cultural liabilities, that the net result to those now long since extinct cultures was a HUGE SOCIETAL PLUS; therefore, the survivors of the collapse were quick to re-establish the normalization of sexual abnormality which had provided such a profound benefit to the previous, but defunct society...?
Do ya think that is why you people have locked yourselves in the closet for the vast majority of the 5000 years of human civilization, because the result of accepting your behavior nets the culture more benefit than it cost them in liabilities?
I gotta be honest with ya... in just the 30 years that I've watched ya work. I get the sense that you people are ALL liability. I can't find a single potential benefit. You're a cancer, or maybe a virus; there's a good argument for both analogues... because ya spreads like the wind once it is activated, or once the cultural body is infected and the effect you bring can only be described as decay and destruction.
So knowing that... what would you say would be "A" reason that you would like to latch onto, which could give you ANY HOPE to believe that the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality will stand?
When ever you're ready, I'll be hear for ya.
Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children. They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.
A church is merely a congregation of individual christians. And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage". In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.
Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.
If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..
Whether the case concerned black people, gay people, or people from a Renaissance faire is irrelevant.
a) You can't refuse to serve a type of people based on religious grounds
b) this has never come back to infringe on, specifically, the church's right to refuse to marry whoever they wanted.
Yes, Windsor 2013 says states get to define which lifestyles may set examples for children. They say overwhelmingly that that structure for the benefit of children must include representatives from both the childrens' genders, not just one.
A church is merely a congregation of individual christians. And as such, a church's individual components most certainly have been sued in attempts to force them to abdicate their faith in favor of promoting the LGBT cult values "in marriage". In fact, entire states' majorities have been sued and forced to abdicate their own democratic rule when it comes to setting paramaters for childrens' best formative environments.
Properly, hundreds of millions of people have been forced to swallow LGBT cult values that are repugnant to them...to adopt a repugnant lifestyle directly into ground-zero of their future citizens' (childrens') formative environment.
If you think for one minute that the congregation of indivdiual christans/voters will not be sued to accomodate "gay weddings" you are on drugs buddy..
So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
Ahem.... You've heard of the 1st Amendment?And you're more than welcome to your beliefs. But your religious beliefs won't be reflected in our laws...
Whereas nothing at all is said in the Constitution about gay marriage, or marriage at all for that matter (when marriage is a state-granted privelege; see: Windsor 2013), there is quite a bit in the Constitution said about freedom of religion. Windsor 2013 was clear: state's decide on lifestyle-marriage.
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.
Windsor V. US
[Good luck tweaking the Constitution to favor your cult forcing christians to abdicate their faith in daily life as individuals and congregated together at a building called "a church".
Remember, the 1st doesn't grant "Freedom of Church"... it grants "Freedom of Religion". Religion is in the heart of each of the faithful. It's most hallowed ground is in day to day life as each christian faces off with temptation to evil.
The "exercise thereof" is the exercise of saying "NO" to promoting homosexual lifetyles. Jude 1 of the New Testament (Jesus' redaction, not the Old Testament) prohibits doing that under promise of eternal damnation for failing.
That goes for you too bro. Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
No one is being forced to participate in anything.
Other than to follow the law.
If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
(1) Marriage equality does not overturn Windsor: anyone who says so is a liar.
(2) No church is going to have to perform weddings it does not want to perform: anyone who says so is a liar.
So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
That goes for you too bro. Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.
No one is being forced to participate in anything.
Other than to follow the law.
If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.
But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.
And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.
Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.
So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
Racial discrimination is prohibited. Lifestyle discrimination is not when it comes to marriage. Read the Constitution. What one IS may not be treated as inferior. What one DOES may. So unless your church of LGBT has tax-exempt status and places of woship like gay bars and pride parades, you're stuck having to abide by local regulations.
A person may be gay. The Bible does not say in Jude 1 "treat the individual gay harshly". In fact, Jude 1 says to take them in with compassion "making a difference". What Jude 1 prohibits is christians participating in promoting a homosexual culture into the fabric of normal society. Assiting so-called "gay marriages" is that direct prohibited thing.
Ergo, you cannot force christians to promote gay marriage in any way, shape or form. The gay lifestyle (not the individual) is forbidden to christians to promote. From the NEW Testament. Under threat of eternal damnation no less. This isn't some petty "hail Mary/count your rosary beads" crime. It gets you directly to the Big House Down Under for "Life".
...No one is challenging such bans on the grounds that the States lack the authority to define marriage. They are challenging the bans on the grounds that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. Every single federal ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has done so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees...
Racial discrimination is prohibited. Lifestyle discrimination is not when it comes to marriage. Read the Constitution. What one IS may not be treated as inferior. What one DOES may.
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.
Windsor V. US
A person may be gay. The Bible does not say in Jude 1 "treat the individual gay harshly". In fact, Jude 1 says to take them in with compassion "making a difference". What Jude 1 prohibits is christians participating in promoting a homosexual culture into the fabric of normal society. Assiting so-called "gay marriages" is that direct prohibited thing.
Ergo, you cannot force christians to promote gay marriage in any way, shape or form.
So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?
Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?
Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.
...No one is challenging such bans on the grounds that the States lack the authority to define marriage. They are challenging the bans on the grounds that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. Every single federal ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has done so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees...
Yet none of them count because procedurally, lower courts may not overturn previous SCOTUS Findings, even in anticipation of different findings, unless SCOTUS does so itself.
