Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

You said the State was irrelevant to the issue. You're wrong

I never said that. Show me the quote you are referring to.

Do you deny making this statement?

So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.

OMG, you are illiterate. I was pointing out YOU said that and mocking you for that. Wow. Liberals are so dumb you never even recognize when you are being mocked. In your minds, you are always the smartest guy in the room.

What a troll.

 

[Paperman299]

Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.

The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment

Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?

 

[Syriusly]

Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.

The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
.

The Supreme Court clearly disagrees with you- having ruled in favor in cases regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act at least 4 times.

 

[Skylar]

Ding, ding, ding! I am a small government libertarian. I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself. You always advocate government. I usually oppose government. The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.

I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute)

Correct

and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.

Yes, that's the discussion. Maybe you can participate now that you're clear on the question.

Its essentially irrelevant to this discussion, as whether or not you believe they should exist doesn't change the fact that they do. What we're discussing now is the scope of such laws, fairness in application, civil law v. religious liberty, etc.

If you want to have a discussion on whether or not PA laws should exist, start a thread.

 

[Silhouette]

You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.

Looks like another "flame war" has popped up! Quick! Lock the thread and disappear it so Syriusly and pals don't have to disappear pages one by one with the calculated tripe. So much easier to disappear a thread than individual pages after all..

Where were we? oh right, here:

...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. Windsor 2013 said states get to choose on gay marriage. It said so dozens of times. It even concluded within its own Opinion that gay marraige was only legal " in some states". In case there was any ambiguity how they were coming down on the side of states'-powers..

Oh well. If you read Sutton's decision, he discusses how the other lower courts are in violation of federal law. 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And:

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..

 

[Skylar]

Where were we? oh right, here:

And as I said on page 676:

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.

There is no previous SCOTUS ruling that found that gay marriage bans are constitutional. While there is the Windsor ruling that found that gay marriage bans cause immediate legal harm to both the same sex couple being denied marriage and to their children.

And a USSC ruling (Romer V. Evans) that have found that a law that strips protections from gays must have a valid reason and a compelling state interest. Neither of which has ever been found in gay marriage bans.

As gay marriage in 36 of 50 states demonstrate, the lower court rulings most definitely count. With the USSC preserving every single one of those rulings overturning gay marriage bans, without exception.

You can ignore this. You can't make us ignore this

 

[Skylar]

LOL, "us." Yes, little girl, there is an army of people behind you that you speak for. They are reading every word, cheering you on and saying wow, Sylar is speaking for me. I am part of his army.

By 'us', I mean everyone reading the thread. You can't define who you are talking about. And 'who' is immediately relevant. As government regulation would involve 'legal rights'. Private citizens disagreeing or boycotting wouldn't involve any.

And we're discussing legal rights.

When and if you can tell us who 'the left' is in your claim regarding legal rights, feel free.

 

[Syriusly]

You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.

Looks like another "flame war" has popped up! Quick! Lock the thread and disappear it so Syriusly and pals don't have to disappear pages one by one with the calculated tripe. So much easier to disappear a thread than individual pages after all..

Where were we? oh right, here:

...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,..

Clearly they do since in all the states that those courts have ruled, same gender couples are getting married.

 

[kaz]

Bull, you are full of shit. I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same. Back this up with links. I'm calling you out on your crap.

Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.

Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.

Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.

But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.

So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment. That's too funny.

You really are a troll- aren't you?

Here is what the poster originally said

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over.

Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'

You're the troll. That is such a nit picking argument. And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.

You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.

You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.

Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda." Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't. Gotcha, thanks for that.

 

[kaz]

Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.

The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment

Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?

No, why?

 

[kaz]

Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.

The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
.

The Supreme Court clearly disagrees with you- having ruled in favor in cases regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act at least 4 times.

We already know the Supreme Court knows nothing about the Constitution, they have demonstrated that repeatedly everywhere from that people are property to government can tell us what healthcare we can get and force us into a private contract with an insurance company.

 

[Syriusly]

Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.

Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.

Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.

But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.

So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment. That's too funny.

You really are a troll- aren't you?

Here is what the poster originally said

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over.

Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'

You're the troll. That is such a nit picking argument. And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.

You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.

You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.

Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda." Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't. Gotcha, thanks for that.

Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.

 

[Syriusly]

Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.

The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment
.

The Supreme Court clearly disagrees with you- having ruled in favor in cases regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act at least 4 times.

We already know the Supreme Court knows nothing about the Constitution.

We- is that you- yourself and the voices in your head?

 

[kaz]

Ding, ding, ding! I am a small government libertarian. I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself. You always advocate government. I usually oppose government. The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.

I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute)

Correct

and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.

Yes, that's the discussion. Maybe you can participate now that you're clear on the question.

Its essentially irrelevant to this discussion, as whether or not you believe they should exist doesn't change the fact that they do. What we're discussing now is the scope of such laws, fairness in application, civil law v. religious liberty, etc.

If you want to have a discussion on whether or not PA laws should exist, start a thread.

I responded to posts on PA laws. Yet the only one you whine about is me. LOL. Of course you are.

 

[Seawytch]

So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment. That's too funny.

You really are a troll- aren't you?

Here is what the poster originally said

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over.

Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'

You're the troll. That is such a nit picking argument. And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.

You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.

You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.

Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda." Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't. Gotcha, thanks for that.

Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.

All the while being civilly married and enjoying the benefits....

 

[kaz]

LOL, "us." Yes, little girl, there is an army of people behind you that you speak for. They are reading every word, cheering you on and saying wow, Sylar is speaking for me. I am part of his army.

By 'us', I mean everyone reading the thread. You can't define who you are talking about. And 'who' is immediately relevant. As government regulation would involve 'legal rights'. Private citizens disagreeing or boycotting wouldn't involve any.

And we're discussing legal rights.

When and if you can tell us who 'the left' is in your claim regarding legal rights, feel free.

And you believe it's your right to speak for "everyone reading the thread?" How did you get that power exactly? As for me, I'm man enough to stand behind my own statements, I don't need imagined hordes of followers to justify what I said to believe it has value.

 

[kaz]

You really are a troll- aren't you?

Here is what the poster originally said

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over.

Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'

You're the troll. That is such a nit picking argument. And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.

You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.

You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.

Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda." Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't. Gotcha, thanks for that.

Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.

All the while being civilly married and enjoying the benefits....

Enjoying? No, I don't, pretty clearly.

 

[kaz]

So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment. That's too funny.

You really are a troll- aren't you?

Here is what the poster originally said

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over.

Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'

You're the troll. That is such a nit picking argument. And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.

You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.

You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.

Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda." Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't. Gotcha, thanks for that.

Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.

So in any topic X.

You: Government needs to solve that problem.

Kaz: Why does government need to do that?

For me it's an agenda, for you it isn't. You are Syriusly Stupid, that's an idiotic argument.

 

[Seawytch]

Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.

The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment

Do you write for Ron Paul's newsletter?

Rand has walked back his comments on the issue. There is no will to get rid of PA laws.

And shouldn't Libertarians be supporting states rights when it comes to PA laws?

 

[Seawytch]

You're the troll. That is such a nit picking argument. And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.

You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.

You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.

Questioning why government has to be involved in something is an "agenda." Your assumption that government needs to fix every problem isn't. Gotcha, thanks for that.

Your ability to actually carry on a conversation is noted, along with trying to make every thread about your libertarian agenda.

All the while being civilly married and enjoying the benefits....

Enjoying? No, I don't, pretty clearly.

Right...sorry. Hates taking advantage of...but does it just the same.