Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[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.

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

LOL. I didn't mean we in the same way, but that's a fair comment.

Sylar was referring to actual people in the thread and stating he speaks for all of them.

I was referring to those of us who grasp the Constitution in general. I wasn't speaking for anyone

 

[kaz]

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.

Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married. As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.

 

[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?

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?

We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them. Explain the contradiction in that. I don't get it.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married. As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.

Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.

 

[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?

We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them. Explain the contradiction in that. I don't get it.

But when they do, it's their state right, right?

 

[kaz]

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.

Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married. As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.

Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.

You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her? Wow, I didn't know that. You are like my wife.

 

[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?

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?

We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them. Explain the contradiction in that. I don't get it.

But when they do, it's their state right, right?

Simple concepts are so difficult to grasp for liberals. I'll break it down more.

Federal government - They have no say either way in PA laws. There is no Constitutional authority, therefore by the 10th amendment that power is prohibited to them. The Federal government cannot require PA laws, it can also not restrict PA laws. It cannot prevent States from implementing them.

State governments - They have the Constitutional authority by the 10th amendment to implement them or not to implement them. I oppose them implementing them.

What you said is right, but you're still asking it as a question. Have we connected yet?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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

 

[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.

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

The PA laws are. You can pretend that they aren't, or lament about they shouldn't be. But they are.

Within that reality, I'd be happy to discuss PA laws with you. If all you want to do is discuss whether PA laws should exist, then start a thread of your own. Because this isn't it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz's wack libertarian system is a non starter.

 

[Paperman299]

Well soon the issue which spawned this fearmongering will be put to rest anyway (not that it will kill this thread): US supreme court agrees to hear cases on right to same-sex marriage nationwide World news The Guardian

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Exactly, thank you. And as for the observation you want me to prioritize my political views over my partner's feelings, I have pointed out that when you learn that isn't the right thing to do, then maybe gays will be ready to discuss being actually married. As long as you are your own priority at all times even for issues that is more important to your partner than you, you are not.

Nope. I think it's quite honorable. Sacrificing your deeply held belief.

I just think it's silly to ask gays why they want civil marriage. You know why. It's the same reasons you and your wife had and have.

You're a conservative Republican, a Christian and an upper class Korean who's family would have a cow if you lived with a woman without being legally married to her? Wow, I didn't know that. You are like my wife.

You asked her to civilly marry you did you not? You said you came to your "get gubmit out of marriage" ideals AFTER you had married her.

Gays marry for the same reasons you did.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

We support that the Federal government should stay out of it and that States should not implement them. Explain the contradiction in that. I don't get it.

But when they do, it's their state right, right?

Simple concepts are so difficult to grasp for liberals. I'll break it down more.

Federal government - They have no say either way in PA laws. There is no Constitutional authority, therefore by the 10th amendment that power is prohibited to them. The Federal government cannot require PA laws, it can also not restrict PA laws. It cannot prevent States from implementing them.

State governments - They have the Constitutional authority by the 10th amendment to implement them or not to implement them. I oppose them implementing them.

What you said is right, but you're still asking it as a question. Have we connected yet?

Everywhere they are implemented for gays, it's at the state and local level.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well soon the issue which spawned this fearmongering will be put to rest anyway (not that it will kill this thread): US supreme court agrees to hear cases on right to same-sex marriage nationwide World news The Guardian

Yes it will... and there will be much weeping and gnashin' of tooth.

 

[Skylar]

Well soon the issue which spawned this fearmongering will be put to rest anyway (not that it will kill this thread): US supreme court agrees to hear cases on right to same-sex marriage nationwide World news The Guardian

Yes it will... and there will be much weeping and gnashin' of tooth.

Possibly. The question is, by whom?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well soon the issue which spawned this fearmongering will be put to rest anyway (not that it will kill this thread): US supreme court agrees to hear cases on right to same-sex marriage nationwide World news The Guardian

Yes it will... and there will be much weeping and gnashin' of tooth.

Possibly. The question is, by whom?

"tooth"... thus Leftists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When the ruling comes down for Marriage Equality, I think Where will disappear. He won't have the moral turpitude to stand up and take the heat. His kind are and always have been moral cowards.,

 

[Staidhup]

Will the same apply to Mosques? The problem with the gay community is the gay community and their self righteous behavior.

 

[Skylar]

Well soon the issue which spawned this fearmongering will be put to rest anyway (not that it will kill this thread): US supreme court agrees to hear cases on right to same-sex marriage nationwide World news The Guardian

Yes it will... and there will be much weeping and gnashin' of tooth.

Possibly. The question is, by whom?

"tooth"... thus Leftists.

We'll see. Things don't necessarily look good for your side of things though. The USSC has preserved every single ruling that overturns gay marriage bans.

But the one that doesn't.......they take up.

 

[Skylar]

Will the same apply to Mosques? The problem with the gay community is the gay community and their self righteous behavior.

And by 'self righteous behavior', you mean demanding the same rights as everyone else?