Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Seawytch]

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.

And what is the relevance of that since I haven't mentioned the Federal government in my argument? I am against PA laws. I keep getting asked by liberals about the Federal level. I am not obsessed with one size fits all government like you are. I am pro-choice, but I think the Feds should stay out of it. I'm against the death penalty, but I think the feds should stay out of it. I think drugs should be legal, but I think the feds should stay out of it. I'm against PA laws, but I think the feds should stay out of it. Believing in the 10th amendment doesn't mean I'm for or against a particular position on the issue. I don't get your or Sylar or other liberal's obsession with that.

The Feds have been staying out of it for the gays. Christians get the Federal protections..you should concentrate on taking those away...leave the state and local level alone.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

To produce a family through the natural procreative process?

I don't think so.

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Let me tell you something about Seawytch. She's a rank hypocrite. I told her a little about myself, that I'm married to a moderately progressive wife and her parents are very liberal. I told her that two of my closest friends happen to be a lesbian couple, one of them a teacher of mine in junior high; that I trust these ladies enough that they babysit our children from time to time. She said I was lying. I cast pearls before swine.

If you don't believe her story then that's fine. It's exactly what she deserves.

I didn't say you were lying, liar (okay, I just did). I said that your story doesn't make you less of an anti gay bigot.

Shall I get the quote for you and prove you're a liar?

 

[Silhouette]

You and St. Mike had better drop the manufactured flame war or I'm reporting you...again...

The Feds have been staying out of it for the gays. Christians get the Federal protections..you should concentrate on taking those away...leave the state and local level alone.

Don't worry, the LGBT cult has already been taking freedom of religion away from christians...they have the monopoly on that gig in the courts at the present time.

But then you and your fellow cult members will turn and assure the shocked public "don't worry, we won't come after churches next". Guess what honey? You already have. You and yours have already forced christians to abdicate the core edicts of their faith to promote yours...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You and St. Mike had better drop the manufactured flame war or I'm reporting you...again...

The Feds have been staying out of it for the gays. Christians get the Federal protections..you should concentrate on taking those away...leave the state and local level alone.

Don't worry, the LGBT cult has already been taking freedom of religion away from christians...they have the monopoly on that gig in the courts at the present time.

But then you and your fellow cult members will turn and assure the shocked public "don't worry, we won't come after churches next". Guess what honey? You already have. You and yours have already forced christians to abdicate the core edicts of their faith to promote yours...

Reporting me for what, you horse's ass?

 

[Silhouette]

Reporting me for what, you horse's ass?

Well, like Paint said, "the right to bash gays" which he was arguing to defend here. And that seems odd since a person rabidly defending gays like Paint always does wouldn't seem eager to encourage people's "right to bash gays".

You are playing a role. I've called you out on it before. Paint spilled the beans. Your gig is up, the game is out in the open. Run along before you get banned.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Reporting me for what, you horse's ass?

Well, like Paint said, "the right to bash gays" which he was arguing to defend here. And that seems odd since a person rabidly defending gays like Paint always does wouldn't seem eager to encourage people's "right to bash gays".

You are playing a role. I've called you out on it before. Paint spilled the beans. Your gig is up, the game is out in the open. Run along before you get banned.

Paint? I put that asshat on ignore when I first got here. And you don't have the power to get me banned. People are laughing at your stupid ass claiming that I'm secretly playing a role. That can be said about anyone, and nobody wants to be the idiot who makes that claim...except you of course.

And since you're as much of a troll as Paint, I'm putting you on ignore too.

Life's too short.

 

[Silhouette]

Paint? I put that asshat on ignore when I first got here. And you don't have the power to get me banned. People are laughing at your stupid ass claiming that I'm secretly playing a role. That can be said about anyone, and nobody wants to be the idiot who makes that claim...except you of course.

And since you're as much of a troll as Paint, I'm putting you on ignore too.

Life's too short.

Yep, that response is exactly NOT what I'd expect from an authentic conservative here to opine against gay marriage.

You folks are going to be suing churches the second any ink is dry on gaining the complete reworking of the structure of marriage as "a federally-enforced right". Christians are nothing but congregations of individual christians. Right St. Mike? Don't you agree?

 

[Silhouette]

Sure got quiet all of a sudden...must be that thread on the teenager who is engaged to marry her biological father and then move to New Jersey where that's legal..

 

[beagle9]

Selling cake isn't promoting a customer. Its promoting cake. Ergo, the very premise of your argument is invalid and irrelevant.

How does one promote a wedding cake other than what it will be used for ? If the cake baker ask the customer what it will be used for, and this in order to promote it in an artful way by designing it, topping it, and dressing it for a specific occasion, ((and the cake baker is a Christian)), then I ask how could he then bake and/or dress a cake for a gay wedding without being offended by that as a Christain ? He could probably sell a customer a plain cake that will be dressed out by someone else, but to engage in the dressing out of the cake himself, and this for a specific occasion is in my thoughts another situation altogether wouldn't you say ? Otherwise when it becomes personal as in a customized work goes, then people take it personally at that point. Would a person have the right to refuse the personalized work, but then sell a person a plain cake that could be dressed out by someone else ?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Selling cake isn't promoting a customer. Its promoting cake. Ergo, the very premise of your argument is invalid and irrelevant.

How does one promote a wedding cake other than what it will be used for ? If the cake baker ask the customer what it will be used for, and this in order to promote it in an artful way by designing it, topping it, and dressing it for a specific occasion, ((and the cake baker is a Christian)), then I ask how could he then bake and/or dress a cake for a gay wedding without being offended by that as a Christain ? He could probably sell a customer a plain cake that will be dressed out by someone else, but to engage in the dressing out of the cake himself, and this for a specific occasion is in my thoughts another situation altogether wouldn't you say ? Otherwise when it becomes personal as in a customized work goes, then people take it personally at that point. Would a person have the right to refuse the personalized work, but then sell a person a plain cake that could be dressed out by someone else ?

That's a good point. Are we saying that a baker's artistic abilities are yolked into slave labor? This proves more than anything how the Left doesn't just want equality, they want unmitigated intellectual and moral ascent to their agenda. They want us all converted heart, mind, and soul to their agenda.

But I think that Christians are now going to be smarter about turning down service to queer weddings. They can say they're docket is full, they don't have the supplies, the culinary artist is on sick leave, etc....countless excuse rather than a direct confrontation. I think Christians need to be smarter about exercising their beliefs while avoiding the wrath of the homosexual militia. Oh, we should do everything in our power to give them a stinking idea that we're not doing it because they're gay, but not give them anything they can prove.

 

[beagle9]

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

Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con Christians are getting what they deserve.

Oh yea, and what exactly is it that the Christians are getting in which you and others think that they deserve ? Now we are coming across the agenda folks, and hey look it isn't purdy is it ?

 

[beagle9]

Selling cake isn't promoting a customer. Its promoting cake. Ergo, the very premise of your argument is invalid and irrelevant.

How does one promote a wedding cake other than what it will be used for ? If the cake baker ask the customer what it will be used for, and this in order to promote it in an artful way by designing it, topping it, and dressing it for a specific occasion, ((and the cake baker is a Christian)), then I ask how could he then bake and/or dress a cake for a gay wedding without being offended by that as a Christain ? He could probably sell a customer a plain cake that will be dressed out by someone else, but to engage in the dressing out of the cake himself, and this for a specific occasion is in my thoughts another situation altogether wouldn't you say ? Otherwise when it becomes personal as in a customized work goes, then people take it personally at that point. Would a person have the right to refuse the personalized work, but then sell a person a plain cake that could be dressed out by someone else ?

That's a good point. Are we saying that a baker's artistic abilities are yolked into slave labor? This proves more than anything how the Left doesn't just want equality, they want unmitigated intellectual and moral ascent to their agenda. They want us all converted heart, mind, and soul to their agenda.

But I think that Christians are now going to be smarter about turning down service to queer weddings. They can say they're docket is full, they don't have the supplies, the culinary artist is on sick leave, etc....countless excuse rather than a direct confrontation. I think Christians need to be smarter about exercising their beliefs while avoiding the wrath of the homosexual militia. Oh, we should do everything in our power to give them a stinking idea that we're not doing it because they're gay, but not give them anything they can prove.

Great point above, because this very well could be what it will all come down to in the end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con Christians are getting what they deserve.

Oh yea, and what exactly is it that the Christians are getting in which you and others think that they deserve ? Now we are coming across the agenda folks, and hey look it isn't purdy is it ?

The far right reaction social con reactionaries do not run the "morals" of this country.

Don't like it? No one really cares, son.

 

[JakeStarkey]

stmike's comment about "homosexual militia" reveals his mind is suffering from terminal dementia. What a goofy!

 

[Paperman299]

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?

If all the groups now wanting something new in life, didn't have the black issue or arguments to attach their cause to, then they would be completely lost in life. Think about it...

The black issues were solved in America, and the wrong was realized in the SPECIFIC issues of discrimination against ones color or race, but it doesn't mean that it will apply to every issue that is brought up today. So don't feel bad if it didn't apply to your issue, because it might not, and if it doesn't then get over it right ?

Now everyone don't stop fighting for what you might believe in OK, because hey some in the past who thought they were right on something, well they were proved to be wrong on that something also. There could be a chance that some could be wrong today just as well.

Now know this though, that somethings are just wrong in the eyes of many, and it could be a huge task or a huge up hill battle to get people to give in on an issue, so if people are up to the task then so be it, but don't wake up one morning to realize that maybe you were wrong, and that your whole life was wasted.trying to fight for something that was wrong, because sometimes that can happen also. The KKK found that out in concerns of discrimination against a persons race, because they ridiculously figured that a people could not have equality based upon their color, when we all know that there are some great black people within our midst, and they had proven themselves as able as anyone else was in life, and also to be as good as or as great as any citizens are within this nation.

First of all: the black issues were "solved?" Turn on the news.

Secondly, you're missing the point. You can't discriminate for any reason. Your religion is not grounds to refuse service to any type of people. Bronies, midgets, cosplayers, Juggalos. An-y-bo-dy. It's great that Christians (now) recognize that racism is wrong and that it's not (now) part of their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can move on to discriminating against other people. This "it's totally different this time" argument is ludicrous.

 

[Silhouette]

Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con Christians are getting what they deserve.

Yep...It will be about one week after if SCOTUS removes states' rights (Windsor 2013) to regulate which lifestyles can be married that lawsuits will be filed against congregations of individual christians (churches) to force them to accomodate gay marriage...just like what was done to christian bakers and florists etc.

One week +/-

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, it won't.

We now have a Silly Trinity of Sil, stmike, and Where r my Keys.

 

[Paperman299]

That isn't why I got married. At least not the government part of it. I think government in marriage is irrelevant.

What Seawytch is saying is she got married for the same reason I did, she is married to an upper class Korean who's family is traditional, Christian, Republican and conservative and her parents in law weren't letting their daughter out of their house and she wasn't going without the paper. I personally find that hard to believe, but it's what she keeps saying, she got a government marriage for the same reason I did.

Plan B: If an orchestrated flame war doesn't work, begin discussing personal details of poster's lives; another thing the moderators forbid and that almost always succeeds in getting a thread shut down.

Y'all really don't like the poll results at the top of the page, do you?

All I said is why I got married. How is that talking about anyone but me? I find seawytch's claim she wants marriage for the same reason to be ridiculous, but I don't see how that's an attack on anyone either. It's pretty much impossible to discuss marriage without indirectly referring to who we are married to. But I don't see how any of it either way was critical in any way of the other's partner. Maybe you can shed light on that. This is a thread about gay marriage.

As for you claim on the poll, again, don't get it. I am against government marriage. All I said was government has no part in it. I was married by a minister to my wife. That does matter to me. So obviously I voted with the majority on this.

Silhouette is convinced an increasing number of posters on this thread are part of a plan to get this thread taken down, because everyone seeing all the pro-equal marriage supporters voting against churches being forced to conduct same-sex religious weddings will somehow hurt our position.

 

[beagle9]

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

Staidhup, the problem for you is, of course, mr. hypocrite, the far right social con Christians are getting what they deserve.

Oh yea, and what exactly is it that the Christians are getting in which you and others think that they deserve ? Now we are coming across the agenda folks, and hey look it isn't purdy is it ?

The far right reaction social con reactionaries do not run the "morals" of this country.

Don't like it? No one really cares, son.

Who runs the morals of this country then ? Any ideas or is it that you think the country shouldn't have any morals at all ? I think your ilk thinks the country shouldn't have any morals at all, because that way you can't be convicted in your conscience when you do bad things right ?