Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[kaz]

Going with the Hillary Clinton gambit are you? She was stunned (according to her book) when she found out Clinton got a Monica even though she knew he'd repeatedly cheated on her. She couldn't breathe, she was gasping for breath.

Just like you're not a liar because you actually believe every racist has a black best friend. That's your story, they are telling the truth, so you're not a liar.

I always find lies bizarre that if we believe you, you look worse than if we don't. It's an odd defense. No, I am not guilty of armed robbery, I am guilty of murder!

LOL. You just keep sticking to that story. I'm still waiting for you to show where I ever called your lying ass a liar.

You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?

I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.

OMG, and the tears start flowing again. I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down. This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset. Maybe a wine spritzer would help. But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.

What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.

My God, you are dense. You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all

I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.

Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.

No, you seriously aren't following the conversation. If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious. I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you. It's all in this quote. If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant. Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.

 

[Seawytch]

You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?

I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.

OMG, and the tears start flowing again. I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down. This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset. Maybe a wine spritzer would help. But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.

What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.

My God, you are dense. You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all

I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.

Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.

No, you seriously aren't following the conversation. If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious. I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you. It's all in this quote. If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant. Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.

Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault.

Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case.

Out of bullets.

 

[kaz]

OMG, and the tears start flowing again. I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down. This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset. Maybe a wine spritzer would help. But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.

What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.

My God, you are dense. You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all

I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.

Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.

No, you seriously aren't following the conversation. If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious. I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you. It's all in this quote. If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant. Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.

Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault.

Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case.

Out of bullets.

Wow, I thought you'd gotten a grip, now the tears are back. You seriously need a break from the internet if you can't stop getting so upset. People will disagree with you, you can't break down and weep every time. Maybe you should take up knitting. Then again you'd probably find a way to break down and cry over that too.

 

[Seawytch]

What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.

My God, you are dense. You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all

I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.

Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.

No, you seriously aren't following the conversation. If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious. I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you. It's all in this quote. If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant. Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.

Right...nobody get's poor misunderstood Kaz...so it must be their fault.

Call me some more names, maybe that will help your case.

Out of bullets.

Wow, I thought you'd gotten a grip, now the tears are back. You seriously need a break from the internet if you can't stop getting so upset. People will disagree with you, you can't break down and weep every time. Maybe you should take up knitting. Then again you'd probably find a way to break down and cry over that too.

You really do have a problem reading emotions don't you. Have you seen a professional? You read laughing icons as sadness. How very odd.

 

[Silhouette]

Ah and the flame war continues. Kaz, I had wondered about you before, but now I know. Thanks for the heads up.

You guys are desperate to make this popular thread get locked. But the thing is, it's such a source of revenue for USMB. And to successfully get it locked would mean that USMB, the last bastion of free speech on political websites in the US (one of the rare few for sure) will take on the color of just another Rainbow-nazi outfit where civil opposition to gay marriage is met with the gestapo, instant warnings and permanent bans.

Nobody likes those types of websites and they dry up quickly like leaves in the hot wind.

Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters who's sole aim is to start bickering with the more typical gay-advocate types. It's like the Kaz's, St. Mikes and Conservatives of this board exist only as names to be called in to fake being the opposition to gay marraige, only to quickly drop that topic and turn to a flame war that surely would get the thread shut down.

Very weird.

 

[Syriusly]

You really like going off on unrelated tangents don't you? ADD?

I never said you called me a liar. The post you are getting your panties in a wad about was a reply to St. Mike, not to poor little victim Kaz.

OMG, and the tears start flowing again. I told you that you should get away from your computer for a while and calm down. This is just an internet political discussion, you need to stop getting so upset. Maybe a wine spritzer would help. But stop crying, it's embarrassing to watch.

What indication are you getting from my posts that I'm upset? Have I called you names? I don't even think I've used any exclamation points. You obviously can't address the actual content of my posts so you deflect with silliness. Have fun.

My God, you are dense. You really can't think logically or follow a conversation at all

I'm following the conversation just fine...obviously or you and St. Mike wouldn't be attempting to deflect with your personal insults.

Out of bullets and throwing the gun I see.

No, you seriously aren't following the conversation. If you did follow it, you wouldn't have just asked me question where the answer was butt obvious. I was going to put the key parts in green, but I'm tired of explaining conversations to you. It's all in this quote. If you can't figure it out, you will have to remain ignorant. Maybe rather than grasping it, you can just ask Bodecea and she can tell you she doesn't get it either then you can feel better about yourself even though the obvious just flew right past your head again.

There is no conversation with you to follow. You do not contribute to threads- you come to troll.

 

[Syriusly]

Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
Very weird.

It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.

No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.

 

[Silhouette]

Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
Very weird.

It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.

No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.

Couple of questions for you page-spammer, fake flame-war fanner:

1. What EXACTLY is a "church", if not a congregation of individual christans? and..

2. Does the 1st Amendment say "practice of freedom of CHURCH (a congregation)" or does it say "practice of freedom of RELIGION (of an individual)"? and ..

3. If the 1st IS about freedom of religion of the individual, which is dominant? Public accomodation laws or the 1st Amendment?

Take your time. I don't expect a direct answer from you. I do expect about five one or two line posts all in a row, spamming this page out of the general public's eye.. Or maybe St. Mike, Kaz or Conservative would like to start calling you derogatory names back and forth.

 

[Paperman299]

Ah and the flame war continues. Kaz, I had wondered about you before, but now I know. Thanks for the heads up.

You guys are desperate to make this popular thread get locked. But the thing is, it's such a source of revenue for USMB. And to successfully get it locked would mean that USMB, the last bastion of free speech on political websites in the US (one of the rare few for sure) will take on the color of just another Rainbow-nazi outfit where civil opposition to gay marriage is met with the gestapo, instant warnings and permanent bans.

Nobody likes those types of websites and they dry up quickly like leaves in the hot wind.

Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters who's sole aim is to start bickering with the more typical gay-advocate types. It's like the Kaz's, St. Mikes and Conservatives of this board exist only as names to be called in to fake being the opposition to gay marraige, only to quickly drop that topic and turn to a flame war that surely would get the thread shut down.

Very weird.

a) No one is trying to get the thread locked down.
b) The people who agree with you on this thread are not false-flags.
c) Churches are not just congregations of individuals Christians.
d) This "flame war" is, sadly, entirely real.
e) Repeating things doesn't make them true

 

[Paperman299]

Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
Very weird.

It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.

No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.

Couple of questions for you page-spammer, fake flame-war fanner:

1. What EXACTLY is a "church", if not a congregation of individual christans? and..

2. Does the 1st Amendment say "practice of freedom of CHURCH (a congregation)" or does it say "practice of freedom of RELIGION (of an individual)"? and ..

3. If the 1st IS about freedom of religion of the individual, which is dominant? Public accomodation laws or the 1st Amendment?

Take your time. I don't expect a direct answer from you. I do expect about five one or two line posts all in a row, spamming this page out of the general public's eye.. Or maybe St. Mike, Kaz or Conservative would like to start calling you derogatory names back and forth.

Here's some decent guidelines.

• a distinct legal existence and religious history,
• a recognized creed and form of worship,
• established places of worship,
• a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
• an organization of ordained ministers

Did you find an example of activist judges forcing a church to perform an interracial marriage yet?

 

[Syriusly]

Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
Very weird.

It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.

No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.

Couple of questions for you page-spammer, fake flame-war fanner:.

LOL....you are delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
Very weird.

It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.

No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.

Couple of questions for you page-spammer, fake flame-war fanner:

1. What EXACTLY is a "church", if not a congregation of individual christans? and..

Right from Colorado's PA law

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.

"Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

Pretty straight forward to me.

 

[Silhouette]

Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed. It is headed to the US Supreme Court..

• a distinct legal existence and religious history,
• a recognized creed and form of worship,
• established places of worship,
• a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
• an organization of ordained ministers

OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole? How would the 1st Amendment view that? ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?

 

[Syriusly]

Every time I bring up how congregations of individual christians (also known as churches) are vulnerable to the same type of lawsuits now felling the single soldiers in the trenches, this topic quickly and suddenly attracts weird posters
Very weird.

It is very weird that you keep bringing up 'congregations of individual christians'.

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and taxes
Business's are subject to PA laws- and taxes.

No church has been, should be, or will be forced to marry anyone it does not want to.

2. Does the 1st Amendment say "practice of freedom of CHURCH (a congregation)" or does it say "practice of freedom of RELIGION (of an individual)"? and ..

3. If the 1st IS about freedom of religion of the individual, which is dominant? Public accomodation laws or the 1st Amendment?.

The First Amendment doesn't say either of those things.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Now your argument- I believe- is that Christians who own business's can discriminate in their business practices by claiming that any law is a violation of their first amendment freedom to practice their religion.

I think that the business owner has every right to file law suit, claiming that this law violates his constitutional rights- he may even win- look at Hobby Lobby. I think that business owners have the exact same right to go to the courts to attempt to have laws overturned on Constitutional grounds as same gender couples do.

Do you agree that either side can file suit seeking to overturn laws that they believe are unconstitutional?

 

[Silhouette]

Do you agree that either side can file suit seeking to overturn laws that they believe are unconstitutional?

You can file suit on anything you like. That's how we resolve conflict in the US. It doesn't guarantee a win though...

"..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

When & where? Just in a church or all the time? Dominant or submissive to local PA laws?

 

[Syriusly]

Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed. It is headed to the US Supreme Court..

• a distinct legal existence and religious history,
• a recognized creed and form of worship,
• established places of worship,
• a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
• an organization of ordained ministers

OK so are individuals involved in practicing the edicts of their faith, or are they a fractillated part of a larger whole? How would the 1st Amendment view that? ie: is it "freedom of church for congregations or ordained ministers" or is is "freedom of religion for individuals"?

Here is an article with a whole discussion of the issue

Wake Forest Law Review 8211 A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

 

[Syriusly]

Do you agree that either side can file suit seeking to overturn laws that they believe are unconstitutional?

You can file suit on anything you like. That's how we resolve conflict in the US. It doesn't guarantee a win though...

"..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

When & where? Just in a church or all the time? Dominant or submissive to local PA laws?

I think that the business owner has every right to file law suit, claiming that this law violates his constitutional rights- he may even win- look at Hobby Lobby. I think that business owners have the exact same right to go to the courts to attempt to have laws overturned on Constitutional grounds as same gender couples do.

 

[Silhouette]

I think that the business owner has every right to file law suit, claiming that this law violates his constitutional rights- he may even win- look at Hobby Lobby. I think that business owners have the exact same right to go to the courts to attempt to have laws overturned on Constitutional grounds as same gender couples do.

But for now you're content to err on the side of forced abdication of a person's faith...in favor of perverse sexual lifestyles...gotcha...

Combine your last two posts. There is no need to separate paragraphs by an entire post. That chews up bandwidth. I'd ban you.

 

[Syriusly]

I think that the business owner has every right to file law suit, claiming that this law violates his constitutional rights- he may even win- look at Hobby Lobby. I think that business owners have the exact same right to go to the courts to attempt to have laws overturned on Constitutional grounds as same gender couples do.

But for now you're content to err on the side of forced abdication of a person's faith...in favor of perverse sexual lifestyles...gotcha...

Combine your last two posts. There is no need to separate paragraphs by an entire post. That chews up bandwidth. I'd ban you.

Oh heck- I am confident you would ban any person who speaks up for equal rights if you could do it.

What I err on is the side of the truth.

These owners are expected to comply with the law just like anyone else. You claim that they should have a religious exemption to discriminate against homosexuals and therefore should be exempt.

I say- the owners can either try to change the law legislatively or through the courts- both are their rights.

In the meantime- business's are still expected to comply with the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Colorado, Syriusly, is not where this legal question is headed. It is headed to the US Supreme Court..

This question is not headed to the Supreme Court at all.

Maybe someday- but not even on the radar yet.