Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[kaz]

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.

That's just funny. I keep mocking you for telling me how I feel and you don't get it, even when I keep doing it only after you inform me how I feel. You ask and I tell you to read the thread and you still don't notice that. Damn you're dumb. Are you a blond? This is just classically funny.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That's just funny. I keep mocking you for telling me how I feel and you don't get it, even when I keep doing it only after you inform me how I feel. You ask and I tell you to read the thread and you still don't notice that. Damn you're dumb. Are you a blond? This is just classically funny.

What a troll.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

That's just funny. I keep mocking you for telling me how I feel and you don't get it, even when I keep doing it only after you inform me how I feel. You ask and I tell you to read the thread and you still don't notice that. Damn you're dumb. Are you a blond? This is just classically funny.

When have I ascribed feelings to you? You're the one that keeps mentioning how "upset" I am, despite evidence to the contrary. It's just another way you deflect.

 

[kaz]

When have I ascribed feelings to you?

Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying. Jesus you are dumb. I hope you're hot.

 

[Paperman299]

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.

That's just funny. I keep mocking you for telling me how I feel and you don't get it, even when I keep doing it only after you inform me how I feel. You ask and I tell you to read the thread and you still don't notice that. Damn you're dumb. Are you a blond? This is just classically funny.

When have I ascribed feelings to you? You're the one that keeps mentioning how "upset" I am, despite evidence to the contrary. It's just another way you deflect.

 

[Paperman299]

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"?

It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?

 

[kaz]

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"?

It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?

Freedom of speech refers to the right to express your views. Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not expressing your view. Freedom of speech is unlimited for the intended purpose. Your example is not of what freedom of speech means, it's a twisting of it. Give an example for religion of where you want to limit it for it's intended purpose. Examples that are not it's intended purpose is being a member of a religion does not allow you to remove someone else's rights. So for example you cannot force your wife to serve you against her will. That is not freedom of you practicing your own religion. It does not give you the right to abuse your kids. Like underage sex, a minor cannot consent to be abused by an adult. Once they are 18 then it is their right to live their life as they chose.

 

[Silhouette]

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

It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?

You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones? Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?

 

[Paperman299]

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"?

It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?

Freedom of speech refers to the right to express your views. Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not expressing your view. Freedom of speech is unlimited for the intended purpose. Your example is not of what freedom of speech means, it's a twisting of it. Give an example for religion of where you want to limit it for it's intended purpose. Examples that are not it's intended purpose is being a member of a religion does not allow you to remove someone else's rights. So for example you cannot force your wife to serve you against her will. That is not freedom of you practicing your own religion. It does not give you the right to abuse your kids. Like underage sex, a minor cannot consent to be abused by an adult. Once they are 18 then it is their right to live their life as they chose.

I actually did not mention what freedom of speech means in my post, so I could hardly have twisted it. And I am not on board with limiting freedom of expression to only the expression of opinions - for instance, it's also your right to communicate information.

But just so, expressing your view on its own is not an unlimited right. There can be concerns over obscenity, for example. Expressing your view in such a way that you violate laws unrelated to free speech is also not protected, i.e. burning your draft card. Expressing your views in such a way that you will likely incite the person you're addressing to violence ("fighting words.") Defamation is not protected.

No, neither in theory nor in practice do we have an unlimited ability to express our views.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

That's just funny. I keep mocking you for telling me how I feel and you don't get it, even when I keep doing it only after you inform me how I feel. You ask and I tell you to read the thread and you still don't notice that. Damn you're dumb. Are you a blond? This is just classically funny.

When have I ascribed feelings ... .

With every single post, including that one... . Your entire argument is entirely emotional and wholly devoid of reason.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Freedom of speech refers to the right to express your views. Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not expressing your view. Freedom of speech is unlimited for the intended purpose. Your example is not of what freedom of speech means, it's a twisting of it. Give an example for religion of where you want to limit it for it's intended purpose. Examples that are not it's intended purpose is being a member of a religion does not allow you to remove someone else's rights. So for example you cannot force your wife to serve you against her will. That is not freedom of you practicing your own religion. It does not give you the right to abuse your kids. Like underage sex, a minor cannot consent to be abused by an adult. Once they are 18 then it is their right to live their life as they chose.

Well said... Like every other right, the right to speak freely rest entirely upon the right to speak RESPONSIBLY.

 

[Paperman299]

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

It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?

You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones? Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?

And I addressed why I didn't reply to your post under your stringent standards straight away. Now, can we agree that freedom of religion is not an unlimited right, and has always carried restrictions? And if not, then why is it that freedom of religion should be an unlimited right, when freedom of speech is not?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?

You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones? Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?

And I addressed why I didn't reply to your post under your stringent standards straight away. Now, can we agree that freedom of religion is not an unlimited right, and has always carried restrictions? And if not, then why is it that freedom of religion should be an unlimited right, when freedom of speech is not?

ALL RIGHTS are limited by the RESPONSIBILITIES which sustain that right.

Such as the responsibility to freely speak out against the murder of pre-born children and other aspects of the normalization of sexual abnormality; debauchery, hedonism and the balance of the unenviable traits common to the Ideological Left.

 

[Seawytch]

When have I ascribed feelings to you?

Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying. Jesus you are dumb. I hope you're hot.

You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".

 

[kaz]

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"?

It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?

Freedom of speech refers to the right to express your views. Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not expressing your view. Freedom of speech is unlimited for the intended purpose. Your example is not of what freedom of speech means, it's a twisting of it. Give an example for religion of where you want to limit it for it's intended purpose. Examples that are not it's intended purpose is being a member of a religion does not allow you to remove someone else's rights. So for example you cannot force your wife to serve you against her will. That is not freedom of you practicing your own religion. It does not give you the right to abuse your kids. Like underage sex, a minor cannot consent to be abused by an adult. Once they are 18 then it is their right to live their life as they chose.

I actually did not mention what freedom of speech means in my post, so I could hardly have twisted it. And I am not on board with limiting freedom of expression to only the expression of opinions - for instance, it's also your right to communicate information.

But just so, expressing your view on its own is not an unlimited right. There can be concerns over obscenity, for example. Expressing your view in such a way that you violate laws unrelated to free speech is also not protected, i.e. burning your draft card. Expressing your views in such a way that you will likely incite the person you're addressing to violence ("fighting words.") Defamation is not protected.

No, neither in theory nor in practice do we have an unlimited ability to express our views.

Again you use an example which is not expressing your views

 

[kaz]

When have I ascribed feelings to you?

Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying. Jesus you are dumb. I hope you're hot.

You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".

Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.

 

[Seawytch]

When have I ascribed feelings to you?

Read every post you wrote that I responded to when I said you are crying. Jesus you are dumb. I hope you're hot.

You are making absolutely no sense...but that seems to be a theme with you. YOU claim I'm "upset" and then you say I'm the one ascribing "feelings".

Yes, every time I said you were upset it was in direct response to a post you told me how I feel.

Except I didn't. I posted my perception of your victimhood.

 

[beagle9]

I know. Silo may be silly and overly dramatic but threatening and/or violent she is not. I disagree with most of her posts but I respect the fact that she remains mostly civil.

Thanks. And most people who disagree with "gay marriage" and the Gay Agenda in general are also not thuggish folk. They simple feel, know, believe and like me, have studied about how it is wrong and harmful to society.

You keep your private lives private. But do not demand they become part of the inherited fabric of society.

But we've wandered away from talking about how if individual christians can be sued, congregations of them (churches) most certainly are next.

To attack an individual Christian for an agenda or for political and power purposes, is the same as attacking the congregation or an entire Church or a "Christian" Church if so be it the target of an attack through it's members.

It's like I ask Jake, how or where does one practice the faith in which one has learned in life, and this when they have gone to Church in order to learn these things ? I mean if not throughout ones life as one would actually live it and freely practice it, then where ? There have been attacks on Christians and their faith throughout this nation now, and therefore the Church itself is under assault daily by the militant thugs who are doing this to them for their own selfish reasoning.

 

[beagle9]

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.

But to bake a cake maybe ?

 

[beagle9]

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

It's not even worth splitting that particular hair until we've established this: It's not an absolute freedom. Even freedom of speech comes with limitations, most famously the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

So here's my question for you: Why do you believe that freedom of religion is endless when one of our most treasured rights, freedom of speech, is not?

You haven't delineated whether or not the 1st Amendment protects the excercise of religion of a congregation of christians (churches) only, or of individual ones? Which has the protection, collections of christians or individual ones?

And I addressed why I didn't reply to your post under your stringent standards straight away. Now, can we agree that freedom of religion is not an unlimited right, and has always carried restrictions? And if not, then why is it that freedom of religion should be an unlimited right, when freedom of speech is not?

Neither are unlimited unless they are abused, then they become limited at that point. It (IMHO) was the right of the individual Christian to not bake a cake for a gay couple if his religion prohibited him from doing so once he found that out. This would not be an abuse of the freedom of religion clause, but rather it was an actual example of someone using it upon how it was intended to be used when stated or rather it would be the only way that it can be used by just one example of right ?

When confronted by a situation in which he was confronted with, he did what his religion had directed or taught him to do, and therefore he used his first amendment rights in a non-abusive manor I suspect, in order to do what he thought he had to do in the case. The problem is these days, is that it could end there for the ones wanting him to abdicate his faith or violate it but it don't or it never does anymore, now why is this you all suppose ?

Then ohhh brother here comes the miss-guided or vote pimping government to save the day again right ?

In a nation where the balance is leaned in favor now for so many, and for their ways of living and thinking now, well it is that these situations don't even have to collide any longer like they are doing, but they usually collide because some one is wanting to challenge the other person or persons culture, faith, and even a large group when these things are happening. The government is just being used in the situations by those who lobby it to bring in a big stick for them, and to knock the other one or the whole other group over the head with it.