Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

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.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, .

Here are the questions the Supreme Court said it was addressing:

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of
certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Nothing more- nothing less- this is what the Supreme Court will be considering.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Marriage being a right is immediately relevant to same sex marriage. As those same sex couples that want to marry are both Federal Citizens. And as such both retain the right to marry.

If you're going to deny them that right, then you need a compelling state interest in doing so and a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.

If marriage is a right, it's relevant to any situation involving the argument used by you fags.

f*g....n*gger.....k*ke....c*nt........same kinds of words....used by the same kinds of people....for the exact same purpose.

If this was 1967 the only change you would have made is swapping out n*ggers for f*gs.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Another strawman.

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

And I posted my perception you did that because you are bawling your eyes out because you're a weeping mess. Same thing.

Except you're actually exhibiting victimy tendencies whereas I'm not exhibiting anything resembling sadness or upset.

Poor Kaz, he's so "subtle" nobody understands him.

It must stink to be so full of shit like that.

Ooh, biting!!!

 

[Conservative65]

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Marriage being a right is immediately relevant to same sex marriage. As those same sex couples that want to marry are both Federal Citizens. And as such both retain the right to marry.

If you're going to deny them that right, then you need a compelling state interest in doing so and a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.

If marriage is a right, it's relevant to any situation involving the argument used by you fags.

f*g....n*gger.....k*ke....c*nt........same kinds of words....used by the same kinds of people....for the exact same purpose.

If this was 1967 the only change you would have made is swapping out n*ggers for f*gs.

I use the words when it applies to those being addressed.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

And I posted my perception you did that because you are bawling your eyes out because you're a weeping mess. Same thing.

Except you're actually exhibiting victimy tendencies whereas I'm not exhibiting anything resembling sadness or upset.

Poor Kaz, he's so "subtle" nobody understands him.

It must stink to be so full of shit like that.

Ooh, biting!!!

You would know homo.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Another strawman.

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.

Where did anyone say that?

Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't. Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.

I wish you luck with your fight.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You're demanding special rules for Christians, where a Christian doesn't have to follow any laws they don't want to follow.

Um, no. Christians will be treated like everyone else. There get no special exemptions from generally applied laws. They get no special treatment. And if they want to do business with the public, they'll need to treat the public with the same fairness and equality as any other business person would.

That's not an 'attack'. That's merely consistency.

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Another strawman.

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.

Seems you are simply another bigot- f*g....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt.....all words used by bigots for the same purpose.

 

[Conservative65]

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Another strawman.

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.

Seems you are simply another bigot- f*g....n*gger....k*ke....c*nt.....all words used by bigots for the same purpose.

Seems you are simply another fag lover.

 

[Syriusly]

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Marriage being a right is immediately relevant to same sex marriage. As those same sex couples that want to marry are both Federal Citizens. And as such both retain the right to marry.

If you're going to deny them that right, then you need a compelling state interest in doing so and a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage have neither.

If marriage is a right, it's relevant to any situation involving the argument used by you fags.

f*g....n*gger.....k*ke....c*nt........same kinds of words....used by the same kinds of people....for the exact same purpose.

If this was 1967 the only change you would have made is swapping out n*ggers for f*gs.

I use the words when it applies to those being addressed.

Yep exactly what those who use the word n*gger say

f*g....n*gger.....k*ke....c*nt........same kinds of words....used by the same kinds of people....for the exact same purpose.

If this was 1967 the only change you would have made is swapping out n*ggers for f*gs.

 

[Silhouette]

Two pages spammed with another conspicuous flame war...

 

[Conservative65]

When your group talks about excluding polygamists and incest couples in this year's hearing on marriage equality, you are arguing for special treatment for homosexuals.

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Another strawman.

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.

Where did anyone say that?

Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't. Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.

I wish you luck with your fight.

If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults? You're not for equality. You're for an agenda for freaks like you.

 

[Seawytch]

No, they shouldn't, because wedding between man and woman - is tradition, very old tradition and the church is keeper of traditions. Wedding between man and man - is perversion. Church should not support perversions. Simple logic.

Churches have been marrying gays for decades...much much longer than we've been able to civilly marry.

It should be up to the church should it not?

 

[Seawytch]

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.

This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Another strawman.

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.

Where did anyone say that?

Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't. Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.

I wish you luck with your fight.

If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults? You're not for equality. You're for an agenda for freaks like you.

I am. Like I said, good luck.

 

[Conservative65]

Yet people like you use Loving v. Virginia as support for same sex marriage being a right. It had nothing specifically to do with same sex marriage but you apply the principle of equality you claim came from it to same sex marriages then deny equality to other types of marriages because you don't like them.

Another strawman.

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.

Where did anyone say that?

Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't. Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.

I wish you luck with your fight.

If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults? You're not for equality. You're for an agenda for freaks like you.

I am. Like I said, good luck.

No you're not or you would be arguing for equality of other types of marriages.

 

[Silhouette]

Here we go again..

Let's see what the theater group is trying to bury with their role-player Conservative (did Kaz and St. Mike take the day off today?) back in the game trying to shut down the thread with yet another manufactured flame-war.....oh...yes...two pages back...here we go..

This years hearing doesn't include any polygamists or incest couples. Nor the challenge of any laws outlawing polygamy or incest.
This years hearings are about the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. And its not 'special treatment' for the court to answer the legal question its being asked.

^^ See, there it is, right there! ^^ You didn't even wait two posts and you admitted what I said was true. You are fighting to deny marriage equality to all. You want special treatment just for homosexuals! It's a religion and right now polygamists and incest groups are "heresy" so you "reject" them, because they aren't politically expedient, not because you fundamentally disagree with their "right to marry" alongside any you might gain. (marriage is currently a privelege). They are happy to stand quietly by too. They know their kink is too weird even now for society to accept. The majority sure would turn on a dime if they knew those were coming along for the ride. So y'all have a gentleman's agreement for your weirder legal first cousins to stay mute while your tsunami attempts to wash away states' rights to define marriage so that all the other flotsam and jetsum can roll in behind you.
You're despicable. You really are. Only mental people would stretch to such machinations to pull off a ruse. Even the numbers at the top of this thread are denied. Smoke and mirrors employed to trick the herd into balling up on your side of the fence. There really is no subterfuge you won't try. And your ilk are supposed to be the next 70 generations of "parents" to kids? I think we've seen enough..

 

[Syriusly]

Another strawman.

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.

Where did anyone say that?

Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't. Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.

I wish you luck with your fight.

If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults? You're not for equality. You're for an agenda for freaks like you.

I am. Like I said, good luck.

No you're not or you would be arguing for equality of other types of marriages.

Strawman by someone who just can't argue against same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Here we go again..

Let's see what the theater group is trying to bury with their role-player Conservative (did Kaz and St. Mike take the day off today?)]

You are delusional.

 

[Seawytch]

Another strawman.

Seems you simply another fag lover that claims equality of marriage yet denies it when it comes to marriages you don't agree with.

Where did anyone say that?

Either the people you are arguing for have a valid argument or they don't. Marriage equality for gays has nothing to do with it.

I wish you luck with your fight.

If you argue for marriage equality, shouldn't that apply to all consenting adults? You're not for equality. You're for an agenda for freaks like you.

I am. Like I said, good luck.

No you're not or you would be arguing for equality of other types of marriages.

Why? I don't care. Good luck.

 

[Syriusly]

Two pages spammed with another conspicuous flame war...

You are delusional.