Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Paperman299]

Then apply your own logic.

Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.

Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?

The key word is agreed to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?

PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?

Last I checked consent was no where in the room when these new things that are yes new did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.

So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?

You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.

Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...

Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?

Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.

 

[beagle9]

Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.

Then apply your own logic.

Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.

Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.

Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?

The key word is agreed to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?

"Out of Control" government?

Does your state or city have PA laws? Do you even know if they do? Are they acceptable to you- or not?

And if not- what have you done about them? Have you contacted your legislators?

Of course they have them, but no one has challenged every concept of them here, and especially by what we are seeing going on out in the nation these days and times. I guess we are playing catch up, but that is OK also.

 

[beagle9]

The key word is agreed to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?

PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?

Last I checked consent was no where in the room when these new things that are yes new did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.

So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?

You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.

Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...

Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?

Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.

The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.

 

[Paperman299]

PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?

Last I checked consent was no where in the room when these new things that are yes new did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.

So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?

You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.

Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...

Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?

Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.

The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.

Are you talking about opinion polls? If that's what you mean, the question of gay marriage is a straightforward yes-or-no. There's no sleight of hand in those results.

 

[Syriusly]

Then apply your own logic.

Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.

Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?

The key word is agreed to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?

PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?

Last I checked consent was no where in the room when these new things that are yes new did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.

Do you believe that laws passed by your elected representatives are not passed with your implicit consent? That in our representative Democracy, that we delegate our vote to our representatives and that they 'represent' us when they cast their votes?

Maybe once upon a time they represented us, and they honored our wishes given them upon our consent for them to represent us on such wishes, and then upon our asking of them to do so, but not anymore they don't. They look at us as fools anymore, and they look at us now as if we can't find our way any longer, so they have to find it for us. WHAT HAPPENED?

I am sorry that you feel like your representatives do not represent the wishes of you and your fellow citizens.

My Senators and Congresswoman represents my concerns fairly well- as do my state legislators. Sure I disagree from time to time- but there are others who do agree.

I believe in the power of the ballot- even though I was not happy at the overall results of the last election- certainly those who got elected did so because the persons voting for them thought they would represent their interests- I am happy the elections took place and show our Constitutional system in action.

 

[beagle9]

Last I checked consent was no where in the room when these new things that are yes new did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.

So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?

You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.

Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...

Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?

Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.

The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.

Are you talking about opinion polls? If that's what you mean, the question of gay marriage is a straightforward yes-or-no. There's no sleight of hand in those results.

These are polls, and just look to the bottom where it says NOTE meaning take note when reading the results of a poll, because there are questions that are also included that may be answered differently by the people being polled. This could in essence skew the poll to the on lookers if not savvy abut something like that. Now the vote like Californians took (prop 8), there are many who think that it should have meant something instead of being over turned by an activist federal judge. Wouldn't you agree that the people spoke, and that it should have meant something when they spoke or not ? I guess polls are like the jobless economy being gauged, where as there are a lot of people who had given up looking for a job after a while, so they aren't counted any longer in that stat by the government, and that also skews the truth about something like that as well doesn't it ? The games are endless when one thinks about it.

 

[Syriusly]

Matters that reside within the Church, are matters in which are handled by the Church and within the Church as according to it's members and the council in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a member and his actions or violations of his oath in which he may have taken to become a member of when joining the Church in the beginning.

Then apply your own logic.

Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.

Every Church has the right to handle a matter of a member who may be violating the oath or his or her membership that was agreed to in the Church when joining it.

Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?

The key word is agreed to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?

"Out of Control" government?

Does your state or city have PA laws? Do you even know if they do? Are they acceptable to you- or not?

And if not- what have you done about them? Have you contacted your legislators?

Of course they have them, but no one has challenged every concept of them here, and especially by what we are seeing going on out in the nation these days and times. I guess we are playing catch up, but that is OK also.

Are they acceptable to you- or not?

And if not- what have you done about them? Have you contacted your legislators?

 

[Syriusly]

So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?

You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.

Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...

Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?

Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.

The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.

Are you talking about opinion polls? If that's what you mean, the question of gay marriage is a straightforward yes-or-no. There's no sleight of hand in those results.

These are polls, .

Yes- they are polls.

Do you have a better method for measuring public opinion?

 

[beagle9]

You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.

Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...

Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?

Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.

The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.

Are you talking about opinion polls? If that's what you mean, the question of gay marriage is a straightforward yes-or-no. There's no sleight of hand in those results.

These are polls, .

Yes- they are polls.

Do you have a better method for measuring public opinion?

THE ALLOWED VOTE!

 

[Skylar]

Then apply your own logic.

Matter that reside within the State are matters in which are handled by the State law enforcement officers in according to its citizens and laws in which resides over such matters. This usually is in concerning a resident and his actions or violations of the law. Like, Public Accommodation laws.

Wouldn't every State have the right to handle a matter of a resident who may be violating the laws of his or her state that was agreed to in the State when choosing to live there?

The key word is agreed to or was it a forced situation that most did not agree to, but are now being forced to by an out of control government ?

PA laws exist with the consent of the governed. Are you saying that you don't have to follow any law that you don't agree with?

Last I checked consent was no where in the room when these new things that are yes new did arise in our midst, and then the laws are merely being adopted by those things in which to club another over the head with them.

So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?

You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.

Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...

I don't think you get what consent of the governed is. Its not that YOU agree with every law. That the people consent the establishment of a government and laws created through our representatives.

That you personally don't like one particular law doesn't mean that the US doesn't operate under the consent of the governed. It means that more people support PA laws that oppose them.

Yet consistently, you keep insisting that unless you agree with a PA law, it shouldn't apply to you. Um, of course it should.

 

[Paperman299]

So only those laws that you personally consent to apply to you?

You just keep spinning and spinning your little heart out, but you know good and well that I was talking about the consent of the governed as in the citizenry at large or for those who are found in the majority upon many issues, but not for me personally as you tried to spin it no.

Good try though, and so I guess spin it is from you now. Carry on...

Funny how only the anti-gay marriage folks accuse people of consciously spinning material. Paranoid much?

Public accommodation laws exist with the consent of the governed. Within those laws, discriminating with your business is not legal. Sometimes the majority is in favor of somehow bending the law to support their extralegal prejudices, as in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Though anti-miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1967, in 1968, 73% of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage. Today we're widely in agreement that those judges did not just the right thing, but the legal thing, and gave a more correct interpretation of American laws not possible under the prejudices of earlier history. The same thing is happening today but with, I add, far more public support.

The grouping everything together is a tactic being used, and it is a problem because in doing so it makes a larger crowd look as if they agree about something, when in fact they don't for the most part. But because one part of the grouped may be popular, then the more unpopular side may get pulled through because it has been grouped together with something else. Heck they do bill's like this all the time, where as have you ever heard of PORK laden bill's, but they pass because of something being very popular in the entire bill ? I don't think it's right when they do this, but it has been going on for quite sometime now.

Are you talking about opinion polls? If that's what you mean, the question of gay marriage is a straightforward yes-or-no. There's no sleight of hand in those results.

These are polls, and just look to the bottom where it says NOTE meaning take note when reading the results of a poll, because there are questions that are also included that may be answered differently by the people being polled. This could in essence skew the poll to the on lookers if not savvy abut something like that. Now the vote like Californians took (prop 8), there are many who think that it should have meant something instead of being over turned by an activist federal judge. Wouldn't you agree that the people spoke, and that it should have meant something when they spoke or not ? I guess polls are like the jobless economy being gauged, where as there are a lot of people who had given up looking for a job after a while, so they aren't counted any longer in that stat by the government, and that also skews the truth about something like that as well doesn't it ? The games are endless when one thinks about it.

That "take note" only lets us know that other questions were (gasp) asked on the same poll. The results represented graphically are still only the answers to that one question. If you're suggesting that those preceding questions could have influenced the person being polled, well, it's possible but highly unlikely. Especially considering most every respectable nationwide poll gives us the same results. Civil Rights

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 9-12, 2014. N=1,006 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5. . "Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court action this week that allows gay marriages to go forward in several more states?"
Support > 56%
Oppose > 38%

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 12-15, 2014. N=1,009 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3. . "Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to marry?"
Legal > 56%
Not legal > 36%
Unsure/ No answer > 7%

Pew Research Center. Feb. 12-26, 2014. N=3,338 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2. . "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?"
Favor > 54%
Oppose > 39%
Unsure/Refused > 7%

There's more of these if you want to click that link, and they all say the same thing. So no, there's no polling trickery going on. You are genuinely in the minority when it comes to the question of making same-sex marriage legal.

 

[Paperman299]

These are polls, and just look to the bottom where it says NOTE meaning take note when reading the results of a poll, because there are questions that are also included that may be answered differently by the people being polled. This could in essence skew the poll to the on lookers if not savvy abut something like that. Now the vote like Californians took (prop 8), there are many who think that it should have meant something instead of being over turned by an activist federal judge. Wouldn't you agree that the people spoke, and that it should have meant something when they spoke or not ? I guess polls are like the jobless economy being gauged, where as there are a lot of people who had given up looking for a job after a while, so they aren't counted any longer in that stat by the government, and that also skews the truth about something like that as well doesn't it ? The games are endless when one thinks about it.

As I stated before, and which you have so easily forgotten, in the year after the Loving v. Virginia SCOTUS decision struck down anti-miscegenation laws Americans STILL disapproved of interracial marriage by 73%.

73%.

Today we agree that those judges made the right call. They gave us a better interpretation of American laws than we previously had, one which recognized that existing laws were in conflict with the promises of the Constitution. So if California voters decide on a law which violates the Constitution, then that law must be struck down no matter how popular it is.

They still have recourse, however; they could always change the Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

Today we agree that those judges made the right call. They gave us a better interpretation of American laws than we previously had, one which recognized that existing laws were in conflict with the promises of the Constitution. So if California voters decide on a law which violates the Constitution, then that law must be struck down no matter how popular it is.

They still have recourse, however; they could always change the Constitution.

Well, no actually. We DON'T agree that they made the right call. That's why the US Supreme Court is running through this question again this year.

Judge Sutton of the 6th pointed out that procedurally, no lower court may overturn SCOTUS from underneath on a specific question of law. Windsor sait it was up to the states. That's that until further notice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As an aside- what can get a member banned here? I just noticed one of the posters was- and I am not speaking about his situation- but other than calling someone a pedophile- how do posters possibly end up banned on this board?

Use the Report button to the lower right of the thread involved, copy the link and the post number.

It is about one of two things that can get you banned for some time.

 

[Steinlight]

The OP looks like a bald headed faggot. Cue ball ass mothafucka.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Windsor said marriage was between two people, did not overrule marriage equality, and reserved the right of SCOTUS to weigh in if necessary.

It's necessary, and Sil's crowd is going to be shown the door to the alley.

 

[Steinlight]

America, the modern day Soddom and Gommorah. Get the PIV and AIDS drugs ready...

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor said marriage was between two people, did not overrule marriage equality, and reserved the right of SCOTUS to weigh in if necessary.

It's necessary, and Sil's crowd is going to be shown the door to the alley.

So in your opinion then they will be overturning Windsor in two years time. OK, there's always a first for everything..

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's your opinion. My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all. The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.

 

[Silhouette]

That's your opinion. My opinion the election of 2016 will not effect this summer's ruling at all. The Senate Dems, narrow majority or narrow minority, and several Pubs will prevent the appointments of SCOTUS candidates who have given any indication they do not accept marriage equality.

Yeah, right...because politicians haven't been paying attention to Chic-Fil-a, Boycott A&E's million "likes" on Facebook in less than 24 hours and this poll at the top of this page..