Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings

  • Yes, Denmark does it, the Scandinavians are enlightened

    Votes: 17 7.0%
  • No, I THOUGHT this was AMERICA

    Votes: 198 81.8%
  • You are a baby brains without a formed opinion

    Votes: 5 2.1%
  • Other, explain

    Votes: 22 9.1%

  • Total voters
    242
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.. :lmao:

Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.
 
America, the modern day Soddom and Gommorah. Get the PIV and AIDS drugs ready...

Be sure and have a fainting couch and some clutching pearls ready as well. I hear it helps alleviate those suffering from drama fits.
 
America, the modern day Soddom and Gommorah. Get the PIV and AIDS drugs ready...

Be sure and have a fainting couch and some clutching pearls ready as well. I hear it helps alleviate those suffering from drama fits.
LOL, yea those squares need to get with the times, cutting off your genitals and engaging in homosexuality is completely normal!
 
Should gays be FORCED to accommodate Christian weddings? I don't know what that means, but turn about is fair play. Given that Homosexuality is just sexual dysfunction not mentioned in the constitution, religion IS, I don't think churches should have to be made to accommodate perverts. Nope.
 
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.

Bullshit, you audacious liar!

You do NOT believe in the ballot box, you or any of your little faggot friends. Pushing your perverted agenda through the courts showed a special contempt for the democratic process. You didn't prevail upon hearts and minds, you didn't bow before the expressed will of the people, you overturned democracy through ideologue hack judges who themselves will go to hell just like you.

Stop lying, faggots!
 
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.. :lmao:

Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.
The fact that you have to use polls instead of allowing the peoples vote to stand or be held, shows your desperation.
 
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.. :lmao:

Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.
The fact that you have to use polls instead of allowing the peoples vote to stand or be held, shows your desperation.

What I am to be desperate about? Gays are getting married in 37 states and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it other then toss around slippery slopes and dramatic fear mongering. Besides, the will of the people is entirely irrelevant if that will is violating the Constitution.
 
Should gays be FORCED to accommodate Christian weddings? I don't know what that means, but turn about is fair play. Given that Homosexuality is just sexual dysfunction not mentioned in the constitution, religion IS, I don't think churches should have to be made to accommodate perverts. Nope.

In all 50 states a business owned by gay person isn't allowed to refuse service to a customer on the basis of their religion. If they did, they would be violation of the very same public accommodation laws that many people here decry because a few states have added gays to the list of people you can't discriminate against in business.
 
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.. :lmao:

Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.
The fact that you have to use polls instead of allowing the peoples vote to stand or be held, shows your desperation.

The last 4 General Election Results where SSCM appeared on the ballot:




**** In Minnesota, since the measure was defeated to ban SSCM, the legislature passed it shortly after the defeat.

>>>>
 
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.. :lmao:

The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles. Your poll is a farce as you well know.

The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation. In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling. They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.

The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
 
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.

Whether Sutton or Sil disagree are irrelevant.

Windsor said marriage was between two adults, that it was a state duty supervised by the Constitution, and that SCOTUS held the final authority.

That it was what almost all attorneys and knowledgeable lay persons agree.
 
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.. :lmao:

Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.

Sil's desperation has been reaching the near hysterical lately.
 
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.. :lmao:

The pols have been reading this for grins and giggles. Your poll is a farce as you well know.

The pols have been following the Courts, the polling, the argumentation. In no way, shape, or form are they going to try to overturn the ruling. They know they would be voted out of office in many districts.

The tide for marriage equality has turned in favor the last five years.
Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!

So the fear is for the judges now, is that they are so power hungry themselves, that they would throw away their principles for fear of being challenged over them simply remaining in their job's ? Is this the weakness that is smelled coming from the bench now in every courtroom across America anymore ?
 
The fear is that the social con far right wants to exclude people from its concept of marriage when everyone else, from responsible right to far left, want every adult couple to share the right to marriage equality. Beagle9's way is anti-American, period.
 
The fear is that the social con far right wants to exclude people from its concept of marriage when everyone else, from responsible right to far left, want every adult couple to share the right to marriage equality. Beagle9's way is anti-American, period.
No beagles way is American, but the new way is something foreign to what America always was, and in many peoples minds still should be on some of these issues, but the strategies of those who push these foreign concepts on everyone now, has been I must say clever to say the least.

It doesn't make it right still, but clever it definitely has been for sure.
 
No, Beagle, you are now an outlier of American society, not its core.

The concept is not foreign, but yours is becoming such.
 
Who would have ever thought that the founding documents and system created in this nation, would have not been created in a way that would keep people from exploiting it in the way that it is being exploited right now today in America? It's a sad day for America, and for the future of this nation's Christian beliefs and/or teachings that were a huge part of America's founding and it's future from that point onward. This nation now has people who can tell you that up is down and down is up, and then make you a believer of that very ridiculous thinking anymore. WOW!

So the fear is for the judges now, is that they are so power hungry themselves, that they would throw away their principles for fear of being challenged over them simply remaining in their job's ? Is this the weakness that is smelled coming from the bench now in every courtroom across America anymore ?

Lower court judges are no more powerful than the system's rules they belong to. In pretending that states had to violate their public's consensus limiting marriage to man/woman, several lower court judges actually attempted to overrule Windsor 2013 from underneath; which is prohibited.

The Big Legal Secret is that those decisions aren't worth the paper they're written on: and neither are the marriage licenses issued in those states to same-sex people, in violation of the statewide-consensus' Will in those states.

Windsor's Finding on a specific question of law was that 11 states had legal "gay marriage" because their statewide legal process made that so; and that is how it must be and the fed must respect that until further notice.

There has been no further notice on the merits of any challenge to that Finding. Only SCOTUS may overturn itself on a specific question of law. As has been pointed out to me several times, granting of stays without explanation is not a Finding on the merits.
 
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.. :lmao:

Keep dreaming. I am pretty sure they are focusing on more credible polling/internal numbers and not lines at a food food joint, "likes" on Facebook, and a random internet poll. The fact you have to use these examples only highlights your desperation.

Sil's desperation has been reaching the near hysterical lately.
That's because in five short months this is over and done with. What will she harp endlessly on about next?
 
That is not what Windsor says; Sil is being ludicrous and is becoming even more desperate.

United States v. Windsor
Opinion page 14
"And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry....After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage... By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.."
 

Forum List

Back
Top