Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

More straw reasoning presented to advise you, the reader that the fraudulence of her own creation, is truth.

Reader, the above cited contributor is demonstrating the mental disorder from which Homosexuality subsequently stems...

The question is often asked: "How does Homosexuality harm anyone?" And it is a good question... because the initial instinct is the presumption that such is a private matter, right?

But examine this thread, now a full 800 pages... and you'll find that 'homosexuality' is not a private matter, because no where in the 800 pages of this profound discussion of such, is there a mention of the private sexual co-mingling of people of the same gender.

What IS discussed however, is the altering of PUBLIC PERCEPTION... the non-stop attempts by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, to convince YOU, the Reader, that what is demonstrably FALSE, is TRUTH.

And it is in THAT, that we can readily see, the very homosexuals on this very thread, attempting to HARM YOU! And to alter public policy which will axiomatically harm you, your children and grand children.

How? You just keep Begging the Question. Insisting it does. Because...it does. Its mindless, circular reasoning.

For example....a gay couple is married in say, Washington state.

What impact does that have on you? Specifically. What is taken from you? What do you lose?

Oh, and your rout from the standing points that sex serves more than one purpose did no go unnoticed. What else can you do when your argument is dismantled with better logic and reasoning....than run?

Keep running.

OH! Reduction to the absurd? A CLASSIC!

First, no gay couple is married anywhere... because marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

So through your profession, we see the harm to EVERYONE, wherein you claim that something which is FALSE: IS TRUE!

Thus NORMALIZING THE DEVIANCY WHICH HOLDS THAT FALSITY IS TRUTH.

And FYI: There is absolutely NO Potential that ANYTHING "GOOD" can result from it; meaning that every potential outcome of 'it', is harmful to everyone in the culture which accepts it.

Thank you for the opportunity to help you better understand... .

You concession is duly noted and summarily accepted

You are a deviant.

 

[Skylar]

If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.

The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.

You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.

The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.

PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.

You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.

The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.

The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.

Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute

Those aren't PA laws. Try again.

 

[Skylar]

Clearly 'reduction to the absurd' means what you think it means.

Clearly... but in fairness, reducing an issue down to absurd values, in hopes of making such seem substantially less serious or potentially damaging, is invalid reasoning and has been recognized as such for a couple of thousand years, it's not like it's a debatable point.

Which makes your incessant need to debate the established truths regarding the human physiological standard, which was established by nature MILLIONS of years ago... .

But hey... let's be honest. That's just ONE of the downsides to MENTAL DISORDER.

And yet again, I ask you how you would be effected if a gay couple was allowed to marry.

And you can't cite any effects. So much for your babble about 'catastrophe'. Gay marriage doesn't effect you nor limit any of your rights.

 

[Syriusly]

If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.

The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.

You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.

The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.

PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.

You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.

The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.

Oh wait- so you think it is fascim when a State passes a law, according to its own Constitution, through the legislative process, and that law is interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court?

That to your teeny tiny Con brain is 'fascism'?

LOL- no wonder its been so easy to overturn all of the gay marriage bans.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly 'reduction to the absurd' means what you think it means.

Clearly... but in fairness, reducing an issue down to absurd values, in hopes of making such seem substantially less serious or potentially damaging, is invalid reasoning and has been recognized as such for a couple of thousand years, it's not like it's a debatable point.

Which makes your incessant need to debate the established truths regarding the human physiological standard, which was established by nature MILLIONS of years ago... .

But hey... let's be honest. That's just ONE of the downsides to MENTAL DISORDER.

And yet again, I ask you how you would be effected if a gay couple was allowed to marry.

And you can't cite any effects. So much for your babble about 'catastrophe'. Gay marriage doesn't effect you nor limit any of your rights.

I think his head might explode.

But luckily it would be a very small explosion.

 

[Skylar]

Again, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...your tell already? Keyes, its been what....an hour? And you're already ready to throw in the towel?

You always let us know when you know you're beaten with this 'summary declaration of victory' shtick. Where instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your claims, you make up excuses to flee.

You don't need an excuse. Just run. Eventually, you always do.

 

[koshergrl]

If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.

The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.

You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.

The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.

PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.

You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.

The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.

The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.

Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute

Those aren't PA laws. Try again.

I know what they are.

As I've said repeatedly..this is the root of the problem:

"... the key case is Employment Division v. Smith, which radically revised Supreme Court free exercise jurisprudence in 1990-over twenty years ago. In a nutshell, Smith states that valid, generally applicable (criminal) laws do not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, even if they hamper some religious practices."

In order to prevent the homo lobby from leveling discriminatory laws against Christians, we have to first address this ^^.

Employment Division v. Smith The Eye of the Storm UPDATE Commonweal Magazine

 

[koshergrl]

Again, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...your tell already? Keyes, its been what....an hour? And you're already ready to throw in the towel?

You always let us know when you know you're beaten with this 'summary declaration of victory' shtick. Where instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your claims, you make up excuses to flee.

You don't need an excuse. Just run. Eventually, you always do.

You keep saying he's running, but he seems to be ticking along with a regular dialogue..while all you do is keep parroting the same nonsense about how he's running..over..and over..and over...

 

[Skylar]

The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.

You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.

PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.

You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.

The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.

The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.

Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute

Those aren't PA laws. Try again.

I know what they are.

As I've said repeatedly..this is the root of the problem:

"... the key case is Employment Division v. Smith, which radically revised Supreme Court free exercise jurisprudence in 1990-over twenty years ago. In a nutshell, Smith states that valid, generally applicable (criminal) laws do not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, even if they hamper some religious practices."

In order to prevent the homo lobby from leveling discriminatory laws against Christians, we have to first address this ^^.

Employment Division v. Smith The Eye of the Storm UPDATE Commonweal Magazine

The show me anywhere in the ruling where the term 'public accommodation' is mentioned. Or the intrastate commerce.

You'll find no such passage

 

[koshergrl]

The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.

The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.

Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute

Those aren't PA laws. Try again.

I know what they are.

As I've said repeatedly..this is the root of the problem:

"... the key case is Employment Division v. Smith, which radically revised Supreme Court free exercise jurisprudence in 1990-over twenty years ago. In a nutshell, Smith states that valid, generally applicable (criminal) laws do not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, even if they hamper some religious practices."

In order to prevent the homo lobby from leveling discriminatory laws against Christians, we have to first address this ^^.

Employment Division v. Smith The Eye of the Storm UPDATE Commonweal Magazine

The show me anywhere in the ruling where the term 'public accommodation' is mentioned. Or the intrastate commerce.

You'll find no such passage

I don't need to.

Why would I work to support some weird argument you're making?

 

[Skylar]

Again, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...your tell already? Keyes, its been what....an hour? And you're already ready to throw in the towel?

You always let us know when you know you're beaten with this 'summary declaration of victory' shtick. Where instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your claims, you make up excuses to flee.

You don't need an excuse. Just run. Eventually, you always do.

You keep saying he's running, but he seems to be ticking along with a regular dialogue..while all you do is keep parroting the same nonsense about how he's running..over..and over..and over...

Oh, of course he's running. He claimed that sex can serve only one purpose. I debunked it, proving that sex could have many purposes. Procreation, fun, bonding, stress relief, relaxation, exercise, etc. And all of it was perfectly rational and logical.

Keyes now won't discuss the topic, avoiding it completely. He ran.

Keyes claimed that marriage can only be about procreation. I debunked that, showing millions of infertile or childless couples that are allowed to marry or remain married. Demonstrating undeniably that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Keyes now won't discuss the topic, avoiding it completely. He ran.

You'd be shocked how little effort it takes to run him off his own topic.

 

[koshergrl]

Again, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing...your tell already? Keyes, its been what....an hour? And you're already ready to throw in the towel?

You always let us know when you know you're beaten with this 'summary declaration of victory' shtick. Where instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your claims, you make up excuses to flee.

You don't need an excuse. Just run. Eventually, you always do.

You keep saying he's running, but he seems to be ticking along with a regular dialogue..while all you do is keep parroting the same nonsense about how he's running..over..and over..and over...

Oh, of course he's running. He claimed that sex can serve only one purpose. I debunked it, proving that sex could have many purposes. Fun, bonding, relaxation, exercise, etc. And all of it was perfectly rational and logical.

Keyes now won't discuss the topic, avoiding it completely. He ran.

Keyes claimed that marriage can only be about procreation. I debunked that, showing millions of infertile or childless couples that are allowed to marry or remain married. Demonstrating undeniably that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Keyes now won't discuss the topic, avoiding it completely. He ran.

You'd be shocked how little effort it takes to run him off his own topic.

If he was running, he wouldn't keep responding to you...and you crowing "You're running you're running nanananana" is not evidence that you've won an argument. All you "proved" is that you think your opinion is superior. That's not winning an argument. That's just hubris.

 

[Skylar]

The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.

Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute

Those aren't PA laws. Try again.

I know what they are.

As I've said repeatedly..this is the root of the problem:

"... the key case is Employment Division v. Smith, which radically revised Supreme Court free exercise jurisprudence in 1990-over twenty years ago. In a nutshell, Smith states that valid, generally applicable (criminal) laws do not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, even if they hamper some religious practices."

In order to prevent the homo lobby from leveling discriminatory laws against Christians, we have to first address this ^^.

Employment Division v. Smith The Eye of the Storm UPDATE Commonweal Magazine

The show me anywhere in the ruling where the term 'public accommodation' is mentioned. Or the intrastate commerce.

You'll find no such passage

I don't need to.

Sure you do if you want to claim that the basis of PA laws is that Supreme Court ruling.

There's no mention of PA laws.

 

[koshergrl]

The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Skylar]

If he was running, he wouldn't keep responding to you..

But he isn't responding to the topics I've run him off of. He has completely abandoned them, refusing to discuss them, respond to them, or address them.

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

If sex can serve many purposes, including just being fun and enjoyable, why then would non productive sex like oral, anal, toys, masterbation, etc be 'abhorred' or 'loathed' or 'despised', or any of the other colorful adjectives that Keyes has offered?

Obviously, they wouldn't be. Keyes painted himself into a corner. And had no choice but to flee.

Same with marriage. He insists that marriage has a 'natural definition'. But marriage doesn't exist in nature. We invented it. It means what we say it means. And it has far more than the lone purpose of procreation. Given that there is a valid basis of marriage that has NOTHING to do with children or the ability to have them, why would we exclude gays from marriage on the basis that they can't have kids?

It makes no sense. Keyes knows this....so he ran from this too.

The fella gives you a road map for how to rhetorically beat him. As he tells you where he knows he is weakest by the topics he abandons. Just stick to those, and his claims fall apart

 

[Skylar]

The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.

Says who?

There's you and....who?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.

The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.

You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.

The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.

PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.

You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.

The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.

The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.

WOW!

One wonders where the contest would come then, of the states power to define public policy essential to the states viability?

Isn't it ADORABLE how the deviant mind finds "INCONTESTABLE POWER" to limit the rights of christians to not promote perversion, but POWERLESS to promote sound mental health, by rejecting the cognitive dissonance which confuses falsity with truth?

You truly can NOT make this crap up.

 

[Skylar]

If my job is my privately owned business, I don't have to get another job. You can't determine I'm not able to work at a job because of my religion, if that business is mine.

The law can determine that you violated PA laws and fine you accordingly. If your religion is eating up your profits in fines, find another job.

You say it can't be done. As the rulings against both the florist and the baker demonstrate, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Denying reality doesn't change it.

The fascist left ignores the majority and keeps forcing laws upon us that we don't support and don't want. You can't get away with that forever. We won't tolerate legislation of religion. Find some other way to get your jollies.

PA laws were passed by the legislatures of both states. So don't bother giving any lip service to 'laws the people want'. You'll gladly try to ignore any law you don't like, regardless of public support, or method of passage.

You're not exempt from the law, you don't get special privileges because you're religious. The same laws apply to you as apply to everyone else.

The interpretation that allowed for this ridiculous law suit came from the Supreme Court.

The PA laws are state laws. And the States have uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce per the constitution. See the 10th amendment.

WOW!

One wonders where the contest would come then, of the states power to define public policy essential to the states viability?

Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person. If you disagree with the laws placed by the people, you can certainly bring your case to the court or try to get laws passed that you agree with.

The PA Laws in both states we're discussing were passed by their respective legislatures made up representatives who were elected by the people and wield the people's power.

See how that works? You all by your lonesome don't get to ignore any law you don't like. Nor do Christians get a special class of rights that no one else gets. Christians are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

Isn't it ADORABLE how the deviant mind finds "INCONTESTABLE POWER" to limit the rights of christians to not promote perversion, but POWERLESS to promote sound mental health, by rejecting the cognitive dissonance which confuses falsity with truth?

You're clearly confused. I've cited numerous ways in which you can change the law if you don't like it. Or challenge it directly in a court of law.

Does that help you with your obvious blunder?

 

[koshergrl]

The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.

Says who?

There's you and....who?

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2215&context=facpubs

 

[Skylar]

The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.

Says who?

There's you and....who?

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2215&context=facpubs

Is there a passage you'd like to share? Or are you just spamming links to arguments you've never read?