Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

"To be sure, a number of well-documented cases have established that Smith has been a catastrophe for religion freedom..."
"To be sure, Employment Division v. Smith represented a serious curtailment by the Supreme Court of First Amendment rights to exercise religious faith."
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=jcl

Since you want to quote this one paper of one scholar's analysis- I thought I would include some of what you left out...

"To be sure, a number of well-documented cases have established that Smith has been a catastrophe for religion freedom in some circumstances...

...Free exercise rights were never really as well protected by courts before Smith as we are inclined to believe now....And as for the post-Smith period, a number of considerations suggest that perhaps this situation is not as bad for religious interests we we may think

 

[koshergrl]

Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.

Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...

You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.

You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.

Get used to the idea.

In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.

In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.

That would be the Strawman Fallacy. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.

*yawn*.

You don't determine who is *the people* and who isn't *the people* you progressive douche.

We're all *the people*. And in this case, the majority disagrees with you.

 

[Skylar]

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?

Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not?

And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.

So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

I'll understand if you choose to run too.

I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.

Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.

Nor could virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.

My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.

How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?

If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?

It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.

And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.

Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, your business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.

 

[koshergrl]

A whole post full of..nothing.

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?

Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not?

And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.

So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

I'll understand if you choose to run too.

I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.

Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.

Nor could virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.

My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.

How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?

If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?

It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.

And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.

Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world.

 

[Skylar]

Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.

Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...

You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.

You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.

Get used to the idea.

In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.

In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.

That would be the Strawman Fallacy. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.

*yawn*.

You don't determine who is *the people* and who isn't *the people* you progressive douche.

We're all *the people*. And in this case, the majority disagrees with you.

No, we're individuals. We do not exercise the People's authority alone. We do so collectively. And the threshold of that excercise of authority is the majority.

You aren't the majority, Kosher. You don't pass binding laws all by your lonesome. You don't create binding precedent all by your lonesome. We do. Through our representatives.

Your authority alone is not the same as the People's authority.

Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why?

 

[Syriusly]

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

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

The law applies to you.

If you break the law because you believe it is part of your faith- whether it is circumsizing your daughter at home, butchering goats in your backyard, refuse to pay income taxes, or refuse to comply with business regulations, you are subject to the same penalties as anyone else.

As long as you accept the penalties without whining, I am fine with you pretending like you are above the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?

Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not?

And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.

So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

I'll understand if you choose to run too.

I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.

Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.

Nor could virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.

My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.

How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?

If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?

It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.

And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.

Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world.

Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?

All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant comes to advise you, that what is demonstrably false, is instead "TRUTH".

In truth, the question has been answered ad nauseum.

Sex is an instinct... which serve THE PURPOSE of procreation. That some pursue such for the PLEASURABLE EFFECT that comes with the engaging IN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, does not determine that THE PURPOSE OF SEX is the pleasure it induces.

Reasoning which holds that the purpose of sex is the pleasure it induces, is a perversion of the facts relevant TO SEX. And it is through recognizing that perversion of reasoning, that we can know that such represents: PERVERSION.

(Do ya see how 'words' mean things?)

 

[Skylar]

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

It would be like claiming that the only possible purpose of eating is to fuel the body. But what if you want to have dinner with friends? What if you want a pint of Chunky Monkey from Ben and Jerry's because you've had a bad day? What if you're just in the mood for pizza?

Wouldn't these be valid reasons to eat? If not, why not?

And of course, if marriage serves only one purpose: procreation......then what of all the infertile or childless couples who are allowed to marry or remain married? They exist by the millions.....demonstrating undeniably that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Nor is any couple required to be able to have kids in order to get married.

So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

I'll understand if you choose to run too.

I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.

Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.

Nor could virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.

My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.

How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?

If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?

It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.

And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.

Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world.

Then name a church that has been forced to accommodate a gay wedding.

You'll find there is no such example.

 

[koshergrl]

Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.

Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...

You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.

You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.

Get used to the idea.

In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.

In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.

That would be the Strawman Fallacy. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.

*yawn*.

You don't determine who is *the people* and who isn't *the people* you progressive douche.

We're all *the people*. And in this case, the majority disagrees with you.

No, we're individuals. We do not exercise the People's authority alone. We do so collectively. And the threshold of that excercise of authority is the majority.

You aren't the majority, Kosher. You don't pass binding laws all by your lonesome. You don't create binding precedent all by your lonesome. We do. Through our representatives.

Your authority alone is not the same as the People's authority.

Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why?

I didn't disagree with that. I never said I was the majority.

Let's hear some more weird stuff that you come up with to distract from the topic. It's fun.

 

[Skylar]

I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.

Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.

Nor could virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.

My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.

How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?

If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?

It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.

And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.

Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world.

Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?

All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.

Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.

Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.

 

[koshergrl]

I have no interest in that ridiculous argument. It's totally irrelevant to the OP or to any discussion I'm involved in.

Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.

Nor could virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.

My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.

How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?

If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?

It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.

And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.

Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world.

Then name a church that has been forced to accommodate a gay wedding.

You'll find there is no such example.

Not yet. You progressive douches always maintain that your statist garbage won't result in loss of freedoms and worse...until after it happens.

Then you play dumb. "Oh wow, I didn't know that would happen! Someone fooled me!"

 

[Skylar]

Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.

Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...

You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.

You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.

Get used to the idea.

In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.

In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.

That would be the Strawman Fallacy. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.

*yawn*.

You don't determine who is *the people* and who isn't *the people* you progressive douche.

We're all *the people*. And in this case, the majority disagrees with you.

No, we're individuals. We do not exercise the People's authority alone. We do so collectively. And the threshold of that excercise of authority is the majority.

You aren't the majority, Kosher. You don't pass binding laws all by your lonesome. You don't create binding precedent all by your lonesome. We do. Through our representatives.

Your authority alone is not the same as the People's authority.

Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why?

I didn't disagree with that.

Then we're on the same page.

 

[koshergrl]

Its okay, Kosher....I couldn't think of a single reason to exclude gays from marriage either.

Nor could virtually any federal court to hear challenges to gay marriage bans. Expect that pattern to continue with the USSC.

My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.

How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?

If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?

It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.

And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.

Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world.

Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?

All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.

Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.

Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.

Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you break the law because you believe it is part of your faith- whether it is circumsizing your daughter at home, butchering goats in your backyard, refuse to pay income taxes, or refuse to comply with business regulations, you are subject to the same penalties as anyone else.

As long as you accept the penalties without whining, I am fine with you pretending like you are above the law.

Oh my... isn't that wild? The Deviant mind finds fault with Islam, the chief political ally of the Ideological Left, which is the chief political vehicle which carries the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality...

LOL! Holding such as a RELIGION!

ROFLMNAO!

Now, Islam is of course, NOT a religion, but a political cult posing as a religion... much as The Ideological Left is a humanist cult posing as a political premise.

And how remarkable is it that BOTH serve absolutely NO END which is not demonstrably EVIL?

 

[Syriusly]

Why the people. And you, Keyes, aren't the people. You're a person.

Then you as 'a person' are also NOT: THE PEOPLE...

You are not the people, Keyes. You may imagine that whatever you believe is legally binding on the whole of our population. That your beliefs alone exempt you from any law. But it doesn't, and it doesn't.

You're a person. An individual. The threshold of the exercise of the people's authority is the majority. And you are not the majority.

Get used to the idea.

In one stroke, where he reasoning were to be adopted, she would have shut down this entire forum... and Republican governance across the board would have been eliminated.

In one stroke, you've completely hallucinated an entire argument that no one has made. And then knocked the stuffing out of it.

That would be the Strawman Fallacy. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to lean so heavily on logical fallacies.

*yawn*.

You don't determine who is *the people* and who isn't *the people* you progressive douche.

We're all *the people*. And in this case, the majority disagrees with you.

No, we're individuals. We do not exercise the People's authority alone. We do so collectively. And the threshold of that excercise of authority is the majority.

You aren't the majority, Kosher. You don't pass binding laws all by your lonesome. You don't create binding precedent all by your lonesome. We do. Through our representatives.

Your authority alone is not the same as the People's authority.

Do you disagree with any part of that? If so, why?

I didn't disagree with that. I never said I was the majority.

Let's hear some more weird stuff that you come up with to distract from the topic. It's fun.

Wait- when are you planning on posting about the actual topic of this thread?

For the last 2 days all you have posted is whines about what a victim you are because the law applies to you- the law that has nothing to do with weddings in churches.

So let us know when you suddenly start posting on topic.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant

You are a professed sexual deviant.

Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.

Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?

 

[Skylar]

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant comes to advise you, that what is demonstrably false, is instead "TRUTH".

In truth, the question has been answered ad nauseum.

Sex is an instinct... which serve THE PURPOSE of procreation.

And yet we still have sex even if we can't have children. We also use sex for far more than procreation. We use it for bonding. We use it for recreation. For stress relief. Some use it for religious fulfillment.

And these purposes are rational and valid. Your argument is that sex can ONLY be used for procreation, that it ONLY has one purpose.

All the other uses sex can serve demonstrate you're simply wrong. There are many purposes to sex. Many uses it can be put to, most of which have nothing to do with children. As almost all sex is reproductively worthless.

With multiple purposes to be found in sex, why then would you apply such hysteric and rabid value judgement like 'abhorred' and 'despised' and 'loathed' to sex that doesn't produce children? When almost all sex doesn't.

Your singular purpose of sex is debunked. As is any basis for your shrill value judgments and personal hatred.

 

[Skylar]

My primary objection to homo marriage has always been that it opens the door for state legislation of religion.

How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?

If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?

It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.

And I was absolutely 1000 percent correct. All it has done is establish that the state can dictate to us whether or not we can consider marriage a sacrament...and the state can compel us to participate in sacrilege.

Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world.

Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?

All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.

Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.

Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.

Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Federal Public Accommodation laws - 1964.

Employment Division v. Smith - 1990

Federal Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990.

************************************************************

Washington State Consumer Protection Act - 1960's

Employment Division v. Smith - 1990

State Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990

************************************************************

Timeline does not support your statement since PA laws were passed before Employment Division v. Smith.


>>>>