Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all, yet) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point the LGBT blogger to the fact that they're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word.. Regulation of behaviors has always been at local levels in the penal, civil and family codes of each state, enacted and maintained by the push and pull of progressive vs conservative values. Progressives are like the unbrindled think-tank of "what if we try this?". Conservatives are the brakes on that system. You take the brakes off a vehicle like this rainbow-progressivism, for example, and you might as well hang it up. Majority rule preserves both the new ideas and the brakes on those new ideas. What LGBTs are asking the Court to do is nothing less than removing the braking system for that vehicle . These questions belong to the states' majorities. And that is where they must remain or we will have no democracy.

Uh. No. You're missing the point entirely. "Laws that target specific group for special penalties, benefits or exemptions" refers to giving giving certain religions groups exemptions from following the laws the rest of us are saddled with.

That won't change. Start a church.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..

I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating

Then you don't trust yourself to decide on what is and is not deviancy.

There's nothing complex about it.

 

[dblack]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..

I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating

Exactly. Live and let live isn't such a bad way to go.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia. The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.

These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.

Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.

Elmer is every bit the equal of Roe... Wherein reality was suspended for delusion.

There was no right to injure homosexuals 20, 40 or 1000 years ago.

Just as there is no right on the part of homosexuals to demand that someone hire them, sell the property or do business with people of low moral character. There is no right on the part of the mentally disordered to demand anything from anyone.

Homosexuals are both... Law forcing people to accept them by forcing them to do business with degenerates and moral reprobates is illegitimate law which obligates no free individual.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..

I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating

Then you don't trust yourself to decide on what is and is not deviancy.

There's nothing complex about it.

That is a false conclusion fallacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Homosexuals are both...

Merely a silly assertion by a silly relativist.

 

[Skylar]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia. The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.

These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.

Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.

Elmer is every bit the equal of Roe... Wherein reality was suspended for delusion.

There was no right to injure homosexuals 20, 40 or 1000 years ago.

You were the inventor of the imaginary 'right to eradicate homosexuals'. Your conception of rights changes with each post. And in each conception is gloriously irrelevant as the last. As we don't base on our laws on what you imagine.

You're irrelevant to any court ruling, any law, or any legal definition.

 

[JakeStarkey]

St. Keys the Irrelevant Relativist!

Show us a church that has had to marry homosexuals.

 

[kaz]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..

I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating

Then you don't trust yourself to decide on what is and is not deviancy.

There's nothing complex about it.

Now that's a bizarre argument. I don't trust government to decide, so that means I don't trust myself to decide? How is that even supposed to make sense? It clearly implies the opposite, that I think it's for me to decide what I think is deviancy, not government.

As for government, I don't think they are to take a position on it. They are only to intervene when the actions of one person remove the choices of another. Whether it's "deviancy" that causes that or not is irrelevant.

 

[kaz]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..

I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating

Exactly. Live and let live isn't such a bad way to go.

Yes, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, it's not government's business. Government is far more advancing harm than good in this area already, let's remove their capability to do so to the greatest extend possible

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, it's not government's business. Government is far more advancing harm than good in this area already, let's remove their capability to do so to the greatest extend possible

I believe that the US Supreme Court will wisely return this question to the states to answer.

The BS in North Carolina will be seen for what it is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's not very likely SCOTUS is going to adopt a libertarian point of view.

 

[Silhouette]

It's not very likely SCOTUS is going to adopt a libertarian point of view.

It is very likely that SCOTUS will discern that Freedom of Religion means not a building with wood, brick and mortar, but instead for each individual Christian via the mandate of Jude 1 on this specific question of law.

With your lipstick lesbians expressing their hidden fantasies for all things male and turning up pregnant, it's time we understand exactly what makes "LGBT"s tick. If they themselves don't even understand their own closeted fantasies and true orientations, I now pronounce you a hot mess Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum how are we supposed to rely on their word that what they are is a "static class, deserving of protection"???

Every time someone tries to delve into glaring issues with the LGBT cult like people amputating healthy organs in order to play-act at the opposite gender or why lipstick lesbians want their partners to dress, talk, act like and walk like men...the reaction from LGBTs is the same, "Don't go there!". We should go there. We should know exactly what it is we are calling static and a class before we go on to weigh whether or not they qualify for protection under the US Constitution that would be dominant to people's 1st Amendment rights.

 

[Skylar]

It's not very likely SCOTUS is going to adopt a libertarian point of view.

It is very likely that SCOTUS will discern that Freedom of Religion means not a building with wood, brick and mortar, but instead for each individual Christian via the mandate of Jude 1 on this specific question of law.

No, you're projecting again. You have a belief. You have a desire. And you assume that the USSC must think just like you do.

But that silliness has never worked out for you. Remember when the USSC temporarily granted a stay to Utah on the implementation of same sex marriage? Remember how you waxed eloquent on how you now knew the USSC's views, what the USSC really believed, and gave us elaborate predictions on how what the uSSC was going to do?

And then the courts lifted the stay a few days later. And rejected every other stay while preserving every lower court ruling overturning same sex marriage bans.

Exactly opposite of what you predicted. And demonstrating elegantly for us how worthless your projection upon the courts actually is.

With your lipstick lesbians expressing their hidden fantasies for all things male and turning up pregnant, it's time we understand exactly what makes "LGBT"s tick.

These are your hidden fantasies. As you're citing yourself. All you're revealing is yourself.

You're breaking down, Sil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, don't cite yourself as an authority: you are not one on this issue.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, don't cite yourself as an authority: you are not one on this issue.

Neither are you. We are both equals, equally hashing out the Constitution as it applies to a shifting-demographic claiming a "static status" in order to shoehorn the legal system into access to adoptable orphans..er..I mean "gay marriage".. And then, on to forcing Christianity's doctrines to redact Jude 1 in order to completely turn that Devine Mandate upside down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not my equal in argumentation at all.

Your analysis has failed. I have used unimpeachable evidence; you have not.

That's the end of it.

Marriage Equality is going to happen. If not right now (though it probably will), certainly shortly in the near future.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, don't cite yourself as an authority: you are not one on this issue.

Neither are you. We are both equals, equally hashing out the Constitution as it applies to a shifting-demographic claiming a "static status" in order to shoehorn the legal system into access to adoptable orphans..er..I mean "gay marriage".. And then, on to forcing Christianity's doctrines to redact Jude 1 in order to completely turn that Devine Mandate upside down.

Yeah, but you're quoting yourself on the 'hidden fantasies' of people you don't know nor have ever met. You have no idea of what you're talking about. You're revealing yourself with these extremely specific 'fantasies' you claim to share. Not anyone else.

And you are not equal with the court. Nor are you equal with many here in predicting the actions of the court. You consistently make the same mistake, projecting your beliefs and assumptions onto the court. And then sit dumbfounded when the members of the court follow their OWN beliefs and interpretations rather than yours.

With dumbfounded rapidly devolving into hysterical rage......with you shrilly screaming that the Courts are committing 'treason' and 'tyranny' because they didn't do what you imagined they would.

Um, no.

 

[GreenBean]

You are not my equal in argumentation at all.

Your analysis has failed. I have used unimpeachable evidence; you have not.

That's the end of it.

Marriage Equality is going to happen. If not right now (though it probably will), certainly shortly in the near future.

Jake - I honestly have to agree with you . You and Silhouette are certainly not equals in debate. You are not even in the same ball park my friend. It's akin to watching a 3 year old argue with his mom - you - needless to say are the 3 year old.

 

[Skylar]

You are not my equal in argumentation at all.

Your analysis has failed. I have used unimpeachable evidence; you have not.

That's the end of it.

Marriage Equality is going to happen. If not right now (though it probably will), certainly shortly in the near future.

Jake - I honestly have to agree with you . You and Silhouette are certainly not equals in debate. You are not even in the same ball park my friend. It's akin to watching a 3 year old argue with his mom - you - needless to say are the 3 year old.

Sil's arguments are fundamentally broken as they're based on a series of false assumptions. The factors that he insists the courts 'must' answer, the courts aren't even addressing. The legal standards he holds gays to in marriage don't actually exist.

And the series of batshit conspiracies that Sil clings to as part of his belief system border on the mentally ill. He literally believes that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals to produce false poll numbers as part of an international conspiracy spanning half a century.

That's only a strong argument for medication. Not the prohibition of same sex marriage.