Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

*Notices Skylar didn't respond*

That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.

Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Are polygamy and incest marriage legal now Skylar, if "equality" was the basis for mandating gay marriage? (remember, we are talking about behaviors getting rights here)

Take your time...it's OK, we all know the answer to the question because there is only one answer possible.

 

[Skylar]

*Notices Skylar didn't respond*

That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.

Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Are polygamy and incest marriage legal now Skylar, if "equality" was the basis for mandating gay marriage? (remember, we are talking about behaviors getting rights here)

Take your time...it's OK, we all know the answer to the question because there is only one answer possible.

Who says that polygamy and incest are legal? You do, citing yourself. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Remember, all the pseudo-legal gibberish that you insist all of these cases hinge on.....is never even mentioned in court. As your gibberish has nothing to do with the law.

 

[Syriusly]

They agree with the law, as it is, that churches should not have to marriages they don't want to do. Almost all of us agree on that. You, on the other hand, are in the shrinking minority of those who want to prevent Marriage Equality, and you will lie about it to get your way. And you will continue to fail.

What are churches made up of? They're made up of people like Kim Davis.

Why do you think that churches are made up of people like Kim Davis who refuse to follow the New Testaments clear instructions to follow the law- and obey authority?

 

[Syriusly]

Would you say that speech is a behavior? That practicing religion is a behavior? That bearing arms is a behavior?

Your entire premise that 'behaviors' aren't protected under the constitution is obviously wrong. Remember, Sil.....you simply don't know what you're talking about.

That wasn't the question oh artful dodger...

...the question was: which behaviors would you or could you, or anyone else exclude from marriage now legally?

And it's even more important twin question:

"Who would decide that and why?"

Behaviors are not included or excluded from marriage- people are.

You are the one who keeps arguing about marriage and behavior- not the courts.

The courts have said that States cannot deny a mixed race couple marriage. And the courts have said that the States cannot deny a same gender couple marriage.

And the courts explained why- and it had nothing to do with 'behavior'.

And why you insist on taking your own thread off topic- again- I don't know.

No one is forcing any church to marry anyone.

Same gender marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 11 years now- still no churches being forced to marry anyone.

 

[Syriusly]

That behaviors aren't constitutionaly protected was the basis of your silly argument.

Its nonsense. There are a litany of behaviors that are protected. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Are polygamy and incest marriage legal now Skylar,

No.

How do we know this?

Because
a) There are laws against polygamous and incestuous marriages on the books and
b) No court has overturned such laws.

If you believe that you have the right to now marry your sister- you can pursue that claim.

You have to convince a court to take your case- and then the State has to make a convincing argument as to why the State prevents you from marrying your sister.

IF you cannot think of a valid reason why the State would prevent you from marrying your sister- then your problem is that you can't think of any reason why siblings should not marry- not with gays being able to marry.

 

[kaz]

>

White men can marry.

Black women can marry.


White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior. Yep, behaviors are covered

Nope, men and women aren't behaviors. Gay sex is though. And gay sex isn't "a racial issue".

A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.

As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.


Ohhh - wait a minute that behavior is protected.


>>>>

Yes, being black changed who you could marry for all blacks. Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays. That's why race rules actually violated the Constitution and gay don't. Buy hey, getting judges to be dictators is easy, they love doing that

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do you think that churches are made up of people like Kim Davis who refuse to follow the New Testaments clear instructions to follow the law- and obey authority?

Kim was a serial monogamist and an adulteress as well, I suspect. She was not following NT instruction on those either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is the stupidest statement of the days so far: "Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays." Is is also a lie.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.

A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution. When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...

The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.

By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.

Who is denying homophobes their right to express their anger, hatred and bigotry?

Do you care? I mean, does it really matter who is suppressing their rights? Or are you just trying to suggest that people shouldn't have the right to express anger, hatred and bigotry?

Since my superpowers don't include mind reading why don't you get back to us when you have figured out what it is you are trying to communicate?

 

[Syriusly]

>

White men can marry.

Black women can marry.


White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior. Yep, behaviors are covered

Nope, men and women aren't behaviors. Gay sex is though. And gay sex isn't "a racial issue".

A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.

As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.


Ohhh - wait a minute that behavior is protected.


>>>>

Yes, being black changed who you could marry for all blacks. Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays. That's why race rules actually violated the Constitution and gay don't. Buy hey, getting judges to be dictators is easy, they love doing that

Kaz changes the subject at will.

Silhouette was arguing that 'behavior' cannot be protected- and it was pointed out that marriage is a behavior.

Meanwhile- the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for States to prevent same gender couples from marrying- just as the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for States to prevent opposite race couples from marrying.

Same rational- different circumstances.

 

[Statistikhengst]

>

White men can marry.

Black women can marry.


White man wants to marry a black woman, that is a behavior. Yep, behaviors are covered

Nope, men and women aren't behaviors. Gay sex is though. And gay sex isn't "a racial issue".

A white men wanting to marry a black woman, sure are behaviors.

As such white men can be limited to marrying white woman and black men to marrying black women.


Ohhh - wait a minute that behavior is protected.


>>>>

Yes, being black changed who you could marry for all blacks. Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays. That's why race rules actually violated the Constitution and gay don't. Buy hey, getting judges to be dictators is easy, they love doing that

Kaz changes the subject at will.

Silhouette was arguing that 'behavior' cannot be protected- and it was pointed out that marriage is a behavior.

Meanwhile- the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for States to prevent same gender couples from marrying- just as the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for States to prevent opposite race couples from marrying.

Same rational- different circumstances.

Yepp.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

"A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.

She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.

She can be charged with theft of services.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.

She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.

She can be charged with theft of services.

Yepp.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Silhouette]

"A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.

She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.

She can be charged with theft of services.

Did she beat anyone up? Did she chop off any hands? Did she scream "Get out of my office you f-ing DYKES!"? No?

Then her refusal was passive and her 1st Amendment right. Public accomodation vs the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment. It's like getting ready to watch a boxing match between a little preschool girl and Nicolai Valuev...she may be able to run around and nibble on his kneecaps at first, but when the real punching starts and the dancing ends it's going to be a bloodbath.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"A Christian woman sitting in jail for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding" is a mischaracterization.

She actively refused to offer her government services to all who qualified.

She can be charged with theft of services.

Technically she can be charged with failure to provide services for which she was responsible and accountable to provide.

 

[kaz]

You mean a small vocal minority who do not understand the meaning of a constitutional republic and the rule of law.

A constitutional republic abides by the Constitution. When you get a minute, read the 1st and 9th Amendments...

The 14th is what applies to preventing the tyranny of the majority from depriving a minority of their rights.

By most surveys, homophobes are a minority. Hmmm.

Who is denying homophobes their right to express their anger, hatred and bigotry?

Do you care? I mean, does it really matter who is suppressing their rights? Or are you just trying to suggest that people shouldn't have the right to express anger, hatred and bigotry?

Speaking against liberalism is anger, hatred and bigotry, it should be illegal

 

[Silhouette]

Speaking against liberalism is anger, hatred and bigotry, it should be illegal

You're being sarcastic, right?

 

[kaz]

Speaking against liberalism is anger, hatred and bigotry, it should be illegal

You're being sarcastic, right?

yes

 

[beagle9]

The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.

I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights. I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion. So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not. I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.

I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?

You used Warren Jeff's molesting of children in an argument that your losing and have now resorted to desperation on ? How low can you go ??? So sad, but it is a tactic that to many fools have since fallen for, and that is even more sadder than them all.

 

[mdk]

The subject of the thread was churches being forced to perform marriages, not a government employee refusing to do their job.

I wasn't aware that buildings had 1st Amendment rights. I could've sworn that the 1st Amendment was about INDIVIDUAL people's rights to exercize of religion. So: groups of Christians in a building have rights but individual Christians at work do not. I wasn't aware of that fine print in the Constitution.

I was wondering when you were going to reintroduce this failed argument. Sovereign citizen bullshit with a religious twist, a land where a people get to choose which laws they follow, or not, based on their deeply held religious beliefs. Warren Jeffs should be released from prison b/c his religious beliefs says he can fuck children. After all, he answers to a higher authority. Where is The Liberty Council when you need them?

You used Warren Jeff's molesting of children in an argument that your losing and have now resorted to desperation on ? How low can you go ??? So sad, but it is a tactic that to many fools have since fallen for, and that is even more sadder than them all.

Oh cry me a river. It was used as an example of the silliness of claiming to be above the law and having to answer only to one's deeply held religious beliefs. An argument I am losing!? Too funny. Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple and gays are marrying Rowan County. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word losing.