Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bullshit.
Democrats who flooded our ranks in the 70s-80s destroyed our party. The Republican Party now is what the Democrat Party was in the 60s (and many of the same people) and the Dems are straight up progressive pigs.
There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.
There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.
People see any form of rejection of depravity as "authoritarianism" yet if you have depravity thrust upon you (and you're fined/charged/put in jail for failing to acquiesce) that somehow = equality and freedom.
Freaking morons.
But my church will not marry them. And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them.
As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.
In blue above.1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. ok good However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school. deflection... I agree, that exposing children to gay acts, encouraging sexual behavior of any kind in school is bad.. leave it to parents to teach sex education.
2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them. please link to where your first amendment rights have been infringed... I call bs.
3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not. can you provide a link to legislation that would force "everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not?" I call bs. If the government provided allowance for marriage licenses that would not mean a church has to marry the couple. You think a catholic church is forced to marry jewish couples? Nah... not gonna happen.
I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. You run your church? If so that would be your right, so what?
And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them. Make up your mind first you say your are "not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married" now here you say you are. The state does not marry people, the state manages the marriage license. People get married of their own volition. The person who witnesses the signing of the contract is not a part of the marriage contract/license. You appear to be confused about the government's role here.
As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part. I see that you wish to believe this to be true. But you have not convinced me. Maybe with clearer answers to the above.
It's on the part of the homo lobby. I've seen authoritative actions pushed by authoritarians of both groups. I don't think the bulk of gays want to force you to personally to marry them.
In blue above.1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. ok good However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school. deflection... I agree, that exposing children to gay acts, encouraging sexual behavior of any kind in school is bad.. leave it to parents to teach sex education.
2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them. please link to where your first amendment rights have been infringed... I call bs.
3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not. can you provide a link to legislation that would force "everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not?" I call bs. If the government provided allowance for marriage licenses that would not mean a church has to marry the couple. You think a catholic church is forced to marry jewish couples? Nah... not gonna happen.
I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. You run your church? If so that would be your right, so what?
And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them. Make up your mind first you say your are "not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married" now here you say you are. The state does not marry people, the state manages the marriage license. People get married of their own volition. The person who witnesses the signing of the contract is not a part of the marriage contract/license. You appear to be confused about the government's role here.
As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part. I see that you wish to believe this to be true. But you have not convinced me. Maybe with clearer answers to the above.
It's on the part of the homo lobby. I've seen authoritative actions pushed by authoritarians of both groups. I don't think the bulk of gays want to force you to personally to marry them.
There is no "religious right authoritarian". It's in your imagination.
People see any form of rejection of depravity as "authoritarianism" yet if you have depravity thrust upon you (and you're fined/charged/put in jail for failing to acquiesce) that somehow = equality and freedom.
Freaking morons.
In blue above.1. No, gays aren't forcing me to perform gay acts. ok good However they are forcing my children to be exposed to gay acts by exposing THEM to them in school. deflection... I agree, that exposing children to gay acts, encouraging sexual behavior of any kind in school is bad.. leave it to parents to teach sex education.
2. Gays are forcing me to say I love gay people in that it is "hate" speech (and therefore a crime) to say I don't love them. please link to where your first amendment rights have been infringed... I call bs.
3. No I'm not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married. I'm resisting legislation that will force everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not. can you provide a link to legislation that would force "everybody to marry them, whether they want to or not?" I call bs. If the government provided allowance for marriage licenses that would not mean a church has to marry the couple. You think a catholic church is forced to marry jewish couples? Nah... not gonna happen.
I could care less if queers marry each other. But my church will not marry them. You run your church? If so that would be your right, so what?
And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them. Make up your mind first you say your are "not pushing for legislation to keep queers from getting married" now here you say you are. The state does not marry people, the state manages the marriage license. People get married of their own volition. The person who witnesses the signing of the contract is not a part of the marriage contract/license. You appear to be confused about the government's role here.
As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part. I see that you wish to believe this to be true. But you have not convinced me. Maybe with clearer answers to the above.
It's on the part of the homo lobby. I've seen authoritative actions pushed by authoritarians of both groups. I don't think the bulk of gays want to force you to personally to marry them.
teaching kids to be tolerant of others is not sex ed.
no. they're asserting their rights to equal treatment... which they are entitled to as citizens of this country
no one is saying churches should marry gays. nice try, though.
She says this:
But my church will not marry them. And I will resist legislation meant to force my state to marry them.
And then in the same breath says this:
As you can see, the authoritarianism isn't on my part.
BWA-HA-HA-HA!
in red this time..."Section 7 of the SB 6239 says the following:
Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
Let me break down this legalese. What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony" All that means is that they can't offer up their facilities and marriage services for sale to the public at large. They could still offer it for sale to private members only. But I see where you might think this is getting close. I don't like the language of this law either, but I see how it would not apply to churches that provide weddings for members (private not public). Please don't ask me to look up case law on private vs public, I've got to much work to do today
"a judge in New Jersey recently ordered that a church must allow its facilities to be used for same-sex “wedding” ceremonies despite the church’s religious beliefs against such relationships. The Judge’s rationale in ordering the church to open its facility to same-sex “weddings” was that the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” I'm against this judge's ruling.
"“when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict,” she admitted, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” For those like Feldblum, the New Jersey judge, and the Washington State legislators in favor of SB 6239, the church’s freedom to follow its own religious beliefs simply do not matter. As the New Jersey judge put it, the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Put simply, religious freedom takes a back seat to sexual liberty."
Washington Same-Sex ?Marriage? Bill Is A Threat To Churches |
What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony"
Nope. No bigots on the Right. No, sir.
What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex marriage ceremony"
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.
Note this is just the facilities. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.
What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony"
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You can't have it both ways.
Note this is just the facilities. I don't see anything that requires the priest or pastor of the Church perform the ceremony - unless of course he's in the business of performing wedding ceremonies for non-members for a fee.
Ok let's try this again........
What part of "The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions" did you not get?
