Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[RKMBrown]

Wrong! the majority always overrules one's civil and personal liberties. That is society. If a person breaks the law, their liberties are forfeit.

Really? Do you know what "the majority" wanted when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving?

Me and several others are still waiting on your reply to polygamists in the gay and lesbian argument? Until you get around to that, don't ask me questions, I will have time for yours when you take time for ours.

Have a nice day...

I've asked this question of gays before. Gays seem to be just like hetero's in this regard. Most are just fine with holding the hypocritical position that it is just fine and dandy to restrict polygamy, but it is not fine to restrict their marriage.

IOW they only care about themselves and others like them... it's not about liberty for all it is about liberty for me, myself, and I.

Sigh..

 

[JakeStarkey]

RKMBrown, the American people defeated Romney

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong! the majority always overrules one's civil and personal liberties. That is society. If a person breaks the law, their liberties are forfeit.

Really? Do you know what "the majority" wanted when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving?

Me and several others are still waiting on your reply to polygamists in the gay and lesbian argument? Until you get around to that, don't ask me questions, I will have time for yours when you take time for ours.



Have a nice day...

I answered your Strawman. If you believe that sibling or polygamist marriages can successfully challenge prohibitions, I wish you luck. They are unrelated to marriage equality for gays.

Do you know what the majority thought of interracial marriage when it was ruled on by the SCOTUS?

 

[Gadawg73]

All the gay folks I know raising kids have adopted them.
From heterosexual parents that ABANDONED THE KIDS.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Hamas would certainly agree with you. You must live in an universe parallel to the US. Read the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment and then read commentary about it. Your comment merely reveals your ignorance.

Call me what you will, it appeases me to see you have to resort to name calling. If a man beats a woman, then shoots her and her child, should that man still have civil and personal liberties? Of coarse not. Better example. Some child molestors think they are not doing wrong when molesting a child, they think they are doing that child a favor. Does majority overrule those deranged individuals? Yes they do. Read your own posts when replying to my posts. You will see they answer yours very well, thank you. Have a nice day now.

One, labeling your lack of understanding as "ignorance" is not name calling.

Two, If you are renting out property publicly and you violate public accommodation laws, you are at fault for violating a person's civil and personal rights not them for reporting you.

In America, we are a constitutional republic with civil and personal liberties, over which the democratic majority have no say.

You originally said, and I quote "So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties." end quote.

I pointed out that you were wrong on that only. You can not like being wrong on that as much as you like, but you are still wrong on that statement. For anyone can lose those civil and personal liberties at any time if they decide to break the laws of the land.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Call me what you will, it appeases me to see you have to resort to name calling. If a man beats a woman, then shoots her and her child, should that man still have civil and personal liberties? Of coarse not. Better example. Some child molestors think they are not doing wrong when molesting a child, they think they are doing that child a favor. Does majority overrule those deranged individuals? Yes they do. Read your own posts when replying to my posts. You will see they answer yours very well, thank you. Have a nice day now.

One, labeling your lack of understanding as "ignorance" is not name calling.

Two, If you are renting out property publicly and you violate public accommodation laws, you are at fault for violating a person's civil and personal rights not them for reporting you.

In America, we are a constitutional republic with civil and personal liberties, over which the democratic majority have no say.

You originally said, and I quote "So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties." end quote.

I pointed out that you were wrong on that only. You can not like being wrong on that as much as you like, but you are still wrong on that statement. For anyone can lose those civil and personal liberties at any time if they decide to break the laws of the land.

And you agreed. Now you are changing your story. I said that a democratic majority cannot overrule a person's civil liberties. They can't. Then you change it to if they commit crimes. Your deflection is noted. Yes, criminals can be punished; no, the democratic majority cannot overrule civil and personal liberties.

Once again, read the Constitution.

Once again, think about what you post.

 

[RKMBrown]

RKMBrown, the American people defeated Romney

So did I. I voted for the libertarian.

 

[Seawytch]

Call me what you will, it appeases me to see you have to resort to name calling. If a man beats a woman, then shoots her and her child, should that man still have civil and personal liberties? Of coarse not. Better example. Some child molestors think they are not doing wrong when molesting a child, they think they are doing that child a favor. Does majority overrule those deranged individuals? Yes they do. Read your own posts when replying to my posts. You will see they answer yours very well, thank you. Have a nice day now.

One, labeling your lack of understanding as "ignorance" is not name calling.



Two, If you are renting out property publicly and you violate public accommodation laws, you are at fault for violating a person's civil and personal rights not them for reporting you.



In America, we are a constitutional republic with civil and personal liberties, over which the democratic majority have no say.

You originally said, and I quote "So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties." end quote.



I pointed out that you were wrong on that only. You can not like being wrong on that as much as you like, but you are still wrong on that statement. For anyone can lose those civil and personal liberties at any time if they decide to break the laws of the land.

You can lose some of your civil liberties if you break the law. You have to let those lawbreakers marry though, even if on death row.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/78/case.html

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

If you "do not want" gay marriage
THEN:
Do not marry a gay person.

What if I "do not want" gay marriage because of child-welfare? Does my not marrying a gay person solve that hidden issue? Those in that ignored demographic in this debate: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

Child welfare?
Heterosexuals have not figured out to raise their own children and you worry about gay folks.
Wow.

You got that statement totally correct!

It amazes me still that we have to get a license for everything we do in this country, except for the most important thing, and that's have children. Any idiot can have a child, all of them that they want.

 

[Seawytch]

What if I "do not want" gay marriage because of child-welfare? Does my not marrying a gay person solve that hidden issue? Those in that ignored demographic in this debate: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html

Child welfare?

Heterosexuals have not figured out to raise their own children and you worry about gay folks.

Wow.

You got that statement totally correct!



It amazes me still that we have to get a license for everything we do in this country, except for the most important thing, and that's have children. Any idiot can have a child, all of them that they want.

So you'd liked to license procreation? Heard of China?

 

[RKMBrown]

One, labeling your lack of understanding as "ignorance" is not name calling.

Two, If you are renting out property publicly and you violate public accommodation laws, you are at fault for violating a person's civil and personal rights not them for reporting you.

In America, we are a constitutional republic with civil and personal liberties, over which the democratic majority have no say.

You originally said, and I quote "So what you are saying is that a majority should overrule one's civil and personal liberties." end quote.

I pointed out that you were wrong on that only. You can not like being wrong on that as much as you like, but you are still wrong on that statement. For anyone can lose those civil and personal liberties at any time if they decide to break the laws of the land.

And you agreed. Now you are changing your story. I said that a democratic majority cannot overrule a person's civil liberties. They can't. Then you change it to if they commit crimes. Your deflection is noted. Yes, criminals can be punished; no, the democratic majority cannot overrule civil and personal liberties.

Once again, read the Constitution.

Once again, think about what you post.

Uhmm... but the majority can overrule a person's civil liberties. Two specific amendments enshrine that fact, there was a third called prohibition, but it supposedly got redacted.

The 14th amendment clearly states: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

In clear translation that means with due process of law, the states can most certainly deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Due process in the 14th is not the same as due-process for criminal proceedings. You see, you are not necessarily a criminal in the 14th. All they have to do is claim they provided some level of process. The 14th is also used by the federal government through proxy by the states. For example, forcing you to have a certain curriculum, certain other restrictions on personal liberty if the states agree to take federal money.

Further, the 16th amendment allows the federal government to take every last cent of your income as taxes. EVERY PENNY YOU EARN IS THEIRS. There is no liberty or property and you certainly can't live your life as you choose. Nope. Not unless you plan on doing it without working/labor and getting paid. You can try to get away with bartering and trading. But that's just till folks are doing it and they lock it out like they are locking out internet sales that were free of sales taxes.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Uhmm... but the majority can overrule a person's civil liberties.

No - a majority cannot. It takes a super majority to amend the constitution and then THAT becomes the new standard of civil liberty ... so in reality no one's civil liberties are overruled.

 

[RKMBrown]

Uhmm... but the majority can overrule a person's civil liberties.

No - a majority cannot. It takes a super majority to amend the constitution and then THAT becomes the new standard of civil liberty ... so in reality no one's civil liberties are overruled.

I don't think you are listening.


The constitution has already been amended. You have no liberty not really, not in the eye's of the law. It's gone. Your liberty has been pissed on and shit on. Any government employee in this country, state or federal, can at will take any frigging thing they want of yours. Any thing. You think Obama can't have you killed in a heart beat just by saying kill that man? You think a federal officer can't open your papers, dig through your private documents, record all your email at will? You think the state can't take your house through eminent domain for any damn reason they want?

You think they can't quadruple your health care bills and laugh at you telling you this is for your own good? You think they won't come to your house and take your guns like they did in New Orleans?

 

[Silhouette]

...Now you are changing your story. I said that a democratic majority cannot overrule a person's civil liberties. They can't. Then you change it to if they commit crimes. Your deflection is noted. Yes, criminals can be punished; no, the democratic majority cannot overrule civil and personal liberties.

Once again, read the Constitution.

Once again, think about what you post.

Behaviors are not covered under civil liberties. Once again, read the Constitution. Once again, think about what you post.

 

[bendog]

...Now you are changing your story. I said that a democratic majority cannot overrule a person's civil liberties. They can't. Then you change it to if they commit crimes. Your deflection is noted. Yes, criminals can be punished; no, the democratic majority cannot overrule civil and personal liberties.

Once again, read the Constitution.

Once again, think about what you post.

Behaviors are not covered under civil liberties. Once again, read the Constitution. Once again, think about what you post.

The BoR and civil war amendments don't cover "behaviors?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette has no clue what the Constitution says, and RMK is trying to distort its meaning. .

No democratic majority can override a person's civil and personal liberties. That is not the same as an amendment to the Constitution. Sil wants a simple majority in California to dictate marriage equality: not going to happen.

The social con elitists and their weak minded pitiful allies have realized their sun has almost set, and they are wailing.

 

[RKMBrown]

Silhouette has no clue what the Constitution says, and RMK is trying to distort its meaning. .

No democratic majority can override a person's civil and personal liberties. That is not the same as an amendment to the Constitution. Sil wants a simple majority in California to dictate marriage equality: not going to happen.

The social con elitists and their weak minded pitiful allies have realized their sun has almost set, and they are wailing.

What part of how the 14th and 16th amendments did I distort? My statements are backed by SCOTUS rulings as to the actual meanings of these amendments. You can say taking your income isn't the same as slavery all you like, but it is. You can say taking your life by order from the president without even a court order isn't murder, but it is. You can say you have rights under the constitution all you like, but you don't not any more. Your rights are subject to the whims of our government. They can pass any bill they damn well please that takes any amount of money of yours, takes any of your so called liberties. All they have to do is have a simple majority of congress men to pass laws. They don't need any more amendments to take all of your money. All they have to do is tax you. They don't need any more amendments to take anything they want from you, all they have to do is claim due process. For example, a state can take your guns by declaring an emergency. Already been done. As another example, the feds can take away your health care providers and insurance just by calling the old ones illegal and forcing you to buy new ones, already been done.

Look at the unpatriot bill ... they can do any damn thing they want to you, permanent detention, blow you up, no court involvement, none. 15 year old child eating lunch at a cafe, boom, blown up sir.

The NSA has declared every american, nay every human on the planet, a potential enemy combatant. Oh well of course not some congressmen and the president they will be left alone cause they are the god emperors.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RMK, quit it while you are only five miles behind.

Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings? I am sure that everyone on this board probably agrees that only the "force" of violated public accommodation laws should be considered about the OP.

 

[RKMBrown]

RMK, quit it while you are only five miles behind.

Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings? I am sure that everyone on this board probably agrees that only the "force" of violated public accommodation laws should be considered about the OP.

Yes, well when it comes to restrictions on what liberties we can have, the civil rights act has enshrined that public accommodations cannot be prohibited by the people. This of course does not apply to the government. The government can take your civil rights at will for any reason they want be it race, religion, creed, sexual preference etc.. It used to be the Constitution restricted government action. Now it has been twisted by the 14th, 16th, and commerce clause to restrict our liberties instead. Turned completely upside down the constitution is.

 

[Silhouette]

I still think the real importance of this thread, diversions aside, is that 85% of the very large turnout on the poll [largest ever at USMB?] believe gay marriage should not be forced upon people who don't want it in the building. You have to assume that if they don't believe it should be performed in churches that don't want it there, that they also are behind states choosing if they or polygamists etc behaviors can marry there.

Adjust your political platform accordingly..