"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[Spare_change]

The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.

Are Catholics rights being violated if the government allow a divorced Catholic couple to be legally married outside the church?

And if not- explain the difference between your position and the Catholics.

God, this gets old ... please grant me strength.

This is NOT about gay marriage --- I've said that 1,000 times. This is about the government putting restrictions on the manner in which i practice my religion.

Your supposed conundrum only indicates that you don't understand my point at all .... please go back and study.

 

[Spare_change]

How has that ruling violated your First Amendment rights?

If you don't understand my position, you haven't been paying attention. Get back to us when you're caught up.

No one understands 'your position' because you haven't been able to show us this 'violation of your First Amendment' you keep claiming but cannot demonstrate.

Actually, you REFUSE to accept the violation, because you inherently do not understand the violation. I can make it no simpler than I have ... your refusal to understand is your problem, not mine. Your willingness to cede your individual rights is a problem for both of us.

You clearly do not understand this basic precept of Christianity --- "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Devotion to God means to stand against sin. Suddenly, the government says I can't do that. Suddenly, it's 'hate speech'. Suddenly, it's 'discrimination'. My position, and commitment, to God should not bring me into conflict with the government. That is the purpose of the 'free expression' clause.

Today, I am allowed to only practice my religion in my church ... to do elsewhere brings me into direct conflict with the law. PLEASE explain to me how that is NOT violating my individual rights.

The government is not saying any such thing.

You can say whatever you want, with the usual restrictions regarding public assembly and yelling 'fire'- wherever you want it.

You can go to any public forum in the United States where speakers are permitted and you can tell everyone how homosexuals are sinners- and you will not get arrested.

As long as practicing your religion doesn't mean pulling chicken's heads off in the public square or some such other issue, you can practice your religion as you see fit.

Friday has not changed how you can practice your religion at all.

His argument is especially stupid since homosexuality was already legal before last week's decision. All that changed since then is that states can no longer ban gay marriages. Meanwhile, 3/4ths of the states already made it legal before last Friday.

All his complaints amount to is a new twist from cons in expressing their massive butthurt after getting royally bitch-slapped on one of their most sacred issues. Between abortion and gay marriage, aneurysms across the nation are popping like crazy.

One last time ... this is not about gay marriage. You seem to be incapable of getting away from your obsession with homosexuality. This is about the government restricting the ways in which I can practice my religion.

You need to grow up ... or shut up. I really, really, don't care which.

 

[Spare_change]

What has happened is that these freaks are no longer able to use their religion to force others to live as THEY believe, so they are throwing tantrums.

NEWSFLASH!!!

I don't give a damn how you live your life ... but you can be damn sure I care about how the government has dictated that I will live my life.

Obviously, when presented with a cogent argument, you resort to name calling, false attacks, and childish antics.

PLEASE --- don't bother.

LMAO!!

The gov't is not dictating anything about your life.

Is that right? They aren't dictating anything?

Am I required to bake the cake? Am I required to defend attempts by the left to have religious speech labeled as 'hate speech'? Am I required to keep my opinion of this particular sin to myself - or, within the confines of my church - under penalty of being accused by my government of 'hate speech'? The list goes on ...

 

[Spare_change]

We're not talking about lust. This is about people who love each other being allowed to marry.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. All they need to do to be Legitimately married is to meet that natural standard.

The USSC would beg to differ. They determine legitimacy, not you.

You're right ... but ask yourself .... by what authority?

 

[Spare_change]

What concession? You're delusional.

That would be the one wherein you conceded that you have no means to understand what legitimacy is.

I never did any such thing. The USSC determines legitimacy when it comes to the law of the land.

Oh ... so now you changed it.

The SC does NOT have the authority to restrict my individual rights ... PERIOD.

But, they've done it anyway, haven't they?

 

[Asclepias]

If you don't understand my position, you haven't been paying attention. Get back to us when you're caught up.

No one understands 'your position' because you haven't been able to show us this 'violation of your First Amendment' you keep claiming but cannot demonstrate.

Actually, you REFUSE to accept the violation, because you inherently do not understand the violation. I can make it no simpler than I have ... your refusal to understand is your problem, not mine. Your willingness to cede your individual rights is a problem for both of us.

You clearly do not understand this basic precept of Christianity --- "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Devotion to God means to stand against sin. Suddenly, the government says I can't do that. Suddenly, it's 'hate speech'. Suddenly, it's 'discrimination'. My position, and commitment, to God should not bring me into conflict with the government. That is the purpose of the 'free expression' clause.

Today, I am allowed to only practice my religion in my church ... to do elsewhere brings me into direct conflict with the law. PLEASE explain to me how that is NOT violating my individual rights.

The government is not saying any such thing.

You can say whatever you want, with the usual restrictions regarding public assembly and yelling 'fire'- wherever you want it.

You can go to any public forum in the United States where speakers are permitted and you can tell everyone how homosexuals are sinners- and you will not get arrested.

As long as practicing your religion doesn't mean pulling chicken's heads off in the public square or some such other issue, you can practice your religion as you see fit.

Friday has not changed how you can practice your religion at all.

His argument is especially stupid since homosexuality was already legal before last week's decision. All that changed since then is that states can no longer ban gay marriages. Meanwhile, 3/4ths of the states already made it legal before last Friday.

All his complaints amount to is a new twist from cons in expressing their massive butthurt after getting royally bitch-slapped on one of their most sacred issues. Between abortion and gay marriage, aneurysms across the nation are popping like crazy.

One last time ... this is not about gay marriage. You seem to be incapable of getting away from your obsession with homosexuality. This is about the government restricting the ways in which I can practice my religion.

You need to grow up ... or shut up. I really, really, don't care which.

One last time. No one is putting restrictions on you practicing your religion. You just dont get to force others to bend to your idiocy.

 

[Asclepias]

We're not talking about lust. This is about people who love each other being allowed to marry.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. All they need to do to be Legitimately married is to meet that natural standard.

The USSC would beg to differ. They determine legitimacy, not you.

You're right ... but ask yourself .... by what authority?

The peoples authority.

 

[Faun]

Spare_change is using the old segregationist excuse, "If you can't understand it, I can't explain it."

Well, Spare, if you can't explain it clearly, then it is not a problem to anyone else that counts.

The government is not making your marry a gay.

The government is not making you participate in a wedding.

Those are private 1st Amendment issues.

If the state has PA that makes you conduct business in a certain way, that way is to make sure everyone's civil rights are balanced. As a business person, you do not have the right to discriminate against others because of your religion.

In other words, I am not allowed to practice my religion as i see fit ... got ya!!

Don't be ridiculous, your right to exercise your religion is not being infringed.

 

[Faun]

The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.

Are Catholics rights being violated if the government allow a divorced Catholic couple to be legally married outside the church?

And if not- explain the difference between your position and the Catholics.

God, this gets old ... please grant me strength.

This is NOT about gay marriage --- I've said that 1,000 times. This is about the government putting restrictions on the manner in which i practice my religion.

Your supposed conundrum only indicates that you don't understand my point at all .... please go back and study.

What restrictions?

 

[Spare_change]

No one understands 'your position' because you haven't been able to show us this 'violation of your First Amendment' you keep claiming but cannot demonstrate.

Actually, you REFUSE to accept the violation, because you inherently do not understand the violation. I can make it no simpler than I have ... your refusal to understand is your problem, not mine. Your willingness to cede your individual rights is a problem for both of us.

You clearly do not understand this basic precept of Christianity --- "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Devotion to God means to stand against sin. Suddenly, the government says I can't do that. Suddenly, it's 'hate speech'. Suddenly, it's 'discrimination'. My position, and commitment, to God should not bring me into conflict with the government. That is the purpose of the 'free expression' clause.

Today, I am allowed to only practice my religion in my church ... to do elsewhere brings me into direct conflict with the law. PLEASE explain to me how that is NOT violating my individual rights.

The government is not saying any such thing.

You can say whatever you want, with the usual restrictions regarding public assembly and yelling 'fire'- wherever you want it.

You can go to any public forum in the United States where speakers are permitted and you can tell everyone how homosexuals are sinners- and you will not get arrested.

As long as practicing your religion doesn't mean pulling chicken's heads off in the public square or some such other issue, you can practice your religion as you see fit.

Friday has not changed how you can practice your religion at all.

His argument is especially stupid since homosexuality was already legal before last week's decision. All that changed since then is that states can no longer ban gay marriages. Meanwhile, 3/4ths of the states already made it legal before last Friday.

All his complaints amount to is a new twist from cons in expressing their massive butthurt after getting royally bitch-slapped on one of their most sacred issues. Between abortion and gay marriage, aneurysms across the nation are popping like crazy.

One last time ... this is not about gay marriage. You seem to be incapable of getting away from your obsession with homosexuality. This is about the government restricting the ways in which I can practice my religion.

You need to grow up ... or shut up. I really, really, don't care which.

One last time. No one is putting restrictions on you practicing your religion. You just dont get to force others to bend to your idiocy.

One last time. This is categorically false.

I am now allowed to practice my religion, only within the confines of my church. I am no longer allowed to have my Christian beliefs dictate my interactions with others. I no longer am free to express my opinion through my actions.

Those who choose to be intentionally obtuse will never admit they understand ... those of us who are being infringed upon will never forget.

 

[Spare_change]

The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.

Are Catholics rights being violated if the government allow a divorced Catholic couple to be legally married outside the church?

And if not- explain the difference between your position and the Catholics.

God, this gets old ... please grant me strength.

This is NOT about gay marriage --- I've said that 1,000 times. This is about the government putting restrictions on the manner in which i practice my religion.

Your supposed conundrum only indicates that you don't understand my point at all .... please go back and study.

What restrictions?

Sorry --- I set a personal limit of explaining a position not more than 47 times.

Your request was the 48th ... feel free to read my previous posts.

 

[Faun]

The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.

Are Catholics rights being violated if the government allow a divorced Catholic couple to be legally married outside the church?

And if not- explain the difference between your position and the Catholics.

God, this gets old ... please grant me strength.

This is NOT about gay marriage --- I've said that 1,000 times. This is about the government putting restrictions on the manner in which i practice my religion.

Your supposed conundrum only indicates that you don't understand my point at all .... please go back and study.

What restrictions?

Sorry --- I set a personal limit of explaining a position not more than 47 times.

Your request was the 48th ... feel free to read my previous posts.

Nah, I'll just dismiss your whiney complaint as the made up nonsense you intended it to be.

 

[Spare_change]

Spare_change is using the old segregationist excuse, "If you can't understand it, I can't explain it."

Well, Spare, if you can't explain it clearly, then it is not a problem to anyone else that counts.

The government is not making your marry a gay.

The government is not making you participate in a wedding.

Those are private 1st Amendment issues.

If the state has PA that makes you conduct business in a certain way, that way is to make sure everyone's civil rights are balanced. As a business person, you do not have the right to discriminate against others because of your religion.

In other words, I am not allowed to practice my religion as i see fit ... got ya!!

Don't be ridiculous, your right to exercise your religion is not being infringed.

Is that right? You're sure now, right??

I am now allowed to refuse to serve a gay couple because I consider it a sin to aid and abet a sinner, right? I am now allowed to conduct public discourse that says that homosexuality is a sin, and will be punished in the fires of hell, right? I need have no fear of being sued for 'hate speech', right? I am now allowed to remove my children from the class of a homosexual, and will receive continued government support (and funds) because of my exercise of my religion, right? I am now allowed to campaign against a gay congressman because he/she is a sinner and I don't want them representing me, right? I am now allowed to picket gay weddings because my religion considers them an abomination, right?

I can do all these things without fear of retribution, right?

 

[Spare_change]

The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.

Are Catholics rights being violated if the government allow a divorced Catholic couple to be legally married outside the church?

And if not- explain the difference between your position and the Catholics.

God, this gets old ... please grant me strength.

This is NOT about gay marriage --- I've said that 1,000 times. This is about the government putting restrictions on the manner in which i practice my religion.

Your supposed conundrum only indicates that you don't understand my point at all .... please go back and study.

What restrictions?

Sorry --- I set a personal limit of explaining a position not more than 47 times.

Your request was the 48th ... feel free to read my previous posts.

Nah, I'll just dismiss your whiney complaint as the made up nonsense you intended it to be.

Somehow, your condemnation means so very little to me .... I expect that from the ignorant and the shallow.

 

[Faun]

Spare_change is using the old segregationist excuse, "If you can't understand it, I can't explain it."

Well, Spare, if you can't explain it clearly, then it is not a problem to anyone else that counts.

The government is not making your marry a gay.

The government is not making you participate in a wedding.

Those are private 1st Amendment issues.

If the state has PA that makes you conduct business in a certain way, that way is to make sure everyone's civil rights are balanced. As a business person, you do not have the right to discriminate against others because of your religion.

In other words, I am not allowed to practice my religion as i see fit ... got ya!!

Don't be ridiculous, your right to exercise your religion is not being infringed.

Is that right? You're sure now, right??

I am now allowed to refuse to serve a gay couple because I consider it a sin to aid and abet a sinner, right? I am now allowed to conduct public discourse that says that homosexuality is a sin, and will be punished in the fires of hell, right? I need have no fear of being sued for 'hate speech', right? I am now allowed to remove my children from the class of a homosexual, and will receive continued government support (and funds) because of my exercise of my religion, right? I am now allowed to campaign against a gay congressman because he/she is a sinner and I don't want them representing me, right? I am now allowed to picket gay weddings because my religion considers them an abomination, right?

I can do all these things without fear of retribution, right?

What are you forced to serve to a gay couple that prohibits your ability to freely exercise your religion??

You're perfectly within your rights to "conduct public discourse" and cry about what a sin you believe that to be.

Who's suing you for hate speech?

Have no idea what you're talking about regarding receiving government funds for exercising your religion.

You're allowed to campaign against gays.

And you're allowed to picket gay weddings as long as you do so peacefully.

Your freedom to exercise your religion is not infringed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Spare_change is using the old segregationist excuse, "If you can't understand it, I can't explain it."

Well, Spare, if you can't explain it clearly, then it is not a problem to anyone else that counts.

The government is not making your marry a gay.

The government is not making you participate in a wedding.

Those are private 1st Amendment issues.

If the state has PA that makes you conduct business in a certain way, that way is to make sure everyone's civil rights are balanced. As a business person, you do not have the right to discriminate against others because of your religion.

In other words, I am not allowed to practice my religion as i see fit ... got ya!!

Don't be ridiculous, your right to exercise your religion is not being infringed.

Is that right? You're sure now, right??

I am now allowed to refuse to serve a gay couple because I consider it a sin to aid and abet a sinner, right? I am now allowed to conduct public discourse that says that homosexuality is a sin, and will be punished in the fires of hell, right? I need have no fear of being sued for 'hate speech', right? I am now allowed to remove my children from the class of a homosexual, and will receive continued government support (and funds) because of my exercise of my religion, right? I am now allowed to campaign against a gay congressman because he/she is a sinner and I don't want them representing me, right? I am now allowed to picket gay weddings because my religion considers them an abomination, right?

I can do all these things without fear of retribution, right?

Correct.

You're allowed to do all those things and more, where hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections.

And should you live in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations law has a sexual orientation provision, such a law in no way 'violates' or 'interferes with' your religious liberty because one may not use religious beliefs as an 'excuse' to ignore just, proper, and Constitutional laws. (Employment Division v. Smith)

So yes, your right to exercise your religion is not being 'infringed.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Catholic Church is officially against divorce- and it is a clear sin within the Catholic Church for Catholics to divorce.

Are Catholics rights being violated if the government allow a divorced Catholic couple to be legally married outside the church?

And if not- explain the difference between your position and the Catholics.

God, this gets old ... please grant me strength.

This is NOT about gay marriage --- I've said that 1,000 times. This is about the government putting restrictions on the manner in which i practice my religion.

Your supposed conundrum only indicates that you don't understand my point at all .... please go back and study.

No, this is what's getting old.

The issue was solely about the states denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Nothing else.

In no way, shape, or form was Obergefell about government putting restrictions on the manner in which one practices his religion.

 

[Asclepias]

Actually, you REFUSE to accept the violation, because you inherently do not understand the violation. I can make it no simpler than I have ... your refusal to understand is your problem, not mine. Your willingness to cede your individual rights is a problem for both of us.

You clearly do not understand this basic precept of Christianity --- "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Devotion to God means to stand against sin. Suddenly, the government says I can't do that. Suddenly, it's 'hate speech'. Suddenly, it's 'discrimination'. My position, and commitment, to God should not bring me into conflict with the government. That is the purpose of the 'free expression' clause.

Today, I am allowed to only practice my religion in my church ... to do elsewhere brings me into direct conflict with the law. PLEASE explain to me how that is NOT violating my individual rights.

The government is not saying any such thing.

You can say whatever you want, with the usual restrictions regarding public assembly and yelling 'fire'- wherever you want it.

You can go to any public forum in the United States where speakers are permitted and you can tell everyone how homosexuals are sinners- and you will not get arrested.

As long as practicing your religion doesn't mean pulling chicken's heads off in the public square or some such other issue, you can practice your religion as you see fit.

Friday has not changed how you can practice your religion at all.

His argument is especially stupid since homosexuality was already legal before last week's decision. All that changed since then is that states can no longer ban gay marriages. Meanwhile, 3/4ths of the states already made it legal before last Friday.

All his complaints amount to is a new twist from cons in expressing their massive butthurt after getting royally bitch-slapped on one of their most sacred issues. Between abortion and gay marriage, aneurysms across the nation are popping like crazy.

One last time ... this is not about gay marriage. You seem to be incapable of getting away from your obsession with homosexuality. This is about the government restricting the ways in which I can practice my religion.

You need to grow up ... or shut up. I really, really, don't care which.

One last time. No one is putting restrictions on you practicing your religion. You just dont get to force others to bend to your idiocy.

One last time. This is categorically false.

I am now allowed to practice my religion, only within the confines of my church. I am no longer allowed to have my Christian beliefs dictate my interactions with others. I no longer am free to express my opinion through my actions.

Those who choose to be intentionally obtuse will never admit they understand ... those of us who are being infringed upon will never forget.

Youre free to do whatever you want. You just have consequences for trying to impose your idiocy on others. Interactions are two way. You dont get to dictate anything because you believe your sky fairy is the best. This country has religious freedom for all religions not just your particular brand of lunacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“Am I required to bake the cake?”

Again, Obergefell concerned the 14th Amendment, where the states violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of that Amendment by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Public accommodations laws have noting to do with the 14th Amendment, they are authorized by the Commerce Clause, they are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures designed to safeguard the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets, where to refuse to accommodate a patron due to race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the markets.

If one operates a business open to the general public in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations law has a sexual orientation provision, then he is expected to provide services to gay patrons as a matter of regulatory policy. If the business owner disagrees with that provision, he needs to petition his state or local government to remove the provision or repeal the law.

But this ridiculous obsession with 'baking cakes' has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of same-sex couples marrying, it is extraneous and irrelevant demagoguery propagated by those hostile to the Obergefell decision.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Actually, you REFUSE to accept the violation, because you inherently do not understand the violation. I can make it no simpler than I have ... your refusal to understand is your problem, not mine. Your willingness to cede your individual rights is a problem for both of us.

You clearly do not understand this basic precept of Christianity --- "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Devotion to God means to stand against sin. Suddenly, the government says I can't do that. Suddenly, it's 'hate speech'. Suddenly, it's 'discrimination'. My position, and commitment, to God should not bring me into conflict with the government. That is the purpose of the 'free expression' clause.

Today, I am allowed to only practice my religion in my church ... to do elsewhere brings me into direct conflict with the law. PLEASE explain to me how that is NOT violating my individual rights.

The government is not saying any such thing.

You can say whatever you want, with the usual restrictions regarding public assembly and yelling 'fire'- wherever you want it.

You can go to any public forum in the United States where speakers are permitted and you can tell everyone how homosexuals are sinners- and you will not get arrested.

As long as practicing your religion doesn't mean pulling chicken's heads off in the public square or some such other issue, you can practice your religion as you see fit.

Friday has not changed how you can practice your religion at all.

His argument is especially stupid since homosexuality was already legal before last week's decision. All that changed since then is that states can no longer ban gay marriages. Meanwhile, 3/4ths of the states already made it legal before last Friday.

All his complaints amount to is a new twist from cons in expressing their massive butthurt after getting royally bitch-slapped on one of their most sacred issues. Between abortion and gay marriage, aneurysms across the nation are popping like crazy.

One last time ... this is not about gay marriage. You seem to be incapable of getting away from your obsession with homosexuality. This is about the government restricting the ways in which I can practice my religion.

You need to grow up ... or shut up. I really, really, don't care which.

One last time. No one is putting restrictions on you practicing your religion. You just dont get to force others to bend to your idiocy.

One last time. This is categorically false.

I am now allowed to practice my religion, only within the confines of my church. I am no longer allowed to have my Christian beliefs dictate my interactions with others. I no longer am free to express my opinion through my actions.

Those who choose to be intentionally obtuse will never admit they understand ... those of us who are being infringed upon will never forget.

You're responding to the classic delusion common to Relativism... this presenting how the absence of objectivity precludes the means to accept responsibility for their actions, advocacies or policies developed as a consequence of such.