Hmmm...I thought churches didn't have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this...

[martybegan]

Sil, you know nothing.

If you are not going to use the quote function to let a person know you are replying, at least use the mention function.

Anything else is chickenshit.

martytranslation: I didn't know there wasn't a needed quote.

Starkeyobservation: marty is stupider than tard.

Sil is making an observation that has nothing to with the OP.

Its still chickenshit, its an attempt to get in the last word, and you know it.

What a fucking coward you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you know nothing.

If you are not going to use the quote function to let a person know you are replying, at least use the mention function.

Anything else is chickenshit.

martytranslation: I didn't know there wasn't a needed quote.

Starkeyobservation: marty is stupider than tard.

Sil is making an observation that has nothing to with the OP.

Its still chickenshit, its an attempt to get in the last word, and you know it.

What a fucking coward you are.

Martytranslation: Marty is unhappy that he is not getting the last word.

 

[Syriusly]

Either repeal ALL Public Accommodation laws or quit bitching because SOME states and localities ALSO protect gays (like they protect blacks and Christians)

Which category are you placing LGBTs into? Race or religion? So far as I know, a category protecting certain deviant sexual behaviors [but not others] repugnant to the majority has not been added to the 14th Amendment.

Read what she wrote- well who am I kidding you won't read what she wrote- you will just imagine what you think she wrote- but what she said is this:

Either repeal ALL Public Accommodation laws or quit bitching because SOME states and localities ALSO protect gays (like they protect blacks and Christians)

In those states and localities- homosexuals are protected from discrimination by bigots in the exact same way as blacks and Christians are.

That is the law.

If you don't agree with the law- you can do what homosexuals did- file a lawsuit.

Oh wait- Conservatives have already filed a lawsuit to change the law- exactly what you complain about.

 

[martybegan]

Sil, you know nothing.

If you are not going to use the quote function to let a person know you are replying, at least use the mention function.

Anything else is chickenshit.

martytranslation: I didn't know there wasn't a needed quote.

Starkeyobservation: marty is stupider than tard.

Sil is making an observation that has nothing to with the OP.

Its still chickenshit, its an attempt to get in the last word, and you know it.

What a fucking coward you are.

Martytranslation: Marty is unhappy that he is not getting the last word.

That would imply you ever got a first one in. None of your posts come close to making a rational point about anything.

 

[bodecea]

Sil, you know nothing.

If you are not going to use the quote function to let a person know you are replying, at least use the mention function.

Anything else is chickenshit.

martytranslation: I didn't know there wasn't a needed quote.

Starkeyobservation: marty is stupider than tard.

Sil is making an observation that has nothing to with the OP.

Its still chickenshit, its an attempt to get in the last word, and you know it.

What a fucking coward you are.

Martytranslation: Marty is unhappy that he is not getting the last word.

That would imply you ever got a first one in. None of your posts come close to making a rational point about anything.

Does one have to have a rational point about anything" to have the last word? Seems like you are complaining about two different things that don't have to have anything to do with each other.......................again.

 

[Ravi]

What a stupid premise. Lmao

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you know nothing.

If you are not going to use the quote function to let a person know you are replying, at least use the mention function.

Anything else is chickenshit.

martytranslation: I didn't know there wasn't a needed quote.

Starkeyobservation: marty is stupider than tard.

Sil is making an observation that has nothing to with the OP.

Its still chickenshit, its an attempt to get in the last word, and you know it.

What a fucking coward you are.

Martytranslation: Marty is unhappy that he is not getting the last word.

That would imply you ever got a first one in. None of your posts come close to making a rational point about anything.

Now you are blubbering. Man up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point is this for Marty: the OP does not matter as long as he gets the last word. I know, very childish.

The far right wants a test case, to which they are entitled.

 

[Seawytch]

Conservatives would go Bat guano crazy over it.

Probably blame the Muslims or Atheists and then predict natural disasters.

Again, why would anyone go where they are not welcome?

If a restaurant put up a sign saying blacks not welcome, I would not eat there, they are telling me about their true feelings n an issue. Why would I want a minister marry me if he/she didn't support my marriage.

You tell me where you stand and I will make my decisions based on that.

If they put up the sign, they'd be breaking FEDERAL law.

Either repeal ALL Public Accommodation laws or quit bitching because SOME states and localities ALSO protect gays (like they protect blacks and Christians)

Or just restrict PA laws to actual public accommodations, not "everything"

Right, sure...just call your Congressman...let us know how it goes.

So your solution is to change the laws, even though you assume it is impossible to change the laws...

What a vindictive twat.

No, your idea is change the law. I'm just saying good luck. What did your Congressman say?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ask Marty if he has contacted his congress person.

 

[Plasmaball]

It's your opinion that is wrong, Marty.

The difference is I am not trying to use government to force my opinion on YOU. Your side is doing exactly that.

Really? Voting to amend a constitution to ban Samesex marriage is using the fucking government to force your opinion on something.
Using the courts is not forcing their opinion. Its saying you can't vote to strip people of their rights.

Jesus you people are morons. Its just embarrassing now.

If you go through an amendment process, you CAN get government to not protect certain rights, that's actually the process to use. We got rid of the right to own slaves that way.

Whether a right is inherent or only government granted is another argument.

slavery stripped people of their rights....Perhaps you should think this argument over, seeing how its not working the way you want it too.

Dumbass

Slavery stripped certain people of their rights, however until the amendments passed, stripping owners of their slaves was near impossible, as per the Dread Scott decision.

I see the nuances of constitutional law escape you.

What rights did the slave owners lose by being stripped of their slaves....?

Your slow huh?

 

[hazlnut]

It is all supposed to be about tolerance of other people...except when that means leaving religious people alone...the first attempts to go after churches are happening and are being beaten back...but this is just the start...like when the lawyers wanted the sermons of ministers...but then they backed off...for now...how about this threat...?

The PJ Tatler Idaho City Threatens to Jail Ministers for Not Performing Gay Weddings

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

"Donald Knapp and his wife, Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel..."


not a church FAIL.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil, you know nothing.

If you are not going to use the quote function to let a person know you are replying, at least use the mention function.

Anything else is chickenshit.

It is all supposed to be about tolerance of other people...except when that means leaving religious people alone...the first attempts to go after churches are happening and are being beaten back...but this is just the start...like when the lawyers wanted the sermons of ministers...but then they backed off...for now...how about this threat...?

The PJ Tatler Idaho City Threatens to Jail Ministers for Not Performing Gay Weddings

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

"Donald Knapp and his wife, Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel..."


not a church FAIL.

And the city never threatened them with jail at all.

Big fail.

 

[Jroc]

They were wrong to extend it to SSM by judical fiat. You are not the same as an OSM, deal with it.

No, they weren't, and yes, they are.

Thats your wrong opinion, nothing more.

It's your opinion that is wrong, Marty.

The difference is I am not trying to use government to force my opinion on YOU. Your side is doing exactly that.

Really? Voting to amend a constitution to ban Samesex marriage is using the fucking government to force your opinion on something.
Using the courts is not forcing their opinion. Its saying you can't vote to strip people of their rights.

Jesus you people are morons. Its just embarrassing now.

Defining marriage is the job of the states you idiot...and that's what they did they defined it. get it straight

 

[Rikurzhen]

The pastors should go along. Take on a homosexual couple who want to get "married" and then use the occasion to speak of how awful these homosexuals are for being totalitarians and forcing compelled association onto the pastors, how sinful homosexuality is, how disease ridden it is, how homosexual marriage is farce, etc.

The point is that government , even under public accommodation law, cannot compel speech. So while these bureaucrats believe that they can use public accommodation law to force pastors to "marry" homosexuals, there is no legal precedent to prohibit the pastors from using their soapbox to embarrass and condemn homosexuals for their ways during the "marriage" ceremony.

To go even further into the details it might even be defensible for the pastors to refrain from attesting to having performed a marriage by signing a marriage certificate. Government might be able to compel you to provide a service, but it can't compel speech or belief.

 

[JakeStarkey]

States define marriage within the constitutional limits to which they are restricted. SCOTUS is quite clear about this limitation of the states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rik wants to the pastors to reveal how they themselves, as Christian conservatives, fail to meet the Christian standard "of love thy neighbors as thy self" and "what you to the least of these you do to Me." Rik wants these pastors to show they are a farce to their religion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The pastors should go along. Take on a homosexual couple who want to get "married" and then use the occasion to speak of how awful these homosexuals are for being totalitarians and forcing compelled association onto the pastors, how sinful homosexuality is, how disease ridden it is, how homosexual marriage is farce, etc.

The point is that government , even under public accommodation law, cannot compel speech. So while these bureaucrats believe that they can use public accommodation law to force pastors to "marry" homosexuals, there is no legal precedent to prohibit the pastors from using their soapbox to embarrass and condemn homosexuals for their ways during the "marriage" ceremony.

To go even further into the details it might even be defensible for the pastors to refrain from attesting to having performed a marriage by signing a marriage certificate. Government might be able to compel you to provide a service, but it can't compel speech or belief.

Since the "pastors" in question don't have a church to preach in or a congregation to listen to them, they don't exactly have a "soapbox" from which to speak.

 

[Jroc]

States define marriage within the constitutional limits to which they are restricted. SCOTUS is quite clear about this limitation of the states.

Fuck "scotus" judges are people not super beings

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rik wants to the pastors to reveal how they themselves, as Christian conservatives, fail to meet the Christian standard "of love thy neighbors as thy self" and "what you to the least of these you do to Me." Rik wants these pastors to show they are a farce to their religion.

Yes, I do. Thank you for being a traveling interpreter. Are you like the Equalizer, showing up to solve problems and then moving on?

The pastors can simply ruin the "wedding" of the homosexuals who are compelling them into an association that they don't wish to be a part of. You can't be sued for hurting someone's feelings. Pastors don't sell their acceptance, according to commerce theory, they're selling a service.