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

[Plasmaball]

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

Der......you can't vote away rights you dipshit..state rights are irrelevant in this case moron...

 

[Jroc]

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

Der......you can't vote away rights you dipshit..state rights are irrelevant in this case moron...

There is no right to marry genius

 

[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.

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

Der......you can't vote away rights you dipshit..state rights are irrelevant in this case moron...

There is no right to marry genius

Sigh.....you can't be this stupid...if there is no right to marry then there was no need to defend it and pass amendments saying it was a right for a man and woman to be married..

Never mind you are this fucking stupid. ..

 

[Jroc]

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

Der......you can't vote away rights you dipshit..state rights are irrelevant in this case moron...

There is no right to marry genius

Sigh.....you can't be this stupid...if there is no right to marry then there was no need to defend it and pass amendments saying it was a right for a man and woman to be married..

Never mind you are this fucking stupid. ..

Setting aside the fact that in person i'd crush your little punk ass. Marrige is defined by the states, and there are limits imposed by the states. although maybe in your case you're product of two close relatives procraeting

 

[Plasmaball]

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

Der......you can't vote away rights you dipshit..state rights are irrelevant in this case moron...

There is no right to marry genius

Sigh.....you can't be this stupid...if there is no right to marry then there was no need to defend it and pass amendments saying it was a right for a man and woman to be married..

Never mind you are this fucking stupid. ..

Setting aside the fact that in person i'd crush your little punk ass. Marrige is defined by the states, and there are limits imposed by the states. although maybe in your case you're product of two close relatives procraeting

Oh look internet tough guy thinking that he will do anything. You will do nothing but sit there and cry...

Again if there is no right to marry then there was no need for those amendments..

Youre drowning

 

[Jroc]

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

Der......you can't vote away rights you dipshit..state rights are irrelevant in this case moron...

There is no right to marry genius

Sigh.....you can't be this stupid...if there is no right to marry then there was no need to defend it and pass amendments saying it was a right for a man and woman to be married..

Never mind you are this fucking stupid. ..

Setting aside the fact that in person i'd crush your little punk ass. Marrige is defined by the states, and there are limits imposed by the states. although maybe in your case you're product of two close relatives procraeting

Oh look internet tough guy thinking that he will do anything. You will do nothing but sit there and cry...

Again if there is no right to marry then there was no need for those amendments..

Youre drowning

Where will it end..

Brother and sister who didn t know they were related are to marry... despite knowing union is illegal Daily Mail Online

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rik, I will always fairly and squarely interpret what you say in the light of reasonable man standards and fairness.

Yes, the pastors could ruin the ceremony and then be sued for the business.

Rik, you are a wuss, so drop the tough guy image.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Der......you can't vote away rights you dipshit..state rights are irrelevant in this case moron...

There is no right to marry genius

Sigh.....you can't be this stupid...if there is no right to marry then there was no need to defend it and pass amendments saying it was a right for a man and woman to be married..

Never mind you are this fucking stupid. ..

Setting aside the fact that in person i'd crush your little punk ass. Marrige is defined by the states, and there are limits imposed by the states. although maybe in your case you're product of two close relatives procraeting

Oh look internet tough guy thinking that he will do anything. You will do nothing but sit there and cry...

Again if there is no right to marry then there was no need for those amendments..

Youre drowning

Where will it end..

Brother and sister who didn t know they were related are to marry... despite knowing union is illegal Daily Mail Online

Won't be legal, innit?

 

[Jroc]

'I've married my sister - now we're having our second baby': Siblings who defied law plan to start new life abroad

Read more: I ve married my sister - now we re having our second baby Siblings who defied law plan to start new life abroad Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Jroc]

There is no right to marry genius

Sigh.....you can't be this stupid...if there is no right to marry then there was no need to defend it and pass amendments saying it was a right for a man and woman to be married..

Never mind you are this fucking stupid. ..

Setting aside the fact that in person i'd crush your little punk ass. Marrige is defined by the states, and there are limits imposed by the states. although maybe in your case you're product of two close relatives procraeting

Oh look internet tough guy thinking that he will do anything. You will do nothing but sit there and cry...

Again if there is no right to marry then there was no need for those amendments..

Youre drowning

Where will it end..

Brother and sister who didn t know they were related are to marry... despite knowing union is illegal Daily Mail Online

Won't be legal, innit?

Not yet

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hmmm, you are try to telling us something.

 

[Syriusly]

Read more: I ve married my sister - now we re having our second baby Siblings who defied law plan to start new life abroad k

Congratulations on your marriage to your sister?

 

[Syriusly]

There is no right to marry genius

No right to marry genius- but we all have a right to marry.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

 

[Syriusly]

Just reminder:

Nobody is telling any church that they have to marry anyone.
Nobody is threatening to jail anyone for not marrying gays.
This is all a ginned up controversy so a Conservative activist group can file a test case against the City.

Which is perfectly okay.

I do look forward at pointing this out to every anti-gay poster who complains that leftist homosexuals use the courts to overturn state laws- Conservatives have no problem using the courts to overturn laws they disagree with either.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Yeah? Explain Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley.

 

[JoeB131]

I disagree. They're a church that performs weddings. I don't see how they must be forced to perform gay weddings, when it directly violates freedom of religion.

Except they aren't a member of a denomination and they do not restrict their services to just one denomination-

Hence, not a church, but a public accommodation.

 

[JoeB131]

Which is why nobody with any sense would ever own a public business. Private Business might be another thing but NEVER a public business.

Or you can just provide the services you promise to offer. It's really not complicated.

 

[JoeB131]

They are running a business, not a religion.

Hence they fall under business law and must not discriminate.

Where in the 1st amendment does freedom of religion go away when you are part of a business?

You have a first amendment right. Your business does not.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, there is one sticking point that the bakers and photographers did not have when the thugs came knocking on their door...these two people are ordained ministers....so to compel them to actually perform the ceremony would be a really big problem...as to the rest of the building... the fascists will probably be able to use it...

In 20 years, most denominations will be marrying gays and pretending they weren't responsible for all this foolishiness...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They are running a business, not a religion.

Hence they fall under business law and must not discriminate.

Where in the 1st amendment does freedom of religion go away when you are part of a business?

This is neither a First Amendment nor religion issue, it's a Commerce Clause issue, where the Commerce Clause authorizes public accommodations laws.

Moreover, religious dogma cannot be used to 'justify' or 'excuse' violating any law, that you believe your religion allows you to discriminate against gay Americans is legally invalid and irrelevant.