Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They are required to attend. Which is quite enough to establish participation. The photographer who must attend may also make sure that everyone is told that the happy couple is damned for eternity and will burn in hell. But at least the pictures will be taken.Odd that the vendors are assumed to 'participate' in the wedding. The money they earn is from baking, delivering and setting up a wedding cake. Photographers are hired to document the event, but they are not required to wrap up a toaster oven in silver paper for the happy couple.When a baker must bake that wedding cake, a photographer forced to attend a gay wedding, they are forced to participate.
Gay rights are here to stay, the same way they were here to stay in Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Rome. Gay rights stayed until they didn't stay any more.
Proselytize? Do you expect photographers hired to document a same sex wedding might 'catch Gay'? Should a photographer expect to get more bookings, thus increasing his personal wealth, by being a bigoted asshole?They are required to attend. Which is quite enough to establish participation. The photographer who must attend may also make sure that everyone is told that the happy couple is damned for eternity and will burn in hell. But at least the pictures will be taken.Odd that the vendors are assumed to 'participate' in the wedding. The money they earn is from baking, delivering and setting up a wedding cake. Photographers are hired to document the event, but they are not required to wrap up a toaster oven in silver paper for the happy couple.When a baker must bake that wedding cake, a photographer forced to attend a gay wedding, they are forced to participate.
Gay rights are here to stay, the same way they were here to stay in Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Rome. Gay rights stayed until they didn't stay any more.
A same sex wedding is an ideal place to proselytize. It's a convention of sinners ready to hear the Word.
For an evolutionary biologist, homosexuality is something of a puzzle.
It’s a common trait, found inup to 10% of the population.
It appears to be run in families, suggesting that it is hereditary, at least in part.
And yet it defies the very reason why traits are passed on from generation to generation. How could something that hinders childbearing be passed down so frequently from parents to children?
Researchers at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) think they may have an answer. It’s not in written in our DNA sequence itself, they suggest, which explains why scientists have failed so far to find “gay genes,” despite intensive investigations. Instead, it’s written in how our genes are expressed: that is, in certain modifications to how and when DNA is activated. These changes can have environmental roots ...
“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA.
To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by
Proselytize? Do you expect photographers hired to document a same sex wedding might 'catch Gay'? Should a photographer expect to get more bookings, thus increasing his personal wealth, by being a bigoted asshole?They are required to attend. Which is quite enough to establish participation. The photographer who must attend may also make sure that everyone is told that the happy couple is damned for eternity and will burn in hell. But at least the pictures will be taken.Odd that the vendors are assumed to 'participate' in the wedding. The money they earn is from baking, delivering and setting up a wedding cake. Photographers are hired to document the event, but they are not required to wrap up a toaster oven in silver paper for the happy couple.When a baker must bake that wedding cake, a photographer forced to attend a gay wedding, they are forced to participate.
Gay rights are here to stay, the same way they were here to stay in Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Rome. Gay rights stayed until they didn't stay any more.
A same sex wedding is an ideal place to proselytize. It's a convention of sinners ready to hear the Word.
Does your attitude on marriage equality and the vendors serving such events extend to inter racial couples as well? Does a marriage require the imperator of each and every vendor making money from the event to be valid? Is it the place for vendors at weddings to approve of each and every wedding? Should vendors ask for more money to work a wedding they do not approve of? Pity the poor florists and bakers and DJs in Appalachia who are hired for weddings of first cousins!
A photographer who chooses not to photograph same sex weddings has already made the decision not to increase his personal wealth at the expense of his principles. Ideally it would result in photographers willing to do same sex weddings gleefully saying "more for me". That result isn't the one desired by gays since what they really want is for the service provider to violate their beliefs. Hiring someone who wants the job wouldn't accomplish that. Which does not mean the gay couple should not be punished. Of course they should be punished. Having the memory of their special day destroyed is fitting.Proselytize? Do you expect photographers hired to document a same sex wedding might 'catch Gay'? Should a photographer expect to get more bookings, thus increasing his personal wealth, by being a bigoted asshole?They are required to attend. Which is quite enough to establish participation. The photographer who must attend may also make sure that everyone is told that the happy couple is damned for eternity and will burn in hell. But at least the pictures will be taken.Odd that the vendors are assumed to 'participate' in the wedding. The money they earn is from baking, delivering and setting up a wedding cake. Photographers are hired to document the event, but they are not required to wrap up a toaster oven in silver paper for the happy couple.When a baker must bake that wedding cake, a photographer forced to attend a gay wedding, they are forced to participate.
Gay rights are here to stay, the same way they were here to stay in Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Rome. Gay rights stayed until they didn't stay any more.
A same sex wedding is an ideal place to proselytize. It's a convention of sinners ready to hear the Word.
Does your attitude on marriage equality and the vendors serving such events extend to inter racial couples as well? Does a marriage require the imperator of each and every vendor making money from the event to be valid? Is it the place for vendors at weddings to approve of each and every wedding? Should vendors ask for more money to work a wedding they do not approve of? Pity the poor florists and bakers and DJs in Appalachia who are hired for weddings of first cousins!
Does your attitude on marriage equality ...
It's always fascinating to see what goes on under the muddy rocks. You maintain that the reason for marriage equality is so that same sex couples can press a law suit against unwilling, bigoted vendors.A photographer who chooses not to photograph same sex weddings has already made the decision not to increase his personal wealth at the expense of his principles. Ideally it would result in photographers willing to do same sex weddings gleefully saying "more for me". That result isn't the one desired by gays since what they really want is for the service provider to violate their beliefs. Hiring someone who wants the job wouldn't accomplish that. Which does not mean the gay couple should not be punished. Of course they should be punished. Having the memory of their special day destroyed is fitting.Proselytize? Do you expect photographers hired to document a same sex wedding might 'catch Gay'? Should a photographer expect to get more bookings, thus increasing his personal wealth, by being a bigoted asshole?They are required to attend. Which is quite enough to establish participation. The photographer who must attend may also make sure that everyone is told that the happy couple is damned for eternity and will burn in hell. But at least the pictures will be taken.Odd that the vendors are assumed to 'participate' in the wedding. The money they earn is from baking, delivering and setting up a wedding cake. Photographers are hired to document the event, but they are not required to wrap up a toaster oven in silver paper for the happy couple.When a baker must bake that wedding cake, a photographer forced to attend a gay wedding, they are forced to participate.
Gay rights are here to stay, the same way they were here to stay in Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Rome. Gay rights stayed until they didn't stay any more.
A same sex wedding is an ideal place to proselytize. It's a convention of sinners ready to hear the Word.
Does your attitude on marriage equality and the vendors serving such events extend to inter racial couples as well? Does a marriage require the imperator of each and every vendor making money from the event to be valid? Is it the place for vendors at weddings to approve of each and every wedding? Should vendors ask for more money to work a wedding they do not approve of? Pity the poor florists and bakers and DJs in Appalachia who are hired for weddings of first cousins!
For an evolutionary biologist, homosexuality is something of a puzzle.
There's nothing puzzling about it. !
Does your attitude on marriage equality ...
There is no such thing as "marriage equality" in that Marriage .
i Which does not mean the gay couple should not be punished. Of course they should be punished. Having the memory of their special day destroyed is fitting.
This just in...
Aids didn't do it... so Nature is sending EBOLA in to finish off those who've Acquired Immuno-Deficiency.
Science believes: IT CAN'T LOSE!
Such is the sad state of science knowledge in the U.S.- not a clue about evolution, not a clue about Ebola- and proud of being clueless.
Not a surprise that they also believe homosexuals are work of the devil.
That is exactly what the Bill of Rights- and all such similar laws are for- to protect persons from government, from the tyranny of the majority.
Marriage is recognized as a Right in the United States- which means that you- and I- have a Right to marry- and that right can only be denied if the State can establish a compelling reason to deny that right. And that includes the right to marry the person we want to marry- whether that person happens to be of another race, or of the same gender.
The Bill of Rights recognizes God-given rights and limits the power of government from usurping the means of individuals to exercise their rights.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...
Why do you continue to maintain that these people have nothing to do with me when it should be obvious that the very contention is over involving others. I have already been sued. I just won my case that's the difference.It's always fascinating to see what goes on under the muddy rocks. You maintain that the reason for marriage equality is so that same sex couples can press a law suit against unwilling, bigoted vendors.A photographer who chooses not to photograph same sex weddings has already made the decision not to increase his personal wealth at the expense of his principles. Ideally it would result in photographers willing to do same sex weddings gleefully saying "more for me". That result isn't the one desired by gays since what they really want is for the service provider to violate their beliefs. Hiring someone who wants the job wouldn't accomplish that. Which does not mean the gay couple should not be punished. Of course they should be punished. Having the memory of their special day destroyed is fitting.Proselytize? Do you expect photographers hired to document a same sex wedding might 'catch Gay'? Should a photographer expect to get more bookings, thus increasing his personal wealth, by being a bigoted asshole?They are required to attend. Which is quite enough to establish participation. The photographer who must attend may also make sure that everyone is told that the happy couple is damned for eternity and will burn in hell. But at least the pictures will be taken.Odd that the vendors are assumed to 'participate' in the wedding. The money they earn is from baking, delivering and setting up a wedding cake. Photographers are hired to document the event, but they are not required to wrap up a toaster oven in silver paper for the happy couple.When a baker must bake that wedding cake, a photographer forced to attend a gay wedding, they are forced to participate.
Gay rights are here to stay, the same way they were here to stay in Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Rome. Gay rights stayed until they didn't stay any more.
A same sex wedding is an ideal place to proselytize. It's a convention of sinners ready to hear the Word.
Does your attitude on marriage equality and the vendors serving such events extend to inter racial couples as well? Does a marriage require the imperator of each and every vendor making money from the event to be valid? Is it the place for vendors at weddings to approve of each and every wedding? Should vendors ask for more money to work a wedding they do not approve of? Pity the poor florists and bakers and DJs in Appalachia who are hired for weddings of first cousins!
Of course the reason for marriage equality is so each and every American citizen can have equal access to contract law and the protections and benefits provided under the marriage contract.
Why should people who have nothing to do with you be punished? Are you not aware of the American system of equality, or are you merely a sadistic homophobe?
Gay marriage does more than harm other marriages. It injects a poison into the entire culture.That is exactly what the Bill of Rights- and all such similar laws are for- to protect persons from government, from the tyranny of the majority.
Marriage is recognized as a Right in the United States- which means that you- and I- have a Right to marry- and that right can only be denied if the State can establish a compelling reason to deny that right. And that includes the right to marry the person we want to marry- whether that person happens to be of another race, or of the same gender.
The Bill of Rights recognizes God-given rights and limits the power of government from usurping the means of individuals to exercise their rights.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Marriage is one man and one woman. Nor is there any Superior Court case which says our Right to marriage is limited to a man and a woman.
The Supreme Court had an opportunity to make that decision.
Instead they left stand the Federal Courts decision that the right of marriage applies equally to a couple consisting of two people of the same gender.
What your opinion is regarding what marriage is- or is not- ultimately is meaningless.
10 states and the District of Columbia have recognized that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.
Some additional 20 states have had courts recognize that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.
But don't worry- no one will force you to 'gay marry'- or even force you to attend a wedding you don't approve of.
Of course "Gay Marriage" might well harm your marriage...........
Of course "Gay Marriage" might well harm your marriage...........
Gay marriage does more than harm other marriages. It injects a poison into the entire culture.That is exactly what the Bill of Rights- and all such similar laws are for- to protect persons from government, from the tyranny of the majority.
Marriage is recognized as a Right in the United States- which means that you- and I- have a Right to marry- and that right can only be denied if the State can establish a compelling reason to deny that right. And that includes the right to marry the person we want to marry- whether that person happens to be of another race, or of the same gender.
The Bill of Rights recognizes God-given rights and limits the power of government from usurping the means of individuals to exercise their rights.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Marriage is one man and one woman. Nor is there any Superior Court case which says our Right to marriage is limited to a man and a woman.
The Supreme Court had an opportunity to make that decision.
Instead they left stand the Federal Courts decision that the right of marriage applies equally to a couple consisting of two people of the same gender.
What your opinion is regarding what marriage is- or is not- ultimately is meaningless.
10 states and the District of Columbia have recognized that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.
Some additional 20 states have had courts recognize that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.
But don't worry- no one will force you to 'gay marry'- or even force you to attend a wedding you don't approve of.
Of course "Gay Marriage" might well harm your marriage...........
Gay marraige affects orphanges, adoption, children's civil rights and a state's right to define marriage to create incentives for an environment of "father/mother" for children in order that they might thrive best.
"If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, then one of your family is a child" . Children's rights dominate "gay rights". Cults don't have rights.
Indeed, the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is founded upon the greatest of all evils: The desire to legalize the sexual pursuit of children.
What bigoted BS
What you call 'normalize Sexual abnormality'- the Supreme Court calls invasion of privacy
Lawrence v Texas the court said:
The Court held that homosexuals had a protected liberty interest to engage in private, sexual activity; that homosexuals' moral and sexual choices were entitled to constitutional protection; and that moral disapproval did not provide a legitimate justification for Texas's law criminalizing sodomy.[36]
Holding that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual", the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional. Kennedy underscored the decision's focus on consensual adult sexual conduct in a private setting:
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter
The court was wrong; their reasoning was vacuous, their ruling specious and as is always the case in such decisions, the ramifications of such are going to be catastrophic.
Homosexuality is a deviant, abnormal sexuality. Meaning that the homosexual suffers from and in many cases nurtures and promotes a perversion of human sexuality.
The promotion of sexual abnormality represents a threat to the culture at large, wherein it undermines the cultures viability, perverting the standards which sustains the culture or societies viability. This injures those whose interests rests within the means of the society to remain viable.
There is no right to injure others... there is no 'right' where the exercise of such will injure another's means to exercise their own rights.
From this we can know that The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a lie, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant, designed toward no other purpose than to undermine the viability of the United States itself. And of course will be stopped. Either by adults who understand the catastrophic potential in tolerating evil or by nature itself, which seems determined to destroy it, on any number of levels.
Ironic given that holier-than-thou-keys seeks to injure those he deems unworthy of equal rights. We can thank the Founding Fathers for having the foresight to isolate rabid religious fundamentalists like him from imposing their malign will on the government of the people with a legal wall of separation.
For starters, the Founding Fathers could not have imagined anything even remotely approaching you and the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality. But, if it were possible to simply set a group of you into the world of the Founders, they would, after having listened to your story, set about slaughtering you, by the gross. Cutting you down where you stand... without apology or hesitation. Recognizing that you represent nothing short of manifest evil and as such, that your very presence was an irredeemable threat to them, personally, as well as to their families, neighbors and to the viability of their means to pursue the fulfillment of their lives.
Secondly, no one is taking away from any homosexual the means to exercise ANY POTENTIAL RIGHT.
You're invited to state IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE "RIGHT(S)" which you feel are being usurped... you will produce no legitimate examples of such usurpations... I can 'know' this due to my deep understanding of what rights are, from where they come and the responsibilities that sustain such.
Third, the Founders set no conditions which precluded any individual(s) from setting law and standards rooted in the observed and otherwise irrefutable natural principles common to their understanding of the universe about them.
See how easy that is?
Of course since the courts disagree with you- since the courts didn't find that Government should be deciding what kind of sex you are allowed to have- you think that the courts are wrong.
God save us from you and the Bedroom police.
LOL! I suppose I'll never get my fill of watching the Left chronically throw their sexual needs into the face of the culture, while simultaneously crying that their sexual behavior is a VERY PERSONAL, PRIVATE MATTER.
Here's a clue scamp: The Right to Privacy is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which you feel is private: PRIVATE! Otherwise, you forfeit your right to privacy.
Its sorta like how where you claim a right to your life, you CAN'T take the lives of others (without a sound moral justification0 without forfeiting your own right to your own life.
See how that works?
They seem more than happy to put their noses in hetros bedrooms when they speak of some hetros inability to procreate.
Curious aye?
I wonder who that is you speak of.
Certainly not anyone who is for the privacy of adults to be free from the Government Sex Police telling them how they can- or cannot have sex.
I don't care how anyone gets off
Only one of those ways can, and often does creates a child
Doing so is not without considerable risk.
And is far far different then the others
Well for someone who doesn't care- you keep bringing it up.
Do you think that Government should be telling you what kind of sex you can have in the privacy of your bedroom?
Do you believe that Government should limit sex to sex which is intended to create babies?
It seems to me that Sodom, Gomorrah, and a few other cities were eventually destroyed as a result of their view of sex and marriage. And it seems to me that when the Nazis began running for office, not just a few Jews imagined that everything would be okay and that they had nothing to fear --- given the fact of their heroics during the Great World War and nationalism. And I have not been personally harmed by the institution of gay marriage, but who is to say how those who disagree will be treated in the near future simply for their beliefs...Gay marriage does more than harm other marriages. It injects a poison into the entire culture.That is exactly what the Bill of Rights- and all such similar laws are for- to protect persons from government, from the tyranny of the majority.
Marriage is recognized as a Right in the United States- which means that you- and I- have a Right to marry- and that right can only be denied if the State can establish a compelling reason to deny that right. And that includes the right to marry the person we want to marry- whether that person happens to be of another race, or of the same gender.
The Bill of Rights recognizes God-given rights and limits the power of government from usurping the means of individuals to exercise their rights.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman...
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Marriage is one man and one woman. Nor is there any Superior Court case which says our Right to marriage is limited to a man and a woman.
The Supreme Court had an opportunity to make that decision.
Instead they left stand the Federal Courts decision that the right of marriage applies equally to a couple consisting of two people of the same gender.
What your opinion is regarding what marriage is- or is not- ultimately is meaningless.
10 states and the District of Columbia have recognized that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.
Some additional 20 states have had courts recognize that the right of marriage extends to same gender couples.
But don't worry- no one will force you to 'gay marry'- or even force you to attend a wedding you don't approve of.
Of course "Gay Marriage" might well harm your marriage...........
What harm do other marriages cause?
Who has died because of gay marriage?
How have you been personally harmed by two persons of the same gender marrying?
Ah, but that's just it, this Gay marriage is not a "thing' because we say so. Gay marriage is legally recognized because the Courts say so. And, between you, and the courts, guess which one has more authority to determine the legal reality of our society. Here's a hint, it's not you. So, in your own little bubble, you can insist that Gay Marriage doesn't exist all you like. However, while you are doing so, more, and more gay couples are engaging in that social contract that you keep insisting doesn't exist.LOL! Tisk tisk... It's such a buzz kill to have to explain the more intellectual acute parts. But oh well... such is the ever-present hazard of engaging progressives in conversation: (The Irony is in your lament of people who claim what they say is true because they say so, while in the process of implying that what you're saying is true, because... Wait for it! THIS IS THE IRONIC PART: you say so.)
You are right, irony is sweet.
Gay Marriage IS a thing. Assuming of course that a fraudulence is a thing... and it is. That it's a judicially fabricated fraud, doesn't change that.
4 States- the number of states that voters have approved recognizing marriage equality for same gender couples.
7- the number of states and District of Columbia that have recognized marriage equality for same gender couples.
No 'judicially fabricated fraud'- that is just the whiny claim by those who are upset that discrimination is ending.
ZERO- the number of children ever produced by same gender coupling.
ALL- the number of human beings produced by opposite gender couplings.
Incredible I know
Which is exactly the same number produced by infertile and elderly couples. A bigot only wants to keep the gays from civil marriage and not infertile or childless by choice couples.
