NAACP leader/liberal judge won't marry gay couple

[Seawytch]

Do we live in Britain? Does Britain have a 1st Amendment or anything like it? Are Christians in Britain "forced" to marry gays?

Obama seems to want to become Britain.

Everything here is focusing on Christians not marrying gays but Christian don't hate gays.

Islam hates gays. Kills gays. And Muslims here are not forced to preform Jewish weddings and so far not gay weddings either.

Don't they? It wasn't a Muslim Imam that threatened to set himself on fire over the ruling was it? Muslims in the United States are more open to gays marrying than evangelical Christians. This is a fact.

LOL... back up your bull please. I say you're full of shit

Muslim Strongly Support and Support: 42%
Evangelical Christians Strongly Support and Support: 28%

Attitudes on Same-sex Marriage by Religious Affiliation and Denominational Family

This is what it looks like in an easy to understand picture for you...

Humm... think progress..ok religious people don't support any gay marriage. i can call myself whatever I want. How many of those people polled actually practice their religion? For the most part anytime gay "marriage" has been left up to the people it has failed that's a fact

Think Progress is not the source. I provided the source. TP just simplified it so that someone with your diminished mental capacity can understand it.

Civil rights don't have to be popular. 80% disapproved of interracial marriage when Loving was ruled upon.

 

[Seawytch]

I suppose it makes you feel better to think so, but I just provided the stats. Increasing rapidly.

And what about Muslims. They are demanding a gay marriage exemption in Britain. Do you think they will be forced to marry gays?

Do we live in Britain? Does Britain have a 1st Amendment or anything like it? Are Christians in Britain "forced" to marry gays?

Obama seems to want to become Britain.

Everything here is focusing on Christians not marrying gays but Christian don't hate gays.

Islam hates gays. Kills gays. And Muslims here are not forced to preform Jewish weddings and so far not gay weddings either.

Don't they? It wasn't a Muslim Imam that threatened to set himself on fire over the ruling was it? Muslims in the United States are more open to gays marrying than evangelical Christians. This is a fact.

Show me proof. I found one gay Muslim church in Britain. Not in America.

Progressive Muslims Launch Gay-Friendly Women-Led Mosques In Attempt To Reform American Islam

 

[Jroc]

Obama seems to want to become Britain.

Everything here is focusing on Christians not marrying gays but Christian don't hate gays.

Islam hates gays. Kills gays. And Muslims here are not forced to preform Jewish weddings and so far not gay weddings either.

Don't they? It wasn't a Muslim Imam that threatened to set himself on fire over the ruling was it? Muslims in the United States are more open to gays marrying than evangelical Christians. This is a fact.

LOL... back up your bull please. I say you're full of shit

Muslim Strongly Support and Support: 42%
Evangelical Christians Strongly Support and Support: 28%

Attitudes on Same-sex Marriage by Religious Affiliation and Denominational Family

This is what it looks like in an easy to understand picture for you...

Humm... think progress..ok religious people don't support any gay marriage. i can call myself whatever I want. How many of those people polled actually practice their religion? For the most part anytime gay "marriage" has been left up to the people it has failed that's a fact

Think Progress is not the source. I provided the source. TP just simplified it so that someone with your diminished mental capacity can understand it.

Civil rights don't have to be popular. 80% disapproved of interracial marriage when Loving was ruled upon.

I called gay Nazis out for what they are, you qualify. Even you can understand it in your alternative universe interracial? WTF? not even close sweetie i can have plenty of babies with a black women... You cant have any

 

[Seawytch]

Don't they? It wasn't a Muslim Imam that threatened to set himself on fire over the ruling was it? Muslims in the United States are more open to gays marrying than evangelical Christians. This is a fact.

LOL... back up your bull please. I say you're full of shit

Muslim Strongly Support and Support: 42%
Evangelical Christians Strongly Support and Support: 28%

Attitudes on Same-sex Marriage by Religious Affiliation and Denominational Family

This is what it looks like in an easy to understand picture for you...

Humm... think progress..ok religious people don't support any gay marriage. i can call myself whatever I want. How many of those people polled actually practice their religion? For the most part anytime gay "marriage" has been left up to the people it has failed that's a fact

Think Progress is not the source. I provided the source. TP just simplified it so that someone with your diminished mental capacity can understand it.

Civil rights don't have to be popular. 80% disapproved of interracial marriage when Loving was ruled upon.

I called gay Nazis out for what they are, you qualify. Even you can understand it in your alternative universe interracial? WTF? not even close sweetie i can have plenty of babies with a black women... You cant have any

Great response to having your hat handed to you. I prove you amazingly wrong so I'm a "Nazi".

Godwin's Law...you lose.

 

[Jroc]

LOL... back up your bull please. I say you're full of shit

Muslim Strongly Support and Support: 42%
Evangelical Christians Strongly Support and Support: 28%

Attitudes on Same-sex Marriage by Religious Affiliation and Denominational Family

This is what it looks like in an easy to understand picture for you...

Humm... think progress..ok religious people don't support any gay marriage. i can call myself whatever I want. How many of those people polled actually practice their religion? For the most part anytime gay "marriage" has been left up to the people it has failed that's a fact

Think Progress is not the source. I provided the source. TP just simplified it so that someone with your diminished mental capacity can understand it.

Civil rights don't have to be popular. 80% disapproved of interracial marriage when Loving was ruled upon.

I called gay Nazis out for what they are, you qualify. Even you can understand it in your alternative universe interracial? WTF? not even close sweetie i can have plenty of babies with a black women... You cant have any

Great response to having your hat handed to you. I prove you amazingly wrong so I'm a "Nazi".

Godwin's Law...you lose.

Sure you did i support marriage equality as well, Just not two men marrying each other. "Marriage equality" can mean many things. And I use Nazi because you want people destroyed if they don't agree with you. Common among the left actually. The only poll that's counts is an election, and given a choice through election gay "marriage" has lost almost every time,everywhere

 

[Seawytch]

Muslim Strongly Support and Support: 42%
Evangelical Christians Strongly Support and Support: 28%

Attitudes on Same-sex Marriage by Religious Affiliation and Denominational Family

This is what it looks like in an easy to understand picture for you...

Humm... think progress..ok religious people don't support any gay marriage. i can call myself whatever I want. How many of those people polled actually practice their religion? For the most part anytime gay "marriage" has been left up to the people it has failed that's a fact

Think Progress is not the source. I provided the source. TP just simplified it so that someone with your diminished mental capacity can understand it.

Civil rights don't have to be popular. 80% disapproved of interracial marriage when Loving was ruled upon.

I called gay Nazis out for what they are, you qualify. Even you can understand it in your alternative universe interracial? WTF? not even close sweetie i can have plenty of babies with a black women... You cant have any

Great response to having your hat handed to you. I prove you amazingly wrong so I'm a "Nazi".

Godwin's Law...you lose.

Sure you did i support marriage equality as well, Just not two men marrying each other. "Marriage equality" can mean many things. And I use Nazi because you want people destroyed if they don't agree with you. Common among the left actually. The only poll that's counts is an election, and given a choice through election gay "marriage" has lost almost every time,everywhere

Thank you for doubling down, Godwin.

Isn't it you that thinks signs like this should be displayed in store windows?

Actually...I'm starting to think Poe's Law...

 

[emilynghiem]

Worked out the way it should.

He didn't want to, someone who wanted to did. Bingo.

No doubt the PC Police are disappointed they couldn't ruin him.

.

This time. If the next civil servant also refused? And the next?

It happened to black men like this judge when they tried to marry white women.

Makes this civil servant's actions all the more unconscionable.

Well, maybe you can get him fired.

.

He shouldn't be a civil servant if he can't serve the taxpaying populace.

Please don't tell me you're surprised by this. And we both know, sadly, that there is more of this to come, perhaps a lot more.

You have had public opinion moving your way for years. Gay marriage has been inevitable for, what, at least a decade. Good, nice to see. And instead of guiding it home by changing hearts and minds with patience and reason, you have chosen to force and intimidate and punish and attack and control.

Did you really think that this type of behavior was not going to exacerbate animosities and tensions? Really?

Maybe this should be considered good news. No doubt you'll have several more opportunities to issue "consequences". Have at it, that'll change hearts and minds, I'm sure.

.

Oh please. The guy is a public servant, not a bigot baker. He is not doing his job. If I refused to serve Republicans in MY job, I'd lose it. He should lose his for not doing his job, period.

Seawytch Rosa Parks was also "violating the law" when she refused to give up her seat on the bus.
She went to jail for it, she was punished even though the laws were discriminatory and Unconstitutional.

I agree that people should have equal rights to exercise marriage according to their beliefs.

So by keeping marriage out of the state, there is no imposition of beliefs on anyone.

The other way this can be solved, is if people of the STATE agree how to handle ALL cases of beliefs
in public institutions. If all creeds are included equally and allowed to be implemented by the state,
And all citizens agree to that, then this fighting over beliefs can stop. Just agree not to make any more arguments against prolife or Christian references "claiming separation of church and state" if that principle is thrown out by implementing marriage laws as a right through the state, and also the BELIEF in health care as a right. Open up the doors to prolife being implemented as a belief, as well as references to God and prayer, and maybe the Christians might agree to let gay marriage be included as an equal option. But allow all creeds equally or none. Not some beliefs while punishing others!

 

[emilynghiem]

Muslim Strongly Support and Support: 42%
Evangelical Christians Strongly Support and Support: 28%

Attitudes on Same-sex Marriage by Religious Affiliation and Denominational Family

This is what it looks like in an easy to understand picture for you...

Dear Seawytch
If you are going to base public policy on the % of what people believe,
does this mean if the majority of Americans believe in God then God can be implemented in govt
and penalize people who don't agree to that?

If 95% of the population is heterosexual, are you going to
count heterosexual rights above homosexual rights because of the % of people affected?

Last I checked, the First Amendment guaranteed free exercise of religion for individuals.
NOT just religions that had 28-84% approval of the public.

What you are justifying is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

You would be right to defend rights to believe in gay marriage
provided you treat this equally under law as a CREED and hold
beliefs in traditional marriage equally as a CREED protected from discrimination.

Then you would be in the right, by protecting YOUR beliefs equally as others.
But to try to abuse govt to mandate YOUR beliefs and overrule and punish others for theirs,
that is DISCRIMINATORY and trying to diminish the other beliefs!

You complain when they do that to you, what makes you think it is
lawful for you to do that to someone else's beliefs? When you clearly are against discrimination.

Contradicting the very law you seek to invoke.

 

[Seawytch]

Dear @emilynghiem...opening a business is not practicing your religion. Everyone is free to practice their religion. My getting married to my wife has nothing to do with your religion which you are still free to practice even though I'm legally married. Your arguments make no sense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dear @emilynghiem...opening a business is not practicing your religion. Everyone is free to practice their religion. My getting married to my wife has nothing to do with your religion which you are still free to practice even though I'm legally married. Your arguments make no sense.

I see His/Her posts and wonder what utopia (s)he lives in when I see things like "If all creeds are included equally and allowed to be implemented by the state, And all citizens agree to that, then this fighting over beliefs can stop."

That nothing can be done in/by government unless agreed to by 100% ("all citizens") of the population and that not one person can object is pretty unrealistic.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

So...has their god rained down brimstone because of gay marriage yet?

 

[Seawytch]

Dear @emilynghiem...opening a business is not practicing your religion. Everyone is free to practice their religion. My getting married to my wife has nothing to do with your religion which you are still free to practice even though I'm legally married. Your arguments make no sense.

I see His/Her posts and wonder what utopia (s)he lives in when I see things like "If all creeds are included equally and allowed to be implemented by the state, And all citizens agree to that, then this fighting over beliefs can stop."

That nothing can be done in/by government unless agreed to by 100% ("all citizens") of the population and that not one person can object is pretty unrealistic.


>>>>

My legal civil marriage, just like the legal civil marriages of all other "sinners", has zero to do with religion. Zip, nada. A persons right to practice their religion is not infringed upon by my civil marriage...even if they have to bake the fucking cake.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dear @emilynghiem...opening a business is not practicing your religion. Everyone is free to practice their religion. My getting married to my wife has nothing to do with your religion which you are still free to practice even though I'm legally married. Your arguments make no sense.

I see His/Her posts and wonder what utopia (s)he lives in when I see things like "If all creeds are included equally and allowed to be implemented by the state, And all citizens agree to that, then this fighting over beliefs can stop."

That nothing can be done in/by government unless agreed to by 100% ("all citizens") of the population and that not one person can object is pretty unrealistic.


>>>>

My legal civil marriage, just like the legal civil marriages of all other "sinners", has zero to do with religion. Zip, nada. A persons right to practice their religion is not infringed upon by my civil marriage...even if they have to bake the fucking cake.

Not what my post was about.

Under his/her logic if one person in the entire state of California objected to same-sex Civil Marriage, then there could be no Civil Marriage for anyone (same-sex or different-sex) until 100% of the population agreed on a solution. (QUOTE="If all creeds are included equally and allowed to be implemented by the state, And all citizens agree to that, then this fighting over beliefs can stop.")

Totally unrealistic.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Dear @emilynghiem...opening a business is not practicing your religion. Everyone is free to practice their religion. My getting married to my wife has nothing to do with your religion which you are still free to practice even though I'm legally married. Your arguments make no sense.

I see His/Her posts and wonder what utopia (s)he lives in when I see things like "If all creeds are included equally and allowed to be implemented by the state, And all citizens agree to that, then this fighting over beliefs can stop."

That nothing can be done in/by government unless agreed to by 100% ("all citizens") of the population and that not one person can object is pretty unrealistic.


>>>>

My legal civil marriage, just like the legal civil marriages of all other "sinners", has zero to do with religion. Zip, nada. A persons right to practice their religion is not infringed upon by my civil marriage...even if they have to bake the fucking cake.

Not what my post was about.

Under his/her logic if one person in the entire state of California objected to same-sex Civil Marriage, then there could be no Civil Marriage for anyone (same-sex or different-sex) until 100% of the population agreed on a solution. (QUOTE="If all creeds are included equally and allowed to be implemented by the state, And all citizens agree to that, then this fighting over beliefs can stop.")

Totally unrealistic.


>>>>

Not just unrealistic, ludicrous. Forget California, you couldn't get all of Rhode Island to agree on if the sky was blue.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear @emilynghiem...opening a business is not practicing your religion. Everyone is free to practice their religion. My getting married to my wife has nothing to do with your religion which you are still free to practice even though I'm legally married. Your arguments make no sense.

Dear Seawytch You are still imposing your beliefs on others.
Remember some people do not believe in separating church and state, they believe that the DEFAULT laws come from God first and they agree on these laws through the CHURCH first, and then the civil laws are supposed to harmonize with that and not compel them to go against God's laws. So the PROPER way to prevent imposition is to have a CONSENSUS.

So this way, people who are SECULAR and put the GOVT/CIVIL laws first as the DEFAULT, and then treat the religious or church laws as optional under that which ALSO CANNOT violate civil laws, will BOTH be satisfied equally.

Seawytch otherwise it is WRONGFUL to take one group and impose their system over the other.
* one group puts church/God's laws first and then the state laws are supposed to be consistent
* one group puts civil/govt laws first and then the religious/church laws are supposed to be consistent

To meet both standards, guess what, the laws are supposed to be consistent!
For example, murder is agreed to be wrong under both church and state law;
but if people don't agree on capital punishment, that is a belief that should be funded separately.
We agree to make murder illegal; so we keep that part of the law, but if people disagree religiously
over the death penalty, then those laws have to be changed where they don't violate beliefs, and the same with abortion laws.

So having consensus as the standard where BELIEFS are involved, as in something like marriage that crosses over
into both church and state realms, will ensure there is NO CONFLICT between church and state laws.

Either AGREE how the laws are written so they satisfy both approaches and beliefs about the role of govt,
or else REMOVE marriage from the govt similar to keeping Communions, Funeral Rites, etc. to private policies.

If people don't agree on sacraments, this is why you keep them out of govt.

Seawytch if you believe in keeping beliefs out of govt, then this should be applied to yours and my
beliefs about marriage, and keep them by FREE CHOICE, and not impose any of our beliefs
unless we ALL AGREE what the laws are and how they are written and implemented.

Otherwise how is it fair to impose your or my beliefs, or someone else's about something as personal as marriage?
This doesn't make any sense, it violates the concepts of separation of church and state and free choice.
Clearly people OPPOSE it, so how is that their free choice when they are saying NO.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Most non whites don't like homosexuality. They have been able to escape the pressure because how can you white guilt someone that isn't white.

 

[emilynghiem]

My legal civil marriage, just like the legal civil marriages of all other "sinners", has zero to do with religion. Zip, nada. A persons right to practice their religion is not infringed upon by my civil marriage...even if they have to bake the fucking cake.

^ This is fine, Seawytch to have a perfectly SECULAR NEUTRAL partnership. But to use the word MARRIAGE is as volatile as using the word GOD.

So if you really want a civil/secular union, then using neutral terms should work just as well.
If you INSIST on trying to attach social acceptance and other things attached to "marriage" then you are crossing the line into legislating what people should or should not accept and that gets into people's religious beliefs.

Do you know HOW MANY people using God, crosses, prayers, etc. in public institutions
ALSO say it is NOT a religion, but just the natural truth for them and natural way of being, their way of life
they have the right to?

Sounds like the same arguments for gay marriage and marriage equality.

So just be fair. If you really want the contracts, then why not hold the language and terms to the
same standards, and if people object to the terms because of their own beliefs, then use DIFFERENT terms
and this can be resolved. The two partners can be referred to as primary partners or beneficiaries
and not designate a social relationship at all, and any dependents can be referred to as secondary beneficiaries, etc.

So this can be perfectly neutral and apply to any couples, regardless of gender or orientation or RELATIONSHIP.

If people cannot agree, then it can be separated by party and organize national networks to manage resources
and benefits and tax credits like a business or nonprofit.

There is NOTHING that requires the personal relationship of MARRIAGE to be MANDATED through GOVT.

If you want to manage social benefits and taxes, this can be separated by party like Corporations with their own benefits
policies that are set up DIFFERENTLY from the next Corporation. It does not have to be through Govt.

Just like the Mormons manage their own temporary program like social security for their members through their church.
This CAN be done privately so you CAN have your beliefs just like any other private group or church,
and still have national and even international membership if you want to cover that base.

So if you want to establish global rights for gay couples and gay marriage,
why not do it through the existing networks and you would already have what you want!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Nothing brings a smile to a bigots face more than when someone from one of the groups they hate is also a bigot. It validates their bigotry in their fucked up bigoted eyes.

Did you know a lot of blacks hate gay marriage?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear @emilynghiem...opening a business is not practicing your religion. Everyone is free to practice their religion. My getting married to my wife has nothing to do with your religion which you are still free to practice even though I'm legally married. Your arguments make no sense.

I see His/Her posts and wonder what utopia (s)he lives in when I see things like "If all creeds are included equally and allowed to be implemented by the state, And all citizens agree to that, then this fighting over beliefs can stop."

That nothing can be done in/by government unless agreed to by 100% ("all citizens") of the population and that not one person can object is pretty unrealistic.


>>>>

My legal civil marriage, just like the legal civil marriages of all other "sinners", has zero to do with religion. Zip, nada. A persons right to practice their religion is not infringed upon by my civil marriage...even if they have to bake the fucking cake.

Not what my post was about.

Under his/her logic if one person in the entire state of California objected to same-sex Civil Marriage, then there could be no Civil Marriage for anyone (same-sex or different-sex) until 100% of the population agreed on a solution. (QUOTE="If all creeds are included equally and allowed to be implemented by the state, And all citizens agree to that, then this fighting over beliefs can stop.")

Totally unrealistic.


>>>>

Not just unrealistic, ludicrous. Forget California, you couldn't get all of Rhode Island to agree on if the sky was blue.

Dear Seawytch and WorldWatcher
You are both wrong.
Look at the prolife movement.
Because we can't agree what to replace the ban on abortions with
THERE ARE NO LAWS TO ENSURE EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE UNBORN
BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN'T AGREE ON THEM.

So this happens all the time.
If people can't agree, then the state can't pass laws on other beliefs.

So this is DISCRIMINATION to pass laws on right to health care,
and now right to marriage when people decidedly disagreed and opposed.
And not pass laws protecting other beliefs, but rejecting those on the basis of belief.

The same criteria should apply to laws on right to health care and right to marriage
that are equally biased by belief, and interpreted to FORCE and penalize people with other beliefs.

Unconstitutional by discrimination by CREED.
If laws were by consensus, and not passed until people agreed just like laws on abortion
don't pass, then we wouldn't HAVE this problem.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nothing brings a smile to a bigots face more than when someone from one of the groups they hate is also a bigot. It validates their bigotry in their fucked up bigoted eyes.

Did you know a lot of blacks hate gay marriage?

And Blacks can be bigoted also, even against each other which is the hardest hurt to heal I've ever encountered.

Let's not celebrate or "rejoice in inequity" but have equal compassion
and seek NOT to double the bigotry going on. Two wrongs don't make anything right.

If we focus on healing the conflicts and division behind the bigotry
all that will eventually vent itself off, like the grief and anger process.
We need to release those misgivings so we can work rationally on
solutions. Seawytch even posted the goal of a secular civil marriage
that has nothing to do with religion. So when we let go of our beliefs on both
sides being pushed on each other, then we can be neutral and not biased or bigoted
toward other groups with different beliefs they want to defend also.

Neutral does not mean pushing a different belief in opposition to the other.
Two biased beliefs just cause twice as much conflict and opposition.

Neutral means to stick to where both sides agree is neutral.
So both are going to have to let go their own beliefs that don't belong in govt.