Question for gay marriage opponents

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't think anyone in the church should be forced to perform gay marriages. Marriages are religious ceremonies to some people. The practice of religion is left to the religions themselves.

On the other hand, employment of gays is mandatory for the religious organization on the basis that religious organizations receive tax exempt sttus. They are supported by the US government through tax payers. This requires them to be non discriminating towards gays and women. And yet religions discriminate against women already and have threatened to discriminate against gays in the employment arena.

I hope SCOTUS will step in and either prevent this discrimination or take away tax exempt status from religious institutions. Either approach is fine with me.

Remember, performing a gay marriage is not the same as refusing to hire gay people. One relates to religoius function, the other is with regards to fundamental right to employment.

Churches are not supported by the government through taxpayers. Churches are supported through donations from members.

Churches get tax breaks. That is a form of tax payer support.

Even if churches were taxed like a regular corporation, they do not have the right to discriminate against gays and women as they do today. Women are treated as second class citizens in the churches. And gays are ostracized openly in many churches though some churches accept them.

Funny, when a private company engages in discrimination it is shamed by the public and government. When a church discriminates against its members in hiring policies and on their wedding days, the church gets tax breaks.

What a sad country we live in.

No, that's not a form of taxpayer support. Taxes are not involved. Good grief.

Precisely the point. You said it yourself. "Taxes are not involved. Good grief." Indeed. It's a grief for tax payers to have to support the moocher religious institutions. You are correct, taxes are not invloved because gov. does not tax the religious institutions. Thus the tax burden of 100s of thousands of churches is transferred on to middle class tax payers. Nice try.

No one is forced to support churches. People choose to attend and give. You're just a hateful Christophobic bigot.

Oh... that's a mouthful.

Let me save ya some syllables... what 'it' is... is: EVIL.

 

[World Savior]

I don't think anyone in the church should be forced to perform gay marriages. Marriages are religious ceremonies to some people. The practice of religion is left to the religions themselves.

On the other hand, employment of gays is mandatory for the religious organization on the basis that religious organizations receive tax exempt sttus. They are supported by the US government through tax payers. This requires them to be non discriminating towards gays and women. And yet religions discriminate against women already and have threatened to discriminate against gays in the employment arena.

I hope SCOTUS will step in and either prevent this discrimination or take away tax exempt status from religious institutions. Either approach is fine with me.

Remember, performing a gay marriage is not the same as refusing to hire gay people. One relates to religoius function, the other is with regards to fundamental right to employment.

Churches are not supported by the government through taxpayers. Churches are supported through donations from members.

Churches get tax breaks. That is a form of tax payer support.

Even if churches were taxed like a regular corporation, they do not have the right to discriminate against gays and women as they do today. Women are treated as second class citizens in the churches. And gays are ostracized openly in many churches though some churches accept them.

Funny, when a private company engages in discrimination it is shamed by the public and government. When a church discriminates against its members in hiring policies and on their wedding days, the church gets tax breaks.

What a sad country we live in.

No, that's not a form of taxpayer support. Taxes are not involved. Good grief.

Precisely the point. You said it yourself. "Taxes are not involved. Good grief." Indeed. It's a grief for tax payers to have to support the moocher religious institutions. You are correct, taxes are not invloved because gov. does not tax the religious institutions. Thus the tax burden of 100s of thousands of churches is transferred on to middle class tax payers. Nice try.

No one is forced to support churches. People choose to attend and give. You're just a hateful Christophobic bigot.

Right, thanks for the strawman. Churches mooch off government tax breaks. I support the churches even though I don't attend them. The least the churches can do is behave like civilized human beings by not being misogynists and homophobes.

Churches do a lot of good work in poor communities and in foreign lands. Only problem is they also preach hate and proselytize.

Bill Gates does a lot of charity work without being hateful and without proselytizing any bullshit. I think churches can learn from Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Give without expecting anything in return. The day that happens, I will salute your churches.

 

[Flash Farley]

Churches are not supported by the government through taxpayers. Churches are supported through donations from members.

Churches get tax breaks. That is a form of tax payer support.

Even if churches were taxed like a regular corporation, they do not have the right to discriminate against gays and women as they do today. Women are treated as second class citizens in the churches. And gays are ostracized openly in many churches though some churches accept them.

Funny, when a private company engages in discrimination it is shamed by the public and government. When a church discriminates against its members in hiring policies and on their wedding days, the church gets tax breaks.

What a sad country we live in.

No, that's not a form of taxpayer support. Taxes are not involved. Good grief.

Precisely the point. You said it yourself. "Taxes are not involved. Good grief." Indeed. It's a grief for tax payers to have to support the moocher religious institutions. You are correct, taxes are not invloved because gov. does not tax the religious institutions. Thus the tax burden of 100s of thousands of churches is transferred on to middle class tax payers. Nice try.

No one is forced to support churches. People choose to attend and give. You're just a hateful Christophobic bigot.

Right, thanks for the strawman. Churches mooch off government tax breaks. I support the churches even though I don't attend them. The least the churches can do is behave like civilized human beings by not being misogynists and homophobes.

Churches do a lot of good work in poor communities and in foreign lands. Only problem is they also preach hate and proselytize.

Bill Gates does a lot of charity work without being hateful and without proselytizing any bullshit. I think churches can learn from Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Give without expecting anything in return. The day that happens, I will salute your churches.

Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. Carry on.

 

[Syriusly]

If someone is truly gay, how do they explain their maternal or paternal instinct?

What bizarre fantasy makes you think that the two are related?

 

[World Savior]

Churches get tax breaks. That is a form of tax payer support.

Even if churches were taxed like a regular corporation, they do not have the right to discriminate against gays and women as they do today. Women are treated as second class citizens in the churches. And gays are ostracized openly in many churches though some churches accept them.

Funny, when a private company engages in discrimination it is shamed by the public and government. When a church discriminates against its members in hiring policies and on their wedding days, the church gets tax breaks.

What a sad country we live in.

No, that's not a form of taxpayer support. Taxes are not involved. Good grief.

Precisely the point. You said it yourself. "Taxes are not involved. Good grief." Indeed. It's a grief for tax payers to have to support the moocher religious institutions. You are correct, taxes are not invloved because gov. does not tax the religious institutions. Thus the tax burden of 100s of thousands of churches is transferred on to middle class tax payers. Nice try.

No one is forced to support churches. People choose to attend and give. You're just a hateful Christophobic bigot.

Right, thanks for the strawman. Churches mooch off government tax breaks. I support the churches even though I don't attend them. The least the churches can do is behave like civilized human beings by not being misogynists and homophobes.

Churches do a lot of good work in poor communities and in foreign lands. Only problem is they also preach hate and proselytize.

Bill Gates does a lot of charity work without being hateful and without proselytizing any bullshit. I think churches can learn from Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Give without expecting anything in return. The day that happens, I will salute your churches.

Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. Carry on.

Religious freedom is always protected and should remain protected at all costs.

Religious homophobia, discrimination and tax breaks on the other hand are not protected and are subject to full scale frontal assault. Too bad our government doesn't have the balls to stand up to religious terrorists who demand tax breaks and the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and women.

 

[Syriusly]

Umm, so far studies indicate that the average sodomite union lasts for 1 1/2 years.

So far studies have shown that the average homosexual union lasts longer than the average heterosexual union.

 

[Flash Farley]

No, that's not a form of taxpayer support. Taxes are not involved. Good grief.

Precisely the point. You said it yourself. "Taxes are not involved. Good grief." Indeed. It's a grief for tax payers to have to support the moocher religious institutions. You are correct, taxes are not invloved because gov. does not tax the religious institutions. Thus the tax burden of 100s of thousands of churches is transferred on to middle class tax payers. Nice try.

No one is forced to support churches. People choose to attend and give. You're just a hateful Christophobic bigot.

Right, thanks for the strawman. Churches mooch off government tax breaks. I support the churches even though I don't attend them. The least the churches can do is behave like civilized human beings by not being misogynists and homophobes.

Churches do a lot of good work in poor communities and in foreign lands. Only problem is they also preach hate and proselytize.

Bill Gates does a lot of charity work without being hateful and without proselytizing any bullshit. I think churches can learn from Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Give without expecting anything in return. The day that happens, I will salute your churches.

Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. Carry on.

Religious freedom is always protected and should remain protected at all costs.

Religious homophobia, discrimination and tax breaks on the other hand are not protected and are subject to full scale frontal assault. Too bad our government doesn't have the balls to stand up to religious terrorists who demand tax breaks and the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and women.

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

 

[World Savior]

Precisely the point. You said it yourself. "Taxes are not involved. Good grief." Indeed. It's a grief for tax payers to have to support the moocher religious institutions. You are correct, taxes are not invloved because gov. does not tax the religious institutions. Thus the tax burden of 100s of thousands of churches is transferred on to middle class tax payers. Nice try.

No one is forced to support churches. People choose to attend and give. You're just a hateful Christophobic bigot.

Right, thanks for the strawman. Churches mooch off government tax breaks. I support the churches even though I don't attend them. The least the churches can do is behave like civilized human beings by not being misogynists and homophobes.

Churches do a lot of good work in poor communities and in foreign lands. Only problem is they also preach hate and proselytize.

Bill Gates does a lot of charity work without being hateful and without proselytizing any bullshit. I think churches can learn from Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Give without expecting anything in return. The day that happens, I will salute your churches.

Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. Carry on.

Religious freedom is always protected and should remain protected at all costs.

Religious homophobia, discrimination and tax breaks on the other hand are not protected and are subject to full scale frontal assault. Too bad our government doesn't have the balls to stand up to religious terrorists who demand tax breaks and the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and women.

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

You are wrong and then you are wrong again.

The state does not have to invent new rights. The state can easily take away tax breaks.

Second, the state does not prevent any religious institution from exercising its religious beliefs except that those beliefs have limits. We do not tolerate religions that practice polygamy and child marriages.

Similarly you can't allow religions to discriminate against gays when it comes to employment. Notice I said employment. I said nothing about gay marriages. Churches do not have to marry two gays.

The right to "marry" is protected.
The right to "marry in the churches" is not protected. There is no such constututional right to be married in churches.

 

[Flash Farley]

No one is forced to support churches. People choose to attend and give. You're just a hateful Christophobic bigot.

Right, thanks for the strawman. Churches mooch off government tax breaks. I support the churches even though I don't attend them. The least the churches can do is behave like civilized human beings by not being misogynists and homophobes.

Churches do a lot of good work in poor communities and in foreign lands. Only problem is they also preach hate and proselytize.

Bill Gates does a lot of charity work without being hateful and without proselytizing any bullshit. I think churches can learn from Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Give without expecting anything in return. The day that happens, I will salute your churches.

Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. Carry on.

Religious freedom is always protected and should remain protected at all costs.

Religious homophobia, discrimination and tax breaks on the other hand are not protected and are subject to full scale frontal assault. Too bad our government doesn't have the balls to stand up to religious terrorists who demand tax breaks and the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and women.

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

You are wrong and then you are wrong again.

The state does not have to invent new rights. The state can easily take away tax breaks.

Second, the state does not prevent any religious institution from exercising its religious beliefs except that those beliefs have limits. We do not tolerate religions that practice polygamy and child marriages.

Similarly you can't allow religions to discriminate against gays when it comes to employment. Notice I said employment. I said nothing about gay marriages. Churches do not have to marry two gays.

The right to "marry" is protected.
The right to "marry in the churches" is not protected. There is no such constututional right to be married in churches.

The state cannot violate the Constitution. Don't you believe in the constitutional theory of separation of church and state?

 

[hortysir]

Your thoughts?

I agree. As a Conservative I believe that a proper family is key to children growing up properly.

To that end I believe in licensing parents, requiring Moral competency testing for current and prospective parents and removing children from single parent and otherwise faulty homes.

Your thoughts?

I agree. As a Conservative I believe that a proper family is key to children growing up properly.

To that end I believe in licensing parents, requiring Moral competency testing for current and prospective parents and removing children from single parent and otherwise faulty homes.

Great! Then just as the cons did with GM, they should oppose single parent households with the same fervor as they opposed GM. This means the cons have to aggressively and legislatively PUSH for one or both of the following.

1. Oppose single parents from having kids or put them up for adoption if you become a single parent accidentally or voluntarily

OR

2. Force every single parent to get married again or have another person of opposite sex immediately within 90 days to avoid losing custody of the kid.

Hypocrite GM opponents are OK with not having a mother and father in single parent households. Their only objections arose when they found out about gay parents having kids within their family without the presence of an adult of the opposite gender.

It's amazing how ignorant the GM opponents truly are.

So the plan is to involve our government even more

The plan is to protect people. I am perfectly happy if a non-governmental institution has the constitutional authority to protect gays' equal protection rights. Sadly such authority does not exist with private organizations.

Your rights are protected by the people and the government. Call it "government involvement" or government "duty", whatever you prefer.

But I digress. The issue in front of us was: If you think a mom and dad are necessary for child's well being, then I want you to oppose each and every single parent households and force them to marry someone else of opposite gender or B. take away their kids immediately and put them in foster homes where the government will provide two adults of opposite gender to look after the kids.

But GM opponents did none of the above. The only time GM opponents woke up to the reality of "child needs mom and dad" was when GM was about to be legalized. For all the past 240 years when kids were being raised in single parent homes, GM opponents and their religious leaders had no problem ignoring the "Child needs a mom and a dad" philosophy.

Like I keep saying, the bigotry of GM opponents is too east to expose.

I do oppose single parent households.
I oppose divorce.
I oppose premarital sex.
I wouldn't, however, force unmarried couples to marry.
No one is forcing gays to marry, so your analogy fails.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier;
If someone is truly gay where then does this paternal or maternal instinct come from?
If it's purely biological, and they have no choice, how can they only want to be with someone of the same sex yet still have the 'primal' instinct to reproduce?
One behavior is natural, the other isn't.
Just wondering

 

[World Savior]

Right, thanks for the strawman. Churches mooch off government tax breaks. I support the churches even though I don't attend them. The least the churches can do is behave like civilized human beings by not being misogynists and homophobes.

Churches do a lot of good work in poor communities and in foreign lands. Only problem is they also preach hate and proselytize.

Bill Gates does a lot of charity work without being hateful and without proselytizing any bullshit. I think churches can learn from Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Give without expecting anything in return. The day that happens, I will salute your churches.

Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. Carry on.

Religious freedom is always protected and should remain protected at all costs.

Religious homophobia, discrimination and tax breaks on the other hand are not protected and are subject to full scale frontal assault. Too bad our government doesn't have the balls to stand up to religious terrorists who demand tax breaks and the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and women.

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

You are wrong and then you are wrong again.

The state does not have to invent new rights. The state can easily take away tax breaks.

Second, the state does not prevent any religious institution from exercising its religious beliefs except that those beliefs have limits. We do not tolerate religions that practice polygamy and child marriages.

Similarly you can't allow religions to discriminate against gays when it comes to employment. Notice I said employment. I said nothing about gay marriages. Churches do not have to marry two gays.

The right to "marry" is protected.
The right to "marry in the churches" is not protected. There is no such constututional right to be married in churches.

The state cannot violate the Constitution. Don't you believe in the constitutional theory of separation of church and state?

I believe in the dignity of respecting all human beings. This includes gays and lesbians.

As I said before, the churches can practice their religions 24-7 until they die. I don't care. What the churches cannot do is discriminate against its employees during hiring.

The attorneys are waiting in the wings to get started on their lawsuits. Churches have to come out of their 2000 year old traditions of discrimination and move forward with the rest of us into the 21st century.

 

[hortysir]

If someone is truly gay, how do they explain their maternal or paternal instinct?

What bizarre fantasy makes you think that the two are related?

Are there not gay couples who want kids?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. Carry on.

Religious freedom is always protected and should remain protected at all costs.

Religious homophobia, discrimination and tax breaks on the other hand are not protected and are subject to full scale frontal assault. Too bad our government doesn't have the balls to stand up to religious terrorists who demand tax breaks and the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and women.

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

You are wrong and then you are wrong again.

The state does not have to invent new rights. The state can easily take away tax breaks.

Second, the state does not prevent any religious institution from exercising its religious beliefs except that those beliefs have limits. We do not tolerate religions that practice polygamy and child marriages.

Similarly you can't allow religions to discriminate against gays when it comes to employment. Notice I said employment. I said nothing about gay marriages. Churches do not have to marry two gays.

The right to "marry" is protected.
The right to "marry in the churches" is not protected. There is no such constututional right to be married in churches.

The state cannot violate the Constitution. Don't you believe in the constitutional theory of separation of church and state?

I believe in the dignity of respecting all human beings. This includes gays and lesbians.

As I said before, the churches can practice their religions 24-7 until they die. I don't care. What the churches cannot do is discriminate against its employees during hiring.

The attorneys are waiting in the wings to get started on their lawsuits. Churches have to come out of their 2000 year old traditions of discrimination and move forward with the rest of us into the 21st century.

You are wrong, churches are exempt from anti discriminatory laws for employment purposes when applied to religious reasons.

For example, in THIS case, a church can refuse to hire a gay. PERIOD. This has already been ruled on SCOTUS

 

[World Savior]

Your thoughts?

I agree. As a Conservative I believe that a proper family is key to children growing up properly.

To that end I believe in licensing parents, requiring Moral competency testing for current and prospective parents and removing children from single parent and otherwise faulty homes.

Your thoughts?

I agree. As a Conservative I believe that a proper family is key to children growing up properly.

To that end I believe in licensing parents, requiring Moral competency testing for current and prospective parents and removing children from single parent and otherwise faulty homes.

Great! Then just as the cons did with GM, they should oppose single parent households with the same fervor as they opposed GM. This means the cons have to aggressively and legislatively PUSH for one or both of the following.

1. Oppose single parents from having kids or put them up for adoption if you become a single parent accidentally or voluntarily

OR

2. Force every single parent to get married again or have another person of opposite sex immediately within 90 days to avoid losing custody of the kid.

Hypocrite GM opponents are OK with not having a mother and father in single parent households. Their only objections arose when they found out about gay parents having kids within their family without the presence of an adult of the opposite gender.

It's amazing how ignorant the GM opponents truly are.

So the plan is to involve our government even more

The plan is to protect people. I am perfectly happy if a non-governmental institution has the constitutional authority to protect gays' equal protection rights. Sadly such authority does not exist with private organizations.

Your rights are protected by the people and the government. Call it "government involvement" or government "duty", whatever you prefer.

But I digress. The issue in front of us was: If you think a mom and dad are necessary for child's well being, then I want you to oppose each and every single parent households and force them to marry someone else of opposite gender or B. take away their kids immediately and put them in foster homes where the government will provide two adults of opposite gender to look after the kids.

But GM opponents did none of the above. The only time GM opponents woke up to the reality of "child needs mom and dad" was when GM was about to be legalized. For all the past 240 years when kids were being raised in single parent homes, GM opponents and their religious leaders had no problem ignoring the "Child needs a mom and a dad" philosophy.

Like I keep saying, the bigotry of GM opponents is too east to expose.

I do oppose single parent households.
I oppose divorce.
I oppose premarital sex.
I wouldn't, however, force unmarried couples to marry.
No one is forcing gays to marry, so your analogy fails.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier;
If someone is truly gay where then does this paternal or maternal instinct come from?
If it's purely biological, and they have no choice, how can they only want to be with someone of the same sex yet still have the 'primal' instinct to reproduce?
One behavior is natural, the other isn't.
Just wondering

You did not demonstrate legislative urgency to enact laws for the past 240 years to prevent single parents from keeping their kids. Clearly shows you are a hypocrite. If you oppose single parent households then you should speak out against 50% of American households that are single parent households.

Instincts are natural. For you to ask where "instincts" come from makes no sense. Where do your instincts come from? Where does anyone's instincts come from? Why don't you worry about your own instincts and leave the rest to other people.

It doesn't matter whether something is natural or not. Mother nature created gays. This clearly proves that homosexuality is natural trait in all animals. It is none of anyone else's business what the gays do, where their instincts come from or how it affecst the rest of us.

 

[World Savior]

Religious freedom is always protected and should remain protected at all costs.

Religious homophobia, discrimination and tax breaks on the other hand are not protected and are subject to full scale frontal assault. Too bad our government doesn't have the balls to stand up to religious terrorists who demand tax breaks and the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and women.

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

You are wrong and then you are wrong again.

The state does not have to invent new rights. The state can easily take away tax breaks.

Second, the state does not prevent any religious institution from exercising its religious beliefs except that those beliefs have limits. We do not tolerate religions that practice polygamy and child marriages.

Similarly you can't allow religions to discriminate against gays when it comes to employment. Notice I said employment. I said nothing about gay marriages. Churches do not have to marry two gays.

The right to "marry" is protected.
The right to "marry in the churches" is not protected. There is no such constututional right to be married in churches.

The state cannot violate the Constitution. Don't you believe in the constitutional theory of separation of church and state?

I believe in the dignity of respecting all human beings. This includes gays and lesbians.

As I said before, the churches can practice their religions 24-7 until they die. I don't care. What the churches cannot do is discriminate against its employees during hiring.

The attorneys are waiting in the wings to get started on their lawsuits. Churches have to come out of their 2000 year old traditions of discrimination and move forward with the rest of us into the 21st century.

You are wrong, churches are exempt from anti discriminatory laws for employment purposes when applied to religious reasons.

For example, in THIS case, a church can refuse to hire a gay. PERIOD. This has already been ruled on SCOTUS

OK then when it comes to hiring, they have exemptions. Now this is about to change. We will push our gov to gradually remove this exemption and force the churches to not discriminate. Time has come to teach the churches to behave like civilized human beings.

 

[Flash Farley]

Religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. Carry on.

Religious freedom is always protected and should remain protected at all costs.

Religious homophobia, discrimination and tax breaks on the other hand are not protected and are subject to full scale frontal assault. Too bad our government doesn't have the balls to stand up to religious terrorists who demand tax breaks and the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and women.

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

You are wrong and then you are wrong again.

The state does not have to invent new rights. The state can easily take away tax breaks.

Second, the state does not prevent any religious institution from exercising its religious beliefs except that those beliefs have limits. We do not tolerate religions that practice polygamy and child marriages.

Similarly you can't allow religions to discriminate against gays when it comes to employment. Notice I said employment. I said nothing about gay marriages. Churches do not have to marry two gays.

The right to "marry" is protected.
The right to "marry in the churches" is not protected. There is no such constututional right to be married in churches.

The state cannot violate the Constitution. Don't you believe in the constitutional theory of separation of church and state?

I believe in the dignity of respecting all human beings. This includes gays and lesbians.

As I said before, the churches can practice their religions 24-7 until they die. I don't care. What the churches cannot do is discriminate against its employees during hiring.

The attorneys are waiting in the wings to get started on their lawsuits. Churches have to come out of their 2000 year old traditions of discrimination and move forward with the rest of us into the 21st century.

You're ignoring the Constitution.

 

[Flash Farley]

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

You are wrong and then you are wrong again.

The state does not have to invent new rights. The state can easily take away tax breaks.

Second, the state does not prevent any religious institution from exercising its religious beliefs except that those beliefs have limits. We do not tolerate religions that practice polygamy and child marriages.

Similarly you can't allow religions to discriminate against gays when it comes to employment. Notice I said employment. I said nothing about gay marriages. Churches do not have to marry two gays.

The right to "marry" is protected.
The right to "marry in the churches" is not protected. There is no such constututional right to be married in churches.

The state cannot violate the Constitution. Don't you believe in the constitutional theory of separation of church and state?

I believe in the dignity of respecting all human beings. This includes gays and lesbians.

As I said before, the churches can practice their religions 24-7 until they die. I don't care. What the churches cannot do is discriminate against its employees during hiring.

The attorneys are waiting in the wings to get started on their lawsuits. Churches have to come out of their 2000 year old traditions of discrimination and move forward with the rest of us into the 21st century.

You are wrong, churches are exempt from anti discriminatory laws for employment purposes when applied to religious reasons.

For example, in THIS case, a church can refuse to hire a gay. PERIOD. This has already been ruled on SCOTUS

OK then when it comes to hiring, they have exemptions. Now this is about to change. We will push our gov to gradually remove this exemption and force the churches to not discriminate. Time has come to teach the churches to behave like civilized human beings.

Time to fire up the ovens, huh. Seig Heil.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

You are wrong and then you are wrong again.

The state does not have to invent new rights. The state can easily take away tax breaks.

Second, the state does not prevent any religious institution from exercising its religious beliefs except that those beliefs have limits. We do not tolerate religions that practice polygamy and child marriages.

Similarly you can't allow religions to discriminate against gays when it comes to employment. Notice I said employment. I said nothing about gay marriages. Churches do not have to marry two gays.

The right to "marry" is protected.
The right to "marry in the churches" is not protected. There is no such constututional right to be married in churches.

The state cannot violate the Constitution. Don't you believe in the constitutional theory of separation of church and state?

I believe in the dignity of respecting all human beings. This includes gays and lesbians.

As I said before, the churches can practice their religions 24-7 until they die. I don't care. What the churches cannot do is discriminate against its employees during hiring.

The attorneys are waiting in the wings to get started on their lawsuits. Churches have to come out of their 2000 year old traditions of discrimination and move forward with the rest of us into the 21st century.

You are wrong, churches are exempt from anti discriminatory laws for employment purposes when applied to religious reasons.

For example, in THIS case, a church can refuse to hire a gay. PERIOD. This has already been ruled on SCOTUS

OK then when it comes to hiring, they have exemptions. Now this is about to change. We will push our gov to gradually remove this exemption and force the churches to not discriminate. Time has come to teach the churches to behave like civilized human beings.

what a good NAZI you are.

The fact of the matter is, it's time to get rid of all public accommodation laws.

The government's job isn't to make people be nice to each other and behave like civilized human beings.

The fact of the matter is, I have a right to be uncivilized if I so choose.

I'm about sick of morons on the left and on the right who want to use big government to force those who they disagree with to comply with their beliefs. That is NOT the role of government.

 

[World Savior]

Religious freedom is always protected and should remain protected at all costs.

Religious homophobia, discrimination and tax breaks on the other hand are not protected and are subject to full scale frontal assault. Too bad our government doesn't have the balls to stand up to religious terrorists who demand tax breaks and the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and women.

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

You are wrong and then you are wrong again.

The state does not have to invent new rights. The state can easily take away tax breaks.

Second, the state does not prevent any religious institution from exercising its religious beliefs except that those beliefs have limits. We do not tolerate religions that practice polygamy and child marriages.

Similarly you can't allow religions to discriminate against gays when it comes to employment. Notice I said employment. I said nothing about gay marriages. Churches do not have to marry two gays.

The right to "marry" is protected.
The right to "marry in the churches" is not protected. There is no such constututional right to be married in churches.

The state cannot violate the Constitution. Don't you believe in the constitutional theory of separation of church and state?

I believe in the dignity of respecting all human beings. This includes gays and lesbians.

As I said before, the churches can practice their religions 24-7 until they die. I don't care. What the churches cannot do is discriminate against its employees during hiring.

The attorneys are waiting in the wings to get started on their lawsuits. Churches have to come out of their 2000 year old traditions of discrimination and move forward with the rest of us into the 21st century.

You're ignoring the Constitution.

Rights are granted gradually, one person at a time. Over time, we will force the churches to comply with non discriminatory common sense practices.

You seem to be extremely agitated at the idea of gays and lesbians getting equal rights. Do you also support slavery by any chance?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The state cannot invent a right that violates the first amendment protected right to religious freedom. My constitution trumps your new self serving law.

You are wrong and then you are wrong again.

The state does not have to invent new rights. The state can easily take away tax breaks.

Second, the state does not prevent any religious institution from exercising its religious beliefs except that those beliefs have limits. We do not tolerate religions that practice polygamy and child marriages.

Similarly you can't allow religions to discriminate against gays when it comes to employment. Notice I said employment. I said nothing about gay marriages. Churches do not have to marry two gays.

The right to "marry" is protected.
The right to "marry in the churches" is not protected. There is no such constututional right to be married in churches.

The state cannot violate the Constitution. Don't you believe in the constitutional theory of separation of church and state?

I believe in the dignity of respecting all human beings. This includes gays and lesbians.

As I said before, the churches can practice their religions 24-7 until they die. I don't care. What the churches cannot do is discriminate against its employees during hiring.

The attorneys are waiting in the wings to get started on their lawsuits. Churches have to come out of their 2000 year old traditions of discrimination and move forward with the rest of us into the 21st century.

You're ignoring the Constitution.

Rights are granted gradually, one person at a time. Over time, we will force the churches to comply with non discriminatory common sense practices.

You seem to be extremely agitated at the idea of gays and lesbians getting equal rights. Do you also support slavery by any chance?

You don't have a right to work at a church that does not share your beliefs you fucking moron.