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.
If you have a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where there is a law against discrimination that includes LGBT people , yes you must serve them . If you can't do that find another line of workWhat policies? The topic here is marriage. What is your policy on same sex marriage ?Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:
Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .
An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited
USMB Rules and Guidelines
- Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
TheProgressivePatriot
Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.
What I think does not affect my behavior. It is possible to think many things and not have them affect your behavior. This is what we try to teach our elementary children; in fact it is one of the marks of maturity.
That's first.
Second, what policies do you think I'm trying to make here? The one I'm strongly advocating for is the freedom to live by your conscience: that is, if you own a bake shop the gov't should not FORCE you to bake cakes for events you find morally objectionable. I think we're going to win that one, and I think it's wholly ethical. I do not think the gov't should force ANYONE'S service for an event they find morally objectionable. That goes for a gay baker, a black baker, a Muslim baker or any baker.
What do you mean "policy"? The gov't has already ruled it lawful. I think it is sinful, but many things that are sinful are lawful. Greed is lawful. Lust is lawful. Etc, etc, etc.
As I said, the biggest question for me now is: must I be forced, by the US gov't, to participate in that sinful activity because I opened a business? I think the answer is no, and again I believe that is ethically correct. I'm not looking to dissolve what the gov't has ruled lawful at this point. I seek the right not to PARTICIPATE in it. And if you can be fair minded, I think you'll agree that this is just.
Of course....the next step is to say that these churches aren't real churches. Maybe the churches who refuse (which is their right) are the fake churches.Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?
Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.
Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually embraces sin and is okay with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.
A word to the wise.
OH Christ are you back, newbie? This is the year 2019. Not 1819 Not 1919. There is something called evolving standards of human decency which has apparently been lost on you, Trump, and the rest of his moronic minions . Gay people. LGBT people are an accepted part the fabric of modern society. Get used to it.Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?
Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.
Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually embraces sin and is okay with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.
A word to the wise.
Why is it that you people think more about but sex than gay people do. ? Why is it that you see gay people as nothing more than sex machines and can't see the human being?
If you have a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where there is a law against discrimination that includes LGBT people , yes you must serve them . If you can't do that find another line of work
[OH Christ are you back, newbie? This is the year 2019. Not 181. Not 1919. There is something called evolving standards of human decency which has apparently been lost on you, Trump, and the rest of his moronic minions . Gay people. LGBT people are an accepted part the fabric of modern society. Get used to it.
Some "suddenly discovered tho not in the bible deeply held beliefs", right?If you have a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where there is a law against discrimination that includes LGBT people , yes you must serve them . If you can't do that find another line of work
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any language that even hints at any legitimate power of government to compel anyone to waive his First Amendment rights as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.
Your position is blatantly unconstitutional, as well as ethically and morally unjustifiable.
Like divorce? Sorry, thinking people aren't buying that "deeply held beliefs" stuff anymore from CRCs.[OH Christ are you back, newbie? This is the year 2019. Not 181. Not 1919. There is something called evolving standards of human decency which has apparently been lost on you, Trump, and the rest of his moronic minions . Gay people. LGBT people are an accepted part the fabric of modern society. Get used to it.
God's standards do not change over time.
What was wrong in 181, what was wrong in 1919, is still wrong, and will forever be wrong.
And someone who openly sides with degenerate immoral sexual perverts is in no position to lecture anyone else about “human decency”. You are a sick, evil, degenerate, indecent piece of filth, to your very core.
OH Christ are you back, newbie? This is the year 2019. Not 1819 Not 1919. There is something called evolving standards of human decency which has apparently been lost on you, Trump, and the rest of his moronic minions . Gay people. LGBT people are an accepted part the fabric of modern society. Get used to it.Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?
Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.
Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually embraces sin and is okay with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.
A word to the wise.
I have to laugh when someone says it is decent to put a penis in another man's ass. You just cant get more ridiculous than that.There is something called evolving standards of human decency
I have to laugh when CRCs show us again and again and again that they can't stop thinking and talking about anal sex. I know of no gays that think and talk about it half as much.OH Christ are you back, newbie? This is the year 2019. Not 1819 Not 1919. There is something called evolving standards of human decency which has apparently been lost on you, Trump, and the rest of his moronic minions . Gay people. LGBT people are an accepted part the fabric of modern society. Get used to it.Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?
Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.
Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually embraces sin and is okay with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.
A word to the wise.I have to laugh when someone says it is decent to put a penis in another man's ass. You just cant get more ridiculous than that.There is something called evolving standards of human decency
Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?
Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.
Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually embraces sin and is okay with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.
A word to the wise.
If you have a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where there is a law against discrimination that includes LGBT people , yes you must serve them . If you can't do that find another line of workWhat policies? The topic here is marriage. What is your policy on same sex marriage ?Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.
What I think does not affect my behavior. It is possible to think many things and not have them affect your behavior. This is what we try to teach our elementary children; in fact it is one of the marks of maturity.
That's first.
Second, what policies do you think I'm trying to make here? The one I'm strongly advocating for is the freedom to live by your conscience: that is, if you own a bake shop the gov't should not FORCE you to bake cakes for events you find morally objectionable. I think we're going to win that one, and I think it's wholly ethical. I do not think the gov't should force ANYONE'S service for an event they find morally objectionable. That goes for a gay baker, a black baker, a Muslim baker or any baker.
What do you mean "policy"? The gov't has already ruled it lawful. I think it is sinful, but many things that are sinful are lawful. Greed is lawful. Lust is lawful. Etc, etc, etc.
As I said, the biggest question for me now is: must I be forced, by the US gov't, to participate in that sinful activity because I opened a business? I think the answer is no, and again I believe that is ethically correct. I'm not looking to dissolve what the gov't has ruled lawful at this point. I seek the right not to PARTICIPATE in it. And if you can be fair minded, I think you'll agree that this is just.
Some "suddenly discovered tho not in the bible deeply held beliefs", right?
There is no such thing as a "fake church" to the people who attend it.
That is idiotic .I never said or implied that ANYONE can or should be able to marry any one who they wish. Do you actually believe that I thing that a straight person could grab someone on the street who they like and marry them. ?2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
The issue is the ability to marry someone with whom you have a mutual romantic and sexual attraction to. I will say again-to claim that a gay person had equal rights to marry some one of the opposite sex is not only stupid, but it degrades the individual who you either don't think deserves the same kind of relationships that you enjoy, or you don't believe that they marry for romance and love. It also degrades the institution of marriage -that you claim to want to save-by reducing it to a business arrangement.
Gays have been getting married for over a decade now
The world has not ended, the institution of marriage has survived, millions of children have not been turned gay
What exactly did I say about rights? I said that it is a civil rights issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.
Funny how it took the courts to legalize inter-racial marriage in this country.The judges were late on the issue as most Americans already had it in their state and most Americans supported itYour response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised.
My response was appropriate.
Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that.
Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.
The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.
Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice
1. Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.
2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.
Then run dems ,honestly, on the issue, and pass legislation.
Funny, you didn't do that.
Funny how it took the courts to legalize inter-racial marriage in this country.The judges were late on the issue as most Americans already had it in their state and most Americans supported itYour response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.
The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.
Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice
1. Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.
2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.
Then run dems ,honestly, on the issue, and pass legislation.
Funny, you didn't do that.
Are men and women different?
