Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Now that you know of that ruling, do you agree it is POSSIBLE that a future ruling could rule that religious non profits could discriminate in regards to customers?

Many religious non-profits can already discriminate in regards to customers. The key being religious and non-profit when they are not engaged in commerce (i.e. for-profit activities). Religious Schools can already discriminate on the students they accept, Charities can discriminate on the customers they serve.

Is a ruling POSSIBLE, sure anything is possible.


>>>>

What do you think about THIS

City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings Todd Starnes

That sure looks like a violation of the first amendment to me.

You moved to goal posts. You know that right?


You went from non-profit (not engaged in commerce) to those running a for-profit business.


>>>>

They're my goal posts I'll put them where I like.

Seriously though. Yes, I moved the conversation since I have already established that a non profit religious organization CAN discriminate based on religion. There is no need to further discuss that point. So let's talk about FOR PROFIT. Do you think that threatening to fine and arrest those people if they don't do something that is against their religion is proper?

I was expanding my post when you replied.

I see that. I was not aware that you rightly supported the repeal of so called pubic accommodation laws.

Between that and your earlier admission of an error, that greatly increases your standing in my eyes sir.

 

[Disir]

The fact is that in the US they are replaceable and the Catholic Charities was smart enough to close the agencies and allow the other agencies to continue to handle the cases. You attempt to use children as a weapon.

How are the children being used as a weapon?

The result is far fewer children available for adoption. If gay families MUST be satisfied the children will have to be taken from intact families. Mothers and fathers will just have to be declared unfit and their children taken from them to make the gay mafia happy.

Indeed, that is why the state should play fair towards the church, because they could easily be seen as showing favoritism towards gays, which can lead to a slippery slope where Child Protective Services starts to exaggerate circumstances or invent reasons to take children from heartbroken parents. This could easily become the perception or reality.

That's a lie.

Why do you feel that way?

You know it's a lie.

It is easy to claim people are lying for no reason.

But, unfortunately there is a good reason. You care less for truth and more for spinning shit and propaganda.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Many religious non-profits can already discriminate in regards to customers. The key being religious and non-profit when they are not engaged in commerce (i.e. for-profit activities). Religious Schools can already discriminate on the students they accept, Charities can discriminate on the customers they serve.

Is a ruling POSSIBLE, sure anything is possible.


>>>>

What do you think about THIS

City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings Todd Starnes

That sure looks like a violation of the first amendment to me.

You moved to goal posts. You know that right?


You went from non-profit (not engaged in commerce) to those running a for-profit business.


>>>>

They're my goal posts I'll put them where I like.

Seriously though. Yes, I moved the conversation since I have already established that a non profit religious organization CAN discriminate based on religion. There is no need to further discuss that point. So let's talk about FOR PROFIT. Do you think that threatening to fine and arrest those people if they don't do something that is against their religion is proper?

I was expanding my post when you replied.

I see that. I was not aware that you rightly supported the repeal of so called pubic accommodation laws.

Between that and your earlier admission of an error, that greatly increases your standing in my eyes sir.

Thank you.

When I come to the boards, unlike some others, I attempt to remain the same person that I am in the real world.

I discuss what I know and attempt to be able to support the things that I say, when a person commits an error there is no shame in learning something new.

I can also separate what my opinion of what the law **should be** and what the reality of the law **is** - some people have a difficult time with that concept. I think though that you will understand that statement.


>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What do you think about THIS

City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings Todd Starnes

That sure looks like a violation of the first amendment to me.

You moved to goal posts. You know that right?


You went from non-profit (not engaged in commerce) to those running a for-profit business.


>>>>

They're my goal posts I'll put them where I like.

Seriously though. Yes, I moved the conversation since I have already established that a non profit religious organization CAN discriminate based on religion. There is no need to further discuss that point. So let's talk about FOR PROFIT. Do you think that threatening to fine and arrest those people if they don't do something that is against their religion is proper?

I was expanding my post when you replied.

I see that. I was not aware that you rightly supported the repeal of so called pubic accommodation laws.

Between that and your earlier admission of an error, that greatly increases your standing in my eyes sir.

Thank you.

When I come to the boards, unlike some others, I attempt to remain the same person that I am in the real world.

I discuss what I know and attempt to be able to support the things that I say, when a person commits an error there is no shame in learning something new.

I can also separate what my opinion of what the law **should be** and what the reality of the law **is** - some people have a difficult time with that concept. I think though that you will understand that statement.


>>>>

Absolutely I understand that statement. The Public Accommodation laws SHOULD be removed from the books, and I believe they will eventually be, but until such time, they ARE the law.

Of course, I'm sure you'll understand if I do my duty if I am ever on a jury deciding such events and choose to practice jury nullification to prevent someone from being jailed for such an offense.

 

[Silhouette]

Absolutely I understand that statement. The Public Accommodation laws SHOULD be removed from the books, and I believe they will eventually be, but until such time, they ARE the law.

Of course, I'm sure you'll understand if I do my duty if I am ever on a jury deciding such events and choose to practice jury nullification to prevent someone from being jailed for such an offense.

Protecting a child is not an offense. Until an LGBT person comes forward and denounces their gay pride parades in front of kids or denounces Harvey Milk, their messiah/molestor of teen boys, they are a suspect demographic and children must not be placed in their homes. In other words, they have offered society undeniable proof that they are willing and "proud" of exposing or engaging children in inappropriate adult sexual behaviors.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What such gay pride parades. Heterosexual parade photos were posted with heteros acting sexually in front of children.

Sil, your posts have become laughable.

 

[Silhouette]

What such gay pride parades. Heterosexual parade photos were posted with heteros acting sexually in front of children.

Sil, your posts have become laughable.

There are no "hetereo sexual pride parades". There are drunken parties where adult do things they regret the next day. And children are certainly not hoped to attend. They wake up the next day hungover and anything but proud. The bulk of the hetero culture frowns upon and discourges such public displays..

In STARK CONTRAST, gay PRIDE parades are embraced 100% by the homosexual subculture. I have never heard a single gay person denounce them. Lewd sex acts are performed soberly, where children are invited not just to watch ,but to march alongside other displays such as "the leather crowd", S&M, bondage etc. Participants and the entire LGBT community at large wake up the next day ready to plan another. They feel proud of these displays as intrinsic to displaying who they are as a culture. They make no apologies, no effort to curb them and none of the participants doing illegal sex acts or lewd behavior in front of kids has ever been arrested for doing so...even with police watching the whole thing. Wouldn't be "PC".

Yet try some of those acts going down main street where you've invited kids to watch if you are a hetero and those same exact cops will be slapping cuffs on you in a nanosecond.

I don't think LGBTs are suing for equal rights. They are usurping in a coup for dominant rights.

I'd actually like to do a social experiment where heteros enter a float in a gay pride parade and do the same types of things gays do on their float marked "hetero pride"...with kids watching. You know, see what the police's reaction would be..

 

[WorldWatcher]

You moved to goal posts. You know that right?


You went from non-profit (not engaged in commerce) to those running a for-profit business.


>>>>

They're my goal posts I'll put them where I like.

Seriously though. Yes, I moved the conversation since I have already established that a non profit religious organization CAN discriminate based on religion. There is no need to further discuss that point. So let's talk about FOR PROFIT. Do you think that threatening to fine and arrest those people if they don't do something that is against their religion is proper?

I was expanding my post when you replied.

I see that. I was not aware that you rightly supported the repeal of so called pubic accommodation laws.

Between that and your earlier admission of an error, that greatly increases your standing in my eyes sir.

Thank you.

When I come to the boards, unlike some others, I attempt to remain the same person that I am in the real world.

I discuss what I know and attempt to be able to support the things that I say, when a person commits an error there is no shame in learning something new.

I can also separate what my opinion of what the law **should be** and what the reality of the law **is** - some people have a difficult time with that concept. I think though that you will understand that statement.


>>>>

Absolutely I understand that statement. The Public Accommodation laws SHOULD be removed from the books, and I believe they will eventually be, but until such time, they ARE the law.

Of course, I'm sure you'll understand if I do my duty if I am ever on a jury deciding such events and choose to practice jury nullification to prevent someone from being jailed for such an offense.

I don't think you are asking if I "understand", I think you are asking if I think it is the correct thing to do, the proper thing to do. I disagree that lying to get on a jury is the correct or proper thing to do. A juror takes an oath to render a decision based on the law and the evidence.

If you know going in that you will not render a verdict based on the law and on the evidence but on a preconceived notion of what you (and I) think the law **should** be then you should inform the court of that during voir dire - which in all probability would mean you don't get selected to sit as a juror. That would be the honorable thing to do. There is no honor in lying to the court and to the justice system in an attempt to maneuver to get on a jury, knowing your verdict ahead of time.

I'm sure you will understand, I would chose to honor my oath.



>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

They're my goal posts I'll put them where I like.

Seriously though. Yes, I moved the conversation since I have already established that a non profit religious organization CAN discriminate based on religion. There is no need to further discuss that point. So let's talk about FOR PROFIT. Do you think that threatening to fine and arrest those people if they don't do something that is against their religion is proper?

I was expanding my post when you replied.

I see that. I was not aware that you rightly supported the repeal of so called pubic accommodation laws.

Between that and your earlier admission of an error, that greatly increases your standing in my eyes sir.

Thank you.

When I come to the boards, unlike some others, I attempt to remain the same person that I am in the real world.

I discuss what I know and attempt to be able to support the things that I say, when a person commits an error there is no shame in learning something new.

I can also separate what my opinion of what the law **should be** and what the reality of the law **is** - some people have a difficult time with that concept. I think though that you will understand that statement.


>>>>

Absolutely I understand that statement. The Public Accommodation laws SHOULD be removed from the books, and I believe they will eventually be, but until such time, they ARE the law.

Of course, I'm sure you'll understand if I do my duty if I am ever on a jury deciding such events and choose to practice jury nullification to prevent someone from being jailed for such an offense.

I don't think you are asking if I "understand", I think you are asking if I think it is the correct thing to do, the proper thing to do. I disagree that lying to get on a jury is the correct or proper thing to do. A juror takes an oath to render a decision based on the law and the evidence.

If you know going in that you will not render a verdict based on the law and on the evidence but on a preconceived notion of what you (and I) think the law **should** be then you should inform the court of that during voir dire - which in all probability would mean you don't get selected to sit as a juror. That would be the honorable thing to do. There is no honor in lying to the court and to the justice system in an attempt to maneuver to get on a jury, knowing your verdict ahead of time.

I'm sure you will understand, I would chose to honor my oath.



>>>>

Oh, I certainly would never lie to the Court. I would acknowledge my bias if asked. And so, I admit I would probably never sit on said jury. Mine was merely a theoretical question.


And not for nothing, but my decision to practice in jury nullification would probably hinge on the defendant themselves and be case specific. I would be MUCH more smypathetic towards the two ministers in the article I posted than I would be for someone who, for instance, had a sign up outside their business that read "no n!ggers", and not because of any bias towards gays but because I genuinely believe freedom of religion should extend to ones business and frankly beyond the academic point I'm not concerned about people having to serve blacks, deal with it.

 

[Disir]

What such gay pride parades. Heterosexual parade photos were posted with heteros acting sexually in front of children.

Sil, your posts have become laughable.

There are no "hetereo sexual pride parades". There are drunken parties where adult do things they regret the next day. And children are certainly not hoped to attend. They wake up the next day hungover and anything but proud. The bulk of the hetero culture frowns upon and discourges such public displays..

In STARK CONTRAST, gay PRIDE parades are embraced 100% by the homosexual subculture. I have never heard a single gay person denounce them. Lewd sex acts are performed soberly, where children are invited not just to watch ,but to march alongside other displays such as "the leather crowd", S&M, bondage etc. Participants and the entire LGBT community at large wake up the next day ready to plan another. They feel proud of these displays as intrinsic to displaying who they are as a culture. They make no apologies, no effort to curb them and none of the participants doing illegal sex acts or lewd behavior in front of kids has ever been arrested for doing so...even with police watching the whole thing. Wouldn't be "PC".

Yet try some of those acts going down main street where you've invited kids to watch if you are a hetero and those same exact cops will be slapping cuffs on you in a nanosecond.

I don't think LGBTs are suing for equal rights. They are usurping in a coup for dominant rights.

I'd actually like to do a social experiment where heteros enter a float in a gay pride parade and do the same types of things gays do on their float marked "hetero pride"...with kids watching. You know, see what the police's reaction would be..

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

How are the children being used as a weapon?

Indeed, that is why the state should play fair towards the church, because they could easily be seen as showing favoritism towards gays, which can lead to a slippery slope where Child Protective Services starts to exaggerate circumstances or invent reasons to take children from heartbroken parents. This could easily become the perception or reality.

That's a lie.

Why do you feel that way?

You know it's a lie.

It is easy to claim people are lying for no reason.

But, unfortunately there is a good reason. You care less for truth and more for spinning shit and propaganda.

There's always a good reason.

 

[Disir]

That's a lie.

Why do you feel that way?

You know it's a lie.

It is easy to claim people are lying for no reason.

But, unfortunately there is a good reason. You care less for truth and more for spinning shit and propaganda.

There's always a good reason.

Because you aren't interested in the truth of it.

 

[Silhouette]

*animated picture*

That's not a reply.

 

[Disir]

*animated picture*

That's not a reply.

Sure it is.

 

[Silhouette]

*animated picture*

That's not a reply.

Sure it is.

Can you tell me of any LGBT person who has come out and denounced publicly either gay pride parades or Harvey Milk?

 

[Disir]

That's a lie.

Why do you feel that way?

You know it's a lie.

It is easy to claim people are lying for no reason.

But, unfortunately there is a good reason. You care less for truth and more for spinning shit and propaganda.

There's always a good reason.

What is your reason for lying and twisting this?

 

[Disir]

*animated picture*

That's not a reply.

Sure it is.

Can you tell me of any LGBT person who has come out and denounced publicly either gay pride parades or Harvey Milk?

It isn't necessary.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

*animated picture*

That's not a reply.

Sure it is.

Can you tell me of any LGBT person who has come out and denounced publicly either gay pride parades or Harvey Milk?

Do you really suppose that all gays approve of such things? I certainly don't approve of everything heterosexuals do...

Hell, despite the stupidity of a few of the fags on this site and out in the real world, I fully believe that there are plenty of gays who have no interest in forcing me or my church to do business with them. They just want to be left alone.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The should be a law which provides for the summary execution of ANYONE who suggests that the sexually abnormal should adopt children.

One need look no farther than the Catholic Church to see what happens when the Sexually abnormal are placed in positions of trust, around children.

This is not to say that all homosexuals will molest a child, but all homosexuals ARE people who are KNOWN to possess sexual desires which deviate from the biological standard and that sets them at a MUCH GREATER RISK of injuring a child than those who are NOT known to be drawn toward sexual abnormality.

What's more, homosexuality is in MOST cases, a result of the sexual imprinting which occurs in the earliest stages of human development, wherein the child was molested by a person of their own gender. As a result, it is of the greatest cultural imperative that homosexuals NEVER be left alone with a child or placed in a position of trust, where children are concerned.

 

[bodecea]

The should be a law which provides for the summary execution of ANYONE who suggests that the sexually abnormal should adopt children.

One need look no farther than the Catholic Church to see what happens when the Sexually abnormal are placed in positions of trust, around children.

This is not to say that all homosexuals will molest a child, but all homosexuals ARE people who are KNOWN to possess sexual desires which deviate from the biological standard and that sets them at a MUCH GREATER RISK of injuring a child than those who are NOT known to be drawn toward sexual abnormality.

What's more, homosexuality is in MOST cases, a result of the sexual imprinting which occurs in the earliest stages of human development, wherein the child was molested by a person of their own gender. As a result, it is of the greatest cultural imperative that homosexuals NEVER be left alone with a child or placed in a position of trust, where children are concerned.

Men are the most likely to molest children.....1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before they reach 18....by straight FAMILY members and FAMILY friends....hetero MEN. Maybe something should be done about them?