Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Conservative65]

We in the mainstream of the GOP need to think real hard: do we reach out to women, minorities, Hispanics, cultural movements or do we keep the Far Right on board.

If we do the latter, HRC will run and win if she his healthy. She will win easily, and then nominate any where from two to six justices over an eight year period.

The justices will go after Citizens and Hobby Lobby.

I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.

"get with the program"

Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes. No thanks.
The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.

Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.

Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason. Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.

Laws don't need to be rewritten....restrictions against gays marrying based on gender need to be dropped. That's it.

Based on what? Seems YOU think they should because that's what YOU believe.

 

[Conservative65]

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.

"get with the program"

Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes. No thanks.
The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.

Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.

Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason. Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.

My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.

Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.

It's right next to the word "procreation".

So you admit the word marriage isn't there. As for your poor response about procreation, people do that regularly and marriage isn't a requirement.

 

[RKMBrown]

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.

Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.

Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason. Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.

My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.

Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.

It's right next to the word "procreation".

So you admit the word marriage isn't there. As for your poor response about procreation, people do that regularly and marriage isn't a requirement.

Marriage is a contract between citizens that is regulated by our federal, state, and local governments. In part the contract is a property matter. Do you really need someone to show you where legal and justice matters regarding property of US citizens are supported by the Constitution?

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is a contract between citizens that is regulated by our federal, state, and local governments. In part the contract is a property matter. Do you really need someone to show you where legal and justice matters regarding property of US citizens are supported by the Constitution?

You do when "equality" means polygamists and incest pairings can now also get legally married in any of the "dead law" states rendered that way by SCOTUS' conservatives refusing to vote "four in favor" to take up the appeals.

Legal limbo isn't just for gays... in an equal country that doesn't discriminate. One sexual behavior is as legal as another to marry now.

 

[Syriusly]

does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?

Were you born non-Catholic?

Churches are not business's so long as they meet the criteria for church's.

Outside of the spiritual role of the church, it's primary role,
if you were to see the things a church does and how it does them, it’s much like a business. It pays bills, it employees people, it does building maintenance. The Baptist church calls its “Board of Directors” Deacons. Their role is much like that of one for a non religious business. We have finance committees, personnel committees, and all sorts of others in mine.
My job involves doing code inspections on businesses in the jurisdiction where I work. When I inspect a church, they get the same look through on the same level as a non religious business. While the ultimate goal and purpose is to do God’s work, the day to day functioning is done just like a business. The power, phone, and water companies would turn off those utilities to a church for not paying its bills.
Don’t think some foolish Liberal, activist judge won’t look at it that way. While I can’t point to a specific case where homos have asked to be married in a church and turned down, remember two things: 1) allowing same sex marriages in States hasn’t been as widespread as it is now and 2) lots of things I never thought I would see in my lifetime, including homos thinking their marriage is on the same level as mine, are happening.

As I have repeatedly pointed out- churches have always discriminated about who is allowed to be married their church for doctrinaire reasons. There is no reason to assume that some 'activist' judge- Conservative or Liberal- will suddenly decide that the Catholic Church must marry Jews, Muslims, Homosexuals or divorced people- or that such a stupid decision wouldn't be immediately overturned upon appeal.

What we are seeing in the case of gay marriage cases across the country are federal judges- Conservative and Liberal- all reaching the same Constitutional conclusion when it comes to marriage- this is a consensus legal opinion which is forming.

There is no chance of that happening with requiring churches to marry anyone. I, as a liberal atheist, absolutely believe that under the U.S. Constitution, the State has absolutely no authority to tell churches how to conduct its internal doctrine or rites.

 

[Syriusly]

Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes. No thanks.
The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.

And that statement is why Republicans will not be gaining any African American votes.

As long as Republicans declare blacks are too stupid to know how to vote, blacks will reject them.

 

[Conservative65]

does that mean I can successfully sue the Catholic Church?

Were you born non-Catholic?

Churches are not business's so long as they meet the criteria for church's.

Outside of the spiritual role of the church, it's primary role,
if you were to see the things a church does and how it does them, it’s much like a business. It pays bills, it employees people, it does building maintenance. The Baptist church calls its “Board of Directors” Deacons. Their role is much like that of one for a non religious business. We have finance committees, personnel committees, and all sorts of others in mine.
My job involves doing code inspections on businesses in the jurisdiction where I work. When I inspect a church, they get the same look through on the same level as a non religious business. While the ultimate goal and purpose is to do God’s work, the day to day functioning is done just like a business. The power, phone, and water companies would turn off those utilities to a church for not paying its bills.
Don’t think some foolish Liberal, activist judge won’t look at it that way. While I can’t point to a specific case where homos have asked to be married in a church and turned down, remember two things: 1) allowing same sex marriages in States hasn’t been as widespread as it is now and 2) lots of things I never thought I would see in my lifetime, including homos thinking their marriage is on the same level as mine, are happening.

As I have repeatedly pointed out- churches have always discriminated about who is allowed to be married their church for doctrinaire reasons. There is no reason to assume that some 'activist' judge- Conservative or Liberal- will suddenly decide that the Catholic Church must marry Jews, Muslims, Homosexuals or divorced people- or that such a stupid decision wouldn't be immediately overturned upon appeal.

What we are seeing in the case of gay marriage cases across the country are federal judges- Conservative and Liberal- all reaching the same Constitutional conclusion when it comes to marriage- this is a consensus legal opinion which is forming.

There is no chance of that happening with requiring churches to marry anyone. I, as a liberal atheist, absolutely believe that under the U.S. Constitution, the State has absolutely no authority to tell churches how to conduct its internal doctrine or rites.

Like I said, you're not one of the judges that could do that. As I've also pointed out, 30 years ago there were things happening now I thought I would never see happen involving judges overstepping their bounds. Seems you think it can't happen. So did I but apparently I was wrong. You will be wrong, too.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a contract between citizens that is regulated by our federal, state, and local governments. In part the contract is a property matter. Do you really need someone to show you where legal and justice matters regarding property of US citizens are supported by the Constitution?

You do when "equality" means polygamists and incest pairings can now also get legally married.

And of course that is just a ridiculously false claim.

 

[Conservative65]

Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes. No thanks.
The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.

And that statement is why Republicans will not be gaining any African American votes.

As long as Republicans declare blacks are too stupid to know how to vote, blacks will reject them.

Not realizing what the Democrats are doing to them doens't involve me making any such statements. Their actions prove it.

 

[Syriusly]

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.

I don't know why the GOP is so hard headed about that. Where is the far right going to go? Nowhere of course. The Republicans need to get with the program. That's how the Dems keep the black vote. They don't have any record of actually doing anything positive for blacks, but where are blacks going to go? And both the Dems and the blacks know that, so status quo it is.

"get with the program"

Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes. No thanks.
The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.

Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.

Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason. Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.

My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.

Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.

Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.

 

[Syriusly]

Wrong again. How many times are you gonna post these lies?

79,000 and counting for Fakey the Human Spambot.

Is anyone seriously entertaining that of that 82%, some of the voters were supportive of gay marriage in general...just not in churches?

Actually no one but yourself entertains any illusions that your interpretation about churches being forced to marry homosexuals is a poll about gay marriage.

Your interpretation has no basis in reality.

 

[Conservative65]

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.

"get with the program"

Seems the Democrat program is to pander to any group in order to buy votes. No thanks.
The blacks tried to get off the plantations for 300 years and the Liberals have been pulling them back onto them for the last 150.

Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.

Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason. Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.

My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.

Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.

Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.

Supreme Court rulings don't enumerate anything. To make it easy on a moron like you, synonyms like listed, itemized, and detailed equate to enumerated. No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

about two fags marrying.

"fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'

All words used by the same people for the same purpose.

 

[Syriusly]

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.

Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.

Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason. Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.

My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.

Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.

Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.

No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

"fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'

All words used by the same people for the same purpose.

 

[Conservative65]

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.

Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason. Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.

My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.

Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.

Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.

No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

"fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'

All words used by the same people for the same purpose.

Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited. You would be wrong. No one is denied the right to marry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do when "equality" means polygamists and incest pairings can now also get legally married in any of the "dead law" states rendered that way by SCOTUS' conservatives refusing to vote "four in favor" to take up the appeals.

Legal limbo isn't just for gays... in an equal country that doesn't discriminate. One sexual behavior is as legal as another to marry now.

Your comment is as uneducated as it comes, Sil. Equality means no such thing except in your silly head.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.

Your post is nothing more than that of a rabid rat gnashing his feet because the world won't be the way he wants it to be.

Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason. Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.

My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.

Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.

Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.

Supreme Court rulings don't enumerate anything. To make it easy on a moron like you, synonyms like listed, itemized, and detailed equate to enumerated. No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.

Must suck to be you when the courts say what is the law and you get unhappy without relief.

 

[Conservative65]

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.

Says the one that demands the definition of marriage be re-written to suit his beliefs about two fags marrying and State laws be overturned for the same reason. Your problem is you do the same thing you accuse me of doing yet try, but ultimately fail, to justify how you doing it is OK.

My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.

Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.

Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.

Supreme Court rulings don't enumerate anything. To make it easy on a moron like you, synonyms like listed, itemized, and detailed equate to enumerated. No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.

Must suck to be you when the courts say what is the law and you get unhappy without relief.

So you do realize that your statement about enumeration was retarded. Must suck to be a faggot loving peter puffer.

 

[Syriusly]

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.

Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.

Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.

No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

"fags"....."kikes".....'spics'.....'chinks'.....'nips'......'n*****rs'....'c**ts'

All words used by the same people for the same purpose.

Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited. You would be wrong. No one is denied the right to marry.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.

Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.

The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"

 

[Syriusly]

Taxing dividends is a just recommendation for share holders being protected by partial liability.

With HL and CU, we have opened the door to treating corporations in criminal courts as persons for criminal activities and liabilities.
My justification is the Constitution, instead of your ideology and church propaganda.

Then you can show me the word "marriage" in the Constitution.

Just like many of our rights- including the right to privacy- including the right for mixed race couples to marry- these rights have been enumerated through Supreme Court rulings.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Just one of many rulings which declare that marriage is a basic civil right of Americans.

Supreme Court rulings don't enumerate anything. To make it easy on a moron like you, synonyms like listed, itemized, and detailed equate to enumerated. No such thing related to two fags marrying is listed because a bunch of queer loving Liberals misinterpreted the Constitution.

Must suck to be you when the courts say what is the law and you get unhappy without relief.

. Must suck to be a faggot loving peter puffer.

Must be suck to be a bitter, hate ridden bigot.

Me- I am a happily married father with a wonderful wife and child, with a great life- who loves people- and loves slapping down bigots.