Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[WillReadmore]

The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise: Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

Two polls that don't even ask about gay marriage is your compelling evidence. How sad for you. Silly Sil is upset she can't force people to give a shit about queers getting married as much as she does.

It's you who wants to take action on this issue.

You've been on here for a long time now, whining that you can't stop people from getting married.

How about keeping your OWN life in order and letting other people live theirs?

Would that just be to sad for you?

I think you have me confused with someone else. lol

Damn it! I seriously apologize.

Somehow I out-edited myself when I should have just started over with a clean "reply" button.

I'll watch that more carefully.

 

[mdk]

Damn it! I seriously apologize.

Somehow I out-edited myself when I should have just started over with a clean "reply" button.

I'll watch that more carefully.

No need to apologize. We all make mistakes. Cheers.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope- just calling it like it is.

Me too, let's review what was said in context. You'll have to spam another 5 or 6 posts to bleed out another page.

You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.

that's called "projection". When your fascist party got power YOU ignored the majority in most of the states and forced them to.

And by 'fascist' you mean asking the courts to protect the Constitutional rights of Americans.

 

[Syriusly]

Well that is how conservative fascists think right.

If they control the government- they can ignore what the rest of America thinks.

Not the rest of America, pissant... just whiny LibTards...

You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.

You're an idiot.

I voted for Bubba Clinton in 1992.l.

And now you are a true fascist who thinks that once your side gets into power you can ignore Americans that you disagree with.

Oh, dearie-me, the little snowflake is emoting again... my, my, my... what to do?... God, it's going to be fun, watching you twits melt-down time and again...

Off to the peanut gallery with you, after January 20th, along with the rest of the politically impotent losers... whine for us some more, Princess... whine...

LOL- poor little snowflake- who doesn't want the American government to listen to any Americans he doesn't approve of.

 

[Syriusly]

T
The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise: ?

The poll at the top of the page isn't about whether people approve of same gender marriage.

You just lie.

Always.

 

[Kondor3]

Not the rest of America, pissant... just whiny LibTards...

You are a true fascist- you think that once your party gains power you can ignore what Americans think.

You're an idiot.

I voted for Bubba Clinton in 1992.l.

And now you are a true fascist who thinks that once your side gets into power you can ignore Americans that you disagree with.

Oh, dearie-me, the little snowflake is emoting again... my, my, my... what to do?... God, it's going to be fun, watching you twits melt-down time and again...

Off to the peanut gallery with you, after January 20th, along with the rest of the politically impotent losers... whine for us some more, Princess... whine...

LOL- poor little snowflake- who doesn't want the American government to listen to any Americans he doesn't approve of.

Ho-hum... somebody say sumfin'?... nahhhhhh... thought not...

 

[Silhouette]

The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise.

The poll at the top of the page isn't about whether people approve of same gender marriage.

Yes, and election 2016 wasn't a mandate to have conservative Justices appointed due to the fascism 5 of them have been practicing of late. Working class values came out in the poll above. Ignore it at your own peril all the way to 2018 & beyond..

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think Churches should only not pay taxes if they do. Pay taxes = do as you please.

 

[Silhouette]

I think Churches should only not pay taxes if they do. Pay taxes = do as you please.

Well the 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about freedom of church so? That's another topic for another thread.

 

[Silhouette]

No, churches in America are not required by government to marry those they don't want to marry. That's never even been a question.

Prelates can be total a-holes if they feel that's what Jesus calls them to be.

Well, they aren't really supposed to rape children, but that's a different thread, I guess.

But again, where does it say "freedom of church" in the Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

The poll at the top of the page and this poll suggest otherwise.

The poll at the top of the page isn't about whether people approve of same gender marriage.

Yes, and election 2016 wasn't a mandate to have conservative Justices appointed due to the fascism 5 of them have been practicing of late. Working class values came out in the poll above. Ignore it at your own peril all the way to 2018 & beyond..

Why do you believe the Constitution is fascism?

 

[Syriusly]

No, churches in America are not required by government to marry those they don't want to marry. That's never even been a question.

Prelates can be total a-holes if they feel that's what Jesus calls them to be.

Well, they aren't really supposed to rape children, but that's a different thread, I guess.

But again, where does it say "freedom of church" in the Constitution?

But again where does it say that Christians are exempt from the law?

No churches are required to marry anyone they don't want to- this is just Silhouettes straw horse she trots out.

 

[Silhouette]

But again where does it say that Christians are exempt from the law?

Any law that is designed or otherwise seeks to cleave an individual practicing (not perfect, but striving...as all Christians are) their faith passively, is not dominant to the 1st Amendment. In the end, since LGBT is about behaviors, it will be found in the new SCOTUS that local recent PA laws forcing people to promote another behavior they disagree with will falter in the face of their 1st Amendment dominant protections to passively refuse to promote other behaviors.

At the end of the day, requiring Christians to promote homosexuality as a societal norm will be seen equal as if you were trying to force them to light a candle in worship of Satan. If a behavior is forbidden to promote in the Bible, it's forbidden to promote. The Justices won't give this a light look. After all, local recent PA laws regarding BEHAVIORS (See Hively v Ivy Tech 2016 for the distinction re: the 1964 Civil Rights Act) are asking nothing less than SCOTUS to dismantle the 1st Amendment. And that's something only Congress can do. So, good luck with that.

 

[Syriusly]

But again where does it say that Christians are exempt from the law?

Any law that is designed or otherwise seeks to .

There is no law that is designed to harm people of faith.

There are laws that prevent business's from discriminating against people of faith, and people of color and people due to their sexual orientation.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no law that is designed to harm people of faith.

There are laws that prevent business's from discriminating against people of faith, and people of color and people due to their sexual orientation.

When you require a Christian to promote butt sex as a social norm (acme of that promotion is marriage), you require them to abdicate their faith. Jude 1 of the New Testament is very plain and clear on their God's position on the normalizing of homosexuality. It actually discusses it in those precise terms and what the penalty is for assisting: eternal damnation in the pit of fire. That passage is so forward looking, perhaps from the old lessons of what was going on in Sodom just before God smacked the whole society down for disobedience. It speaks of how your kind and cult speaks with smooth tongues to try to persuade others to normalize your deviances. It tells of customs (laws) that urge this peculiar disobedience to God's law. There is no way to read Jude 1 for a Christian and to deduce that they should have ANYTHING to do with promoting homosexuality as a human value, much less the epitome of that promotion in marriage.

So, local, recent PA laws are in DIRECT defiance of the 1st Amendment. It's not like Christians are asking permission to actively persecute individual homosexuals; because that also is forbidden in Jude 1. It's that they are exercising their right to passively refuse to promote what constitutes another faith (cult of deviant sex) so they won't defile their own faith and risk eternal damnation for the mortal sin outlined clearly and concisely in Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ's teachings.

 

[WillReadmore]

There is no law that is designed to harm people of faith.

There are laws that prevent business's from discriminating against people of faith, and people of color and people due to their sexual orientation.

When you require a Christian to promote butt sex as a social norm (acme of that promotion is marriage), you require them to abdicate their faith. Jude 1 of the New Testament is very plain and clear on their God's position on the normalizing of homosexuality. It actually discusses it in those precise terms and what the penalty is for assisting: eternal damnation in the pit of fire. That passage is so forward looking, perhaps from the old lessons of what was going on in Sodom just before God smacked the whole society down for disobedience. It speaks of how your kind and cult speaks with smooth tongues to try to persuade others to normalize your deviances. It tells of customs (laws) that urge this peculiar disobedience to God's law. There is no way to read Jude 1 for a Christian and to deduce that they should have ANYTHING to do with promoting homosexuality as a human value, much less the epitome of that promotion in marriage.

So, local, recent PA laws are in DIRECT defiance of the 1st Amendment. It's not like Christians are asking permission to actively persecute individual homosexuals; because that also is forbidden in Jude 1. It's that they are exercising their right to passively refuse to promote what constitutes another faith (cult of deviant sex) so they won't defile their own faith and risk eternal damnation for the mortal sin outlined clearly and concisely in Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ's teachings.

You should sort through your pile of BS and try to identify one or two short points worth discussing.

OK?

 

[Silhouette]

You should sort through your pile of BS and try to identify one or two short points worth discussing.

OK?

You should sort through your brief ad hominem and identify any point you're trying to make.

OK?

 

[WillReadmore]

You should sort through your pile of BS and try to identify one or two short points worth discussing.

OK?

You should sort through your brief ad hominem and identify any point you're trying to make.

OK?

I read your post all the way to "butt sex".

And, you give me a problem for stopping at that in a thread about religion?

 

[esthermoon]

Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom

 

[Silhouette]

Why should they be forced to do that? If their religious opinions say that homosexuality is not right they shouldn't be forced to perform homosexual weddings.
I think forcing them to do that would be a violation of religious freedom

See ^^ even a kid can see how evident the rights of Christians are. She intuits that homosexuality is a behavior, not a race. As such she knows the difference between saying "no" to perform an interracial man/woman marriage is in no way the same as saying "no" to helping/performing a marriage between people of any race or gender doing weird sex behaviors with each other...

I'll bet if this millennial thought more about how two of the same gender "marrying" deprives children involved legally, of a mother or father for life, she'd double-down on her objections to forcing Christians to participate.