Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[Sky Dancer]

I've proven my position repeatedly. The fact that you disagree with it not my problem.

Cases have been lost before for lack of evidence and maybe in the future my case will not be proven correct, but I think you are off your rocker if you think that the Elaine Photography case and the NJ Church case are not sufficient evidence to show that activists do not simply want marriage equality.

Immie

Holy shit your dishonesty is sickening. Once again.....you claimed gays would try to force churches to marry them. You have not provided a single case of that happening. Then you dishonestly call the NJ case the "Church" case when it was about a Pavillion that had been rented to the public. Both cases you cited are in the ******* public business arena and neither even came close to trying to force churches to marry them.

Since gay marriage has been legal in MA for over five years it should be easy to prove your claim gays would force churches to marry them. Cite just one case where a church in MA has been forced to marry a gay couple you dishonest wanker.

Nice that Sky thanked you for saying Immie's dishonesty is sickening.

The truth was that Immie got it wrong. The lesbian couple was not suing the church. Hate me all you want.

 

[Immanuel]

This is where respect for you is lost because you have already quoted me and claimed you responded to my challenge because you cited a photography business as your proof. For the last ******* time: show where any church has been forced to marry any couple. It's that simple. A photography biz is not a church. A pavillion rented to the public is not a church and neither of those cases showed where any church was forced to marry anyone.

I'm attacking your position on the fact it is pure bullshit and you will keep proving it by not being honest and laughably claiming the photog business case somehow equates to a church being forced to marry someone.

Sorry, but you are being dishonest here. Perhaps, you think others will not read the entire thread and simply take your word for this shit.

I repeatedly stated that my responses were in reference to Madeline's posts and at the time I posted those links I had not read your "challenge".

You had the audacity and continue to do so, to claim that my posts were in response to your "challenge". The only thing I stated when I read your challenge was that my previous post (the one regarding the NJ couple attempting to force the church to marry them) was applicable to your challenge.

You have also been dishonest in regards to my position on this. I have never once stated that any church has been forced to marry any homosexual couples. The two issues I presented were only being used to back up my belief that in the future extremists will attempt to do so.

The case of Elaine Photography was exactly what I stated to Madeline. An attempt to force a Christian business to perform services that they did not wish to perform. The NJ complaint was again what I had said it was from the beginning... an attempt by activists to force compliance by religious organizations. I never claimed any church had been forced to, rather my belief is that in the future, activists will attempt to do so and I have used these very real cases as support for my claim.

You have done a piss poor job of defending your point of view and since you can't defend your point of view, because the evidence is out there that once homosexual marriage is legalized (as it was in the NJ case at the time) activists will seek to further their cause and require those who do not support their right to marriage to perform services and I believe that eventually this MAY happen to a church which could threaten the Separation of Church and State.

What I have purported to show is that activists will not be happy with this win. They will want more than the right to be married. They will insist that conservative churches and conservatives perform services for them. That may be okay with you, but I have always landed on the side of it being a business' right to decide who they will perform services for as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class indiscriminately.

Immie

See if you can keep up. I specifically asked for it to be shown where any church had been forced to marry any couple. You claimed you responded to that with this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2586434-post435.html

You cited a photography business. In case you didn't know, gays have been suing businesses for discrimination on everything from employment to services and guess what....that has nothing to do with gay marriage.


Now, you are trying to change your claim. Why? Because it was stoopid but instead of being honest you hope you can fool people. You have repeatedly stated you don't want gays to have the title of "marriage" out of fear they would force CHURCHES to marry them. Since you can't support that claim you are now trying to change to say Christian "businesses." Keep embarrassing yourself you ******* bigot.

Maybe you should see if you can keep up. Obviously, you are ignoring the posts that prove you to be wrong.

I never answered your challenge. I posted responses to someone else's posts and then when I saw yours I threw one of those cases your way.

I have NOT ONCE CLAIMED IT HAD HAPPENED YET. I have repeatedly stated that I believe it can happen in the future and the two cases I had previously posted are items that I believe show me to be correct.

You are the one that is frigging dishonest and have been in this entire conversation.

I have repeatedly made myself clear. You can't accept the fact that people don't agree with you. Which I do not. I believe that in the future, activists will attempt to force churches to marry them. And when people disagree with you, you have to stoop to dishonest tactics to fight your case.

Activists don't start out at the top of the hill when they are fighting for a cause, they start at the bottom and work their way up. That is why I stated that Elaine Photography and the NJ Church case are evidence of what I am speaking about. Activists are not going to start with the Roman Catholic Church, they are going to start with Christian companies that refuse to give them service and have every right to do so. Then they will work themselves up to the small community churches that do not have the financial capability of defending themselves against an onslaught of pro bono attorneys filing lawsuits against them.

And quite frankly, even if they never do go so far as the church, the fact that they will do as they have shown themselves to do with Elaine Photography and the NJ Pavilion which belongs to a church group, I don't care. They are still wrong in my book. It is wrong to force any business to serve you for any reason should the business choose not to do so.

I happen to believe they will go after the church and the two cases I linked are evidence that I believe backs up my position. You don't believe it. Guess what? I don't care what you believe.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Churches have so much power, much more than gay people. You have nothing to fear from us. We're not demons.

 

[Immanuel]

See if you can keep up. I specifically asked for it to be shown where any church had been forced to marry any couple. You claimed you responded to that with this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2586434-post435.html

You cited a photography business. In case you didn't know, gays have been suing businesses for discrimination on everything from employment to services and guess what....that has nothing to do with gay marriage.


Now, you are trying to change your claim. Why? Because it was stoopid but instead of being honest you hope you can fool people. You have repeatedly stated you don't want gays to have the title of "marriage" out of fear they would force CHURCHES to marry them. Since you can't support that claim you are now trying to change to say Christian "businesses." Keep embarrassing yourself you ******* bigot.

It's not that complicated really...What claim did he change, pray tell...?

Did you miss it because you have a bad habit of abusing the bold function to compensate for your lack of brain function? It's in the post you quoted.

And you have a bad habit of dishonestly rearranging your opponent's position in order to make you think you have won an discussion.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

You won Immie. You got me to change my position. Now if I could get you to drop your paranoia about gay people.

 

[Valerie]

Now Sky wants to claim that I hate her.


How about just stop pretending the Christians in this thread haven't been kind to you...




>


New reputation!
Hi, you have received 46 reputation points from Sky Dancer.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Hate me all you want.

Regards,
Sky Dancer

 

[DiveCon]

Now Sky wants to claim that I hate her.


How about just stop pretending the Christians in this thread haven't been kind to you...




>


New reputation!
Hi, you have received 46 reputation points from Sky Dancer.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Hate me all you want.

Regards,
Sky Dancer

well, at least it wasnt a neg rep

 

[Sky Dancer]

Now Sky wants to claim that I hate her.


How about just stop pretending the Christians in this thread haven't been kind to you...




>


New reputation!
Hi, you have received 46 reputation points from Sky Dancer.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Hate me all you want.

Regards,
Sky Dancer

well, at least it wasnt a neg rep

Thank you. I don't do neg rep, not even in retaliation.

 

[Valerie]

See if you can keep up. I specifically asked for it to be shown where any church had been forced to marry any couple. You claimed you responded to that with this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2586434-post435.html

You cited a photography business. In case you didn't know, gays have been suing businesses for discrimination on everything from employment to services and guess what....that has nothing to do with gay marriage.


Now, you are trying to change your claim. Why?


Because it was stoopid but instead of being honest you hope you can fool people.



You have repeatedly stated you don't want gays to have the title of "marriage" out of fear they would force CHURCHES to marry them. Since you can't support that claim you are now trying to change to say Christian "businesses."




Keep embarrassing yourself




you ******* bigot.

It's not that complicated really...What claim did he change, pray tell...?

Did you miss it because you have a bad habit of abusing the bold function to compensate for your lack of brain function? It's in the post you quoted.

Yeah I missed the part where he changed his CLAIM at all. You keep trying to insist that his posts focus on YOU and your "challenge"

 

[Immanuel]

Holy shit your dishonesty is sickening. Once again.....you claimed gays would try to force churches to marry them. You have not provided a single case of that happening. Then you dishonestly call the NJ case the "Church" case when it was about a Pavillion that had been rented to the public. Both cases you cited are in the ******* public business arena and neither even came close to trying to force churches to marry them.

Since gay marriage has been legal in MA for over five years it should be easy to prove your claim gays would force churches to marry them. Cite just one case where a church in MA has been forced to marry a gay couple you dishonest wanker.

Why are you always so dishonest? Can't you argue your own point of view without constantly changing other people's words? No, I don't suppose you can.

I claimed that both of those cases were instances that backed up my belief that activists would push their agenda against the church. The NJ Case was against property owned by the church. It is irrelevant that it was rented to the public. The fact is the church has the right to rent it to whomever they want to and not rent it to.

The point about MA having legalized gay marriage for five years proves nothing. There have been other battles going on and pushing that agenda would be detrimental to the cause of gay marriage at this time.

I have never claimed there has been such a case and I am not going hunting for one, because I have stated dozens of times that this is a future concern.

Immie

The case you picked for activiists suing the Church turned out to be no such case. YOu did claim there was a case of lesbians suing the church for not marrying them and it wasnt' true. So far you've had nothing to back up your paranoia about polical gay activists.

You are incorrect on that.

The property was owned by the church. It was denied to the activists because of their sexual orientation and the lawsuit was based upon the fact that the denial was on religious grounds.

That is the truth of the matter and it is as I have stated proof that activists want more than just marriage equality. They want the church to accept them and they don't care if that acceptance comes by force.

Well, let me assure you of one thing, acceptance by force is no acceptance at all.

It is going to take time. I believe that the church is wrong in its stance, but forcing them to comply by court order will not win you anything near acceptance.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Do you consider that comment about my post a kindness Valerie?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Why are you always so dishonest? Can't you argue your own point of view without constantly changing other people's words? No, I don't suppose you can.

I claimed that both of those cases were instances that backed up my belief that activists would push their agenda against the church. The NJ Case was against property owned by the church. It is irrelevant that it was rented to the public. The fact is the church has the right to rent it to whomever they want to and not rent it to.

The point about MA having legalized gay marriage for five years proves nothing. There have been other battles going on and pushing that agenda would be detrimental to the cause of gay marriage at this time.

I have never claimed there has been such a case and I am not going hunting for one, because I have stated dozens of times that this is a future concern.

Immie

The case you picked for activiists suing the Church turned out to be no such case. YOu did claim there was a case of lesbians suing the church for not marrying them and it wasnt' true. So far you've had nothing to back up your paranoia about polical gay activists.

You are incorrect on that.

The property was owned by the church. It was denied to the activists because of their sexual orientation and the lawsuit was based upon the fact that the denial was on religious grounds.

That is the truth of the matter and it is as I have stated proof that activists want more than just marriage equality. They want the church to accept them and they don't care if that acceptance comes by force.

Well, let me assure you of one thing, acceptance by force is no acceptance at all.

It is going to take time. I believe that the church is wrong in its stance, but forcing them to comply by court order will not win you anything near acceptance.

Immie

I posted the truth about that civil rights lawsuit.



Finding: NJ church-owned town violated lesbian couple's rights when it barred them from public pavilion [contd.]



Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is affiliated with UMC, owns the pavilion and all the land in Ocean Grove -- a nearly one-square-mile section of Neptune Township originally founded as a seaside religious retreat. Homeowners there lease land from the church group.

The Association said it was not required to permit civil union ceremonies in its Boardwalk Pavilion based on First Amendment rights.

But in its investigation, the civil rights division found that the Camp Meeting Association had been permitting the public to use the pavilion for weddings and secular events prior to the request from Bernstein and Paster.

The investigation found that the association was even granted a tax exemption for the pavilion from the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) nearly twenty years ago.

The church group was eligible for the exemption under the state's Green Acres law, DEP found, because it said that the pavilion would be open to the public "on an equal basis."

Following filing of the civil rights complaint, the DEP rejected a renewal of the Green Acres tax exemption for the Boardwalk Pavilion in September 2007.

The application from Bernstein and Paster to use the facility for their civil union ceremony prompted a swift change in policy by the association. By April 1, the Association's president had decided it would cease permitting the public to reserve the use of the Boardwalk Pavilion for any wedding and other events.

In today's ruling, Vespa-Papaleo rejected a similar complaint filed by Janice Moore and Emily Sonnessa, who also live in Ocean Grove. They had applied for permission to use the pavilion for a civil union ceremony after the association had issued its new rules that prohibit public use of the pavilion for all weddings.
http://lgbtqnews.com/gaynews/new-je...o-rent-public-pavilion-to-lesbian-couple.aspx

 

[Immanuel]

Holy shit your dishonesty is sickening. Once again.....you claimed gays would try to force churches to marry them. You have not provided a single case of that happening. Then you dishonestly call the NJ case the "Church" case when it was about a Pavillion that had been rented to the public. Both cases you cited are in the ******* public business arena and neither even came close to trying to force churches to marry them.

Since gay marriage has been legal in MA for over five years it should be easy to prove your claim gays would force churches to marry them. Cite just one case where a church in MA has been forced to marry a gay couple you dishonest wanker.

Why are you always so dishonest? Can't you argue your own point of view without constantly changing other people's words? No, I don't suppose you can.

I claimed that both of those cases were instances that backed up my belief that activists would push their agenda against the church. The NJ Case was against property owned by the church. It is irrelevant that it was rented to the public. The fact is the church has the right to rent it to whomever they want to and not rent it to.

The point about MA having legalized gay marriage for five years proves nothing. There have been other battles going on and pushing that agenda would be detrimental to the cause of gay marriage at this time.

I have never claimed there has been such a case and I am not going hunting for one, because I have stated dozens of times that this is a future concern.

Immie

The church rented the pavillion to the public therefore it fell within the public anti-discrimination laws.

Basically, you don't have anything to justify your position of bigotry so you whine, toss out red herrings, change your claims, backtrack your own statements, then have the audacity to accuse others of being dishonest. Thank God there are honest people out there who don't let fantasy based future concerns trample the Rights of people living in the here and now. Know what pisses me off the most about people like you Immie? You like to dress up in Sunday school clothes but you never actually take them anywhere.

So are you of the belief that anyone can force a business to sell to them?

Why must you continue to be dishonest? I have not changed a thing about my stance in this entire discussion, but you continue to lie about that as well. Hypocrite.

I have offered a solution that I believe is fair. That being civil unions for every couple and marriage in the church for all couples as long as they find a church that will marry them.

Not only that, but I only presented it as something that I believe to be a solution and I have given my reasons for wanting the word to be something other than marriage. You simply can't handle people not agreeing with you. What a damned cry baby you are! This is your typical fall back position. In every thread you have ever participated in, when you don't succeed in getting people to admit you are right when you are wrong, you start with you ***** name calling shit.

By the way I have not said a word about you calling me a bigot. More dishonesty on your part.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Holy shit your dishonesty is sickening. Once again.....you claimed gays would try to force churches to marry them. You have not provided a single case of that happening. Then you dishonestly call the NJ case the "Church" case when it was about a Pavillion that had been rented to the public. Both cases you cited are in the ******* public business arena and neither even came close to trying to force churches to marry them.

Since gay marriage has been legal in MA for over five years it should be easy to prove your claim gays would force churches to marry them. Cite just one case where a church in MA has been forced to marry a gay couple you dishonest wanker.

Nice that Sky thanked you for saying Immie's dishonesty is sickening.

The truth was that Immie got it wrong. The lesbian couple was not suing the church. Hate me all you want.

Sorry, but you have it wrong, and I pointed out to you what that case was about long ago.

It was about the right of a religious organization not to offer its facilities to a homosexual couple.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Nice that Sky thanked you for saying Immie's dishonesty is sickening.

The truth was that Immie got it wrong. The lesbian couple was not suing the church. Hate me all you want.

Sorry, but you have it wrong, and I pointed out to you what that case was about long ago.

It was about the right of a religious organization not to offer its facilities to a homosexual couple.

Immie

The association was renting the pavillion to the public 'on an equal basis' and had a tax exempt status to do so. It violated civil rights law. The couple was not suing the church for refusing to marry them, as you previously stated.

 

[Immanuel]

Churches have so much power, much more than gay people. You have nothing to fear from us. We're not demons.

You are not demons, most of you are not. But extremists are.

The pro-life movement knows what happens when you don't take threats, even minor threats, seriously.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

You won Immie. You got me to change my position. Now if I could get you to drop your paranoia about gay people.

Already done, long ago. You have to work on getting me to drop my paranoia about extremists and politicians... good luck.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Churches have so much power, much more than gay people. You have nothing to fear from us. We're not demons.

You are not demons, most of you are not. But extremists are.

The pro-life movement knows what happens when you don't take threats, even minor threats, seriously.

Immie

The couple in the civil rights lawsuit you cited are not extremists. They were citizens who wanted to use a public facility just like everyone else.

The pro-life movement has some extremists of their own. They kill people.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You won Immie. You got me to change my position. Now if I could get you to drop your paranoia about gay people.

Already done, long ago. You have to work on getting me to drop my paranoia about extremists and politicians... good luck.

Immie

Just stop targeting gays as extremists when they're not. The NJ couple were not extremists.

 

[Immanuel]

The case you picked for activiists suing the Church turned out to be no such case. YOu did claim there was a case of lesbians suing the church for not marrying them and it wasnt' true. So far you've had nothing to back up your paranoia about polical gay activists.

You are incorrect on that.

The property was owned by the church. It was denied to the activists because of their sexual orientation and the lawsuit was based upon the fact that the denial was on religious grounds.

That is the truth of the matter and it is as I have stated proof that activists want more than just marriage equality. They want the church to accept them and they don't care if that acceptance comes by force.

Well, let me assure you of one thing, acceptance by force is no acceptance at all.

It is going to take time. I believe that the church is wrong in its stance, but forcing them to comply by court order will not win you anything near acceptance.

Immie

I posted the truth about that civil rights lawsuit.



Finding: NJ church-owned town violated lesbian couple's rights when it barred them from public pavilion [contd.]



Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is affiliated with UMC, owns the pavilion and all the land in Ocean Grove -- a nearly one-square-mile section of Neptune Township originally founded as a seaside religious retreat. Homeowners there lease land from the church group.

The Association said it was not required to permit civil union ceremonies in its Boardwalk Pavilion based on First Amendment rights.

But in its investigation, the civil rights division found that the Camp Meeting Association had been permitting the public to use the pavilion for weddings and secular events prior to the request from Bernstein and Paster.

The investigation found that the association was even granted a tax exemption for the pavilion from the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) nearly twenty years ago.

The church group was eligible for the exemption under the state's Green Acres law, DEP found, because it said that the pavilion would be open to the public "on an equal basis."

Following filing of the civil rights complaint, the DEP rejected a renewal of the Green Acres tax exemption for the Boardwalk Pavilion in September 2007.

The application from Bernstein and Paster to use the facility for their civil union ceremony prompted a swift change in policy by the association. By April 1, the Association's president had decided it would cease permitting the public to reserve the use of the Boardwalk Pavilion for any wedding and other events.

In today's ruling, Vespa-Papaleo rejected a similar complaint filed by Janice Moore and Emily Sonnessa, who also live in Ocean Grove. They had applied for permission to use the pavilion for a civil union ceremony after the association had issued its new rules that prohibit public use of the pavilion for all weddings.
http://lgbtqnews.com/gaynews/new-je...o-rent-public-pavilion-to-lesbian-couple.aspx

That does not make the court right and that only goes to further my stance that First Amendment Rights are not too big to fall.

Immie, if we add abortion to this thread it is likely to go completely sideways. But yes, I suppose it would be fair to say it stands out as an decision that might be viewed as "legislating from the bench". (Let's leave of this topic...we know we disagree about abortion.)

I'm not sure what direction you feel the Gang of Nine could possibly go in that would be analogous, though. It seems to me you fear GLBT people will be able to sue fundamentalist churches, etc. for some sort of injury. For what, exactly? Not conducting gay marriages? It's perfectly clear they cannot be sued for withholding ceremonies from inter-faith couples, or even inter-racial ones.

I have more confidence in Freedom of Religion, Immie. I think you worry too much.

And I don't think you worry enough.

What direction can the "gang of five" take us? Meaning the five liberals on the bench.

Who knows? It really is hard to say. I have always believed until very recently that all three branches of our government, believed in the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. It was not until mid point of Bush 43 that I began to see that is not the case.

It could simply be that the court removes the right of churches to deny wedding ceremonies to homosexual couples. Maybe they will even force pastors to perform those weddings as they did the photographer? Maybe they will find some hidden "right" such as the right to privacy that was concocted in Roe to give them grounds to strike down the churches right not to perform these weddings.

Who knows, maybe they will rule that the First Amendment was only written to keep the government from establishing a national religion and it does not give churches the right to discriminate against homosexual couples? Stranger things than that have happened in the last 40 years.

Immie

Immie