If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Seawytch]

What I am saying is get rid of the laws.

Let liberty rule and let bigots reveal themselves so we can boycott the **** out of them while simultaneously taking unnecessary power away from government, which is the instrument of the ruling class.

And that's easy to say where people have many options. What if there is only one and that "whatever" won't serve you?

I would be just like if there wasn't any of 'whatever'. Like, for example, if there wasn't a grocery store nearby (or if the grocery store nearby wouldn't sell to you), you'd go to another town to get groceries.

Of course these extreme 'what if' scenarios rarely materialize, and don't last long when they do, so it's hard not to see it as a fairly weak excuse for legislation.

You aren't a rural dweller obviously.

But good luck with getting rid of Title II of the civil rights act.

 

[Pop23]

Your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with operating a business. Doesn't the bible say youre to follow the laws? Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and Sarah Huckleberry Sandbag said so.

I don't agree that they should discriminate, but who are you to say that their religion does not dictate how they conduct business?

The Bible does command Christians to obey laws. That's why they are complaining. You want to force upon them laws that remove their right to operate their business according to their conscience.

It's stupid and bullshit, but it's liberty. And they deserve it, just like you.

Let liberty come first. It is way more effective that government force.

Do you believe that we non-bigots will take care of you? Do you have faith in people generally being good?

Public Accommodation laws are laws. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have to abide by them. We've been down this road before.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (D.S.C. 1966)

Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[...]

Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger's contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one's chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.

Bastardizing religion will often lead to these decisions. I object to the use of religion, when it's use is stupidly applied as well.

 

[dblack]

What I am saying is get rid of the laws.

Let liberty rule and let bigots reveal themselves so we can boycott the **** out of them while simultaneously taking unnecessary power away from government, which is the instrument of the ruling class.

And that's easy to say where people have many options. What if there is only one and that "whatever" won't serve you?

I would be just like if there wasn't any of 'whatever'. Like, for example, if there wasn't a grocery store nearby (or if the grocery store nearby wouldn't sell to you), you'd go to another town to get groceries.

Of course these extreme 'what if' scenarios rarely materialize, and don't last long when they do, so it's hard not to see it as a fairly weak excuse for legislation.

You aren't a rural dweller obviously.

But good luck with getting rid of Title II of the civil rights act.

I grew up in rural areas. I know them well. One big difference is that people there don't expect the government to provide them 'access' to anything in particular. Part of the reason people live in remote areas is to get away from the hustle and bustle, and they understand the tradeoffs - that there might not be convenient services available.

The point is, no one is being harmed, no one is suffering a hardship, if another person or business refuses to cater to their needs. And government has no business forcing the issue for its own social engineering agenda.

 

[jc456]

Marriage was a traditionally religious institution for centuries before Government got involved.

But you will praddle on.

No, it has always been a civil institution. How do you get a hundreds of years-old history of arranged marriages to consolidate alliances between countries and tribes; marriages between people who never have been in the same room together before, and call it "religious" when it was recorded, sometimes formed by governments, and then the "happy couple" were afforded special privileges by the relevant government? How did kings beget "legitimate" heirs to their thrones and also bastards; "legitimate" heirs by "marrying" people whom they never met before and "bastards" by people whom they personally selected to bed and impregnate? Was Henry VIII "in love" with the Spanish Infanta when he married her and wished to share his life with her under the guidance of God? Had he even met her before?

There was absolutely nothing involving religion of any sort in the operation of this system. Go get yourself some history.

Lets see, Christian Marriage goes back to Biblical times:

“…Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4ff

Sorry dude

You actually believe this garbage after millennia of the flesh of powerless women being traded around for money and political purposes? Arranged marriage? A father selling his daughter's vagina and uterus for a financial or political benefit; a brother doing the same with his sister's body? How obscene. What a farce. Woman-flesh has been traded throughout history. It still goes on. Look at the phony "Christians" with their female "purity," keeping their daughters ignorant and under wraps, so the fathers can trade their flesh for the highest price to some slime whose only aim is to be "the first" to break their hymen. The whole system has always been a slave trade.

You mean like Planned Parenthood trades women, their money, and their dead babies for money and political purposes? You mean like the porn industry (proudly protected by queers everywhere) exploits powerless women for money and political purposes?

Last I checked, the people on our side object to that stuff, and people on your side endorse it.

So you have no concept that female human beings might be entitled to make their own decisions. PP has NEVER traded women sexually, or their money, for any purpose. The "dead babies" thing is a result of your ignorance and incapacity to realize that these INDEPENDENT human beings have a right to determine their own futures. Prove in some firm way that PP "trades" anything. You just want prostitution, the sale of women, and the subjugation of women to continue. Filth.

"some firm way?" you mean that you will agree with?

 

[jc456]

Marriage was a traditionally religious institution for centuries before Government got involved.

But you will praddle on.

No, it has always been a civil institution. How do you get a hundreds of years-old history of arranged marriages to consolidate alliances between countries and tribes; marriages between people who never have been in the same room together before, and call it "religious" when it was recorded, sometimes formed by governments, and then the "happy couple" were afforded special privileges by the relevant government? How did kings beget "legitimate" heirs to their thrones and also bastards; "legitimate" heirs by "marrying" people whom they never met before and "bastards" by people whom they personally selected to bed and impregnate? Was Henry VIII "in love" with the Spanish Infanta when he married her and wished to share his life with her under the guidance of God? Had he even met her before?

There was absolutely nothing involving religion of any sort in the operation of this system. Go get yourself some history.

Lets see, Christian Marriage goes back to Biblical times:

“…Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4ff

Sorry dude

You actually believe this garbage after millennia of the flesh of powerless women being traded around for money and political purposes? Arranged marriage? A father selling his daughter's vagina and uterus for a financial or political benefit; a brother doing the same with his sister's body? How obscene. What a farce. Woman-flesh has been traded throughout history. It still goes on. Look at the phony "Christians" with their female "purity," keeping their daughters ignorant and under wraps, so the fathers can trade their flesh for the highest price to some slime whose only aim is to be "the first" to break their hymen. The whole system has always been a slave trade.

You mean like Planned Parenthood trades women, their money, and their dead babies for money and political purposes? You mean like the porn industry (proudly protected by queers everywhere) exploits powerless women for money and political purposes?

Last I checked, the people on our side object to that stuff, and people on your side endorse it.

The women who do porn are not powerless.

sure they are.

 

[jc456]

Lets see, Christian Marriage goes back to Biblical times:

“…Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4ff

Sorry dude

You actually believe this garbage after millennia of the flesh of powerless women being traded around for money and political purposes? Arranged marriage? A father selling his daughter's vagina and uterus for a financial or political benefit; a brother doing the same with his sister's body? How obscene. What a farce. Woman-flesh has been traded throughout history. It still goes on. Look at the phony "Christians" with their female "purity," keeping their daughters ignorant and under wraps, so the fathers can trade their flesh for the highest price to some slime whose only aim is to be "the first" to break their hymen. The whole system has always been a slave trade.

You mean like Planned Parenthood trades women, their money, and their dead babies for money and political purposes? You mean like the porn industry (proudly protected by queers everywhere) exploits powerless women for money and political purposes?

Last I checked, the people on our side object to that stuff, and people on your side endorse it.

So you have no concept that female human beings might be entitled to make their own decisions. PP has NEVER traded women sexually, or their money, for any purpose. The "dead babies" thing is a result of your ignorance and incapacity to realize that these INDEPENDENT human beings have a right to determine their own futures. Prove in some firm way that PP "trades" anything. You just want prostitution, the sale of women, and the subjugation of women to continue. Filth.

So you maintain that their victims *CHOOSE* to be exploited by PP, the porn industry and other abusers..and therefore must be *accommodated* by people who look the other way.

But when we criticize PP for exploiting women, we're *anti woman*.

See, like I said..you are organically brain damaged.

Provide any, any evidence that PP "exploits" women or somehow turns women and girls into prostitution or the porn industry. The folks who CHOOSE to walk through PP doors do so voluntarily. I personally benefited from this organization's services, as did just about everyone in my dorm at a college run by the Roman Catholic church. PP's services allowed all of these students to make decisions for themselves. In our four years, lots of female and male GRADUATED.

Remember that one has to make the decision to call PP and set up an appointment. No one from PP contacts anybody. Do you have any idea of what a person's capacity for individual decision-making is about?

You masquerade as a female, but I sincerely doubt that you are one. Otherwise you would respect a female person's ability to make up her own mind.

explain what PP did for you. you know and example of something. anything. please. amazing how you all speak in generalizations and yet never have any depth to your experience.

 

[jc456]

There's no such thing as "my truth" or "your truth". Truth and fact just are. That's kinda the definition. God exists, or He does not, and neither my belief or your disbelief will alter it one way or the other.

Look at it this way: the existence of Pluto (the planet, not the Disney dog) was completely unknown for a long time, and then it was suspected and posited and theorized long before any definitive proof existed. And there were a lot of people who disagreed and didn't believe there really was anything there, back when it was first suggested. Did that disbelief change the fact that Pluto existed? Did those disbelievers have "their truth" on the subject, and the theorizers "their own truth"?

You need to learn to communicate more precisely, so that you don't whip out sloppy phrases like "does not exist for me" and start thinking that's anything literal. What you're actually trying to say is, "I don't wish to believe it exists, therefore I will adamantly refuse to even contemplate the possibility that I'm wrong". Or, for short, "I disbelieve", but you must understand that your belief is not a "truth" of any sort, in and of itself.

Thank you. I think it's a shame that some here are either unwilling or unable to think this through. Out of one side of their mouth they claim that they are right and others are wrong, while out of the other side they deny that truth is objective. And they don't even see the blatant contradiction there. It's kind of funny, actually… but sad at the same time.

Leftists used to be funny to me . . . but after years of the exact same ignorant, hysterical, self-contradicting crap, they just make me tired now.

They're evil and dangerous. And they target children. I'm furious that our parents weren't paying closer attention during the 70s.

they target women and children. they enjoy pouncing on the weak. they are weak themselves. they speak into discrimination only to gain control of the supposed victim. they then manipulate the victim into their control and never release that control. they believe they then own you. evil is an understatement.

 

[jc456]

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

Like I said, if you really think, "Gosh, married people have so many advantages over single people 'cause of joint income tax filing and Social Security survivor benefits", you're a moron, and/or you are seriously ignorant about what marriage ACTUALLY is and what it's for. I've been saying this pretty much from the beginning of homosexuals saying, "We have to have legal marital sanction so that we're getting in on the goodies!"

Dr. Sowell wrote this back in 2005, but leaving aside the dated current event references, the underlying principles are still correct:

Gay Marriage 'Rights' Are Nonsensical | Human Events

Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

He wrote this in 2006:

Thomas Sowell - Gay "marriage"

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

This is the standpoint with which I was agreeing earlier: from a legal standpoint, marriage is not an expansion of rights, a smorgasbord of extra goodies to which only married people are entitled; it is a restriction, legally speaking, and all those "benefits" people keep yammering on about are really just a legal recognition of that.

You didn’t answer the question. Did you only marry in a church or did you get the state issued marriage license? Gays had been marrying for decades without the goodies you straight folks got.

still haven't seen your definition of marriage. where is it?

 

[jc456]

Fertility is not an issue when the two parties cannot mate.

Sorry, thought you would have known that.

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.

Says who? Everyone, religious and secular, pretty much observes the same wedding traditions. That’s why they are traditions. They aren’t Christian for shit sake, they’re pagan.

I hate to break into your ranting about the history of wedding cakes, but I feel the need to point out that it really doesn't matter WHERE the tradition came from.

If someone doesn't want to be involved in your wedding plans, there is no argument or rationale that's going to make it any less of a dick move to try to force them to. Just go find someone who DOES want to associate with you, and get on with your damned life.

Baking a cake does not involve the baker in the wedding. The hotel a child is conceived in does not involve the hotel in the family.

well it does if it has your name on it.

 

[jc456]

You mean like Planned Parenthood trades women, their money, and their dead babies for money and political purposes? You mean like the porn industry (proudly protected by queers everywhere) exploits powerless women for money and political purposes?

Last I checked, the people on our side object to that stuff, and people on your side endorse it.

So you have no concept that female human beings might be entitled to make their own decisions. PP has NEVER traded women sexually, or their money, for any purpose. The "dead babies" thing is a result of your ignorance and incapacity to realize that these INDEPENDENT human beings have a right to determine their own futures. Prove in some firm way that PP "trades" anything. You just want prostitution, the sale of women, and the subjugation of women to continue. Filth.

So you maintain that their victims *CHOOSE* to be exploited by PP, the porn industry and other abusers..and therefore must be *accommodated* by people who look the other way.

But when we criticize PP for exploiting women, we're *anti woman*.

See, like I said..you are organically brain damaged.

Provide any, any evidence that PP "exploits" women or somehow turns women and girls into prostitution or the porn industry. The folks who CHOOSE to walk through PP doors do so voluntarily. I personally benefited from this organization's services, as did just about everyone in my dorm at a college run by the Roman Catholic church. PP's services allowed all of these students to make decisions for themselves. In our four years, lots of female and male GRADUATED.

Remember that one has to make the decision to call PP and set up an appointment. No one from PP contacts anybody. Do you have any idea of what a person's capacity for individual decision-making is abouta/

Planned Parenthood Pays $4.3 Million To Settle Allegations Of Unnecessary Medical Care

Planned Parenthood also to blame for Gosnell | News, Sports, Jobs - The Express

We know that the shitheads who represent the filthy government of Texas forum-shop and that many in the Texas judicial system are corrupt. We know that the scumbags in charge of Texas lie to the people and the government on these issues. There is history there.
How would PP have anything to do with Gosnell? It is the job of the government of every state to inspect medical facilities. They failed. Their failure has absolutely nothing to do with PP clinics. There is no link between him and PP.

Remember that the fuckheads who run Texas continued to advertise in OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT LITERATURE that there is a link between having an abortion and later getting cancer, after this assertion was soundly debunked by medical professionals, and the Texas government maintained to the United States Supreme Court that having an abortion was more dangerous than having a colonoscopy, another assertion soundly debunked by medical professionals.

Just what is the matter with you that you don't want female people with all their options and let them exercise their own decision-making authority?

because we stand up for the innocent life murdered.

 

[jc456]

The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.

It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.

You may be correct, but that's a two-way street.

It has always been about controlling other people.

One side wanted to control the relationships of others, while the other side wanted to control the religious beliefs of the other side. Gays were just caught up in it, and used as political pawns, when they simply wanted the same life as straight people.

The correct solution was to disarm BOTH sides and declare marriage a contractual arrangement that does not, and should not require any type of state permission (license).

That would have fix all the problems.

Court can dissolve partnerships. A marriage is no different.

Courts already handle child-custody cases, so that nothing new either.

A contract does not require gender specifics. Nor is it limited to just two parties (polygamy--oh, no!!!). Nor does it exclude siblings or other close family members (incest -- oh, no!!!). It doesn't require the people to love each other or to be able to produce retarded spawn.

People with the legal capacity to enter into contracts have the legal capacity to marry. That eliminates children, dogs, trees, all other bullshit boogy-man concerns about what marriage will become.

When everyone started treating marriage as a privilege bestowed on us by the state, we lost our way. I believe it started with racism. One had to get permission from the state to be a "race traitor" and marry someone of a different race.

So, while I am glad the SCOTUS gave rights to gay couples, I think they missed an opportunity, but they may not have had the guts to live with the consequences. I see that in a lot of SCOTUS opinions.

marriage is what marriage is. male female. no matter how you wish to paint that picture. marriage is an institution been for thousands of years. gay love is gay love. allow the gays to invest time into what to call their unions. It isn't marriage. They have no ties at all to marriage. Allow them to live together and to hitch however they choose and the state agree with that union for the goodies. I fking don't care. It is not marriage. BTW, the whole try to cram husband and wife into a gay event is discrimination to a woman or a man depending on the gay couple sex. sad. Insulting and wrong.

 

[jc456]

Why force gay lifestyle on people that want nothing to do with it?

Because you and your ilk force your shit on gays all the time

Lol
I’m a libertarian, I do no such thing...

But as a libertarian , I'm willing to bet that you would have no problem allowing others to force their shit on gays -without any fear of reprisals from the government. Right?

huh?

 

[jc456]

So you have no concept that female human beings might be entitled to make their own decisions. PP has NEVER traded women sexually, or their money, for any purpose. The "dead babies" thing is a result of your ignorance and incapacity to realize that these INDEPENDENT human beings have a right to determine their own futures. Prove in some firm way that PP "trades" anything. You just want prostitution, the sale of women, and the subjugation of women to continue. Filth.

So you maintain that their victims *CHOOSE* to be exploited by PP, the porn industry and other abusers..and therefore must be *accommodated* by people who look the other way.

But when we criticize PP for exploiting women, we're *anti woman*.

See, like I said..you are organically brain damaged.

Provide any, any evidence that PP "exploits" women or somehow turns women and girls into prostitution or the porn industry. The folks who CHOOSE to walk through PP doors do so voluntarily. I personally benefited from this organization's services, as did just about everyone in my dorm at a college run by the Roman Catholic church. PP's services allowed all of these students to make decisions for themselves. In our four years, lots of female and male GRADUATED.

Remember that one has to make the decision to call PP and set up an appointment. No one from PP contacts anybody. Do you have any idea of what a person's capacity for individual decision-making is abouta/

Planned Parenthood Pays $4.3 Million To Settle Allegations Of Unnecessary Medical Care

Planned Parenthood also to blame for Gosnell | News, Sports, Jobs - The Express

We know that the shitheads who represent the filthy government of Texas forum-shop and that many in the Texas judicial system are corrupt. We know that the scumbags in charge of Texas lie to the people and the government on these issues. There is history there.
How would PP have anything to do with Gosnell? It is the job of the government of every state to inspect medical facilities. They failed. Their failure has absolutely nothing to do with PP clinics. There is no link between him and PP.

Remember that the fuckheads who run Texas continued to advertise in OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT LITERATURE that there is a link between having an abortion and later getting cancer, after this assertion was soundly debunked by medical professionals, and the Texas government maintained to the United States Supreme Court that having an abortion was more dangerous than having a colonoscopy, another assertion soundly debunked by medical professionals.

Just what is the matter with you that you don't want female people with all their options and let them exercise their own decision-making authority?

You go girl!! Some people are just ******* idiots blinded by their own bigotry.

ah the word.

 

[jc456]

Hey, I have a question...Should gays be allowed to discriminate against Christians? SCOTUS found they violated the baker's right to practice his religion. Neo-Marxist lefties have it backwards as usual.

It wasn't about the cake it was about telling an artist what he could and could not create.

LGBT is a lifestyle.

Except of course homosexuality is not a lifestyle- and no court has ruled upon a 'lifestyle' they have ruled upon the kinds of discrimination that bigots like yourself have attempted- and often succeeded on legally imposing on those who are attracted to the same gender- or who have sex with the same gender.

ah the word again.

 

[jc456]

If anything, it is the "tolerance" crowd that is trying to stigmatize religion and are actually the oppressors, because they are trying to force everyone else to comply with their own beliefs.

Oh please. Give me a break. I do not give a rats hind parts about what you believe, and most people are smart enough to know that they cannot control anyone else's beliefs. The issue is how you behave towards, and treat others

I don't blame you for believing, or not believing what others do, what people are simply asking is, don't try to force your lifestyle on others who don't agree with it, and don't get bent out of shape when someone refuses to act the way they think you should act.

If a baker doesn't want to serve you due to religious convictions, then move along to the next baker, and stop trying to turn every case into discrimination when it's not. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist, but it's not around every corner when something doesn't go the way you want it to. I mean, if we're going to levy that charge any time our feathers get ruffled, well shoot, I can make a whole lot of people do things they don't want to do, based on discrimination.

And In this post, when I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean you as in general people.

That isn’t the way it works

If you can’t serve all members of the public find another line of work.

No one gives a damn about your religion

sorry, that isn't the way we work in america. we have freedoms through the constitution and you have no right to force anyone to do anything in our country.

 

[jc456]

Who is treating marriage as a privilege besides the bigots who-first wanted to limit it to two people of the same race, and more recently , to a man and a woman? What exactly is a privilege vs a right? .Lets think about that.

Privileges are bestowed by government. Rights exist solely by nature of the individual's existence (God given for the religious).

Privileges require application and permission. Rights already exist.

marriage to government is about property.

 

[jc456]

No she is not right. That is just over the top batshit insane.! How can you sat=y that she may be right. Once again, I am lulled into thinking that you are a reasonable person, only to be disappointed and blindsided by this sort or inane equine excrement

Well, wait a minute. You're jumping the gun. Take time to internalize all that I say before you judge it. Please.

I said she may be right, that power brokers are using gay marriage as a tool to control religious organizations. I also said that religious people and organizations (A/K/A Jesus Nazis) are trying to control gays. That happens all the time. People in power use others and their issues to assert power.

But, read the rest.

Does that not make more sense?

Yes perhaps. But when you said that she may be right you were responding to this insane horseshit:
'

The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.
It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.

I don't think that my reaction was unreasonable. There may be some truth to what you say, although I am not sure to what extent, but regardless, it in no way justifies validating that kind of insanity

what insanity? to have an opinion that is different than yours? that's all that happens in here. and you react as an ass about someone dissenting from yours. shame/.

 

[Pop23]

Who is treating marriage as a privilege besides the bigots who-first wanted to limit it to two people of the same race, and more recently , to a man and a woman? What exactly is a privilege vs a right? .Lets think about that.

Privileges are bestowed by government. Rights exist solely by nature of the individual's existence (God given for the religious).

Privileges require application and permission. Rights already exist.

marriage to government is about property.

It's a bit more than that.

1. It also gives rights to access in cases of Hospitalization
2. It gives one partner the right to make medical decisions should the other partner be unable to decide on their own

and for some reason

3. Restricts closely related individual from entering the contract. However, it is not clear how this would apply, or if it is even enforceable with same sex couples.

 

[jc456]

Who is treating marriage as a privilege besides the bigots who-first wanted to limit it to two people of the same race, and more recently , to a man and a woman? What exactly is a privilege vs a right? .Lets think about that.

Privileges are bestowed by government. Rights exist solely by nature of the individual's existence (God given for the religious).

Privileges require application and permission. Rights already exist.

David Koresh. that's all one needs to know, about why government is required. Warren Jeff's, another.

 

[jc456]

If anything, it is the "tolerance" crowd that is trying to stigmatize religion and are actually the oppressors, because they are trying to force everyone else to comply with their own beliefs.

Oh please. Give me a break. I do not give a rats hind parts about what you believe, and most people are smart enough to know that they cannot control anyone else's beliefs. The issue is how you behave towards, and treat others

I don't blame you for believing, or not believing what others do, what people are simply asking is, don't try to force your lifestyle on others who don't agree with it, and don't get bent out of shape when someone refuses to act the way they think you should act.

If a baker doesn't want to serve you due to religious convictions, then move along to the next baker, and stop trying to turn every case into discrimination when it's not. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist, but it's not around every corner when something doesn't go the way you want it to. I mean, if we're going to levy that charge any time our feathers get ruffled, well shoot, I can make a whole lot of people do things they don't want to do, based on discrimination.

And In this post, when I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean you as in general people.

That isn’t the way it works

If you can’t serve all members of the public find another line of work.

No one gives a damn about your religion

sorry, that isn't the way we work in america. we have freedoms through the constitution and you have no right to force anyone to do anything in our country.

if what you say is true, then I would demand a blwjb and whoever I demanded it from would have to give me one. that's your theory?