Religious Tolerance: Church kicks whole family out for supporting their gay daughter

[Seawytch]

No, you claimed that the Constitution prohibits churches being sued. You are now pretending that was not your claim rather than admit you were wrong. II can't force you to admit you were wrong, but I have actually forced you to lie about what you said. Small victory, but I will take it.

And I clarified over and over and over (and over and over) that I meant in regards to forcing them to marry a couple. It will NEVER be successful. You're just being an ass about it because your'e the one who is wrong.

If by clarification you mean you tried to argue you didn't mean what you said I will give it to you.

I meant exactly what I said. Churches and/or clergy have never, nor will they ever be required, by law, to marry any couple in a religious ceremony.

 

[Gadawg73]

This gay thing is really a bad thing unless you accept these people for who they are. THEY fall love with and are attracted to the same sex. They do not choose to be that way, same as us.
Next month we are having a family member get married. HUGE ******* WEDDING, a pant load of wasted dollars if you ask me but that is another show for another day.
Probably 200+ guests. And a hand full of gay adults with their partners between both families.
I know this as my family has 2 and a wealthy female teacher in the closet which makes 3, unofficially.
And the BS of "well, what will Uncle Clyde think?' . Well ole Clyde is a good dude at age 78, came to almost all my games years ago and fished and hunted with us. I respect what Uncle Clyde says and feels.
But Uncle Clyde just has to get over the fact that gay folks and their significant other are more than welcome at this wedding and other weddings in our family. And first person I see there that is gay and has their significant other with them Uncle Clyde is the first person I am going over to introduce them to. With respect and not in your face and non confrontational if he reacts negatively. All respect.
But that is the only way I know how to do this in the family. Either we give these folks equal respect which is love, and love or we don't.
There is no in between. Let them marry and we need to stay the hell out of their lives except to introduce them to our relatives and let them decide if they like them or not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Point it out, in the article provided, where it says PA laws will be used to force churches to marry people. Exact paragraph please.

Go read it.

I did which is why I know it doesn't say what you claim. Your inability to post the paragraph speaks volumes as well.

It doesn't say that the Constitution does not prevent people from suing churches? That was, and is, my claim. Unlike you, I don't need to clarify my words because someone shoved them back down my throat when they proved I was wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I clarified over and over and over (and over and over) that I meant in regards to forcing them to marry a couple. It will NEVER be successful. You're just being an ass about it because your'e the one who is wrong.

If by clarification you mean you tried to argue you didn't mean what you said I will give it to you.

I meant exactly what I said. Churches and/or clergy have never, nor will they ever be required, by law, to marry any couple in a religious ceremony.

That isn't what you said at the beginning. In fact, when I asked you why, if the Constitution prevents churches from being sued over same sex marraige, states are writing their laws to exempt them from being sued you replied that Republicans do stupid things all the time.

Keep digging.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This gay thing is really a bad thing unless you accept these people for who they are. THEY fall love with and are attracted to the same sex. They do not choose to be that way, same as us.
Next month we are having a family member get married. HUGE ******* WEDDING, a pant load of wasted dollars if you ask me but that is another show for another day.
Probably 200+ guests. And a hand full of gay adults with their partners between both families.
I know this as my family has 2 and a wealthy female teacher in the closet which makes 3, unofficially.
And the BS of "well, what will Uncle Clyde think?' . Well ole Clyde is a good dude at age 78, came to almost all my games years ago and fished and hunted with us. I respect what Uncle Clyde says and feels.
But Uncle Clyde just has to get over the fact that gay folks and their significant other are more than welcome at this wedding and other weddings in our family. And first person I see there that is gay and has their significant other with them Uncle Clyde is the first person I am going over to introduce them to. With respect and not in your face and non confrontational if he reacts negatively. All respect.
But that is the only way I know how to do this in the family. Either we give these folks equal respect which is love, and love or we don't.
There is no in between. Let them marry and we need to stay the hell out of their lives except to introduce them to our relatives and let them decide if they like them or not.

This from the guy that supports laws that force people to do things because he thinks the government is God.

 

[Seawytch]

If by clarification you mean you tried to argue you didn't mean what you said I will give it to you.

I meant exactly what I said. Churches and/or clergy have never, nor will they ever be required, by law, to marry any couple in a religious ceremony.

That isn't what you said at the beginning. In fact, when I asked you why, if the Constitution prevents churches from being sued over same sex marraige, states are writing their laws to exempt them from being sued you replied that Republicans do stupid things all the time.

Keep digging.

I did not say "Republicans do stupid things". I said that an inability for success does not stop some people from trying, but they will not be successful.

Nor did I say that churches are prevented from being sued. I said, and still say, that churches cannot be forced to perform a religious ceremony for any couple. That has not changed just because gays are marrying in some places. Churches have never (despite your repeated lies, er claims to the contrary.) been required to perform a ceremony and they won't ever be (again, despite your stupid "yet" comments).

 

[Gadawg73]

This gay thing is really a bad thing unless you accept these people for who they are. THEY fall love with and are attracted to the same sex. They do not choose to be that way, same as us.
Next month we are having a family member get married. HUGE ******* WEDDING, a pant load of wasted dollars if you ask me but that is another show for another day.
Probably 200+ guests. And a hand full of gay adults with their partners between both families.
I know this as my family has 2 and a wealthy female teacher in the closet which makes 3, unofficially.
And the BS of "well, what will Uncle Clyde think?' . Well ole Clyde is a good dude at age 78, came to almost all my games years ago and fished and hunted with us. I respect what Uncle Clyde says and feels.
But Uncle Clyde just has to get over the fact that gay folks and their significant other are more than welcome at this wedding and other weddings in our family. And first person I see there that is gay and has their significant other with them Uncle Clyde is the first person I am going over to introduce them to. With respect and not in your face and non confrontational if he reacts negatively. All respect.
But that is the only way I know how to do this in the family. Either we give these folks equal respect which is love, and love or we don't.
There is no in between. Let them marry and we need to stay the hell out of their lives except to introduce them to our relatives and let them decide if they like them or not.

This from the guy that supports laws that force people to do things because he thinks the government is God.

I support the rights of the individual, not the power of government.
You support majority mob rule referendums that give the power to government to ban gay marriage.
The big government closet liberal that you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I meant exactly what I said. Churches and/or clergy have never, nor will they ever be required, by law, to marry any couple in a religious ceremony.

That isn't what you said at the beginning. In fact, when I asked you why, if the Constitution prevents churches from being sued over same sex marraige, states are writing their laws to exempt them from being sued you replied that Republicans do stupid things all the time.

Keep digging.

I did not say "Republicans do stupid things". I said that an inability for success does not stop some people from trying, but they will not be successful.

Nor did I say that churches are prevented from being sued. I said, and still say, that churches cannot be forced to perform a religious ceremony for any couple. That has not changed just because gays are marrying in some places. Churches have never (despite your repeated lies, er claims to the contrary.) been required to perform a ceremony and they won't ever be (again, despite your stupid "yet" comments).

This wasn't your post?

Its funny...they cry about how churches will be sued for gay marriage, and yet this happens...
Barbarians are more civilized than these religious people.

And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.

Did you report to the staff that somebody hacked your account? Have you demand that the FBI not investigate?

You really should stop lying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This gay thing is really a bad thing unless you accept these people for who they are. THEY fall love with and are attracted to the same sex. They do not choose to be that way, same as us.
Next month we are having a family member get married. HUGE ******* WEDDING, a pant load of wasted dollars if you ask me but that is another show for another day.
Probably 200+ guests. And a hand full of gay adults with their partners between both families.
I know this as my family has 2 and a wealthy female teacher in the closet which makes 3, unofficially.
And the BS of "well, what will Uncle Clyde think?' . Well ole Clyde is a good dude at age 78, came to almost all my games years ago and fished and hunted with us. I respect what Uncle Clyde says and feels.
But Uncle Clyde just has to get over the fact that gay folks and their significant other are more than welcome at this wedding and other weddings in our family. And first person I see there that is gay and has their significant other with them Uncle Clyde is the first person I am going over to introduce them to. With respect and not in your face and non confrontational if he reacts negatively. All respect.
But that is the only way I know how to do this in the family. Either we give these folks equal respect which is love, and love or we don't.
There is no in between. Let them marry and we need to stay the hell out of their lives except to introduce them to our relatives and let them decide if they like them or not.

This from the guy that supports laws that force people to do things because he thinks the government is God.

I support the rights of the individual, not the power of government.
You support majority mob rule referendums that give the power to government to ban gay marriage.
The big government closet liberal that you are.

You have never taken the side of individual rights over the power of the state.

 

[Seawytch]

That isn't what you said at the beginning. In fact, when I asked you why, if the Constitution prevents churches from being sued over same sex marraige, states are writing their laws to exempt them from being sued you replied that Republicans do stupid things all the time.

Keep digging.

I did not say "Republicans do stupid things". I said that an inability for success does not stop some people from trying, but they will not be successful.

Nor did I say that churches are prevented from being sued. I said, and still say, that churches cannot be forced to perform a religious ceremony for any couple. That has not changed just because gays are marrying in some places. Churches have never (despite your repeated lies, er claims to the contrary.) been required to perform a ceremony and they won't ever be (again, despite your stupid "yet" comments).

This wasn't your post?

Its funny...they cry about how churches will be sued for gay marriage, and yet this happens...
Barbarians are more civilized than these religious people.

And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.

Did you report to the staff that somebody hacked your account? Have you demand that the FBI not investigate?

You really should stop lying.

And I clarified my original statement over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

I will say it again, one last time...

Churches and or clergy will never be required to marry any couple, as in perform the religious ceremony, to which they have a religious objection. Are you clear now?

 

[whitehall]

The key word is "tolerance". Surely the radical left should understand that they are being just as intolerant about the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists as Christian fundamentalists are alleged to be about sodomites.

 

[Gadawg73]

This from the guy that supports laws that force people to do things because he thinks the government is God.

I support the rights of the individual, not the power of government.
You support majority mob rule referendums that give the power to government to ban gay marriage.
The big government closet liberal that you are.

You have never taken the side of individual rights over the power of the state.

I always do. I oppose you and your mob rule referendums where you use the power of the state to deny folks to marry.
Same as the war on drugs and dozens of other things.
You want to use the power of government to push your agenda against gay marriage. I support the rights of the individual.
Do you support referendums on the ballot to ban gay marriage?
Do you support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman?
If so you do not support the rights of the individual.
How fitting of you to want to use the Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the rights of the individual and twist, distort and bastardize it to tell a certain group of people what it CAN NOT DO, rather than tell THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
Go ahead and admit. You hate gay folks and believe them to be 2nd class citizens.
At least others here have the balls to admit it.

 

[Gadawg73]

The key word is "tolerance". Surely the radical left should understand that they are being just as intolerant about the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists as Christian fundamentalists are alleged to be about sodomites.

When your beliefs want to deny folks equal rights they should never be tolerated.
Christian or not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did not say "Republicans do stupid things". I said that an inability for success does not stop some people from trying, but they will not be successful.

Nor did I say that churches are prevented from being sued. I said, and still say, that churches cannot be forced to perform a religious ceremony for any couple. That has not changed just because gays are marrying in some places. Churches have never (despite your repeated lies, er claims to the contrary.) been required to perform a ceremony and they won't ever be (again, despite your stupid "yet" comments).

This wasn't your post?

And Churches can't be sued. The 1st Amendment guarantees that.

Did you report to the staff that somebody hacked your account? Have you demand that the FBI not investigate?

You really should stop lying.

And I clarified my original statement over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

I will say it again, one last time...

Churches and or clergy will never be required to marry any couple, as in perform the religious ceremony, to which they have a religious objection. Are you clear now?

Yes, we already covered that you changed your argument after I shoved the fact that you were wrong down your throat.

Silly me, I still want you to admit you were wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I support the rights of the individual, not the power of government.
You support majority mob rule referendums that give the power to government to ban gay marriage.
The big government closet liberal that you are.

You have never taken the side of individual rights over the power of the state.

I always do. I oppose you and your mob rule referendums where you use the power of the state to deny folks to marry.
Same as the war on drugs and dozens of other things.
You want to use the power of government to push your agenda against gay marriage. I support the rights of the individual.
Do you support referendums on the ballot to ban gay marriage?
Do you support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman?
If so you do not support the rights of the individual.
How fitting of you to want to use the Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the rights of the individual and twist, distort and bastardize it to tell a certain group of people what it CAN NOT DO, rather than tell THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
Go ahead and admit. You hate gay folks and believe them to be 2nd class citizens.
At least others here have the balls to admit it.

My mob rule referendums?

This is the same guy that supports states writing laws that force people to go to weddings, and then denies that he supports making slaves of people.

Tell you what, I really don't have time to pull up every post where you throw individual liberty under the bus, so I will just pull up one example to prove that you are lying.

I have been a private detective for 34 years, licensed since 1982 because they passed a law requiring that. For 34 years my practice has been 90% litigation of all forms, over 3000 civil cases and no telling how many calendar calls for the civil trial calendar. I would say 25 of them a year with over 40 cases on the civil calendar.
I would say I have seen about 1000 civil cases a year on the calendar AND NOT ONE of what you claim.
NOT ONCE have I ever seen a case where a gay person sued a photographer OR ANYONE for not performing a service because they were gay.
Not once. Ever.
And PLEASE give us the name of the insurance company that sells a policy to insure businesses that refuse to give service to gay folks and may get sued as a result of it.
Your Bull Shit meter has blown off the chart.

If you look it up you will find photographers, bakers and florists sued and investigated for refusing to perform for gays. A bakery in Oregon was investigated by the state attorney genera for refusing to bake a wedding cake. While you may not have heard of such actions that does not mean they don't happen.

Wrong, you need to do your homework.
THE STATE brought suit through the Attorney Generals office against that business and all such cases.
NOT THE CONSUMER. They have no standing in civil court.
Consumer protection law already in place.
Gay marriage changes nothing.
Next.

 

[Seawytch]

This wasn't your post?



Did you report to the staff that somebody hacked your account? Have you demand that the FBI not investigate?

You really should stop lying.

And I clarified my original statement over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

I will say it again, one last time...

Churches and or clergy will never be required to marry any couple, as in perform the religious ceremony, to which they have a religious objection. Are you clear now?

Yes, we already covered that you changed your argument after I shoved the fact that you were wrong down your throat.

Silly me, I still want you to admit you were wrong.

I never changed my argument you silly little man, I clarified my offhand statement.

My Claim: Churches and or clergy will never be forced to marry a couple in a religious ceremony.

Your inaccurate claim: They already have and of course they will

 

[Gadawg73]

You have never taken the side of individual rights over the power of the state.

I always do. I oppose you and your mob rule referendums where you use the power of the state to deny folks to marry.
Same as the war on drugs and dozens of other things.
You want to use the power of government to push your agenda against gay marriage. I support the rights of the individual.
Do you support referendums on the ballot to ban gay marriage?
Do you support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman?
If so you do not support the rights of the individual.
How fitting of you to want to use the Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the rights of the individual and twist, distort and bastardize it to tell a certain group of people what it CAN NOT DO, rather than tell THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
Go ahead and admit. You hate gay folks and believe them to be 2nd class citizens.
At least others here have the balls to admit it.

My mob rule referendums?

This is the same guy that supports states writing laws that force people to go to weddings, and then denies that he supports making slaves of people.

Tell you what, I really don't have time to pull up every post where you throw individual liberty under the bus, so I will just pull up one example to prove that you are lying.

If you look it up you will find photographers, bakers and florists sued and investigated for refusing to perform for gays. A bakery in Oregon was investigated by the state attorney genera for refusing to bake a wedding cake. While you may not have heard of such actions that does not mean they don't happen.

Wrong, you need to do your homework.
THE STATE brought suit through the Attorney Generals office against that business and all such cases.
NOT THE CONSUMER. They have no standing in civil court.
Consumer protection law already in place.
Gay marriage changes nothing.
Next.

You are a ******* liar and a bad one at that.
I oppose forcing anyone to go to weddings.
I support the right of the church in this case to get rid of anyone they want to as a member. If this church wants to deny gays outright I fully support that.
They would not be Christian church but fine with me.
How many laws out there that now prohibit you from denying a black or anyone else to buy your house if it is for sale?
How many laws out there that prohibit you from firing older workers, not hiring blacks, handicapped, gays, midgets, blue eyed people, people that are bald, etc.
Called equal protection under the law.
Same with renting buildings and anything and everything else where dollars are exchanged.
Lester Maddox ring a bell?
YOU selectively want to EXCLUDE gay folks from all those laws as bakers, florists and others that are IN PRIVATE business have to abide by all the other laws so they now have to abide include gay folks in those laws.
If you sell wedding cakes to the public there is sound footing that you must also sell it to EVERYONE.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I clarified my original statement over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

I will say it again, one last time...

Churches and or clergy will never be required to marry any couple, as in perform the religious ceremony, to which they have a religious objection. Are you clear now?

Yes, we already covered that you changed your argument after I shoved the fact that you were wrong down your throat.

Silly me, I still want you to admit you were wrong.

I never changed my argument you silly little man, I clarified my offhand statement.

My Claim: Churches and or clergy will never be forced to marry a couple in a religious ceremony.

Your inaccurate claim: They already have and of course they will

You said the Constitution prevents churches from being sued, now you say that no one will ever sue a church or the clergy, how is that not a change?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are a ******* liar and a bad one at that.
I oppose forcing anyone to go to weddings.

Of course you do, which is why you never posted in any of the threads that covered that very thing happening.

I support the right of the church in this case to get rid of anyone they want to as a member. If this church wants to deny gays outright I fully support that.
They would not be Christian church but fine with me.

The church didn't get rid of anyone. You would know that if you read the thread, but you prefer to pretend you have the answers.

By the way, what would make them not a Christian church if they kept people that violated the tenants of Christianity outside the church? Is the answer to that your delusional belief that you know more about Christianity than anyone else on the planet?

How many laws out there that now prohibit you from denying a black or anyone else to buy your house if it is for sale?
How many laws out there that prohibit you from firing older workers, not hiring blacks, handicapped, gays, midgets, blue eyed people, people that are bald, etc.
Called equal protection under the law.
Same with renting buildings and anything and everything else where dollars are exchanged.
Lester Maddox ring a bell?
YOU selectively want to EXCLUDE gay folks from all those laws as bakers, florists and others that are IN PRIVATE business have to abide by all the other laws so they now have to abide include gay folks in those laws.
If you sell wedding cakes to the public there is sound footing that you must also sell it to EVERYONE.

I don't want to exclude gay people from anything, I want the government to stop making laws like that altogether. You, on the other hand, support those laws, which actually makes my point.

You support laws that allow the government to tell people what to do.

I oppose them.

Yet you keep trying to tell me you support the rights of individuals over the authority of the state to tell them what to do.

Then you call me a liar for not letting you get away with it.

 

[Gadawg73]

You are a ******* liar and a bad one at that.
I oppose forcing anyone to go to weddings.

Of course you do, which is why you never posted in any of the threads that covered that very thing happening.

I support the right of the church in this case to get rid of anyone they want to as a member. If this church wants to deny gays outright I fully support that.
They would not be Christian church but fine with me.

The church didn't get rid of anyone. You would know that if you read the thread, but you prefer to pretend you have the answers.

By the way, what would make them not a Christian church if they kept people that violated the tenants of Christianity outside the church? Is the answer to that your delusional belief that you know more about Christianity than anyone else on the planet?

How many laws out there that now prohibit you from denying a black or anyone else to buy your house if it is for sale?
How many laws out there that prohibit you from firing older workers, not hiring blacks, handicapped, gays, midgets, blue eyed people, people that are bald, etc.
Called equal protection under the law.
Same with renting buildings and anything and everything else where dollars are exchanged.
Lester Maddox ring a bell?
YOU selectively want to EXCLUDE gay folks from all those laws as bakers, florists and others that are IN PRIVATE business have to abide by all the other laws so they now have to abide include gay folks in those laws.
If you sell wedding cakes to the public there is sound footing that you must also sell it to EVERYONE.

I don't want to exclude gay people from anything, I want the government to stop making laws like that altogether. You, on the other hand, support those laws, which actually makes my point.

You support laws that allow the government to tell people what to do.

I oppose them.

Yet you keep trying to tell me you support the rights of individuals over the authority of the state to tell them what to do.

Then you call me a liar for not letting you get away with it.

More bull shit.
Someone never washed your mouth out with soap when you were a child and allowed you to fabricate stories as a youth.
They should have worn your ass out with a switch to teach you a lesson on telling the truth.