Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[TemplarKormac]

So...list the lawsuits against the Catholic Church for refusing to marry previously divorced couples.

List:

1.

2.

3.

etc.

Red herring, non sequitur. No reply is warranted.

It’s a perfectly legitimate question, it’s your claim that a church which refuses to marry a same-sex couple would be subject to a lawsuit on 14th Amendment grounds.

If that’s true you should have no trouble citing such a case.

I just explained myself. Only you, Seawytch, and bodecea would be blind enough not to see the precedent being established in our court system. I merely presented it as a hypothetical situation. Can you people not read?

 

[Freewill]

You folks need to read the first link concerning the law. Hell they discriminate right in the law. See if you can find where.

Anyway I showed you folks where both sides were wrong, there were law suits and there will be law suits if history teaches us anything.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not at all...and you know it. Being divorced is TOTALLY legal....remarriage after divorce is TOTALLY legal. And yet, the Catholic Church has a clear right to refuse to marry previously divorced people. Just like churches have a clear right to refuse to marry gay couples, divorced couples, interfaith couples, interracial couples....pretty much anyone they don't want to marry. It's the 1st amendment.

Your argument is based on a LIE.

No, simply put, your post is irrelevant. You want to trap me in the proverbial scenarios, and trap questions that have nothing to do with this discussion in any way at all. You should really try pulling that crap on someone else.

Nope....your whole argument is based on a LIE. Why would one group be able to sue churches for not marrying them when OTHER groups cannot, nor have they ever been able to?

Where does the ability pop up?

You've been had by the anti-gay marriage propaganda. If you took a moment, you'd see it.

So, calling me a liar is all you have to throw at me? Sigh

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh by the way, here was a case of a town trying to do just what you gay rights advocates and self proclaimed legal hawks said would or never should occur, as it so happens it did:

Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&content=72333525&pageNum=-1

 

[bodecea]

Red herring, non sequitur. No reply is warranted.

It’s a perfectly legitimate question, it’s your claim that a church which refuses to marry a same-sex couple would be subject to a lawsuit on 14th Amendment grounds.

If that’s true you should have no trouble citing such a case.

I just explained myself. Only you, Seawytch, and bodecea would be blind enough not to see the precedent being established in our court system. I merely presented it as a hypothetical situation. Can you people not read?

Where is that precedent, Templar? Where is/are the law suit(s) making churches marry people that their faith is against? Where are they? List some.....list one.....


Hypothetical is fun, btw. I can hypothetically state that the only difference between the way Christians treat gays and muslims treat gays is because our secular laws prevent them from lynching us. Isn't hypothetical fun?

 

[Freewill]

What I find interesting is that the gay argument is to put what they want on par with being black and the black experience. An interracial marriage has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It’s a perfectly legitimate question, it’s your claim that a church which refuses to marry a same-sex couple would be subject to a lawsuit on 14th Amendment grounds.

If that’s true you should have no trouble citing such a case.

I just explained myself. Only you, Seawytch, and bodecea would be blind enough not to see the precedent being established in our court system. I merely presented it as a hypothetical situation. Can you people not read?

Where is that precedent, Templar? Where is/are the law suit(s) making churches marry people that their faith is against? Where are they? List some.....list one.....


Hypothetical is fun, btw. I can hypothetically state that the only difference between the way Christians treat gays and muslims treat gays is because our secular laws prevent them from lynching us. Isn't hypothetical fun?

The SCOTUS ruling on DOMA. Think I'm wrong? Well, that's too bad. As an aspiring paralegal, I train myself to recognize trends and patterns in precedent. Well, then again, you can do what the Hutchinson City Councin in Kansas did, and flat out make churches marry gay people. This has religious liberty lawsuit written all over it.

Next.

 

[Freewill]

It’s a perfectly legitimate question, it’s your claim that a church which refuses to marry a same-sex couple would be subject to a lawsuit on 14th Amendment grounds.

If that’s true you should have no trouble citing such a case.

I just explained myself. Only you, Seawytch, and bodecea would be blind enough not to see the precedent being established in our court system. I merely presented it as a hypothetical situation. Can you people not read?

Where is that precedent, Templar? Where is/are the law suit(s) making churches marry people that their faith is against? Where are they? List some.....list one.....


Hypothetical is fun, btw. I can hypothetically state that the only difference between the way Christians treat gays and muslims treat gays is because our secular laws prevent them from lynching us. Isn't hypothetical fun?

Provided above but you just keep on keeping on....interesting.

1. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...r272/Section98

2. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...7/jul/07071011

3. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...6/feb/06022010

 

[shintao]

It is something thst should be let alone. I'm happy to. Just as soon as gays start respecting the religious beliefs and practices of others and as soon as gay guys stop demanding the right to wag their weenies in women's rest rooms and dressing rooms.

Deal????

LOL! Why should gays or anyone else respect religion or your practices? And what about heteros screwing away in restrooms, and tapping toes like your sen Craig boy with wife and two kids? Religions are full of closet hiding sexual perverts, why should I respect them? Like Jimmy Baker sleeping with his dog, Swaggart watching lil girls vagina's, Falwell doing his grandma in the restroom. Come on dude, why should I respect a cult that makes pedophiles available to boys in their church?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is something thst should be let alone. I'm happy to. Just as soon as gays start respecting the religious beliefs and practices of others and as soon as gay guys stop demanding the right to wag their weenies in women's rest rooms and dressing rooms.

Deal????

LOL! Why should gays or anyone else respect religion or your practices? And what about heteros screwing away in restrooms, and tapping toes like your sen Craig boy with wife and two kids? Religions are full of closet hiding sexual perverts, why should I respect them? Like Jimmy Baker sleeping with his dog, Swaggart watching lil girls vagina's, Falwell doing his grandma in the restroom. Come on dude, why should I respect a cult that makes pedophiles available to boys in their church?

Why should Christians or anyone else of faith respect homosexuality and their practices? Say goodbye to some rep power, troll.

 

[Vox]

Not sarcasm...where oh where are those lawsuits, Templar?

lawsuits are usually in courts, if you don't know.

And there's a record of them too....if they exist. Imagine that.

they do.check the links provided by Freewill - that is about fifth time it is being repeated to you

 

[bodecea]

You folks need to read the first link concerning the law. Hell they discriminate right in the law. See if you can find where.

Anyway I showed you folks where both sides were wrong, there were law suits and there will be law suits if history teaches us anything.

Law suits against churches for not marrying gay couples?

Link plz.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here us and article concerning gays suing a church. Has happened can happen. What would happen, I think, is that unless they were a member of the church then it would be thrown out as them not having standing to sue. But since the SCOTUS decided to be an activist court then who freakin' knows what rights future courts will trample. In other words if a court ruled that a church must perform the ceremony against church policy that would seem to me to be against first amendment rights if not freedom of thought. Of course liberals won't think that way, their mantra is "believe as me or perish."

Can a gay couple win a lawsuit against a Church for refusing to marry them? - Yahoo! Answers

An anonymous response on Yahoo Answers from two years ago?

You’ve got to be kidding.

The links provided in the ‘response’ had nothing to do with same-sex couples accessing marriage law.

And the New Jersey case had nothing to do with compelling a member of the clergy to perform the ceremony or compelling a church to recognize same-sex marriage as part of their sanctioned dogma on 14th Amendment grounds.

 

[francoHFW]

Keep it up, hater dupes- you're the greatest! Great fun watching the GOP implode...

 

[FJO]

Who said anything about white or black?

Poverty is still poverty and Republicans offer nothing but ridicule. People want jobs that they can support their families on and all Republucans are offering is tax cuts for the wealthy

You missed my point, and I think you did it on purpose, since you have no valid answer to my post.

The Democrat party has been spending probably trillions, but at least billions in its war on poverty. Admittedly, it is /was just as futile as the Republican efforts on the War on Drugs.

When you used the term "impoverished areas" I have seen them. I did volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity in black Overtown in Miami as well as with Apaplachian Service Project in white Chavies, KY.

I am not sure if your personal experience to help poor people, black or white, is similar to my experience, but I give you the benefit of doubt.

Like you say, poverty is poverty. And the ridicule Democrats heap on blacks (male or female) and women Black or white) is still ridicule.

When I hear from you or anyone like you even the slightest recognition and admittance that women and blacks who happen to be conservatives are not bigots, racists, Uncle Toms, traitors to their gender/race, I will give you credit for your posts.

I don't think we are that far apart on this. Poverty exists and it is a blight on our great society. The Republic Party says ......pick yourself up by your bootstraps, get a job......if you have a job, get a better job.......just don't bother me when I push for further tax cuts for the wealthy
The Republic Partymay mock the war on poverty, but it was effective in raising people out of poverty. Interview anyone who has risen from poor to middle class and find out how they did it. Yes, hard work and initiative played a part......but so did jobs training and jobs programs. So did small business loans and initiatives.

The main whipping boy for the Republic Party remains safety net programs. Aid for families with dependent children, food stamps, housing allowances and yes, even a $30 cell phone

Let me refer back to my experiences as a volunteer with Habitat for Humanity and the Appallachian Service Project.

Habitat for Humanity insists that the charity it provides is a HAND UP not a handout. People receiving help from Habitat for Humanity must provide "sweat equity", in other words, help themselves in order to get help from others.

Kind of like the philosophy of the Republican Party.

Appallachian Service Project, on the other hand believes that asking ANY contribution from the recipient of their charity is demeaning. Why, they even told us volunteers not to have a cold beer after sweating all day, or risk sent home from the project.

Kind of like the philosophy of the Democrat Party.

Footnote: In all the years I spent doing volunteer work, I met only one Democrat. Other than several black families (New Habitat for Humanity home owners) I met in Overtown and Homestead, no black volunteer was seen anywhere.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I just explained myself. Only you, Seawytch, and bodecea would be blind enough not to see the precedent being established in our court system. I merely presented it as a hypothetical situation. Can you people not read?

Where is that precedent, Templar? Where is/are the law suit(s) making churches marry people that their faith is against? Where are they? List some.....list one.....


Hypothetical is fun, btw. I can hypothetically state that the only difference between the way Christians treat gays and muslims treat gays is because our secular laws prevent them from lynching us. Isn't hypothetical fun?

Provided above but you just keep on keeping on....interesting.

1. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...r272/Section98

2. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...7/jul/07071011

3. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...6/feb/06022010

You need to post the full links, this site has a bad habit of editing them. This results in the links not working.

 

[Redfish]

You cannot be more wrong. Everything you say has consequences. May be good consequences may be bad

You can tell everyone at work that your bosses wife looks like a fat whore. You can claim " true freedom of speech" ....but you will be held accountable

I would not be held legally accountable, thats the difference. you want to make any disagreement with the gay agenda illegal.

Who is holding you legally responsible for hating gays? You can hate anyone you please.

who hates gays? not me. I have friends and relatives who are gay and I love and respect them as people.

the hate always comes from the left and its always aimed at anyone who dares to disagree with some element of the liberal/marxist agenda.

 

[Redfish]

Keep it up, hater dupes- you're the greatest! Great fun watching the GOP implode...

how is having principles and standing behind them a hateful thing. Sorry dude, but the hate always comes from you lefities who are determined to hate and destroy anyone who dares disagree with you leftist/marxist agenda.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where is that precedent, Templar? Where is/are the law suit(s) making churches marry people that their faith is against? Where are they? List some.....list one.....


Hypothetical is fun, btw. I can hypothetically state that the only difference between the way Christians treat gays and muslims treat gays is because our secular laws prevent them from lynching us. Isn't hypothetical fun?

Provided above but you just keep on keeping on....interesting.

1. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...r272/Section98

2. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...7/jul/07071011

3. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...6/feb/06022010

You need to post the full links, this site has a bad habit of editing them. This results in the links not working.

Don’t bother.

The links can be viewed with a simple cut and paste.

Again, none of the links concern laws or lawsuits compelling members of the clergy to perform marriages for same-sex couples or compelling churches to recognize same-sex marriage.

The last link concerned state adoption policy when Romney was governor.

 

[bodecea]

No, simply put, your post is irrelevant. You want to trap me in the proverbial scenarios, and trap questions that have nothing to do with this discussion in any way at all. You should really try pulling that crap on someone else.

Nope....your whole argument is based on a LIE. Why would one group be able to sue churches for not marrying them when OTHER groups cannot, nor have they ever been able to?

Where does the ability pop up?

You've been had by the anti-gay marriage propaganda. If you took a moment, you'd see it.

So, calling me a liar is all you have to throw at me? Sigh

I said the argument you put out is based on a LIE. Now, if you are purposefully putting it out KNOWING it's a LIE, that would make you a LIAR...yes. However, if you are a patsy for Far Right talking points despite evidence that such lawsuits cannot be successful....that would make you a gullable fool.