Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history

[Seawytch]

TemplarKormac, We don't let people use the bible to justify discrimination against blacks, Muslims or women. Why should anti gay bigots get special treatment that racists or misogynist bigots do not?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yea, and here is another of your congregation.

You know, for the seventh time by my count, you keep making my point for me. So, if you are such a Christian as you claim, tolerant and accepting of all, why are you attacking your fellow Christians?


“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

Romans 14:10,13

So, pick up your blocks and go home.

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yea, and here is another of your congregation.

You know, for the seventh time by my count, you keep making my point for me. So, if you are such a Christian as you claim, tolerant and accepting of all, why are you attacking your fellow Christians?


“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

Romans 14:10,13

So, pick up your blocks and go home.

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yea, and here is another of your congregation.

You know, for the seventh time by my count, you keep making my point for me. So, if you are such a Christian as you claim, tolerant and accepting of all, why are you attacking your fellow Christians?


“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

Romans 14:10,13

So, pick up your blocks and go home.

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

A church wedding is a religious ceremony.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know, for the seventh time by my count, you keep making my point for me. So, if you are such a Christian as you claim, tolerant and accepting of all, why are you attacking your fellow Christians?


“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

Romans 14:10,13

So, pick up your blocks and go home.

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Their protection comes from their being primarily religious in function.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yea, and here is another of your congregation.

You know, for the seventh time by my count, you keep making my point for me. So, if you are such a Christian as you claim, tolerant and accepting of all, why are you attacking your fellow Christians?


“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

Romans 14:10,13

So, pick up your blocks and go home.

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

The Catholic Church can deny communion to someone who actively advocates for legal abortion, such as a politician. Why hasn't the Catholic Church been forced by the courts to cease that practice?

 

[RKMBrown]

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Their protection comes from their being primarily religious in function.

Incorrect, we're not talking about practice of religion. We're talking about selling marriage sevices. They loose the private protection they they enjoy if they sell wedding services to the public. They keep it protected by keeping the sales to the people who join their church... thus private.

 

[RKMBrown]

You know, for the seventh time by my count, you keep making my point for me. So, if you are such a Christian as you claim, tolerant and accepting of all, why are you attacking your fellow Christians?


“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

Romans 14:10,13

So, pick up your blocks and go home.

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

The Catholic Church can deny communion to someone who actively advocates for legal abortion, such as a politician. Why hasn't the Catholic Church been forced by the courts to cease that practice?

Cause they don't sell communion to the public.

 

[Seawytch]

Yea, and here is another of your congregation.

You know, for the seventh time by my count, you keep making my point for me. So, if you are such a Christian as you claim, tolerant and accepting of all, why are you attacking your fellow Christians?


“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

Romans 14:10,13

So, pick up your blocks and go home.

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

People who engage in hyperbole are worse than Hitler.

No church has ever been forced by the government to perform a ceremony against the tenants of their faith. No forced interracial marriages, no forced interfaith marriages, no forced divorcee marriages.

Why on earth would they be forced now?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know, for the seventh time by my count, you keep making my point for me. So, if you are such a Christian as you claim, tolerant and accepting of all, why are you attacking your fellow Christians?


“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

Romans 14:10,13

So, pick up your blocks and go home.

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Unless by interpretation of the law, the Courts say otherwise.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Unless by interpretation of the law, the Courts say otherwise.

Huh? Yeah I suppose the courts could write some new laws that force people to masturbate in the street. But I'm not gonna worry about it, I have to go take a piss off my porch.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Huh? Yeah I suppose the courts could write some new laws that force people to masturbate in the street. But I'm not gonna worry about it, I have to go take a piss off my porch.

Then by all means, go take a piss off your porch.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yea, and here is another of your congregation.

You know, for the seventh time by my count, you keep making my point for me. So, if you are such a Christian as you claim, tolerant and accepting of all, why are you attacking your fellow Christians?


“You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.”

Romans 14:10,13

So, pick up your blocks and go home.

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.

False, right wing fear filled slippery slope baloney...No matter how the "court" defines marriage, there is a separation of church and state. Legalizing same sex marriage will have ZERO effect on the church.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Legalizing same sex marriage will have ZERO effect on the church.

7. Referencing Bob Jones University’s wrong and sinful banning of interracial dating, Alito asked whether redefining marriage would eventually pose risks (such as the loss of tax-exempt status) to the religious liberty of religious institutions.

This was the most shocking moment in the arguments, one that should give people on all sides cause for concern. The Solicitor General said the question of tax exemption might well be an “issue” to be considered later. This demonstrates just how perilous the American principle of recognizing the natural right of religious liberty has become.

If a revisionist view of redefined marriage is treated as a matter of civil rights, then the government could seek to use its tax power to coerce religious institutions to violate their own God-given consciences and their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. The Founders warned us that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The Solicitor General is signaling that at least this Administration is quite open to destroying those who hold a view of marriage held by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, many Sikhs and Buddhists. It was even a position held by the President himself until his most recent ideological evolution.

10 questions about marriage from the Supreme Court arguments

Not so false now, is it, bellboy?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Legalizing same sex marriage will have ZERO effect on the church.

7. Referencing Bob Jones University’s wrong and sinful banning of interracial dating, Alito asked whether redefining marriage would eventually pose risks (such as the loss of tax-exempt status) to the religious liberty of religious institutions.

This was the most shocking moment in the arguments, one that should give people on all sides cause for concern. The Solicitor General said the question of tax exemption might well be an “issue” to be considered later. This demonstrates just how perilous the American principle of recognizing the natural right of religious liberty has become.

If a revisionist view of redefined marriage is treated as a matter of civil rights, then the government could seek to use its tax power to coerce religious institutions to violate their own God-given consciences and their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. The Founders warned us that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The Solicitor General is signaling that at least this Administration is quite open to destroying those who hold a view of marriage held by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, many Sikhs and Buddhists. It was even a position held by the President himself until his most recent ideological evolution.

10 questions about marriage from the Supreme Court arguments

Not so false now, is it, bellboy?

The only precedent that could be taken from that would a decision stating that religious schools and institutions would not be allowed to deny entrance based on being in a same-sex relationship.

There is no precedent for forcing churches to perform any marriages, let alone same sex ones.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, as you can see, if the courts redefine marriage, it will have a profound impact on religious liberty. Because churches are tax exempt entities, it only stands to reason that government will use that redefinition to pressure churches to perform gay marriages, that or lose their tax exempt status. What that does, subsequently will essentially dissolve that church, or destroy it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, as you can see, if the courts redefine marriage, it will have a profound impact on religious liberty. Because churches are tax exempt entities, it only stands to reason that government will use that redefinition to pressure churches to perform gay marriages, that or lose their tax exempt status. What that does, subsequently will essentially dissolve that church, or destroy it.

How does that "stand to reason"?

Have any churches ever been "forced" to perform any marriages at all?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only precedent that could be taken from that would a decision stating that religious schools and institutions would not be allowed to deny entrance based on being in a same-sex relationship.

There is no precedent for forcing churches to perform any marriages, let alone same sex ones.

No, there isn't any "precedent" because it is being set in stone now. There is nothing stopping the government from using a church's tax exempt status to coerce it into performing same sex marriage. Nothing stopping it from stepping further. This ruling, if in favor of redefining marriage, will give government the go ahead to engage in this type of behavior, the effect would be undeniable. And legal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Have any churches ever been "forced" to perform any marriages at all?

Not yet.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The only precedent that could be taken from that would a decision stating that religious schools and institutions would not be allowed to deny entrance based on being in a same-sex relationship.

There is no precedent for forcing churches to perform any marriages, let alone same sex ones.

No, there isn't any "precedent" because it is being set in stone now. There is nothing stopping the government from using a church's tax exempt status to coerce it into performing same sex marriage. Nothing stopping it from stepping further. This ruling,if in favor of gay marriage, will give government the go ahead to engage in this type of behavior, the effect would be undeniable.

Of course there's something to stop it - the First Amendment.

Do you realize that you're using the same arguments that were used to support miscegenation laws, almost word for word?