Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JakeStarkey]

You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights. My Constitution limits government. No me.

You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.

The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.

You disagree? Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.

Go find a time machine.

You're a commie, diaper lord. You were caught posting communist propaganda to this forum.

You lie as easily as you breathe. You post ONLY anarcho commie nonsense. Shooting yourself in the foot, sonny.

 

[Seawytch]

Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.

If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.

Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.

Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.

I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.

I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.

Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.

The jury is still out on that issue. Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.

No, the Jury is in.

World Largest Study of Same Sex Parents

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're the typical leftist who tries to use my constitution the take away my rights. My Constitution limits government. No me.

You are not a responsible conservative, and I am not a leftist.

The Constitution and the law is clear: you do not get to discriminate against others when it comes to civil rights.

You disagree? Then you are in harmony with the Jim Crow laws and segregation.

Go find a time machine.

This has nothing to do with equality and rights. It's about submission. You can't push citizens around who don't agree with you. This is America.

It is about the law, and you will submit: ask the KKK and the white citizen council members.

 

[Howey]

Well yes, initially it was a religious dictate coming out of our Christian tradition here in the west. So I am talking about what the government's policy on marriage ought to be in Western Societies.

If on Indian Reservations they wish to issue same sex marriage licenses I wouldn't oppose it, I support full tribal autonomy. I don't know what tribes you speak of, but no, I don't think government policy should be reflective of the traditions of these supposed tribes, it should be reflective of our own historical traditions as emerging from European Christian civilization.

Also for practical considerations. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose. It makes no sense to put the lifestyle on par with a union that results in children and therefore a family except to not hurt the feelings of people and be "fair". As though fairness, equality, basically FEELINGS, should trump practical considerations and reality.

Infertile couples can still adopt, and being a man and woman still form the foundation of the nuclear family. But most people aren't infertile, and these minute exceptions to the rule in no way negate the primary purpose of marriage, procreation and family formation.

I just outlined why homosexual couples and heterosexual couples shouldn't be treated the same. Though the burden is on you why we should treat them the same as you are making an affirmative case to change the law.

I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.

Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.

The jury is still out on that issue. Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.

You have no common sense. You are an amoebic single cell spittle undeserving of commenting on what's right for children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.

Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.

The jury is still out on that issue. Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.

No, it's not. It is clear and substantiated that same sex marriages raise people just as well.

 

[Freewill]

Marriage is not a "right".

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

Already went through those fourteen and none of them concern ruling that marriage is a right. And all of them presume the definition of marriage as between a man and a women. The one I am sure is of particular interest to you and it legalized sodomy.

So if you want to use those 14 then we can agree, that marriage between a man and a woman is a right and you have the right to sodomy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is not a "right"

Another far left myth that needs to be dispelled...

You are obviously a product of home schooling.

It is not a myth. SCOTUS has said so.

Step along.

You like that "step along" a little too much. The Nazis also liked that term when they loaded the trains to the ovens.

Learn your history: it comes from the Birmingham police trying to stop marchers for civil rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1st Amendment will protect churches in their private behavior.

If a church, however, advertises and holds out its property as a wedding center for a fee, then that would not be very smart if the congregation did not want homosexual marriages performed there.

 

[Kondor3]

Anyone can refuse service, Votto, if it does not involve violating the civil liberties of others.

I can be thrown out of the store for not wearing a shirt and shoes.

If it is a bakery that holds itself out to the public as a make of wedding cakes, it cannot deny me a memorial cake for my wife and I.

And it cannot deny such to a homosexual couple because they are same sex.

Sure they can....there are COUNTLESS ways to refuse service without showing your hand...

"Sorry, we're booked solid. I don't have time to provide you with proper service."

"Sir, I'm sorry, but this coming Friday is the LAST day that we are going to be making wedding cakes for a unspecified length of time while we update the area of the bakery where we produce large specialty baked goods."

"I'm all out of icing."


Here's the question I've always had about this very volatile situation....

Why would you want to FORCE a bakery to do something that they don't want to do?

Wouldn't you be concerned about the quality of service? Is your wedding day something you want to gamble that on?

Why not go find a bakery that LOVES to do wedding cakes for ANYBODY?

It just wreaks of making a point and drawing attention because they can. Ridiculous.

And stupid.

What is stupid is violating the law. Opponents of fair housing, etc., are easily caught and sued. Make the cake, make money.

Capitulate to wrong-headed judicial rulings on the subject, and thereby implicitly aid-and-abet the wrongful legitimizing of homosexuality... an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man?

Whatever for?

Far better to resist as best as possible within the framework of the law under present circumstances, throwing-up as many road-blocks and challenges and forestalling tactics as may be practicable, and fighting a rear-guard action, while waiting for a changing of the guard, in order to exploit a more favorable and receptive environment, to begin using the law, to reverse recent judicial rulings in that vein.

It will require fresh conservative rulings regarding homosexuality, on the Federal level, in connection with health, safety, public order and public morals - causing it to revert to its former status, in order to use the law, to overturn recent gains by the Homosexual Mafia.

But it can be done, and probably will be done - 3% cannot impose their will upon the other 97% forever.

Judgment day (reversals of fortune for homosexuals in the courts), if-and-when it comes, will be sweet, as more Conservative courts wipe the smug, arrogant grins from the faces of these perverts.

Sounds like fun.

It's also a necessity, for the long-term welfare of the Republic.

Far from being all-but-over, as the Homosexual Mafia and their fellow travelers would like for all of us to believe ('resistance is futile'), this fight has, in all probability, only just begun.

January 20, 2017, may prove to be such a changing of the guard.

Hurry the day.

Tick... tick... tick.

And, if not, it will come soon enough, as history measures time.

 

[bripat9643]

I swear to God I'm so sick of these silly homophobic comments from the right. Shall we ban adoption because its not really the babies REAL parents raising it? While were at it let's take away all the children being raised by single mothers and fathers cuz, ya know, they don't have a mommy and daddy raising them. While were at it, let's lock up all those grandmas raising the unwanted children their libertarian millennial breeder brats don't have the time to raise!

Truth is what you are sick of.

If the mother can't afford to raise an illegitimate child, it should be taken away from her and put up for adoption because she's an unfit mother. That's what used to happen before all the Johnson "Great Society" programs came online.

The rest of your suggestions are pure nonsense. No one has ever suggesting anything of the sort.

Sure...let's go back to the days of Dickens and take away those children and lock them up in huge prison like structures to waste away. Why not put them to work in sweatshops for pennies a day?

In typical dishonest queer fashion you're putting words in my mouth that I never said. Having a mother and father who have the financial means to support is much better for a child than being raised by some crack whore on AFDC.

Do you really think single family homes only consist of illegitimate children? How about those where the white trash breeder father skips out?
You, Sir, are a ******* moron. And wouldn't know sarcasm if it slapped you in your face. If only you had been aborted or ran over by a bus. This world would be a better place.

I didn't refer to children who aren't illegitimate, so they aren't the subject of this discussion. I'm talking only about sluts who are too stupid to use birth control and get themselves knocked up. They aren't qualified to raise a child.

Current illegitimacy rates in the U.S. are 29% for whites and 73% for African Americans. So it's obviously a major social problem. The problem of white trash fathers who disappear is far down the list of social pathologies.

Whether your words are sarcastic or not, you're still putting them in my mouth. That's utterly dishonest, but that's what I've come to expect from queers. Qualities like honesty and integrity simply aren't in their make up.

 

[bripat9643]

I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.

Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.

The jury is still out on that issue. Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.

No, it's not. It is clear and substantiated that same sex marriages raise people just as well.

Wrong, as always, penis wrinkle. Nothing of the sort has been "substantiated."

 

[bripat9643]

I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.

Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.

The jury is still out on that issue. Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.

You have no common sense. You are an amoebic single cell spittle undeserving of commenting on what's right for children.

Translation: I spoke the truth.

 

[Howey]

I swear to God I'm so sick of these silly homophobic comments from the right. Shall we ban adoption because its not really the babies REAL parents raising it? While were at it let's take away all the children being raised by single mothers and fathers cuz, ya know, they don't have a mommy and daddy raising them. While were at it, let's lock up all those grandmas raising the unwanted children their libertarian millennial breeder brats don't have the time to raise!

While I understand your disgust by some attitudes, your own isn't peachy. Calling heterosexual couples, "Breeders" doesn't put you on a clean slate.

My personal opinion is that there are plenty of children who need good homes. If two people who have been deemed fit, can love a "lost in the system" child.. there's only good that can come from that.

Its called sarcasm, dear. And I'll continue until they stop calling us fags.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No; but because laws already exist affording official recognition of certain religious ideas like the Sabbath and how some businesses may be closed or restricted in their operation (like no alcohol to be sold.) Since the law does that, turning around and forcing actual religious institutions to do non-religious things like perform homosexual weddings (assuming that that religion denounces homosexuality) is both hypocritical and legally inconsistant.

Marriage is a religious rite. If a religion denounces homosexuality, forcing it to do homosexual marriages is the government defacto taking over the religion. If you wanna get married as a homosexual don't be that particular religion if it denounces it. The government will (or soon will, resistance is futile) recognize it regardless. The religion doesn't enter into it.

 

[GISMYS]

THOSE THAT LIVE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION SHOULD NOT BE PARENTS OF CHILDREN,THAT WOULD BE CHILD ABUSE OF THE WORST SORT. Think

 

[bripat9643]

I know you'd like us to think you're new around here and all that but here's a news flash.

Gay people can raise children. Just as well or better than you breeders.

The jury is still out on that issue. Common sense would indicate that being raised by a couple of homosexuals would not be a healthy environment for a child.

No, the Jury is in.

World Largest Study of Same Sex Parents

It's obviously flawed because it's based on self reporting. Do you actually believe that any homosexual couple is going to honestly report any abnormal behaviour in the kids they are parenting? Furthermore, this "study" only looks at children currently being raised. It doesn't examine any adults who were raised by homosexual couples.

It's nothing but homo propaganda.

 

[Ava]

PLEASE keep all comments and insults, relevant to the OP, so we can keep it open.

Thanks,

~AquaAthena

 

[Ibentoken]

Leftist bullying.
17 ‘Right-Wing’ Restaurants That Dared to Take a Stand Against the Liberal Agenda

 

[Unkotare]

The answer to the OP is "NO." So, what the hell else is there to say?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage is not a "right"

Another far left myth that needs to be dispelled...

You are obviously a product of home schooling.

It is not a myth. SCOTUS has said so.

Step along.

Marriage is not a "right".

It is a far left myth, promoted by far left Obama drones, because they know no better due to faulty programming.

Even if marriage weren't a right,

equal protection under the law IS, so once you have laws in place regarding civil marriage, equal protection applies, including applying to same sex couples.