Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[PaintMyHouse]

The people who voted at the top of this thread did so because they know that christian bakers/photographers/caterers etc. have already been sued and forced to abdicate their religion's core values to promote a homosexual cult's lifestyles. A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians. There is no legal protection for the church if gay trumps the 1st in any venue, even the heart of the individual christian baker..

The heart of the Christian baker matters not a damn in the instance. The fact that he runs a business open to the public does though.

 

[Silhouette]

Wow you are transparent...

How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...

Just as I thought..You are protecting "Conservative's" "right" to beat up gays because it may serve to shut the thread down. You are guilty as charged

The people who voted at the top of this thread did so because they know that christian bakers/photographers/caterers etc. have already been sued and forced to abdicate their religion's core values to promote a homosexual cult's lifestyles. A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians. There is no legal protection for the church if gay trumps the 1st in any venue, even the heart of the individual christian baker..

 

[beagle9]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

No, unfortunately, no it isn't.

A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman. And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.

The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people won't force churches to do something churches don't want to do.

Your new evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to religious freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?

Heard the other day that in some state there is an army veteran from the Afghan conflict, who wanted a statue of a soldier kneeling down at a cross in a military or city/government run cemetery to now go, and why was this ? It was of course none other than it offended him (poor wittle tang), so next he and some organization sued the city over it for around 2 mil I think... I saw this report on Fox news the other day, so I just had to stop in front of the TV to listen up a sec. and just to hear another piece of Christianity being attacked yet again in this nation.

As Sil says over and over again that the LGBT is an organization/cult/activist group right ? Do you think that any of this stuff will stop just because you and a few others in here say so ? ROTFLMBO.

Was it removed from a church? No?

The statue was on public grounds. What you are construing as an "attack" was actually a scaling-back of religion's wider influence.

Just think of it this way: right now, religion in America is like the British colonial empire. It's stretched out into all these places claiming it deserves to be there. And now we're seeing that power ebb, but it doesn't mean this ends with India taking over England. India doesn't even want to take over England. This ends with England being back inside England, period, acknowledgements, about the author.

I rest my case folks, because this is exactly the thinking of these people, where as they think something that has been here for 200 years, is supposed to be put into a box now, yet meanwhile they push their agenda wildly into every place that religion once existed freely and accepted in this nation by the majority, so stay tuned because there is a lot more to come with this stuff.

 

[Paperman299]

He already knows that. S/he is on your team don't forget. Let me guess, he'll flame you until he meekly concedes that you are right, then disappear shortly after this thread is closed for your manufactured flame-fight? Isn't that about how it goes?

What team do you consider me to be on? You don't seem to understand my position on the subject, at all, if you think that Conservative number guy and I are in agreement here.

My contention is that periodically, "conservative" posters are brought to this thread to start "beating up on the gays" so that they have an excuse/reason to petition the modators to shut down the thread ..because the LGBT cult REALLY REALLY REALLY doesn't want the general public to see:

1. How popular this topic is.

2. How many people voted on the poll and

3. How they voted on the poll.

This thing pops up reliably any time one of the lower circuits or now the SUPREMES themselves take up new arguments. The numbers in the poll completely refute all the smoke and mirrors that the cult has been feeding the press about "suddenly everyone loves gay marriage". While they're still afraid to put it to a vote on state ballots...

Yeah, anything, even a staged fight to make this thread disappear.

Basically, you're assuming that 153 people voted the way you did for the same reason you did, out of fear. But that's IMPOSSIBLE, because you don't get an 82% consensus on a popular poll (especially on this message board) without agreement from both sides. Equal marriage supporters voted "NO, I thought this was AMERICA" to show that forcing churches to conduct these ceremonies was not one of their goals.

 

[Seawytch]

But they will make the cake. And that's the hanging point...not the speech on the cake. But the cake itself. I'll give any baker a pass on speech. But on selling your signature product? Nope.

What's on it is as important as the cake itself.

So you'll give a *** baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake? Hypocrite.

He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he? That they do all the time.

The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.

The fags asked for two of the same kind.

If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.

Not according to Skylar. Skylar stated that it was OK to not do something on the cake as long as they did the cake. Should the *** bakers be required to do a cake with wording that say "gay marriage is wrong" if it's on a cake they make even if they don't agree? That's what you expect from the Christian baker.

You cannot expect a business to provide something they do not provide. The baker was not asked to provide a product or service they don't normally provide. The gay couple ordered a cake, that's it.

 

[beagle9]

The people who voted at the top of this thread did so because they know that christian bakers/photographers/caterers etc. have already been sued and forced to abdicate their religion's core values to promote a homosexual cult's lifestyles. A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians. There is no legal protection for the church if gay trumps the 1st in any venue, even the heart of the individual christian baker..

The heart of the Christian baker matters not a damn in the instance. The fact that he runs a business open to the public does though.

I thought that it says somewhere in the constitution that the government will not stand against religion in this nation, and that it will instead allow it to exist openly and freely in the nation. The only way to do this is to respect it, and then to encourage it by not standing in it's way like we are seeing so much of that happening now in America. Some one is offended right, and they go and get the government to come running to stomp out the fire for them ?..... I know it was mainly speaking of the Christians at the time when the constitution was written, yet people should look at these attacks as being against all established religions that are here now, and they should see these attacks going on against the Christians of today, as also attacks on them and their values just as well. If the Christian's fall, then they all fall in the end, and all should know this by now. They in their minds, are trying to go straight for the most affluent of the old religions here in the nation first, and if they can shake that foundation, then who or what else can stand afterwards ?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I thought that it says somewhere in the constitution that the government will not stand against religion...

No, it says the government cannot Establish a religion. The limits that it places on it are both varied and many.

 

[beagle9]

What's on it is as important as the cake itself.

So you'll give a *** baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake? Hypocrite.

He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he? That they do all the time.

The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.

The fags asked for two of the same kind.

If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.

Not according to Skylar. Skylar stated that it was OK to not do something on the cake as long as they did the cake. Should the *** bakers be required to do a cake with wording that say "gay marriage is wrong" if it's on a cake they make even if they don't agree? That's what you expect from the Christian baker.

You cannot expect a business to provide something they do not provide. The baker was not asked to provide a product or service they don't normally provide. The gay couple ordered a cake, that's it.

What kind of cake, and for whom was the wedding for again ? Did they alert the baker of the reason for the cake or not ?

 

[Paperman299]

But if 82% would not go along with that plan (a number which surely includes homosexuals), then that's evidence churches WON'T be forced to do ceremonies they object to, not that they WILL be, isn't it?

No, unfortunately, no it isn't.

A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman. And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.

The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people won't force churches to do something churches don't want to do.

Your new evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to religious freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?

Heard the other day that in some state there is an army veteran from the Afghan conflict, who wanted a statue of a soldier kneeling down at a cross in a military or city/government run cemetery to now go, and why was this ? It was of course none other than it offended him (poor wittle tang), so next he and some organization sued the city over it for around 2 mil I think... I saw this report on Fox news the other day, so I just had to stop in front of the TV to listen up a sec. and just to hear another piece of Christianity being attacked yet again in this nation.

As Sil says over and over again that the LGBT is an organization/cult/activist group right ? Do you think that any of this stuff will stop just because you and a few others in here say so ? ROTFLMBO.

Was it removed from a church? No?

The statue was on public grounds. What you are construing as an "attack" was actually a scaling-back of religion's wider influence.

Just think of it this way: right now, religion in America is like the British colonial empire. It's stretched out into all these places claiming it deserves to be there. And now we're seeing that power ebb, but it doesn't mean this ends with India taking over England. India doesn't even want to take over England. This ends with England being back inside England, period, acknowledgements, about the author.

I rest my case folks, because this is exactly the thinking of these people, where as they think something that has been here for 200 years, is supposed to be put into a box now, yet meanwhile they push their agenda wildly into every place that religion once existed freely and accepted in this nation by the majority, so stay tuned because there is a lot more to come with this stuff.

What's missing from this post, of course, is zero evidence that churches are going to be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

How about more of this:

And less of this:

 

[beagle9]

I thought that it says somewhere in the constitution that the government will not stand against religion...

No, it says the government cannot Establish a religion. The limits that it places on it are both varied and many.

What, so your saying that the government can not establish a religion of it's own then, because the nation already had a religion in which was called CHRISTIAN ? Otherwise if the government was to establish one of it's own, then it would come in direct conflict with the already established religion that was in place back then right, just like it is now since the government has already established it's own religion or ways of thinking that is foreign or hostel even to the ones that exist now in America ? Think about it!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, unfortunately, no it isn't.

A majority in all the states currently believing erroneously that they must allow gay-lifestyle marraige against their will enacted laws limiting marriage to one man/one woman. And still they were legally-forced to accept (not that they have to) that which is repugnant to the majority.

The poll is still the kind of evidence I stated it was. A percentage of 82% saying "no" is evidence people won't force churches to do something churches don't want to do.

Your new evidence is that there are other people who would prefer equal marriage was not a legal reality, but this is irrelevant to what may actually happen with regards to religious freedom. You haven't even given evidence that a majority of people opposing equal marriage actually believe churches will be forced to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, as you do. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, your position would still be no stronger than before. Evidence people are afraid something will happen is not evidence it will happen; if it were, wouldn't America have been ravaged by SARS, Avian influenza, swine flu, AND Ebola by now?

Heard the other day that in some state there is an army veteran from the Afghan conflict, who wanted a statue of a soldier kneeling down at a cross in a military or city/government run cemetery to now go, and why was this ? It was of course none other than it offended him (poor wittle tang), so next he and some organization sued the city over it for around 2 mil I think... I saw this report on Fox news the other day, so I just had to stop in front of the TV to listen up a sec. and just to hear another piece of Christianity being attacked yet again in this nation.

As Sil says over and over again that the LGBT is an organization/cult/activist group right ? Do you think that any of this stuff will stop just because you and a few others in here say so ? ROTFLMBO.

Was it removed from a church? No?

The statue was on public grounds. What you are construing as an "attack" was actually a scaling-back of religion's wider influence.

Just think of it this way: right now, religion in America is like the British colonial empire. It's stretched out into all these places claiming it deserves to be there. And now we're seeing that power ebb, but it doesn't mean this ends with India taking over England. India doesn't even want to take over England. This ends with England being back inside England, period, acknowledgements, about the author.

I rest my case folks, because this is exactly the thinking of these people, where as they think something that has been here for 200 years, is supposed to be put into a box now, yet meanwhile they push their agenda wildly into every place that religion once existed freely and accepted in this nation by the majority, so stay tuned because there is a lot more to come with this stuff.

What's missing from this post, of course, is zero evidence that churches are going to be forced to anything they don't want to do.

How about more of this:

And less of this:

LOL

 

[Skylar]

The people who voted at the top of this thread did so because they know that christian bakers/photographers/caterers etc. have already been sued and forced to abdicate their religion's core values to promote a homosexual cult's lifestyles.

Says who? Again, Silo....you're just making shit up again. Pretending to speak for those who voted in the poll. And you don't speak for us. You speak for you.

The poll doesn't ask anything about caterers or bakers. It asks about churches. And it defines them as places of worship. You can try to retcon the poll. But any of us can just read it.

A church is nothing more than a congregation of individual christians. There is no legal protection for the church if gay trumps the 1st in any venue, even the heart of the individual christian baker..

More pseudo-legal gibberish. Churches aren't people. People pay taxes. Churches don't. People are subject to PA laws in their public businesses. Churches are explicltly excluded from PA laws. Nor are churches businesses.

You insist they are the same. You're clueless. Its okay...the law recognizes the distinctions you clearly can't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I thought that it says somewhere in the constitution that the government will not stand against religion...

No, it says the government cannot Establish a religion. The limits that it places on it are both varied and many.

What, so your saying that the government can not establish a religion of it's own then, because the nation already had a religion in which was called CHRISTIAN ? Otherwise if the government was to establish one of it's own, then it would come in direct conflict with the already established religion that was in place back then right, just like it is now since the government has already established it's own religion or ways of thinking that is foreign or hostel even to the ones that exist now in America ? Think about it!

It cannot establish a religion period, even though at the time that mostly meant Christian Sect. The US does not have an official religion but many nations do. We are a secular nation, that you are free to leave should not be happy about that.

 

[Conservative65]

The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.

The fags asked for two of the same kind.

^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.

I don't role play anything. I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.

"The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?

Unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech regardless of what you say.

So do I, but it is limited as to time and place. Still, answer the question. Was I beating up on the Christians?

I bet you think the time and place you determine is the correct one.

I answered it for myself personally with my free speech part. Say what you will about Christians. Your opinions is about was worthwhile as a ****** i

Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so. Since he was sinless and being a ****** is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another ****** lover running his dick sucker.

You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread. And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war. If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago. "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..

How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...

I suspected you were on of those types of cowards.

Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person? I suggest you prove it.

 

[Conservative65]

What's on it is as important as the cake itself.

So you'll give a *** baker a pass on what is on the cake yet the Christian baker opposed has to put two male names and two males figures ON the cake? Hypocrite.

He didn't ask for one of these on the cake now did he? That they do all the time.

The two fags that sued the Christian baker wanted something on the cake that indicated homosexual. According to Skylar, it's OK to for the homo baker to deny that yet the Christian baker has to do it.

The fags asked for two of the same kind.

If it was this, or a rainbow cake and they make rainbow cakes, no problem and perfectly fair.

Not according to Skylar. Skylar stated that it was OK to not do something on the cake as long as they did the cake. Should the *** bakers be required to do a cake with wording that say "gay marriage is wrong" if it's on a cake they make even if they don't agree? That's what you expect from the Christian baker.

You cannot expect a business to provide something they do not provide. The baker was not asked to provide a product or service they don't normally provide. The gay couple ordered a cake, that's it.

The homo bakers normally provide cakes with all sorts of things written on them. That they don't like what someone put on something they normally provide is irrelevant. The Christian baker was sued for not doing a cake for two homos and doing it for two homos isn't normally what that baker did.

 

[pillars]

Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person? I suggest you prove it.

Those are fighting words right there.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

^^ this is the poster role-playing the "beating up on gays" role.

I don't role play anything. I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.

"The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?

Unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech regardless of what you say.

So do I, but it is limited as to time and place. Still, answer the question. Was I beating up on the Christians?

I bet you think the time and place you determine is the correct one.

I answered it for myself personally with my free speech part. Say what you will about Christians. Your opinions is about was worthwhile as a ****** i

Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so. Since he was sinless and being a ****** is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another ****** lover running his dick sucker.

You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread. And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war. If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago. "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..

How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...

I suspected you were on of those types of cowards.

Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person? I suggest you prove it.

You seem to have mixed up who is posting what?

And the times and places the courts have determined. Since I live in the real world I deal with them as an adult should.

 

[pillars]

Basically, you're assuming that 153 people voted the way you did for the same reason you did, out of fear. But that's IMPOSSIBLE, because you don't get an 82% consensus on a popular poll (especially on this message board) without agreement from both sides. Equal marriage supporters voted "NO, I thought this was AMERICA" to show that forcing churches to conduct these ceremonies was not one of their goals.

This. I completely support equal marriage, but I do not support state incursions on religious liberty.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person? I suggest you prove it.

Those are fighting words right there.

PaintMyHouse seems to think we are the same person.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't role play anything. I believe it's an abnormal abomination but apparently the fags think words mean beating up on them.

"The Christians are worthless assholes who might as well be Nazis" is just words, but am I beating up on them?

Unlike you, I believe in freedom of speech regardless of what you say.

So do I, but it is limited as to time and place. Still, answer the question. Was I beating up on the Christians?

I bet you think the time and place you determine is the correct one.

I answered it for myself personally with my free speech part. Say what you will about Christians. Your opinions is about was worthwhile as a ****** i

Jesus didn't tolerate sin nor would be expect me to do so. Since he was sinless and being a ****** is a sin, your last statment is nothing more than another ****** lover running his dick sucker.

You have been reported to the moderators for posing as a gay-basher in order to disappear this thread. And Paint, you're on deck for doing the dance with him, egging on the flame war. If this was my website y'all would've been 86'd ages ago. "Pillars" sudden appearance concurrent with "Conservative65" on the thread is also noted for the record..

How lucky for us then that you have no power here, and that they respect free speech more than you do...

I suspected you were on of those types of cowards.

Are you claiming I and Pillars are the same person? I suggest you prove it.

You seem to have mixed up who is posting what?

And the times and places the courts have determined. Since I live in the real world I deal with them as an adult should.

The courts haven't determined a time but I be you keep making the claim.