Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

[ if the US Supreme Court decided that transient lifestyles control local laws and the 1st Amendment right to exercise of religion..

We do not know for sure whether or not homosexuality is imprinted or not- but we do know that religious choice is transient.

If the criteria is that 'transient life styles' don't have legal protections then there would be no protections for Christians and Jews and Muslims based upon their religion.

 

[Syriusly]

So your basically saying that transient lifestyles would then trump local laws (i.e. Federal Judges over ruling the states as it were), and therefore cancelling out the1st Amendment right to have without interference from government the freedom in the exorcize of one's religion within the nation and within the states as it were ? People were allowed to exorcize their freedom of their religion for ever it seems, but now that all these things have come up, such a thing is now under assault anymore. Look at how many cases have come up in the past 30 to 35 years now.

Well, what I'm saying is that it won't happen. And if it does happen, pack your bags to move to Russia or maybe North Korea where there would be more freedom at that point.n.

You would be happier in Russia- where gay marriage is illegal, and discrimination against homosexuals is encouraged- it is your kind of place.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

[ if the US Supreme Court decided that transient lifestyles control local laws and the 1st Amendment right to exercise of religion..

We do not know for sure whether or not homosexuality is imprinted or not- but we do know that religious choice is transient.

If the criteria is that 'transient life styles' don't have legal protections then there would be no protections for Christians and Jews and Muslims based upon their religion.

Lifestyle choices are transient too.

 

[Skylar]

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?

Not real sure about sharia laws or that religion, but is there some reason you don't approve of that religion or it's laws if they are peaceful and excepted by it's believers ?

If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?

Does it matter to you if Christians have religious freedom, and the ability to practice said religion in peace? Does your thinking trump the constitution of this united states ?

Depends on what you mean by 'practice religious freedom'? Does that mean that they can ignore any law that they feel conflicts with their religion?

If so, then why not Sharia?

 

[Syriusly]

[ if the US Supreme Court decided that transient lifestyles control local laws and the 1st Amendment right to exercise of religion..

We do not know for sure whether or not homosexuality is imprinted or not- but we do know that religious choice is transient.

If the criteria is that 'transient life styles' don't have legal protections then there would be no protections for Christians and Jews and Muslims based upon their religion.

Lifestyle choices are transient too.

Yep- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism- all transient.

 

[beagle9]

So your basically saying that transient lifestyles would then trump local laws (i.e. Federal Judges over ruling the states as it were), and therefore cancelling out the1st Amendment right to have without interference from government the freedom in the exorcize of one's religion within the nation and within the states as it were ? People were allowed to exorcize their freedom of their religion for ever it seems, but now that all these things have come up, such a thing is now under assault anymore. Look at how many cases have come up in the past 30 to 35 years now.

Well, what I'm saying is that it won't happen. And if it does happen, pack your bags to move to Russia or maybe North Korea where there would be more freedom at that point.

BTW, it's "exercise". But yeah, maybe we need an exorcism right about now...lol. Not judging. I'm a terrible speller myself. I'm thinking of having a spellcheck microchip installed in my brain.

LoL... Thanks for the spell check sil...That was a good one with the exorcism needed before long. I thank the nation will need it for sure. Note - The new testament is full of speak about the sin of today, so I don't know why so many are in denial about it.

 

[Silhouette]

LoL... Thanks for the spell check sil...That was a good one with the exorcism needed before long. I thank the nation will need it for sure. Note - The new testament is full of speak about the sin of today, so I don't know why so many are in denial about it.

Jude 1 is an interesting passage. It really doesn't mince words. It really emphasizes the Old Testament tales of Sodom and reminds newer jews (christians) of how entire regions were scrubbed by God for refusing to push back on advances of homosexuals who were organizing to replace common moral values with their own set of depraved dogma. The warning is simple, concise and to the point: passive assent to this or active assitance gets you eternity in the Big Slammer down under, roasting in the fires of hell forever.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well said Silouette.

Read an article yesterday that said one of the Bakers who refused to be involved with the celebration of depravity, is likely to be fined 150K.

So.... looks like the US is heading for a divine beat down. And all because we can't find the sand to call a perv, a demented pervert.

But hey... ya get what ya pay for.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Anyone have a reference to the actual law (not some reporters claim) as to liability?

From my reading of the law if this is a first offense then fines are limited to $1,000.

ORS 659A.855 - Civil penalty for certain complaints filed by commissioner - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes


No the latest ruling shows that the March hearing is about "damages" (if any) that the Klien's actions caused to the complainants.

>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Jude 1 is an interesting passage.

And which passage are you referring to specifically? I've read all of Jude 1. And it never mentions wedding cakes once.

It really emphasizes the Old Testament tales of Sodom and reminds newer jews (christians) of how entire regions were scrubbed by God for refusing to push back on advances of homosexuals who were organizing to replace common moral values with their own set of depraved dogma.

"Depraved dogma"? What's depraved about getting married and raising a family?

 

[Skylar]

So your basically saying that transient lifestyles would then trump local laws (i.e. Federal Judges over ruling the states as it were), and therefore cancelling out the1st Amendment right to have without interference from government the freedom in the exorcize of one's religion within the nation and within the states as it were ? People were allowed to exorcize their freedom of their religion for ever it seems, but now that all these things have come up, such a thing is now under assault anymore. Look at how many cases have come up in the past 30 to 35 years now.

Well, what I'm saying is that it won't happen. And if it does happen, pack your bags to move to Russia or maybe North Korea where there would be more freedom at that point.n.

You would be happier in Russia- where gay marriage is illegal, and discrimination against homosexuals is encouraged- it is your kind of place.

I think transexuals are no longer allowed to drive.

 

[Syriusly]

LoL... Thanks for the spell check sil...That was a good one with the exorcism needed before long. I thank the nation will need it for sure. Note - The new testament is full of speak about the sin of today, so I don't know why so many are in denial about it.

Jude 1 is an interesting passage. It really doesn't mince words. It really emphasizes the Old Testament tales of Sodom and reminds newer jews (christians) of how entire regions were scrubbed by God for refusing to push back on advances of homosexuals who were organizing to replace common moral values with their own set of depraved dogma. The warning is simple, concise and to the point: passive assent to this or active assitance gets you eternity in the Big Slammer down under, roasting in the fires of hell forever.

Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals at all.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, it does. It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda...

...oddly enough...

...you know, like denying what is being said, isolating words apart from one another and pretending context doesn't matter...that type of thing....all of it gets you sentenced to forever in the Pit if you are conniving against the Word of God on this matter..

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, it does. It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda....

Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals even once.

You are delusional.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, it does. It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda...

...oddly enough...

...you know, like denying what is being said, isolating words apart from one another and pretending context doesn't matter...that type of thing....all of it gets you sentenced to forever in the Pit if you are conniving against the Word of God on this matter..

Show us the passage you're referring to. Every time we ask, you get really, really vague.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, it does. It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda...

...oddly enough...

...you know, like denying what is being said, isolating words apart from one another and pretending context doesn't matter...that type of thing....all of it gets you sentenced to forever in the Pit if you are conniving against the Word of God on this matter..

Show us the passage you're referring to. Every time we ask, you get really, really vague.

You mean, show you again? Put "Jude 1" into the search bar and click the button. You'll find my posts with the full text of that passage in it...numbers of them..

 

[Skylar]

Yes, it does. It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda...

...oddly enough...

...you know, like denying what is being said, isolating words apart from one another and pretending context doesn't matter...that type of thing....all of it gets you sentenced to forever in the Pit if you are conniving against the Word of God on this matter..

Show us the passage you're referring to. Every time we ask, you get really, really vague.

You mean, show you again? Put "Jude 1" into the search bar and click the button. You'll find my posts with the full text of that passage in it...numbers of them..

You claim to be quoting a portion of Jude 1. Who us the portion you're quoting. Either Jude 1 says what you claim it does....or it doesn't.

And as your excuses for why you can't possibly back up your claims demonstrates.......it doesn't.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, it does. It also mentions people who manipulate speech/language in order to forward the homosexual agenda...

...oddly enough...

...you know, like denying what is being said, isolating words apart from one another and pretending context doesn't matter...that type of thing....all of it gets you sentenced to forever in the Pit if you are conniving against the Word of God on this matter..

I've often said that the reason that gay marriage opponents do so pathetically in court is that they can't bring their actual motivation to bear. Its simply irrelevant, legally. So they're left with half assed second tier arguments that are laughed out of court.

I don't think 'conniving against the Word of God' is going to be the cornerstone of any SCOTUS ruling on the matter. Or even mentioned as being remotely relevant legally.

 

[Skylar]

Well said Silouette.

Read an article yesterday that said one of the Bakers who refused to be involved with the celebration of depravity, is likely to be fined 150K.

So.... looks like the US is heading for a divine beat down. And all because we can't find the sand to call a perv, a demented pervert.

But hey... ya get what ya pay for.

Odd, our economy has improved sharply since 2011 when support for gay marriage has surged. And improved even more since 2013 when support for gay marriage became a majority position. And improved even more since 2014 when gay marriage was found to be legal in 36 of 50 States.

If outcome is a demonstration of 'God's will', then 'God's' clearly picked a team on the gay marriage debate.

You may want to remain open to the possibility that the desire to hurt gays and Americans isn't 'God's will'. But your own personal desires. As demonstrated so elegantly by your disjoined rant on how gays better 'sit down and shut the **** up' else a war will be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday brunch'.

You may wish calamity, war and destruction on our nation. Most folks living here don't join you.

 

[Silhouette]

Well said Silouette.

Read an article yesterday that said one of the Bakers who refused to be involved with the celebration of depravity, is likely to be fined 150K.

So.... looks like the US is heading for a divine beat down. And all because we can't find the sand to call a perv, a demented pervert.

But hey... ya get what ya pay for.

Odd, our economy has improved sharply since 2011 when support for gay marriage has surged...

I note you picked the date "since 2011".. (even though gay marriage was going on before that). Could it be that you wanted to avoid discussing something else that has surged because of gay marriage before that date?

Yes, your choice of 2011 sure is odd..random...

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV AIDS