Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[LittleNipper]

First off Denmark has a "NATIONALCHURCH" under the thumb of that government. So much for "modern," "sophistication," and "Godly". Secondly, I guess that American churches will not have to insure or hire practicing sinners.

 

[dblack]

'Spose that's fakey for "I got nuthin'".

You have nothing worthy to discuss.

Really, libertarianism is nothing more than gooberism.

The USA is not going to change the 1st Amendment interpretations for your ilk.

No church has been forced to marry homosexuals: none ever will.

Anything but answer the question. All the deflection just screams "fail". I'm sorry.

No question worth answering. Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.

Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh. Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.

You are the fraud, little one. No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.

It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You have nothing worthy to discuss.

Really, libertarianism is nothing more than gooberism.

The USA is not going to change the 1st Amendment interpretations for your ilk.

No church has been forced to marry homosexuals: none ever will.

Anything but answer the question. All the deflection just screams "fail". I'm sorry.

No question worth answering. Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.

Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh. Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.

You are the fraud, little one. No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.

It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!

That idiot was the very first person that I sentenced to ignore. And not for even one second have I regretted that action.

 

[dblack]

Anything but answer the question. All the deflection just screams "fail". I'm sorry.

No question worth answering. Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.

Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh. Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.

You are the fraud, little one. No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.

It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!

That idiot was the very first person that I sentenced to ignore. And not for even one second have I regretted that action.

You were the second, bigot.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No question worth answering. Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.

Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh. Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.

You are the fraud, little one. No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.

It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!

That idiot was the very first person that I sentenced to ignore. And not for even one second have I regretted that action.

You were the second, bigot.

if you've some idea of what you were trying to say, please try to explain it.

Starkey is an imbecile. How that makes me a bigot is known only to you.

But I'd love to see your math... 'cause it sounds fascinatin'.

Also... FYI: using the word 'bigot' is, by definition, a demonstration of bigotry.

 

[dblack]

Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh. Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.

You are the fraud, little one. No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.

It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!

That idiot was the very first person that I sentenced to ignore. And not for even one second have I regretted that action.

You were the second, bigot.

if you've some idea of what you were trying to say, please try to explain it.

Starkey is an imbecile. How that makes me a bigot is known only to you.

But I'd love to see your math... 'cause it sounds fascinatin'.

Also... FYI: using the word 'bigot' is, by definition, a demonstration of bigotry.

Truth has no allies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No question worth answering. Libertarianism is the answer to nothing.

Who said anything about that? If bakers should be forced to serve gays, why shouldn't churches? Ahh. Nevermind. I know you're a fraud. Live it.

You are the fraud, little one. No one discusses a nothing, which is libertarianism on this subject.

It's ok. You have no answer. I get that. Keep dancing. It's funny!

That idiot was the very first person that I sentenced to ignore. And not for even one second have I regretted that action.

You were the second, bigot.

Keys: if you've some idea of what you were trying to say, please try to explain it. Starkey is an imbecile. How that makes me a bigot is known only to you. But I'd love to see your math... 'cause it sounds fascinatin'. Also... FYI: using the word 'bigot' is, by definition, a demonstration of bigotry.

I keep running Keys off. His favorite word is "imbecile" when I show just how worthless are his comments. He was corrected elsewhere, and he is so adorable in his resentment

Tough.

He always keeps coming back though for more shaming and naming.

St. Keys the Irrelevant is fun to toy with. dblack is a libertarian, which makes him a box of rocks.

 

[Seawytch]

Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.

 

[dblack]

Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.

Not a matter of "liking" it. It's just pure bullshit. Religion was the first business. Silly rules notwithstanding.

 

[Silhouette]

Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.

Christians cannot be hamstrung in the free market by a competing cult seeking to force them to abdicate their faith in order to enable the church of butt-sex "getting married"...(instituting a brand new and majority-repugnant idea of fatherless or motherless "marriages"). To do so is a pure violation of individual Christians' 1st Amendment rights.

 

[Skylar]

Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.

Christians cannot be hamstrung in the free market by a competing cult seeking to force them to abdicate their faith in order to enable the church of butt-sex "getting married"...(instituting a brand new and majority-repugnant idea of fatherless or motherless "marriages"). To do so is a pure violation of individual Christians' 1st Amendment rights.

The 'cult' you've imagined doesn't exist. There is no 'church of buttsex'. And Christians are held to the same laws as everyone else. If they can arbitrarily ignore any law that they don't like, then we have a religiously based sovereign citizen argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.

Christians cannot be hamstrung in the free market by a competing cult seeking to force them to abdicate their faith in order to enable the church of butt-sex "getting married"...(instituting a brand new and majority-repugnant idea of fatherless or motherless "marriages"). To do so is a pure violation of individual Christians' 1st Amendment rights.

The 'cult' you've imagined doesn't exist. There is no 'church of buttsex'. And Christians are held to the same laws as everyone else. If they can arbitrarily ignore any law that they don't like, then we have a religiously based sovereign citizen argument.

That is open for debate:

No need for a "coalition". The 1st Amendment already exists for 300 million people.

 

[mdk]

Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.

 

[Skylar]

Churches are not businesses and businesses are not churches. The rules are different. Don't like it, get a large enough coalition to change the rules.

Christians cannot be hamstrung in the free market by a competing cult seeking to force them to abdicate their faith in order to enable the church of butt-sex "getting married"...(instituting a brand new and majority-repugnant idea of fatherless or motherless "marriages"). To do so is a pure violation of individual Christians' 1st Amendment rights.

The 'cult' you've imagined doesn't exist. There is no 'church of buttsex'. And Christians are held to the same laws as everyone else. If they can arbitrarily ignore any law that they don't like, then we have a religiously based sovereign citizen argument.

That is open for debate:

Given that you're folding in millions and millions of gay folks, no...its really not.

You're just making up conspiracy batshit as the ruling that you know will contradict you comes closer. And the closer it gets, the deeper you will decent into frantic propaganda.

I genuinely worry for you when the ruling actually comes down. As loathsome as some of the batshit you spew is, I don't want you to actually hurt yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.

He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.

 

[mdk]

Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.

He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.

We knew it was going to occur but I didn't even dream it would reach this type of silliness. Now the Duggars and Tar Heel Republicans are being folded into conspiracy batter.

 

[Skylar]

Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.

He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.

We knew it was going to occur but I didn't even dream it would reach this type of silliness. Now the Duggars and Tar Heel Republicans are being folded into conspiracy batter.

Don't forget the US Postal service, Gallup polling and InTouch magazine.

 

[mdk]

Wow, it has been a while since Sil has broken out those pictures. It's true what they say, the classics never die.

He's working himself up into a frothing lather. I told you this was gonna happen before the ruling.

We knew it was going to occur but I didn't even dream it would reach this type of silliness. Now the Duggars and Tar Heel Republicans are being folded into conspiracy batter.

Don't forget the US Postal service, Gallup polling and InTouch magazine.

And Oprah, the APA, the Ferguson Riots...

The list of batshit seems to be endless.

 

[GreenBean]

Since none of what you posted support or even allege that all polling agencies that show majority support for same sex marriage have been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and now produce false polling numbers as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s....

It's a bothersome path of logic -I doubt that he said ALL relative polls - however my take on the issue , one which I'd hoped you'd have been able to grasp from of the data I posted is that mass media manipulation and circumvention of free speech have lead to the results in these polls .... the masses are sheeple and you are among the sheep

He cited polls that show support for same sex marriage. The defining characteristic of his 'infiltrated by homosexuals and reporting false data' conspiracy....was the polling results. Any that contradicted him on support for same sex marriage got rolled into that steaming pile of batshit.

Which is what conspiracy theorists do. Well, them and the mentally ill. That's a pair of Venn diagrams that's far closer to a circle than either group would like to admit. As he can't factually support his claim. Nor can you.

As I said....that's only a strong argument for medication. Not for the abolishment of same sex marriage.

If you'd care to post a link to the post in question I'd be glad to offer my opinion, in the interim I'll with hold judgement being that only one side of the argument is being presented.

Now so far as Opinion Polls are concerned in general - I personally do not have much respect for them - as different organizations or groups can ask the same questions to roughly the same demographic and quite frequently deliver results that are far apart.

There's a Gallup Poll from 2011 that produced the following results.

U.S. adults estimated that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.

52% of American Adults estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian

35% estimate that more than one in four are.

Few put the figure at less than 15%.

The factual reality based statistics are that no more than 4% of the U.S. population is Gay or Lesbian.

Gross over representation and coverage by the Media, both in Entertainment Fiction {Soaps, Sitcoms, Movies..} as well as massive propaganda and slanted News coverage leaves the sheeple with a distorted World View.

 

[Skylar]

Since none of what you posted support or even allege that all polling agencies that show majority support for same sex marriage have been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and now produce false polling numbers as part of a vast international conspiracy dating back to the 60s....

It's a bothersome path of logic -I doubt that he said ALL relative polls - however my take on the issue , one which I'd hoped you'd have been able to grasp from of the data I posted is that mass media manipulation and circumvention of free speech have lead to the results in these polls .... the masses are sheeple and you are among the sheep

He cited polls that show support for same sex marriage. The defining characteristic of his 'infiltrated by homosexuals and reporting false data' conspiracy....was the polling results. Any that contradicted him on support for same sex marriage got rolled into that steaming pile of batshit.

Which is what conspiracy theorists do. Well, them and the mentally ill. That's a pair of Venn diagrams that's far closer to a circle than either group would like to admit. As he can't factually support his claim. Nor can you.

As I said....that's only a strong argument for medication. Not for the abolishment of same sex marriage.

If you'd care to post a link to the post in question I'd be glad to offer my opinion, in the interim I'll with hold judgement being that only one side of the argument is being presented.

Your opinion simply isn't that valuable to me.