Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Kondor3]

...And once again, despite the whining of you snowflakes, not a single church has been forced to marry anyone.

You tell 'em, little Internet Tough Guy...

Nobody said that any such thing had occurred (past tense)...

The premise of this thread is the question; should such a thing occur? (future tense)...

The premise of this thread is that snowflakes like yourself keep promoting the idea that you are being persecuted by forcing churches to do anything.

No one is.

No one here has actually suggested forcing churches to do anything.

But you snowflakes fall for the fear mongering every time.

Oooooohhh, you like that word "snowflake", that Righties have been throwing at you Leftist trash in recent months, don't you?

The title of the thread defines its premise.

It has nothing to do with past activity.

It has everything to do with future prospects.

You don't get to change the English language to suit your idiotic agenda.

Not anymore, anyhow, little Princess...

Besides... you're out of political power - entirely - in 16 days... who gives a rat's ass what you think anymore?

 

[Silhouette]

The new SCOTUS will find in favor of people's 1st Amendment rights. The new Court will find that the 1st Amendment rights 1. Are always dominant to local PA laws (the Constitutional protections always trump local ordinances) and 2. That the 1st Amendment doesn't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock.

The only way for the cult of LGBT to escape these finding is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to the Court that theirs are not behaviors, but instead an innate state of being at birth. And, good luck with that. Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) has found that deviant sex behaviors are not the same as the static classes of race or gender. Also, lipstick lesbians attracted to all things male in their partners betrays HUGE closeted BEHAVIORAL and mental issues.

The LGBT cult would have a better sell convincing the Court that theirs is a mental disability. But that is a double-edged sword too. A hopeless alcoholic could likewise convince a Court, but that doesn't mean the Court must then grant him the "right to drive". There are others that share the road of marriage with two adults involved. Those people are called children. And up until 2015, children had benefits of the marriage contract to both a mother and father. Said benefits were ripped away and dissolved without their even having as much as simple representation, much less a unique voice at the contract-revision Hearing known as "Obergefell"..

 

[Silhouette]

The fine was 135K, they made 500K. That's 365K profit on the deal.

They Klein's were crying all the way to the bank. They've also been doing appearances at conservative events, wonder what their speaking fees are.



>>>>

The Klein's 1st Amendment protections don't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock Worldy. Hey Worldy, quick poli-sci question for you. If a question of a local law faces off with a Constitutional Right; particularly one clearly delineated in the Constitution and there's a direct conflict, which side is the USSC mandated to find for?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The fine was 135K, they made 500K. That's 365K profit on the deal.

They Klein's were crying all the way to the bank. They've also been doing appearances at conservative events, wonder what their speaking fees are.



>>>>

The Klein's 1st Amendment protections don't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock Worldy. Hey Worldy, quick poli-sci question for you. If a question of a local law faces off with a Constitutional Right; particularly one clearly delineated in the Constitution and there's a direct conflict, which side is the USSC mandated to find for?

#1 Where did I say that 1st Amendment protections come with GPS coordinates? Oh I didn't. I pointed out that the Klein's made a profit on the issue of $365,000 and they didn't have to pay a dime of the fine.

#2 PoliSci Question - Depends. If a law is general in nature and exists within the context of a compelling government interest, then such a law can survive constitutional review. Regulation of commerce, within a State (intrastate commerce) have typically be considered to be a valid government interest and valid at the Federal level when interstate commerce is involved. Take the case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises. A restaurant tried to claim a religious exemption (1st Amendment) so as not to have to serve black people. They lost. Then there is Bob Jones University that attempted to discriminate against black (race) and interracial couples (a behavior) based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They lost also. Then there is the case of Elane Photography and their violation of the New Mexico Public Accommodation law. They attempted to claim 1st Amendment protections against serving the lesbian couple. They lost also. They lost at the State court level, then lost at the State Supreme Court level, then the United States Supreme Court refused to accept the writ of certiorari for appeal (meaning they lost their also).

So while you may think that an appeal to the SCOTUS is a slam dunk, know that it ain't. Even when Trump get's his nomination confirmed it simply restores the court to 4-1-4 (Liberal - Moderate - Conservative) which is how it was before the death of Scalia. And Kennedy was the swing vote and authored every major LBGT case in the last 20 years (Romer, Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefel).

There is your PoliSci lesson for the day, which you will ignore.


>>>>

 

[yiostheoy]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Spam bot.

Ignore list.

 

[yiostheoy]

Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar? I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented. Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".

The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.

Spam bot.

Ignore list.

 

[yiostheoy]

If your church has queer priests and queer priestesses then a queer wedding should not be any problem for them.

 

[yiostheoy]

Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar? I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented. Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".

The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.

You voted for Hillary b/c you felt Trump was too pro-gay for your liking. Jobs, economy, and, Hillary being an uncommonly poor candidate is what cost her the election, not gay marriage. This issue may be the moon that revolves around your world, but most people don't care or have moved on.

So you mdk got sucked (no pun intended) into this thread huh?

I should put you on the ignore list too then.

The Anglicans have queer priests and queer priestesses don't they ?!

I'm pretty sure I read something in the news about that.

They can be in charge of all queer weddings then.

I believe they are the 5th largest in the world so they can take charge of all queer weddings.

 

[Silhouette]

Who are you to determine what thread is worthy of discussing or not? yiostheoy? I guess the over 1,000 pages here means it's an unpopular topic eh?

 

[Syriusly]

[
Besides... you're out of political power - entirely - in 16 days... who gives a rat's ass what you think anymore?

Well that is how conservative fascists think right.

If they control the government- they can ignore what the rest of America thinks.

 

[Syriusly]

The new SCOTUS will find in favor of people's 1st Amendment rights. ..

Considering Silhouette's perfect record of failure in making predictions, this pretty much ensures that the Supreme Court will not be changing anything regarding gay marriage

 

[Syriusly]

The fine was 135K, they made 500K. That's 365K profit on the deal.

They Klein's were crying all the way to the bank. They've also been doing appearances at conservative events, wonder what their speaking fees are.



>>>>

The Klein's 1st Amendment protections don't come with GPS coordinates or a time clock Worldy. Hey Worldy, quick poli-sci question for you. If a question of a local law faces off with a Constitutional Right; particularly one clearly delineated in the Constitution and there's a direct conflict, which side is the USSC mandated to find for?

If the Klein's had just followed what the New Testament said they would never have broken the law and gotten fined

Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuals. Note you don't quote the Bible- I do.

Romans 13
1 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.
2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.
3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.
4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.

 

[mdk]

Yes, voters weighed in on the same-sex marriage party this year, didn't they Skylar? I think Hillary feels like the numbers were misrepresented. Too bad she didn't visit the poll above before she hired her gay campaign manager who told her, like you tell us "the gay marriage issue just really isn't that important to voters".

The GOP could've run a stale cheese sandwich on the numbers in the poll above and won the election on all fronts, up and down ticket.

You voted for Hillary b/c you felt Trump was too pro-gay for your liking. Jobs, economy, and, Hillary being an uncommonly poor candidate is what cost her the election, not gay marriage. This issue may be the moon that revolves around your world, but most people don't care or have moved on.

So you mdk got sucked (no pun intended) into this thread huh?

I should put you on the ignore list too then.

The Anglicans have queer priests and queer priestesses don't they ?!

I'm pretty sure I read something in the news about that.

They can be in charge of all queer weddings then.

I believe they are the 5th largest in the world so they can take charge of all queer weddings.

Yes, there are quite a few churches that are willing to gay marry people. Even if there was zero, I still wouldn't support a church being forced to marry anyone against their wishes.

Put me on me ignore. Or don't. Either way, I really don't care.

 

[mdk]

Who are you to determine what thread is worthy of discussing or not? yiostheoy? I guess the over 1,000 pages here means it's an unpopular topic eh?

It was so popular you had to raise it from the dead after an eleven month dirt nap. lol. Besides, you only keep this thread alive so you can claim that 82% of people oppose gay marriage when in fact they oppose churches being forced to marry gay people.

 

[Silhouette]

The poll speaks for itself. You can either ignore the poll and lose another election or pay attention to it and win one.

 

[mdk]

The poll speaks for itself. You can either ignore the poll and lose another election or pay attention to it and win one.

It does. The poll says the vast and overwhelming majority do not support churches being forced to marry gay couples if they do not wish to do so. You like to pretend this poll states that 82% oppose gay marriage in its entirety b/c you're a shameless liar.

 

[Silhouette]

The poll speaks for itself. You can either ignore the poll and lose another election or pay attention to it and win one.

It does. The poll says the vast and overwhelming majority do not support churches being forced to marry gay couples if they do not wish to do so. You like to pretend this poll states that 82% oppose gay marriage in its entirety b/c you're a shameless liar.

So your official position is that the poll at the top of the page and election 2016 had nothing whatsoever to do with one another eh? Once again, your credibility sinks into the toilet. 2016 was a mandate on the USSC to stop your insane social causes from destroying the fabric of working class values. You can either wise up to that or play pretend and lose 2018 as the GOP strategists sharpen their tools for a "if you don't vote republican, deranged males will use the same restroom as your daughter" mantra leading up to November 2018. Do you REALLY want a GOP supermajority in Congress? Or would you like to at least hold onto a smidgen of power in the next 4-8 years?

As long as the dems cling to the LGBT or refuse to scrape those cult values off their hull, they're going to remain scuttled at the bottom of the bay. Adding more barnacles to the hull or painting them a different color (or in your case, denying they exist at all) isn't going to bring that ship back to the surface.

 

[mdk]

So your official position is that the poll at the top of the page and election 2016 had nothing whatsoever to do with one another eh?

No, this thread's poll had a major impact on the election. You couldn't swing a dead cat by its tail and not hit a story covering this thread's poll. All those stories of churches being forced to marry couples dominated the airwaves for months. lol

Once again, your credibility sinks into the toilet.

Cura te ipsum

 

[federalist50]

This question can apply to all places of worship, so mosques, synagogues, hindu temples etc.

Should places or worship be forced to accommodate for gay weddings?

Absolutely not! Religious freedom is a bedrock principle of the U.S. Every religion you mention believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm pretty sure that there will be more than enough wedding chapels, gay ministers, etc. willing to perform the service.

 

[Syriusly]

The poll speaks for itself..

The poll indeed speaks for itself.

So why do you keep lying about what it says?