Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[Moonglow]

Now the dems maintain a whole breeder class; your entire purpose is to live like animals, and vote democratic.

In return, you will get free apartment, phones, food, and medical. Your masters even throw in abortions and money for mind altering substances.

Where do I sign up? Oh wait I earn and own too much. But it sounds like when I was in the military.

 

[KevinWestern]

And everybody recognizes that.

Except for the poorly educated, narrow minded loony tunes who are responsible for voting tyrants in in the first place.

The regime's hard core voting/funding base...the criminal and mentally ill bloc.

Then pass a law that only lets brilliant people like yourself vote.

We did have that, essentially...but it was deemed unconstitutional...

So now every retard on the planet, weather they're citizens or not, breathing or not, can vote.

And thus a tyranny is born.

Kosh, if everyone in a town voted to make slavery legal again, would you be OK with that or would you rather a Constitution/Bill of Rights trump that democratic vote and say "sorry guys, NO"?

 

[Redfish]

And?

Your cases are founded on public accommodation.

The gay is not a protected class either.

In some states they are. What do churches have to do with anything?

why should gays be a protected class? how about asexual people? how about polygamists? how about common law couples?

exactly why do you think you are entitled to special treatment because you practice sex that is outside the norm?

 

[koshergrl]

The mantra of the left..."We must accomodate tyrants because the majority of people don't know what's good for them!"

 

[KevinWestern]

The mantra of the left..."We must accomodate tyrants because the majority of people don't know what's good for them!"

You speak as if the left holds the monopoly of Tyrants, deciding what they think "is right" for the majority.

Did you forget about the Bush Presidency so soon? What about all those Republicans pushing through the NDAA act that permits indefinite detention (extreme Executive branch power)? What about all those Republicans pushing for war with countries that didn't attack us to please their defense donors (crony capitalism)? What about all those Republicans starting vast spy networks (the few spying on the many)? What about all those Republicans supporting Big Agriculture, and drafting unfair rules that gives certain gigantic monopolistic companies immunity from being prosecuted for wrongdoing?

 

[koshergrl]

Ho hum.

 

[KevinWestern]

Ho hum.

Ho hum what?

You do realize that many of the Republicans and many of the Democrats play for the same team from a donor perspective, right?

 

[koshergrl]

When you get back to the topic, let me know.

Not that I particularly care what you have to say, even then...but when a Bush Rant comes on, I tune out.

 

[KevinWestern]

When you get back to the topic, let me know.

Not that I particularly care what you have to say, even then...but when a Bush Rant comes on, I tune out.

Just stepping in to help you understand the Left/Right on power today are pretty darn similar. I was directly refuting one of your points, so if you're calling me on off-topicness, you should blame yourself as the originator.

 

[koshergrl]

No, you went on a bush rant.

 

[KevinWestern]

No, you went on a bush rant.

Bush/republican counterpoint to illustrate that tyrannical behavior exists on both ends of spectrum.

I dislike Obama equally (if not more) than Mr. Bush. Anyways, now you're getting way off topic, moving onwards.

 

[boilermaker55]

Are you people really this insane and upset over this, something that really does not affect your personal life at all, only your hatred that others don't comply to your thoughts and wishes. No wonder you kneel at an altar.
The law is not about what your religion has to accept or not, so get over that part.
It is about man's and the countries law.
Damn get a grip on some reality.

On Face the Nation this morning Bob Schieffer was surprised to hear that people such as bakers and photographers are facing fines and possibly jail time for not providing their services to gay weddings. Whatever you feel about whether people should be forced to facilitate something they are religiously opposed to, it says a lot about the media coverage that Schieffer didn't even know about it.

Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?

Obama said he won't make churches perform gay weddings. So, if we believe him, that one little corner of culture might not be forced to change. But everything else is fair game, isn't it.

Public schools will be actively attempting to make children view gay marriage as normal. Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. And bakers could lose thousands of dollars or go to jail if they refuse to put two plastic men on top of a wedding cake.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, you went on a bush rant.

Bush/republican counterpoint to illustrate that tyrannical behavior exists on both ends of spectrum.

I dislike Obama equally (if not more) than Mr. Bush. Anyways, now you're getting way off topic, moving onwards.

No, you used Bush as an analogy to call him a tyrant. Please don't lie. This thread has nothing to do with Bush, so I suggest you get back on topic yourself, Kevin.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Bush presidency was unbelievably free and beneficial compared to the travesty of obama.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah I do, because I own that business, and under the 4th Amendment, I am allowed to be secure in my own property and effects. I can do with my property what I choose. So actually that doesn't tell all of the story.

Actual court cases prove you wrong.

Funny how you never posted them.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KevinWestern]

No, you went on a bush rant.

Bush/republican counterpoint to illustrate that tyrannical behavior exists on both ends of spectrum.

I dislike Obama equally (if not more) than Mr. Bush. Anyways, now you're getting way off topic, moving onwards.

No, you used Bush as an analogy to call him a tyrant. Please don't lie. This thread has nothing to do with Bush, so I suggest you get back on topic yourself, Kevin.

I admit I was off topic, but only because I responded to an already off topic post by Kosh (lol) - anyways.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

The Bush presidency was unbelievably free and beneficial compared to the travesty of obama.

Lol, alright my lady. Nothing screams freedom louder than the TSA and Dept. of Homeland Security.

Back on topic...

 

[gallantwarrior]

I don't recall your personal stand on religion, but many people have expressed similar opinions about "belief" of homosexuals have that they are "born that way". Yet, the same people who advocate acceptance of this gay "belief" in the provenance of their condition being somehow genetically driven are the very same people who ridicule other's "belief" in some religious tenets. Why do the "beliefs" of one group (gays) require we accept on faith their contention as to their condition, while the "beliefs" of other groups (say, Christians) are reprehensible and require the force of government to eradicate such "beliefs"?

Hmm, good question. I suppose some people are hypocritical in that regard. I’ve came across some very nasty liberal people in my day who preach about acceptance and equality yet seem to think that “being Christian” somehow doesn’t fall into that same slot (and therefore can be made fun of). It’s wrong. I admit (years ago) there was a point where I was much more liberal and would do this myself, but age and experience has changed all this.

Again, I mentioned this before but with regards to what opinions are “valid” enough to shape laws comes down to how the trends are moving and how many people are believing “X” at a given time. In the current times, it’s becoming the general opinion of the society that being gay is something that we are born with & therefore the laws are changing to accommodate this opinion. I’m not claiming this is good or bad, I’m just pointing out that this is the way things are currently.

Not sure I answered your question so if you could further clarify that would be appreciated..

I appreciate that response. Thank you.
I have expressed this before, but it may be appropriate to reiterate at this point that forming a relationship with another person is entirely personal. How you conduct that relationship is personal. Other than government mandated perks, I see absolutely no reason why two people who love one another (regardless of gender) have to have permission to do so (i.e. marriage). As for being "born" a homo- or transsexual, I rely on my own experience and observation of Nature. In one respect, it is not Natural for two animals (specifically mammals) of the same gender to prefer sexual congress with each other. However, given consideration for the human strain, and the fact that humans tend to equate sex with love and to use sex as an expression of close, intimate, loving relationships, I see where otherwise un-Natural sexual relationships could be considered a part of human nature.
It would be nice if everybody would spend more time minding their own business and less time minding someone else's business. Especially given the current penchant to utilize a corrupt government to force others to accept what they do not wish to, for whatever reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I dont see it as unconsitutional, I see it as wrong.

Things dont have to be unconsitutional to be wrong and stupid.

Like I said, conservatives love the opportunity to discriminate against those who are not exactly like them.

I wouldnt discriminate against anyone, but I do not want to force my viewpoints on others who want to do it against anyone they so choose.

Anti-discrimination laws force YOUR viewpoint on me, thus discriminating against someone not exactly like YOU.

And laws against rape discriminate against people who like raping,

so you really haven't made much of a point there have you?

 

[Katzndogz]

The Bush presidency was unbelievably free and beneficial compared to the travesty of obama.

Lol, alright my lady. Nothing screams freedom louder than the TSA and Dept. of Homeland Security.

Back on topic...

Certainly not after obama got done with them. He's the one that made them into the Stasi.