Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no reason to believe that God exists but Jesus believed in only one God while you have three, and it's you who are defining what God is and can do while that would be entirely up to God now wouldn't it? Start there.

Jesus prayed to God (the Father) and promised to send God (the Holy Spirit) after his death, burial and resurrection Jesus= God (the Son). Jesus acknowledged all 3.

I can be mistaken, yes.
God cannot.
God reveals truth to those that are enlightened.

What makes you think God couldn't make a mistake? The God of the Jews was nothing like a good guy but you think he is now? That is because you are telling God what he should be, not the other way around...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tell us then, how many other faiths did you belong to before deciding that yours was the One True Faith?

And here's a hint for you, they are all wrong, even yours...

I can only speak to my personal experience.
When you are saved and give your life over to God, accepting Jesus as the sacrifice for your sins, your eyes are opened to truth. Trying to explain that to someone that is blinded is like trying to explain how a mountain looks to someone that has never had sight..... impossible....

In my mind you are the blind one, and you've never believed in anything but the faith were raised in, obviously.

Not true. I was an Atheist. Until age 40. I am 51 now.

And you were wrong on both accounts. Nice you to finally answer.

No, you just are not listening (or reading.. ) - but that's ok...

I am reading, every word of your dogma. And tell us, are you willing to bet the soul of another an eternity in Hell that you are right?

 

[Seawytch]

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Except the clerk in whatever the **** backwater we're talking about here...is refusing to allow her entire office to issue the licenses. It's not just her and her personal religious beliefs but she is imposing them on others.

Tell me...if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to "infidels", what do you think should happen to that individual?

We're not talking about Muslims.
I guess the staff could quit if they really had a problem. BUt I'd bet they dont.
Good for the clerk. Resistence to state tyranny is the civil rights movement of the 21st century. I applaud the clerk.

No we aren't. If we were, you'd want them fired.

 

[Seawytch]

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Except the clerk in whatever the **** backwater we're talking about here...is refusing to allow her entire office to issue the licenses. It's not just her and her personal religious beliefs but she is imposing them on others.

Tell me...if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to "infidels", what do you think should happen to that individual?

To what? Click on the OP.

 

[OKTexas]

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Except the clerk in whatever the **** backwater we're talking about here...is refusing to allow her entire office to issue the licenses. It's not just her and her personal religious beliefs but she is imposing them on others.

Tell me...if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to "infidels", what do you think should happen to that individual?

To what? Click on the OP.

Nothing in the link says anything close to what you said, hence the request for another link.

 

[Debra K]

Why do liberals always say conservatives (Christians) are "forcing" or "demanding" things?
We just want rights like gays and others, to be free to live by our own principles and not be discriminated against or "bullied"....

Speaking from a legal perspective. You want Christians to be able to deny equal service to gays, but yet gays cannot deny equal service based on religion (under both Federal and State Public Accommodation laws) to Christians.

That isn't the same treatment.


>>>>

Unless there are no other options or it's detrimental to the person - I don't care what sex you like, you should be forced to go against your religious beliefs. The laws are now such that they kiss the asses of certain protected minority groups, and they like to run around saying "but it's the LAW" like that means it's right....

Why should the majority be allowed to tyrannize and oppress minority groups? You can think or believe whatever you want. Minorities aren't depriving you of your belief that you're better than they are for whatever reason. But when you run a business that is open to the public, you do not have the right to say which members of the public can or cannot purchase goods or services from your business. If you own a business, you still have freedom of expression. You can post a sign on your door or a message on your business website stating that you hate gays or oppose marriage between same sex persons, but you will comply with the law and serve them if they come into your business. This is called ordered liberty.

 

[Debra K]

I have news for you all...

Being gay is UNNATURAL, WRONG and DEVIANT!
No law will change that.

That's your hateful opinion. It does nothing but display your animus against homosexual persons, which is evidence of the need to protect the persons you hate from your harmful conduct.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

7 black robed judges, 4 of which are hard left should not decide on gay marriage when the vast majority are against it.

I know, you prefer those guys in the white robes and have them decide on issues of civil rights

 

[Bonzi]

I have news for you all...

Being gay is UNNATURAL, WRONG and DEVIANT!
No law will change that.

That's your hateful opinion. It does nothing but display your animus against homosexual persons, which is evidence of the need to protect the persons you hate from your harmful conduct.

Nope. I love all people.
I just hate to see them hurt themselves by giving in to their deviant lust.

 

[Bonzi]

Why do liberals always say conservatives (Christians) are "forcing" or "demanding" things?
We just want rights like gays and others, to be free to live by our own principles and not be discriminated against or "bullied"....

Speaking from a legal perspective. You want Christians to be able to deny equal service to gays, but yet gays cannot deny equal service based on religion (under both Federal and State Public Accommodation laws) to Christians.

That isn't the same treatment.


>>>>

Unless there are no other options or it's detrimental to the person - I don't care what sex you like, you should be forced to go against your religious beliefs. The laws are now such that they kiss the asses of certain protected minority groups, and they like to run around saying "but it's the LAW" like that means it's right....

Why should the majority be allowed to tyrannize and oppress minority groups? You can think or believe whatever you want. Minorities aren't depriving you of your belief that you're better than they are for whatever reason. But when you run a business that is open to the public, you do not have the right to say which members of the public can or cannot purchase goods or services from your business. If you own a business, you still have freedom of expression. You can post a sign on your door or a message on your business website stating that you hate gays or oppose marriage between same sex persons, but you will comply with the law and serve them if they come into your business. This is called ordered liberty.

I think what is best for this Country should prevail.
I differ than you on what I think is best.
People all get to make their own choices and deal with the consequences.
Right now, our Country is going in the toilet because of wrong choices and bad laws.

 

[Debra K]

No, it is discrimination that you want legalized.

You are generalizing and being emotional. Stop and think!

What are you talking about. I simply said that gay people should form a religion and then kooks like you couldn't discriminate against them.

They could, but, ultimately, it would be a false religion.
It may hold weight in this world but this is Satan' world (for now) - I pray you will see truth one day.....

The arrogance it takes to tell everyone in the world whose faith is different than yours that their religion is false is astounding. Your omniscience is a product of a defective brain.

If TRUTH is arrogant, so be it.

That's the same thing that ISIS members say when they chop off the heads of people who don't believe and practice what they believe and practice.

Why are religious people so narrow-minded and violent? Check this out:

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.

These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to thrive in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend. An exercise of this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. . . .

Source: Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 1947 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Your "burning hatred" against people who don't believe the same as you is disappointing to people who understand the true meaning of "liberty". Rational people abhor the things you say "in God's name". If God truly exists, I don't think He approves of your "burning hatred".

 

[Bonzi]

You are generalizing and being emotional. Stop and think!

What are you talking about. I simply said that gay people should form a religion and then kooks like you couldn't discriminate against them.

They could, but, ultimately, it would be a false religion.
It may hold weight in this world but this is Satan' world (for now) - I pray you will see truth one day.....

The arrogance it takes to tell everyone in the world whose faith is different than yours that their religion is false is astounding. Your omniscience is a product of a defective brain.

If TRUTH is arrogant, so be it.

That's the same thing that ISIS members say when they chop off the heads of people who don't believe and practice what they believe and practice.

Why are religious people so narrow-minded and violent? Check this out:

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.

These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to thrive in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend. An exercise of this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. . . .

Source: Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 1947 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Your "burning hatred" against people who don't believe the same as you is disappointing to people who understand the true meaning of "liberty". Rational people abhor the things you say "in God's name". If God truly exists, I don't think He approves of your "burning hatred".

Well I think people need to be told the truth. in love. not violence.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What are you talking about. I simply said that gay people should form a religion and then kooks like you couldn't discriminate against them.

They could, but, ultimately, it would be a false religion.
It may hold weight in this world but this is Satan' world (for now) - I pray you will see truth one day.....

The arrogance it takes to tell everyone in the world whose faith is different than yours that their religion is false is astounding. Your omniscience is a product of a defective brain.

If TRUTH is arrogant, so be it.

That's the same thing that ISIS members say when they chop off the heads of people who don't believe and practice what they believe and practice.

Why are religious people so narrow-minded and violent? Check this out:

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.

These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to thrive in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend. An exercise of this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. . . .

Source: Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 1947 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Your "burning hatred" against people who don't believe the same as you is disappointing to people who understand the true meaning of "liberty". Rational people abhor the things you say "in God's name". If God truly exists, I don't think He approves of your "burning hatred".

Well I think people need to be told the truth. in love. not violence.

Your truth, not the truth. "The" truth doesn't help you in the slightest since it rejects what you live by, dogma.

 

[Bonzi]

They could, but, ultimately, it would be a false religion.
It may hold weight in this world but this is Satan' world (for now) - I pray you will see truth one day.....

The arrogance it takes to tell everyone in the world whose faith is different than yours that their religion is false is astounding. Your omniscience is a product of a defective brain.

If TRUTH is arrogant, so be it.

That's the same thing that ISIS members say when they chop off the heads of people who don't believe and practice what they believe and practice.

Why are religious people so narrow-minded and violent? Check this out:

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.

These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to thrive in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend. An exercise of this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. . . .

Source: Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 1947 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Your "burning hatred" against people who don't believe the same as you is disappointing to people who understand the true meaning of "liberty". Rational people abhor the things you say "in God's name". If God truly exists, I don't think He approves of your "burning hatred".

Well I think people need to be told the truth. in love. not violence.

Your truth, not the truth. "The" truth doesn't help you in the slightest since it rejects what you live by, dogma.

Well since you don't have the final say, that means nothing.......... but you have the right to believe what you want............

 

[The Rabbi]

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Except the clerk in whatever the **** backwater we're talking about here...is refusing to allow her entire office to issue the licenses. It's not just her and her personal religious beliefs but she is imposing them on others.

Tell me...if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to "infidels", what do you think should happen to that individual?

We're not talking about Muslims.
I guess the staff could quit if they really had a problem. BUt I'd bet they dont.
Good for the clerk. Resistence to state tyranny is the civil rights movement of the 21st century. I applaud the clerk.

No we aren't. If we were, you'd want them fired.

OK good then your point stands refuted.
What else you got?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are generalizing and being emotional. Stop and think!

What are you talking about. I simply said that gay people should form a religion and then kooks like you couldn't discriminate against them.

They could, but, ultimately, it would be a false religion.
It may hold weight in this world but this is Satan' world (for now) - I pray you will see truth one day.....

The arrogance it takes to tell everyone in the world whose faith is different than yours that their religion is false is astounding. Your omniscience is a product of a defective brain.

If TRUTH is arrogant, so be it.

That's the same thing that ISIS members say when they chop off the heads of people who don't believe and practice what they believe and practice.

Why are religious people so narrow-minded and violent? Check this out:

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.

These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to thrive in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend. An exercise of this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. . . .

Source: Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 1947 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Your "burning hatred" against people who don't believe the same as you is disappointing to people who understand the true meaning of "liberty". Rational people abhor the things you say "in God's name". If God truly exists, I don't think He approves of your "burning hatred".

You quote an opinion from 1947 and expect to be taken seriously? Get outta town!~

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The arrogance it takes to tell everyone in the world whose faith is different than yours that their religion is false is astounding. Your omniscience is a product of a defective brain.

If TRUTH is arrogant, so be it.

That's the same thing that ISIS members say when they chop off the heads of people who don't believe and practice what they believe and practice.

Why are religious people so narrow-minded and violent? Check this out:

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.

These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to thrive in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend. An exercise of this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. . . .

Source: Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 1947 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Your "burning hatred" against people who don't believe the same as you is disappointing to people who understand the true meaning of "liberty". Rational people abhor the things you say "in God's name". If God truly exists, I don't think He approves of your "burning hatred".

Well I think people need to be told the truth. in love. not violence.

Your truth, not the truth. "The" truth doesn't help you in the slightest since it rejects what you live by, dogma.

Well since you don't have the final say, that means nothing.......... but you have the right to believe what you want............

No human has the final say, nor even a god, but there are better and worse bets and your faith is not a good bet. At least in my case, unlike you, I'm not betting the soul of another in Hell while trying to convert them. You need others to believe just as you do. If they don't you just might be wrong but as I said you have no need to worry about as all religious people are wrong. There is no One True Religion, and there have been many throughout human history, which is why I know there is no such thing, all rational people do...

 

[Bonzi]

If TRUTH is arrogant, so be it.

That's the same thing that ISIS members say when they chop off the heads of people who don't believe and practice what they believe and practice.

Why are religious people so narrow-minded and violent? Check this out:

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.

These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to thrive in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend. An exercise of this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. . . .

Source: Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 1947 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Your "burning hatred" against people who don't believe the same as you is disappointing to people who understand the true meaning of "liberty". Rational people abhor the things you say "in God's name". If God truly exists, I don't think He approves of your "burning hatred".

Well I think people need to be told the truth. in love. not violence.

Your truth, not the truth. "The" truth doesn't help you in the slightest since it rejects what you live by, dogma.

Well since you don't have the final say, that means nothing.......... but you have the right to believe what you want............

No human has the final say, nor even a god, but there are better and worse bets and your faith is not a good bet. At least in my case, unlike you, I'm not betting the soul of another in Hell while trying to convert them. You need others to believe just as you do. If they don't you just might be wrong but as I said you have no need to worry about as all religious people are wrong. There is no One True Religion, and there have been many throughout human history, which is why I know there is no such thing, all rational people do...

I don't get to say who is going to heaven or hell
only what the Bible says about it
The Bible is my guide. The Holy Spirit interprets.
Many think it's garbage - their prerogative - I never said otherwise.

 

[Debra K]

7 black robed judges, 4 of which are hard left should not decide on gay marriage when the vast majority are against it.

First: There are nine (9) Supreme Court Justices.
Second: The vast majority are not against equal protection under the law for homosexual persons. The vast majority are not against homosexual persons having the same right that heterosexual persons have to marry the person of their choice.

The decision was 5-4. How is that a vast majority?
You are clearly a dunce.

Huh? You're the one with the lack of reading comprehension.

Ninja wrote "7 black robed judges", which is wrong. There are nine (9) Supreme Court Justices.

Ninja wrote that 7 black robed judges (4 of which are hard left) should not decide on gay marriage when the vast majority are against it.

Ninja was not saying the vast majority of the Supreme Court Justices were against marriage equality; he was saying the vast majority of people in this nation are against it. He is wrong.

You are clearly the dunce.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That's the same thing that ISIS members say when they chop off the heads of people who don't believe and practice what they believe and practice.

Why are religious people so narrow-minded and violent? Check this out:

Source: Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 1947 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Your "burning hatred" against people who don't believe the same as you is disappointing to people who understand the true meaning of "liberty". Rational people abhor the things you say "in God's name". If God truly exists, I don't think He approves of your "burning hatred".

Well I think people need to be told the truth. in love. not violence.

Your truth, not the truth. "The" truth doesn't help you in the slightest since it rejects what you live by, dogma.

Well since you don't have the final say, that means nothing.......... but you have the right to believe what you want............

No human has the final say, nor even a god, but there are better and worse bets and your faith is not a good bet. At least in my case, unlike you, I'm not betting the soul of another in Hell while trying to convert them. You need others to believe just as you do. If they don't you just might be wrong but as I said you have no need to worry about as all religious people are wrong. There is no One True Religion, and there have been many throughout human history, which is why I know there is no such thing, all rational people do...

I don't get to say who is going to heaven or hell
only what the Bible says about it
The Bible is my guide. The Holy Spirit interprets.
Many think it's garbage - their prerogative - I never said otherwise.

I'll help you out, do you think you're going up to Heaven when you die?