The "religious freedom" defense by the right over the SCOTUS decision is so laughable

[bodecea]

They don't have to bless, but bakers gotta bake?

That's because of state PA laws. What are you actively doing in your state to get such laws (that have been around for almost 50 years now) repealed?

 

[HappyJoy]

I agree, you can't answer the question.

And you can't follow a thread.

Cool, then just answer the question. When has the federal government ever forced any church to marry anyone? That is what you think is going to happen, right? Well, give us an example.

I'll give you five examples, to the back of your noggin'.

Don't jump into my statements or discussion with a question and then demand that I answer it.

Behave yourself, Brotch.

Right, so you can't tell me when a church was ever forced by the federal government to marry anyone? Thank you for just being you.

I'm not going to service your bullshit. I will speak my mind, and you will not interject with questions followed by demands. Suck up and shut the **** up.

So are you telling me that the federal government never forced a church to marry anyone? Is that your answer? Sure sounds like it.

 

[bodecea]

Churches are still exempt from being forced to recognize or perform same sex weddings.

Now STFU.

What is laughable is your idiocy and inability to see the big picture.

When has the federal government ever forced any church to marry anyone?

The Supreme Court has unilaterally usurped State's rights and silenced the voices of over 130 million Americans.

Just like they did with Brown v. Board of Ed.

 

[bodecea]

When has the federal government ever forced any church to marry anyone?

The Supreme Court has unilaterally usurped State's rights and silenced the voices of over 130 million Americans.

I agree, you can't answer the question.

And you can't follow a thread.

Cool, then just answer the question. When has the federal government ever forced any church to marry anyone? That is what you think is going to happen, right? Well, give us an example.

I'll give you five examples, to the back of your noggin'.

Don't jump into my statements or discussion with a question and then demand that I answer it.

Behave yourself, Brotch.

You were saying something about others being "full of hate"?

 

[bodecea]

I agree, you can't answer the question.

And you can't follow a thread.

Cool, then just answer the question. When has the federal government ever forced any church to marry anyone? That is what you think is going to happen, right? Well, give us an example.

I'll give you five examples, to the back of your noggin'.

Don't jump into my statements or discussion with a question and then demand that I answer it.

Behave yourself, Brotch.

Right, so you can't tell me when a church was ever forced by the federal government to marry anyone? Thank you for just being you.

I'm not going to service your bullshit. I will speak my mind, and you will not interject with questions followed by demands. Suck up and shut the **** up.

Again...you were making reference to others being "full of hate"?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Removing tax exempt status is a punishment that will be held over their heads unless they conform.
Suing bakeries is so yesterday. But it is still the trend to target and attack. Law suits will be followed by anti-religious protests, maybe a few church arsons, lot's of spray paint and vandalism, and for sure a lot of "hater" media splash.

 

[Mr. H.]

Churches are still exempt from being forced to recognize or perform same sex weddings.

Now STFU.

What is laughable is your idiocy and inability to see the big picture.

When has the federal government ever forced any church to marry anyone?

The Supreme Court has unilaterally usurped State's rights and silenced the voices of over 130 million Americans.

Just like they did with Brown v. Board of Ed.

When was the LGBT community been denied the right to attend a school?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I know people like you too. The types that are correct in their minds no matter what, and those who dissent are wrong and full of hate. That makes you discriminatory. Now doesn't it, you sorry ****.

Actually I'm on here, I'm saying my stuff and if anyone wants to criticise what I say, then they are free to do so.

I'm willing to change my views if they need to be changed. However when the only arguments coming from people who oppose gay marriage are generally ridiculous and go completely against the Bill of Rights, what do you want?

I think everyone should have equality under the law. I think it because it's right. I also think it because it's part of the Bill or Rights.

So, what do you have to say to me to try and convince me that equality under the law isn't the right way to go?

Thing is the Supreme Court isn't there to write policy. Giving gays the right to marry etc. is a right, and different from redefining marriage which was rewriting law into new and different law. There is a difference.

No, it isn't. It's there to INTERPRET the law.

Now, the US Constitution says there is equality of the law. It surprises me that they haven't interpreted the Constitution on same sex marriage earlier, because, quite frankly any sane person would see that a straight person being able to marry the person of their choice and get tax benefits and many other benefits whereas gay people CAN'T, is quite clearly not equality of the law.

So.... the Supreme Court is simply doing what it should have done 200 odd years ago but didn't.

They did not write policy.

 

[bodecea]

Churches are still exempt from being forced to recognize or perform same sex weddings.

Now STFU.

What is laughable is your idiocy and inability to see the big picture.

When has the federal government ever forced any church to marry anyone?

The Supreme Court has unilaterally usurped State's rights and silenced the voices of over 130 million Americans.

Just like they did with Brown v. Board of Ed.

When was the LGBT community been denied the right to attend a school?

Are you having trouble following your own conversation?

 

[HappyJoy]

Churches are still exempt from being forced to recognize or perform same sex weddings.

Now STFU.

What is laughable is your idiocy and inability to see the big picture.

When has the federal government ever forced any church to marry anyone?

It's a new day. Marry them or lose your tax exempt status isn't far down the road, and until it gets here, I saw a headline abut a millionaire couple already suing a church. I didn't read it. But I can read the handwriting on the wall. Sodom and Gomorrah got nuthin on us.....

You're not answering the question. When has the federal government ever forced any church to marry anyone? And btw, churches are sued all the time, that's nothing new.

Removing tax exempt status is a punishment that will be held over their heads unless they conform.
Suing bakeries is so yesterday. But it is still the trend to target and attack. Law suits will be followed by anti-religious protests, maybe a few church arsons, lot's of spray paint and vandalism, and for sure a lot of "hater" media splash.

You should fix your quote and then think about answering the question I asked.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Churches are still exempt from being forced to recognize or perform same sex weddings.

Now STFU.

What is laughable is your idiocy and inability to see the big picture.

When has the federal government ever forced any church to marry anyone?

The Supreme Court has unilaterally usurped State's rights and silenced the voices of over 130 million Americans.

Just like they did with Brown v. Board of Ed.

When was the LGBT community been denied the right to attend a school?

Since when has being pedantic and sill been considered a good debate tool?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Churches are still exempt from being forced to recognize or perform same sex weddings.

Now STFU.

until a case goes to court

 

[Billy000]

Churches are still exempt from being forced to recognize or perform same sex weddings.

Now STFU.

until a case goes to court

Even if one did, it would get absolutely nowhere.

 

[rcfieldz]

Satanism is alive and legal in America. And it hides itself within the bodies of those who are nonbelievers. Those who continue to sin shall die and the believers shall live. Wait till you get to Heaven and there are no married queers there.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Churches are still exempt from being forced to recognize or perform same sex weddings.

Now STFU.

until a case goes to court

Even if one did, it would get absolutely nowhere.

maybe not

 

[The Irish Ram]

They did not interpret, the changed

I know people like you too. The types that are correct in their minds no matter what, and those who dissent are wrong and full of hate. That makes you discriminatory. Now doesn't it, you sorry ****.

Actually I'm on here, I'm saying my stuff and if anyone wants to criticise what I say, then they are free to do so.

I'm willing to change my views if they need to be changed. However when the only arguments coming from people who oppose gay marriage are generally ridiculous and go completely against the Bill of Rights, what do you want?

I think everyone should have equality under the law. I think it because it's right. I also think it because it's part of the Bill or Rights.

So, what do you have to say to me to try and convince me that equality under the law isn't the right way to go?

Thing is the Supreme Court isn't there to write policy. Giving gays the right to marry etc. is a right, and different from redefining marriage which was rewriting law into new and different law. There is a difference.

No, it isn't. It's there to INTERPRET the law.

Now, the US Constitution says there is equality of the law. It surprises me that they haven't interpreted the Constitution on same sex marriage earlier, because, quite frankly any sane person would see that a straight person being able to marry the person of their choice and get tax benefits and many other benefits whereas gay people CAN'T, is quite clearly not equality of the law.

So.... the Supreme Court is simply doing what it should have done 200 odd years ago but didn't.

They did not write policy.

They did not interpret. They changed the law to include.

 

[HappyJoy]

Satanism is alive and legal in America. And it hides itself within the bodies of those who are nonbelievers. Those who continue to sin shall die and the believers shall live. Wait till you get to Heaven and there are no married queers there.

In the meantime, Alabama will force couples into pre marital sex, where do they go?

 

[Billy000]

Satanism is alive and legal in America. And it hides itself within the bodies of those who are nonbelievers. Those who continue to sin shall die and the believers shall live. Wait till you get to Heaven and there are no married queers there.

"An afterlife is just a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark."

- Stephen Hawking

 

[frigidweirdo]

They did not interpret, the changed

I know people like you too. The types that are correct in their minds no matter what, and those who dissent are wrong and full of hate. That makes you discriminatory. Now doesn't it, you sorry ****.

Actually I'm on here, I'm saying my stuff and if anyone wants to criticise what I say, then they are free to do so.

I'm willing to change my views if they need to be changed. However when the only arguments coming from people who oppose gay marriage are generally ridiculous and go completely against the Bill of Rights, what do you want?

I think everyone should have equality under the law. I think it because it's right. I also think it because it's part of the Bill or Rights.

So, what do you have to say to me to try and convince me that equality under the law isn't the right way to go?

Thing is the Supreme Court isn't there to write policy. Giving gays the right to marry etc. is a right, and different from redefining marriage which was rewriting law into new and different law. There is a difference.

No, it isn't. It's there to INTERPRET the law.

Now, the US Constitution says there is equality of the law. It surprises me that they haven't interpreted the Constitution on same sex marriage earlier, because, quite frankly any sane person would see that a straight person being able to marry the person of their choice and get tax benefits and many other benefits whereas gay people CAN'T, is quite clearly not equality of the law.

So.... the Supreme Court is simply doing what it should have done 200 odd years ago but didn't.

They did not write policy.

They did not interpret. They changed the law to include.

Maybe I should be more specific. The US Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution. Any laws that come to them to be considered can be accepted or they can be rejected. The Supreme Court can make decisions which require other bodies to follow their guidelines or see their laws be smacked down because they're unconstitutional.

States are subject to the Bill of Rights. If a state makes a law which takes away from the equality of the law then they are going against the constitution and such law should be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has finally said that such laws will now automatically be considered unconstitutional by all Federal Courts.

They interpreted the US Constitution. By doing so States will have to CHANGE THEIR LAWS. The US Supreme Court will not be changing their laws. They don't have the legislative power to change their laws.

 

[rcfieldz]

Satanism is alive and legal in America. And it hides itself within the bodies of those who are nonbelievers. Those who continue to sin shall die and the believers shall live. Wait till you get to Heaven and there are no married queers there.

"An afterlife is just a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark."

- Stephen Hawking

Did he really say that? I hope GOD gives him a pass and we all see him in Heaven. I think HE will!