Gov to Ministers: Marry Gays or Go to Jail

[Pernicious]

http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SRX_HITCHING_POST_t620-450x288.jpg
…and the distinction between gay rights and religious persecution just vanished. It begins with equality and ends with everyone losing their freedom.
But I love all these new freedoms we’re getting. We now have the freedom to do what various pressure groups want or go to jail. I hope we don’t get too many more new freedoms or we’ll run out of jail cells.


Officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, are threatening an elderly couple who run a wedding chapel with jail time unless they perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.
Donald Knapp and his wife, Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, have declined to host gay weddings based on their religious beliefs. The city is basing its claims on their “non-discrimination” statute now that the courts have cleared the way for same sex marriages in the state.
If a wedding chapel and its minister are a “public accommodation”, then the First Amendment just went up in smoke, which it was always bound to. Too many “conservatives” have the fanciful notion that the left can be compromised or that it will stop at some apparent to them “reasonable point”.
History shows that the left does not stop. It keeps going. It takes everything you have and then it puts you up against a wall.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/gov-to-ministers-marry-gays-or-go-to-jail/

[revelarts]

And so it begins,

this is a very Real Line in the sand.
Dear God Bless those ministers and defeat the City.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And so it begins,

this is a very Real Line in the sand.
Dear God Bless those ministers and defeat the City.

Remember when we said about gay rights , next they'll be for having sex and marriage with animals?
And the stupid posters said no way, that slippery slop argument is bullshat. Well , now they have gay marriage and are using it to Attack religion with! Primarily Christian religion , notice how no gays are attacking Islam by demanding marriages be conducted by Imams?
Gays are anti-Christian and now they have that snowball rolling downhill.

Just watch what it catches in the coming years. Right now it targets Christians , how soon before it demands to have sex with underage kids?
SLIPPERY SLOPE, IS REAL... --Tyr

[jimnyc]

"oh, it's just about equal rights and benefits"

So now, even if they get those benefits, and even if they can get "married" by a court or anywhere else, the goal posts will move again and the demands will continue. I called this one a long, long time ago. It's nothing to do with benefits and such, they want to force people to see them the same, accept them as the same. And now some will want churches to literally change their beliefs and bless them with a holy matrimony?

IMO, it's not much different than FORCING atheists who decide to get married, to do so in a catholic church.

[gabosaurus]

That's ridiculous. You can't force someone to perform weddings. Just like you can't force someone to bake a cake they don't like.

[Gunny]

http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SRX_HITCHING_POST_t620-450x288.jpg
…and the distinction between gay rights and religious persecution just vanished. It begins with equality and ends with everyone losing their freedom.
But I love all these new freedoms we’re getting. We now have the freedom to do what various pressure groups want or go to jail. I hope we don’t get too many more new freedoms or we’ll run out of jail cells.

Officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, are threatening an elderly couple who run a wedding chapel with jail time unless they perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.
Donald Knapp and his wife, Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, have declined to host gay weddings based on their religious beliefs. The city is basing its claims on their “non-discrimination” statute now that the courts have cleared the way for same sex marriages in the state.

If a wedding chapel and its minister are a “public accommodation”, then the First Amendment just went up in smoke, which it was always bound to. Too many “conservatives” have the fanciful notion that the left can be compromised or that it will stop at some apparent to them “reasonable point”.
History shows that the left does not stop. It keeps going. It takes everything you have and then it puts you up against a wall.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/gov-to-ministers-marry-gays-or-go-to-jail/

Jail.

[fj1200]

Hopefully the ridiculous like this will show how stupid the NDA laws are.

[fj1200]

Remember when we said about gay rights , next they'll be for having sex and marriage with animals?

Only gays are into that sort of thing? BTW, what animal has the legal capacity to enter into a binding contract?

[revelarts]

Only gays are into that sort of thing? BTW, what animal has the legal capacity to enter into a binding contract?
devils advocate here

The Animal is property of the human, the Human owns the animal under the law. The human would make legal the contract of marriage under the law as well. the Human has rights as an owner and the animal is legally granted more rights by marriage. If a Man or Woman decides that marriage to his or her pet is in their interest or because of "love". They have "the right" to make that binding on all and all of the U.S. should legally RECOGNIZE it, accept it, and CELEBRATE it.
with a smile... or else.

It's a contract, not just with the animal (one of God's creatures BTW) because the community must ENDORSE it and legally recognize it for it to be all "EQUAL" like, with ever other kind of marriage.

FJ I'm surprised, you sound like a BiGOT!!!.... as well as a commie lefty muzzie lover.

[Gunny]

Hopefully the ridiculous like this will show how stupid the NDA laws are.

Laws should be equal for all. Not cater to aberrant minorities.

[fj1200]

devils advocate here

The Animal is property of the human, the Human owns the animal under the law. The human would make legal the contract of marriage under the law as well. the Human has rights as an owner and the animal is legally granted more rights by marriage. If a Man or Woman decides that marriage to his or her pet is in in their interest or because of "love". They have "the right" to make that binding on all and all of the U.S. should legally RECOGNIZE it, accept it, and CELEBRATE it.
with a smile... or else.

It's a contract, not just with the animal (one of God's creatures BTW) because the community must ENDORSE it and legally recognize it for it to be all "EQUAL" like, with ever other kind of marriage.

FJ I'm surprised, you sound like a BiGOT!!!.... as well as a commie lefty muzzie lover.

Well, that's just silly. You can't have a contract with property; take a look at the UCC. I mean, my motorcycle is worthy of love and does give me certain tingles but... Hey, maybe you do have a point. :poke:

[revelarts]

Devil's advocate follow up

Same goes for marriage between:
Siblings
Parents and Children
to the dead
to inanimate objects.
Heck I think a good case could be made for marriage to a corporation.
(some woman would say that's the case anyway why not make it legal)
Corporations are "persons" right?

finally polygamy including any of the above.

It's just a legal contract, responsible parties that want thet contract "HAVE THE RIGHT" to have it.

[fj1200]

Laws should be equal for all. Not cater to aberrant minorities.

If you're referring to gay marriage then they are now equal... in most states. If you're referring to NDA then I'd probably agree with you. The moral basis for the Civil Rights Act was that blacks couldn't get served and are in need of protection and laws guaranteeing access (Constitutional arguments aside). AFAIK there is no shortage of establishments where a gay couple could be married (any JOP would be obligated I would guess) and if you think a gay couple can't find a baker to make a cake... :eek:

My problem with those laws is that they violate the liberties of individuals on the one hand and are just completely unnecessary on the other. I haven't seen any definitive studies that suggest that gays, as a group, are truly harmed by discrimination and NDA laws just fall into the "we wanna be nice to everyone" category. That's not a reason to pass legislation IMO.

[fj1200]

Devil's advocate follow up

Same goes for marriage between:
Siblings
Parents and Children
to the dead
to inanimate objects.
Heck I think a good case could be made for marriage to a corporation.
(some woman would say that's the case anyway why not make it legal)
Corporations are "persons" right?

finally polygamy including any of the above.

It's just a legal contract, responsible parties that want thet contract "HAVE THE RIGHT" to have it.

Well, the first thing you need is "parties" to the contract, there are definitions for who can be a party and inanimate objects, minors, and the dead :slap: do not fall into that category.

As I said before I don't think this is a category the government should really be in but I'd have no problem with government only recognizing "marriage" "contracts" between two unrelated individuals of majority age. Oh, and strip out any reference to marriage in the Federal code.

[revelarts]

Well, that's just silly. You can't have a contract with property; take a look at the UCC. I mean, my motorcycle is worthy of love and does give me certain tingles but... Hey, maybe you do have a point. :poke:
Devil's advocate, lawyer from hell speaking

the right to contract is found in at least one Human beings citizenship. It's a Human RIGHT.
And just as some items become "national treasures" and some animals "endangered species" those indeed change the legal status of the object or creature. correct? That's done to parties NOT consulted, yet they are subject to/of the LAW.
Marriage is EXACTLY the SAME. don't you see you backwards bigoted neanderthal religious idjit?
A legal status that for to long has been denied those who love their pets or objects.
the BIGOTRY against pet lovers and object lovers has been going on in this puritanical country of love haters for far to long.
The wider community must recognize the rights of bestiality relationships or they will be recognized as backwards thinking bigots and finally CRIMINALS!

I bleieve you've said that Christians have no right to define marriage. it's the LAW (whatever that is) that defines it. And we will change that to suit our purpose and "RIGHTS"!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, the first thing you need is "parties" to the contract, there are definitions for who can be a party and inanimate objects, minors, and the dead :slap: do not fall into that category. .


Well, the first thing you need is "parties" to the contract,


^^^^^^^ Really??????--Tyr

Well, at first you needed a male and a female to enter a marriage contract!

It's called change!!! We just saw it with gay getting marriage changed to suit their perverted agenda. Tell me you aren't truly this slow.. --Tyr

[fj1200]

Now you're just messin' wit me.


Devil's advocate, lawyer from hell speaking

the right to contract is found in at least one Human beings citizenship. It's a Human RIGHT.
And just as some items become "national treasures" and some animals "endangered species" those indeed change the legal status of the object or creature. correct?
Marriage is EXACTLY the SAME. don't you see you backwards bigoted neanderthal religious idjit?
A legal status that for to long has been denied those who love their pets or objects.
the BIGOTRY against pet lovers and object lovers has been going on in this puritanical country of love haters for far to long.
The wider community must recognize the rights of bestiality relationships or they will be recognized as backwards thinking bigots and finally CRIMINALS!

I bleieve you've said that Christians have no right to define marriage. it's the LAW (whatever that is) that defines it. And we will change that to suit our purpose and "RIGHTS"!!!

Right to contract is not a human right, it's a privilege of the State.
Their legal status is still an object, they merely become protected.
Marriage is not the same but I agree with the idjit part. :eek:

Christians do have the right to define marriage within their purview. It's their insistence on their definition over a wider audience that is suspect.

My turn: What is the government's interest in marriage?

[fj1200]

^^^^^^^ Really??????--Tyr

Well, at first you needed a male and a female to enter a marriage contract!

It's called change!!! We just saw it with gay getting marriage changed to suit their perverted agenda. Tell me you aren't truly this slow.. --Tyr

You should keep up with the times, you now merely need two individuals. Nevertheless you are still wrong; at first you needed a male and female to be married according to [insert favorite religious institution], it's the State that interjected the contract part and it's the State that can change the contract part. Why do you want big government in marriage so badly?

[revelarts]

Well, the first thing you need is "parties" to the contract, there are definitions for who can be a party and inanimate objects, minors, and the dead :slap: do not fall into that category.

As I said before I don't think this is a category the government should really be in but I'd have no problem with government only recognizing "marriage" "contracts" between two unrelated individuals of majority age. Oh, and strip out any reference to marriage in the Federal code.
Devil's advocate, esquire

You're obviously are just a bigot and a Christian . Keep your religion in the Church please and OUT of the bedroom. And out of animal's and motorcycle's marriages.
the law says what thay want it to say. But I believe the commerce clause, the free exercise clause, the free assemble clause, the 9th and 10th amendments, the pursuit of HAPPINESS clause and the old but still binding Santa Claus are the CLEAR legal grounds here.
and if they don't apply we'll change statutes, executive orders, and other lower rules to shoehorn it in to suit.

And Just as you want to STRIP marriage from the Federal Code, the Bestiality and Object lovers will ADD it to the code if needed . then it WILL be law.
And you'll have no RATIONAL reason to deny it.

[fj1200]

You're obviously are just a bigot and a Christian .

I gotta be me. :cool: Now, how can I get the law changed that the government needs to provide for my polyamorous motorcycle needs. :thinking5: A man's not a man without at least two.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You should keep up with the times, you now merely need two individuals. Nevertheless you are still wrong; at first you needed a male and female to be married according to [insert favorite religious institution], it's the State that interjected the contract part and it's the State that can change the contract part. Why do you want big government in marriage so badly?

Government has already been in marriage now its telling churches their role--wake up.

No I am not wrong--I just pointed out the nature of change--change can do the same now in contract --it can allow marriage between human and animal , or gays and underage kids..

You are just attempting to limit change..
Well, it was adamantly predicted USA would never by way of law/government force and promote gay marriage.. Look back into the 1940 and 1950's for that and look how in 60to 70 years that got eliminated..
History teaches many things and one of the most important is change can be either tiny(and slow) or massive (and quick)..
Now media, government and dems are pushing minority rule!
Minority ruling majority, history is replete with examples. --Tyr

[revelarts]

You should keep up with the times, you now merely need two individuals. Nevertheless you are still wrong; at first you needed a male and female to be married according to [insert favorite religious institution], it's the State that interjected the contract part and it's the State that can change the contract part. Why do you want big government in marriage so badly?
You've made the case FJ
the state can change it to WHAT EVER IT WANTS.

And marriage between men and women as law has been around since LONG before Christianity.
it's the basic human unit. the state has a stake in protecting it.

However i doubt you really would agree with the state being out of it completely.
Since medieval times in the west it was ONLY the church that made marriage "legal".

If what you advocate happened then there wouldn't even BE "marriage" for non-Christians, Jews Muslims today. If the state's definition is GONE then everyone else is left to ape Christians and steal the word marriage to use for their "unions" without any community sanction. Because the Christians defined MARRIAGE in the west for the past 1000 years. and that was based on Judaisms strictest definition for 4000+ years prior.

You can't have it both ways and claim
the state can define marriage and everyone should shut up and like it but
the state should get out of the marriage definition business completely
at least be consistent FJ.
which is it does the state get to update the definition willy nilly Or Not?

[revelarts]

My turn: What is the government's interest in marriage?

What's the gov'ts interest in anything?

[fj1200]

What's the gov'ts interest in anything?

Exactly.


You've made the case FJ
the state can change it to WHAT EVER IT WANTS.

And marriage between men and women as law has been around since LONG before Christianity.
it's the basic human unit. the state has a stake in protecting it.

However i doubt you really would agree with the state being out of it completely.
Since medieval times in the west it was ONLY the church that made marriage "legal".

If what you advocate happened then there wouldn't even BE "marriage" for non-Christians, Jews Muslims today. If the state's definition is GONE then everyone else is left to ape Christians and steal the word marriage to use for their "unions" without any community sanction. Because the Christians defined MARRIAGE in the west for the past 1000 years. and that was based on Judaisms strictest definition for 4000+ years prior.

You can't have it both ways and claim
the state can define marriage and everyone should shut up and like it but
the state should get out of the marriage definition business completely
at least be consistent FJ.
which is it does the state get to update the definition willy nilly Or Not?

No, not whatever it wants but any changes will be people driven. And yes marriage has been around awhile but not the idealized version that you seek to keep. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for the church defining it any way that they would like but why does the state have a stake in protecting it? Just because it's a man and a woman? That they should outlaw divorce? That it's for the kids? There has to be a reason for the State's compelling interest. It's been that way is not a good enough answer.

Why wouldn't I agree to the State being out of it completely? I granted earlier that they should define the contract in particular terms and stated many moon ago that they have a stake in contracts when it comes to dispute resolution; i.e. family court adjudicating disputes that aren't resolved by mediation.

How am I having it both ways? "Marriage" is the generic term nowadays but as far as I'm concerned it could be referred to as unions from the State's perspective. And FWIW when the Federal government references marriage 1000+ times then the upshot is that they get to define it.

[fj1200]

Government has already been in marriage now its telling churches their role--wake up.

No I am not wrong--I just pointed out the nature of change--change can do the same now in contract --it can allow marriage between human and animal , or gays and underage kids..

You are just attempting to limit change..
Well, it was adamantly predicted USA would never by way of law/government force and promote gay marriage.. Look back into the 1940 and 1950's for that and look how in 60to 70 years that got eliminated..
History teaches many things and one of the most important is change can be either tiny(and slow) or massive (and quick)..
Now media, government and dems are pushing minority rule!
Minority ruling majority, history is replete with examples. --Tyr

Yeah, as I've been saying government has been in marriage for a long time. And FWIW they aren't in a church here, they're in a business and I hope the owners of the establishment fight the ruling. But no, there's no marriage involving animals or underage kids beyond the age of consent.

I'm sure you won't catch the reference but those uppity blacks ruined it for everyone didn't they? :rolleyes: This should be a newsflash to you though, the majority shouldn't rule the minority by limiting liberties.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yeah, as I've been saying government has been in marriage for a long time. And FWIW they aren't in a church here, they're in a business and I hope the owners of the establishment fight the ruling. But no, there's no marriage involving animals or underage kids beyond the age of consent.

I'm sure you won't catch the reference but those uppity blacks ruined it for everyone didn't they? :rolleyes: This should be a newsflash to you though, the majority shouldn't rule the minority by limiting liberties.

Newsflash for you.
Gay liberties, rights they be or not can not, do not and will not be allowed to trump religious freedom. Freedom of Religion is far more important.

If government is allowed to void freedom of religion to favor a sexual perversion then all our rights can be voided easily.
Is that what you want??
Seems you are missing the big picture , Hoss?...

I MYSELF, WILL GLADLY FIGHT OVER THIS... FFKK THE GOVERNMEMNT ...

Notice this issue is not being pushed on the mosques, the Islamists!!!!--Tyr

As soon as it is they'll start violence in the streets...

[fj1200]

Newsflash for you.
Gay liberties, rights they be or not can not, do not and will not be allowed to trump religious freedom. Freedom of Religion is far more important.

If government is allowed to void freedom of religion to favor a sexual perversion then all our rights can be voided easily.
Is that what you want??
Seems you are missing the big picture , Hoss?...

I MYSELF, WILL GLADLY FIGHT OVER THIS... FFKK THE GOVERNMEMNT ... --Tyr

Pardon me but where did I disagree with that? You should try arguing about what I say and not what you imagine.

BTW, what are you going to do when a mainline church willingly marries a gay couple?

[fj1200]

Notice this issue is not being pushed on the mosques, the Islamists!!!!--Tyr

As soon as it is they'll start violence in the streets...

:rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:rolleyes:

Really??

Islam murders over insulting its prophet, they hang gays in nations they control and you think government here coming into their mosques to force r them to accept gays, to even marry gays -- will not get swift, massive and totally extreme violent reaction?

Surely you aren't that blinded....Tyr

[revelarts]

Right to contract is not a human right, it's a privilege of the State.

That is BS by both our definitions i believe FJ, you seem fairly libertarian.
but that above is the opposite of that view.
as the Constitution and DOI state,
Rights are Inherent, inherent in each person. Given by God (if you will or even if you won't)
the power of the state --if any --comes from the people.






...No, not whatever it wants butany changes will be people driven....
YES. you got it.
Whatever the people want, any changes .
Which could be/will be ANYTHING, including marriage to dogs or motorcycles.

that's the point.
that's the point.
that's the point.

[fj1200]

Really??

Islam murders over insulting its prophet, they hang gays in nations they control and you think government here coming into their mosques to force r them to accept gays, to even marry gays -- will not get swift, massive and totally extreme violent reaction?

Surely you aren't that blinded....Tyr

:rolleyes: Your fear overwhelms you.

[revelarts]

Here's another way to look at this case

Christians who own a business have no final say in how it's run inline with their beliefs.
So can Chic-Fil-a legally close on Sundays if a customer wants a sandwich, if a homosexual wants a lemonade?
Can A local Roman Catholic pharmacy owner refuse to carry morning after pills?
Can A Muslim bookstore owner refuse to order anti-Muslim books or Porno for anyone even homosexual customers?
Can a Jewish deli owner refuse to sell pork to customers or even homosexual customers with a sausage fetish?
Are they all bigots and "breaking equal access/service laws" if they do?

THEY ARE ALL CLEARLY BUSINESSES.

Please explain the differences here. I see none.
All are Private Businesses with Religious owners who refuse to serve certain customers request for religious reasons.
period. All significant points legal and otherwise exactly the same.

If one is discriminatory, then they all are.
By some people's standards they all must be ordained and take their "businesses" INSIDE the Church/Mosque/Temple or be in violation of the law.
And be considered religious bigots of course.

[fj1200]

That is BS by both our definitions i believe FJ, you seem fairly libertarian.
but that above is the opposite of that view.
as the Constitution and DOI state,
Rights are Inherent, inherent in each person. Given by God (if you will or even if you won't)
the power of the state --if any --comes from the people.

There are natural rights given by God and then there are rights in the Constitution given by man. The right to marriage isn't in there. Right of Association is in there though. Contract "rights" are granted by States UCCs.


YES. you got it.
Whatever the people want, any changes .
Which could be/will be ANYTHING, including marriage to dogs or motorcycles.

that's the point.
that's the point.
that's the point.

:rolleyes: And no, I don't have any more.

[PixieStix]

It has never been about being equal, it has always been about being above the rest of us, and squashing religious liberties. The leftist radicals push this agenda Plain and simple, whether they are gay or not.

For the not so radical gays, it is about making themselves feel a bit more "normal", plain and simple.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:rolleyes: Your fear overwhelms you.

No my friend, my concerns do not overwhelm me but they damn sure inspire me and fire me up..
However never doubt this, when push comes to shove , in the past I always shoved back hard enough to solve the problem. Not even government gets to force me to yield because of its might and power.
I mean it when I type ffkk them too.
I don't play...
We all got to die someday, I believe I will just go out with my integrity intact..

If that means years earlier than what would have happened then so be it...
I draw the line at messing with my family , my religion or my Constitutionally insured freedoms. How about you?
I was taught to always be prepared... And I am.... --Tyr

[fj1200]

Please explain the differences here. I see none.

Only one is refusing to engage in a business that they normally would engage in. Guess which one. Should they be able to refuse? Sure, but the law is what is in question.

And I had to laugh at "sausage fetish." :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

It has never been about being equal, it has always been about being above the rest of us, and squashing religious liberties. The leftist radicals push this agenda Plain and simple, whether they are gay or not.

For the not so radical gays, it is about making themselves feel a bit more "normal", plain and simple.

How is one adult's freedom to marry another adult construed as "squashing religious liberties?"

[fj1200]

No my friend, my concerns do not overwhelm me but they damn sure inspire me and fire me up..
However never doubt this, when push comes to shove , in the past I always shoved back hard enough to solve the problem. Not even government gets to force me to yield because of its might and power.
I mean it when I type ffkk them too.
I don't play...
We all got to die someday, I believe I will just go out with my integrity intact..

If that means years earlier than what would have happened then so be it...
I draw the line at messing with my family , my religion or my Constitutionally insured freedoms. How about you?
I was taught to always be prepared... And I am.... --Tyr

:rolleyes: .8% of the population overwhelms you.

[revelarts]

There are natural rights given by God and then there are rights in the Constitution given by man. The right to marriage isn't in there. Right of Association is in there though. Contract "rights" are granted by States UCCs.

Uh NO.
there are no rights "given by man".
Man can recognize rights but not give rights.
man can protect rights
but sadly often man takes rights away.... or assume they can give them to others which is the same thing really.

FJ if you make biz deal you may AGREE to an arbitrator for ALL disputes, COMPLETELY without ANY gov't.

the gov't does not privilege you to create a contract. period.
you can make one and be subject to U.S. law if you like. but if not you don't have to.

look the CLEAR thing is human relations and agreements, are a God given human right.
the Constitution tells the gov't WHAT authority it has, not what rights the people have FJ.
that's the basic understanding to the constitution and freedom.

But in one sense your right, the Constitution should not and does not mention marriage.
and as the 9th and 10th amendment mention

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[revelarts]

Only one is refusing to engage in a business that they normally would engage in. Guess which one. Should they be able to refuse? Sure, but the law is what is in question.

And I had to laugh at "sausage fetish." :laugh:

All are engaging in a business they normally would engage in
Chic-fil-a sells sandwiches --- just not on Sundays
Roman Catholic Pharmacist sell drugs --- just not THAT drug.
Muslim Bookstore owners sell books and DVDs --- just not THOSE books and DVDs
Jewish Deli owners sells meats --- just not THAT kinda meat.
Wedding chapel owner does weddings --- just not THAT kinda wedding.

Each is concerned with a certain type or specific detail laid out in their faith.

What is your distinction again?

[Gunny]

If you're referring to gay marriage then they are now equal... in most states. If you're referring to NDA then I'd probably agree with you. The moral basis for the Civil Rights Act was that blacks couldn't get served and are in need of protection and laws guaranteeing access (Constitutional arguments aside). AFAIK there is no shortage of establishments where a gay couple could be married (any JOP would be obligated I would guess) and if you think a gay couple can't find a baker to make a cake... :eek:

My problem with those laws is that they violate the liberties of individuals on the one hand and are just completely unnecessary on the other. I haven't seen any definitive studies that suggest that gays, as a group, are truly harmed by discrimination and NDA laws just fall into the "we wanna be nice to everyone" category. That's not a reason to pass legislation IMO.

They're unequal. By the fact alone that I am normal means I don't get a gay marriage. Just a marriage.

Add an adjective and there's nothing equal about anything.

[fj1200]

All are engaging in a business they normally would engage in
Chic-fil-a sells sandwiches --- just not on Sundays
Roman Catholic Pharmacist sell drugs --- just not THAT drug.
Muslim Bookstore owners sell books and DVDs --- just not THOSE books and DVDs
Jewish Deli owners sells meats --- just not THAT kinda meat.
Wedding chapel owner does weddings --- just not THAT kinda wedding.

Each is concerned with a certain type or specific detail laid out in their faith.

What is your distinction again?

Only one business chooses to not serve a customer that comes knocking.

No one can get a Chik-fil-a on Sunday.
No one can get THAT drug.
No one can get THOSE books and DVDs.
No one can get THAT kinda meat.
Only one type of customer can't have that wedding.

And like I said before I think it's bad legislation.


They're unequal. By the fact alone that I am normal means I don't get a gay marriage. Just a marriage.

Add an adjective and there's nothing equal about anything.

You can have one if you like I suppose. :poke: It's just a "marriage" err, union between two individuals.

[fj1200]

Uh NO.
there are no rights "given by man".
Man can recognize rights but not give rights.
man can protect rights
but sadly often man takes rights away.... or assume they can give them to others which is the same thing really.

FJ if you make biz deal you may AGREE to an arbitrator for ALL disputes, COMPLETELY without ANY gov't.

the gov't does not privilege you to create a contract. period.
you can make one and be subject to U.S. law if you like. but if not you don't have to.

look the CLEAR thing is human relations and agreements, are a God given human right.
the Constitution tells the gov't WHAT authority it has, not what rights the people have FJ.
that's the basic understanding to the constitution and freedom.

But in one sense your right, the Constitution should not and does not mention marriage.
and as the 9th and 10th amendment mention

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I might have to give a nod to Gunny but I think it boils down to a semantic argument. Natural Rights are God given, anything listed in the Constitution is granted by man. God doesn't give you the right to bear arms. :poke:

But I'm not sure what to make of the rest of the post. Legislation determines who can engage in a contract and the courts resolve disputes when arbitration is not a factor. Anyway, don't get me wrong, if the Feds hadn't stepped in it 1000+ times with marriage in the Federal Register then it's possible that we're not having this discussion. Equal Protection says that if there is going to be a law then it needs to be equal on all. You can't cherry pick 9A and 10A and think it resolves the issue... it doesn't, 14A is key here.

[revelarts]

Only one business chooses to not serve a customer that comes knocking.

No one can get a Chik-fil-a on Sunday.
No one can get THAT drug.
No one can get THOSE books and DVDs.
No one can get THAT kinda meat.
Only one type of customer can't have that wedding.

...


No one can get a Chik-fil-a on Sunday.
No one can get THAT drug.
No one can get THOSE books and DVDs.
No one can get THAT kinda meat.
NO ONE can get THAT type of Marriage... or several other kinds.
only one type of Marriage service provided.

If a homosexual man and woman wanted to marry well then the chapel would be HAPPY to oblige i'm sure. That's what they do, marry 1 man to 1 women in HOLY matrimony. That's all they do in the marriage dept..
Just as Kosher deli only sells Kosher Foods.

If you want Pork you simply go somewhere else. If you want to Browse and sit with others as they eat or marry fine. But the services are limited.

Can a Christian Couple DEMAND that a Satanist preform a Christian Wedding at a Satanist Chapel?
Or Vis-a-versa?

It's crazy to claim that one be forced to by law, it's a clear violation of religious freedoms.

[fj1200]

It's crazy to claim that one be forced to by law, it's a clear violation of religious freedoms.

As I said I agree, I was just pointing out the difference.

[DLT]

Remember when we said about gay rights , next they'll be for having sex and marriage with animals?
And the stupid posters said no way, that slippery slop argument is bullshat. Well , now they have gay marriage and are using it to Attack religion with! Primarily Christian religion , notice how no gays are attacking Islam by demanding marriages be conducted by Imams?
Gays are anti-Christian and now they have that snowball rolling downhill.

Just watch what it catches in the coming years. Right now it targets Christians , how soon before it demands to have sex with underage kids?
SLIPPERY SLOPE, IS REAL... --Tyr

Slippery slope, indeed. The left (and evil) accomplishes every "progression" (pardon pun) by increments. That is how they have managed to incrimentally destroy America's values, heritage and ultimately, our culture. And forget about being patriotic. They'll call you a nazi (nationalism) if you dare express that sentiment. It's way past time for us to just stop listening to what the left bleats and for us to just do what is right and what we know needs to be done to save this nation.

[fj1200]

... us to just do what is right and what we know needs to be done to save this nation.

What would that be?

[SassyLady]

What would that be?

What to do to save this nation ... good question.

I've often thought of this and recently was posed with the question "if you could wave a magic wand and do one thing to effect change, what would it be?"

My first thought was - close down all the universities. Can't really articulate all the nuances of what this would create .. but the first thing that came to mind is the "diminishing of the elites". I think at the core of my uneasiness about the direction this nation is headed has to do with not the disparity between incomes, but between the arrogance of the elite thought process that is nurtured at the university level.

Anyone else want to wave their magic wand?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What to do to save this nation ... good question.

I've often thought of this and recently was posed with the question "if you could wave a magic wand and do one thing to effect change, what would it be?"

My first thought was - close down all the universities. Can't really articulate all the nuances of what this would create .. but the first thing that came to mind is the "diminishing of the elites". I think at the core of my uneasiness about the direction this nation is headed has to do with not the disparity between incomes, but between the arrogance of the elite thought process that is nurtured at the university level.

Anyone else want to wave their magic wand?

I do.
My magic wand wave would convert every blinded fool from voting Dem and supporting Islam as both are hell-bent on destroying this nation as it was founded.
Of course, I would say either of those TWO take second place to the one you came up with as it is to me the best one.
For the University education system has been used since the late 50's to subvert and destroy the core part of this nation IMHO. Hitting its high gears in the 60/70 and 80's. Now we reap the fruits of that with a university system that is pure shit for the most part IMHO..--TYR

[Gunny]

If you're referring to gay marriage then they are now equal... in most states. If you're referring to NDA then I'd probably agree with you. The moral basis for the Civil Rights Act was that blacks couldn't get served and are in need of protection and laws guaranteeing access (Constitutional arguments aside). AFAIK there is no shortage of establishments where a gay couple could be married (any JOP would be obligated I would guess) and if you think a gay couple can't find a baker to make a cake... :eek:

My problem with those laws is that they violate the liberties of individuals on the one hand and are just completely unnecessary on the other. I haven't seen any definitive studies that suggest that gays, as a group, are truly harmed by discrimination and NDA laws just fall into the "we wanna be nice to everyone" category. That's not a reason to pass legislation IMO.

No, they are not equal. They are more than equal. They have special laws that cater to their abherrence. There's nothing equal about that.

There is NOTHING equal about putting the minority over the majority except in the backwards-assed leftwingnut mind.

[fj1200]

What to do to save this nation ... good question.

I've often thought of this and recently was posed with the question "if you could wave a magic wand and do one thing to effect change, what would it be?"

My first thought was - close down all the universities. Can't really articulate all the nuances of what this would create .. but the first thing that came to mind is the "diminishing of the elites". I think at the core of my uneasiness about the direction this nation is headed has to do with not the disparity between incomes, but between the arrogance of the elite thought process that is nurtured at the university level.

Anyone else want to wave their magic wand?

Thank you, it is a good question. :thanks: Unfortunately too many think ranting is some sort of solution. ;)

Apart from repealing the 17th Amendment it does no good to wave a magic wand and cover up the underlying problems. Nevertheless my magic wand would be to have the GOP, i.e. conservatives, do a far better job of explaining why conservatism is a better solution. Educating the populace is the key to saving the nation.

[fj1200]

No, they are not equal. They are more than equal. They have special laws that cater to their abherrence. There's nothing equal about that.

There is NOTHING equal about putting the minority over the majority except in the backwards-assed leftwingnut mind.

I think that apart from hate crime laws and some NDA laws they are pretty much equal in the eyes of the law. Take those two into account and they have the same "equality" in the eyes of the law as blacks and women.

[Stiletto]

My turn: What is the government's interest in marriage?

To regulate it -- par for the course with Progressive Leftists. That bunch has yet to meet a situation or opportunity to exploit, regulate, and control -- especially when said situation goes against the Party Line. Assholes.

Along with that, its interest then turns to using said situation, whenever/wherever possible, as an opportunity to confiscate wealth (by any means available) from the private sector in order to feed the parasitic federal government.


What to do to save this nation ... good question.

I've often thought of this and recently was posed with the question "if you could wave a magic wand and do one thing to effect change, what would it be?"

My first thought was - close down all the universities. Can't really articulate all the nuances of what this would create .. but the first thing that came to mind is the "diminishing of the elites". I think at the core of my uneasiness about the direction this nation is headed has to do with not the disparity between incomes, but between the arrogance of the elite thought process that is nurtured at the university level.

Anyone else want to wave their magic wand?

:clap:

Why limit it to the university level?

The DOE needed to disappear before it was ever created, as "public" education is now nothing more than government indoctrination centers, with brainwashing beginning on the first day of Pre-K. The Gov't. "schools" don't teach facts anymore -- they teach feelings.

Logic, critical thinking, problem solving, personal responsibility, and individuality? They've all been tossed in the dumpster and replaced with Common Core Crap that demonizes all of those ideas and skills.

I suspect that if today's youth were properly taught how to learn and to think while in elementary school and middle/high school to hone those skills, the rampant forcing of the ideals of communism/socialism taking place on the university level would be greatly curtailed.

[SassyLady]

Thank you, it is a good question. :thanks: Unfortunately too many think ranting is some sort of solution. ;)

Apart from repealing the 17th Amendment it does no good to wave a magic wand and cover up the underlying problems. Nevertheless my magic wand would be to have the GOP, i.e. conservatives, do a far better job of explaining why conservatism is a better solution. Educating the populace is the key to saving the nation.

Ok, now that your rant about educating the populace is over, and I agree with you ..... how would you do it differently than our current system? Even if the conservatives find a better way to explain why conservatism is better, how will that message get to the populace. How will it get through the liberal media? How do you get a populace that does not care about the truth to understand what is important for the nation and not just themselves?

[Gunny]

I think that apart from hate crime laws and some NDA laws they are pretty much equal in the eyes of the law. Take those two into account and they have the same "equality" in the eyes of the law as blacks and women.

Yeah? Where's "heterosexual"/"normal" on MY marriage license? Where's MY hate crime?

Again, the tyranny of the minority is bullsh*t. It led to the fall of the Roman Empire. We're not first. We're just next.

The meek don't inherit the Earth. The meek cause the downfall of civilizations. And when I say "meek", I mean all the wannabe's that cling tot he coat tails of the strong as well. Talk a lot of sh*t and don't do a damned thing.

[fj1200]

Ok, now that your rant about educating the populace is over, and I agree with you ..... how would you do it differently than our current system? Even if the conservatives find a better way to explain why conservatism is better, how will that message get to the populace. How will it get through the liberal media? How do you get a populace that does not care about the truth to understand what is important for the nation and not just themselves?

Well, you did ask for a magic wand solution so it would have fixed all the other problems too. :slap: Seriously though I think a good conservative candidate can reach through all of those things you mention but the key isn't just doing enough to get elected it's taking the time to explain why conservatism is better and then making governing decisions that conform to conservatism. We can argue that Bush ran as a conservative but he didn't really govern that way. We can argue that the late '90s Republican Congress ran and governed as conservatives but the '00s Republican Congress certainly didn't govern as conservatives. The '10s seem to be running and governing that way but they aren't in a position to force their agenda yet. Time will tell.


Yeah? Where's "heterosexual"/"normal" on MY marriage license? Where's MY hate crime?

Again, the tyranny of the minority is bullsh*t. It led to the fall of the Roman Empire. We're not first. We're just next.

The meek don't inherit the Earth. The meek cause the downfall of civilizations. And when I say "meek", I mean all the wannabe's that cling tot he coat tails of the strong as well. Talk a lot of sh*t and don't do a damned thing.

Equal protection is not tyranny.

And hmm, I hadn't seen tyranny of the minority as a reason for the fall of Rome.

[jimnyc]

Looking back on the OP and thread title - just to add - if "I" were a priest or minister - I would choose jail before I succumb to the gay folks who are making demands. Same as if I were the bakery owner. I would rather close up shop, or just make an absolutely shitty and disgusting cake, before I am forced to do something against my beliefs.

[fj1200]

To regulate it -- par for the course with Progressive Leftists. That bunch has yet to meet a situation or opportunity to exploit, regulate, and control -- especially when said situation goes against the Party Line. Assholes.

Along with that, its interest then turns to using said situation, whenever/wherever possible, as an opportunity to confiscate wealth (by any means available) from the private sector in order to feed the parasitic federal government.

That position doesn't really make a lot of sense given the desire for many on the right to keep marriage the way it was.

[fj1200]

Looking back on the OP and thread title - just to add - if "I" were a priest or minister - I would choose jail before I succumb to the gay folks who are making demands. Same as if I were the bakery owner. I would rather close up shop, or just make an absolutely shitty and disgusting cake, before I am forced to do something against my beliefs.

You know I just can't see the ministers/owners being forced to perform the ceremony given the Hobby Lobby decision, the use of the facilities though could be a bit different seeing as it's a profit making venture. I think one of these cases needs to be appealed all the way up to SCOTUS and make them validate it against the Constitution. I'm liking the HL decision even more these days that maybe it can be used to strike this stuff down.

[jimnyc]

You know I just can't see the ministers/owners being forced to perform the ceremony given the Hobby Lobby decision, the use of the facilities though could be a bit different seeing as it's a profit making venture. I think one of these cases needs to be appealed all the way up to SCOTUS and make them validate it against the Constitution. I'm liking the HL decision even more these days that maybe it can be used to strike this stuff down.

I don't think they will either, but this is how it starts, and then there will be millions of complaints, then next the liberal media will cry discrimination by the church, the blogosphere will light up for the "cause". Hollywood elites will step in, and other rich people. Then politicians looking for votes will be next. And then where are we in 5-20 years? I hope I'm wrong. I hope the SCOTUS does the right thing, if something like this ever reaches their bench, but I've been stunned before.

[grannyhawkins]

No, they are not equal. They are more than equal. They have special laws that cater to their abherrence. There's nothing equal about that.

There is NOTHING equal about putting the minority over the majority except in the backwards-assed leftwingnut mind.

Every single one of us on this forum and every single person fighting for gay this or that, was brought up and taught, that marriage is between a man and a woman!!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Every single one of us on this forum and every single person fighting for gay this or that, was brought up and taught, that marriage is between a man and a woman!!!
Journey of the longest distance starts with that first step.
It is about destroying marriage and thereby western Christian values.
Destruction of the traditional family, fits right in with the weaken America and the socialist plan.
Also coincides with the muslim plan to weaken us as they grow ever more numerous and powerful here.
Notice how none of the leftwing attacks have been on Islam or their mosques/ teachings??
That's not happenstance, that is the unwritten alliance they have forged with dem party, leftists/socialists.-Tyr

[fj1200]

Every single one of us on this forum and every single person fighting for gay this or that, was brought up and taught, that marriage is between a man and a woman!!!

Arranged marriages; now that's where it's at. How about some marriages to consolidate power among royalty. Good times, good times.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Arranged marriages; now that's where it's at. How about some marriages to consolidate power among royalty. Good times, good times.

Both were male and female couplings..And from that pairing children could be born..
the other nothing but perverted sex..
One is the natural order of life the other a damn perversion..
Shame you can not se the difference and the importance.
I guess all that damn "enlightenment" has you blind as a bat.. - :laugh:-Tyr

[fj1200]

Both were male and female couplings..And from that pairing children could be born..
the other nothing but perverted sex..
One is the natural order of life the other a damn perversion..
Shame you can not se the difference and the importance.
I guess all that damn "enlightenment" has you blind as a bat.. - :laugh:-Tyr

I can clearly see who likes to cherry pick. ;) Now where were we??? Some polygamy and a few concubines should do just nicely. Sweet. :)