Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings

[VTA]

And kudos to you on this. This has been a good discussion. I've learned quite a bit.

Thanks. We won't agree on everything, but I don't have to be a penis about it.

 

[VTA]

I feel like I just walked into my favorite pub, only to find it has been turned into a church. Luckily I had a flask in my pocket, so I'm staying to watch.

God bless you brother. I've tried slipping in a few foul words here and there to make it seem like home.

 

[jnday]

You appear confused. We are not judging anyone. That role is filled by another.

States are passing laws making them a special protected class. They are forcing private businesses and associations to do business with people they do not want to do business with, not based on gender or race but on who they are sleeping with. Freedom of Association established under the First Amendment is dead. Since they don't have the balls to repeal the first amendment they are taking the end around to effectively do the same thing.

So if a grown man is attracted to little boys, you are all good with that right? He has no choice. He was born that way.

When a ritual such as marriage has to be redefined to satisfy one group, I would say that they are wanting special treatment. You get accused of judging people or you are considered prejudice when you don't agree. The current trend in our culture is to bow down to every little group wheather they are right or wrong because people are afraid to hurt their feelings and people buy into the concept of treating people equal even when they don't deserve it.

 

[junk]

What abt me Junk? Can I has kudos?

Two kudos. You brought up a lot of interesting points that went unanswered

I did notice that about this thread. When the questions get hard, they get ignored for the most part

 

[Midswat]

ance

You guys read it right there. According to junk, an unbiased third party, I won this thread.

Game over, bitches.

 

[VTA]

Two kudos. You brought up a lot of interesting points that went unanswered

I did notice that about this thread. When the questions get hard, they get ignored for the most part

What do you think was ignored?

 

[Midswat]

~POINTS TO SCOREBOARD~

~DRAWS A FLAG FOR UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT~

~NOT GIVING A FUCK~

 

[junk]

What do you think was ignored?

Religion is a personal belief. For purposes of this discussion, homosexuality is a personal belief

Religion is a protected class. The original article was about making homosexuals a protected class. Outrage ensued

So why is religion OK as a protected class but not homosexuality?

 

[VTA]

Religion is a personal belief. For purposes of this discussion, homosexuality is a personal belief

Religion is a protected class. The original article was about making homosexuals a protected class. Outrage ensued

So why is religion OK as a protected class but not homosexuality?

Because I honestly don't think it's a protected class of people (regardless of the ill-advised CRA). It's an individuals right to practice/engage in it. It's not to be offically recognized as the clause states and neither should sexual preference.

Religion is an individual right. How you interact in the sack with whomever you wish is an individual right. It need not extend beyond that.

Like I'd said earlier, if we're going to start classifying social inclusion based on personal behaviours it's going to become and is becoming problematic. It's so divisive and counter productive to any notion of unity.

Your analogies have so far fallen short, i.e. Christians served in a restuarant and the disparity of interpretation concerning the Establishment Clause. Restaurants are public service businesses who can't refuse service on the grounds of who you personally pray to or whom you have sex with. At the same time, you're not allowed to bring your own food, dress codes are inforced and solicitations of any kind are normally forbidden, whether commercial, religious or sexual. They reserve the right to refuse service based on their protocol.

 

[junk]

Because I honestly don't think it's a protected class of people (regardless of the ill-advised CRA). It's an individuals right to practice/engage in it. It's not to be offically recognized as the clause states and neither should sexual preference.

Religion is an individual right. How you interact in the sack with whomever you wish is an individual right. It need not extend beyond that.

Like I'd said earlier, if we're going to start classifying social inclusion based on personal behaviours it's going to become and is becoming problematic. It's so divisive and counter productive to any notion of unity.

Your analogies have so far fallen short, i.e. Christians served in a restuarant and the disparity of interpretation concerning the Establishment Clause. Restaurants are public service businesses who can't refuse service on the grounds of who you personally pray to or whom you have sex with. At the same time, you're not allowed to bring your own food, dress codes are inforced and solicitations of any kind are normally forbidden, whether commercial, religious or sexual. They reserve the right to refuse service based on their protocol.

How about the very legislation in Hutchinson? Employment and residence?

You are OK with a person firing someone simply for being Christian? Or evicting them for being Christian?

 

[JBond]

I posted an example of a Christian group being kicked out of their meeting location because of their Christian beliefs. It happens. I am not sure why you believe Christians are a protected category. Are you referring to Freedom of Religion or the tax exempt status as a charitable organization? If you wanted to argue that all charitable organizations should lose their tax exempt status I could listen to that. I suggested just that idea early in the thread and Jon88 stated he only hated religious groups and only they should be punished. Do you feel the same way?

 

[Midswat]

Sorry for pwning you so bad yesterday Jbond.

Friends?

 

[junk]

I posted an example of a Christian group being kicked out of their meeting location because of their Christian beliefs. It happens. I am not sure why you believe Christians are a protected category. Are you referring to Freedom of Religion or the tax exempt status as a charitable organization? If you wanted to argue that all charitable organizations should lose their tax exempt status I could listen to that. I suggested just that idea early in the thread and Jon88 stated he only hated religious groups and only they should be punished. Do you feel the same way?

Please repost. Was it the Bronx church thing?

Christians are a protected class under US Federal Civil Rights legislation. ALL religions are protected. We've discussed this repeatedly in this thread.

Tax exempt is another discussion entirely, but no I don't think only religions should be punished. That is discriminatory and basically what I have been arguing against in this whole thread

My point is, and remains, if religions are a protected class based on belief, why can't homosexuals?

 

[Jon88]

homosexuals

Because they're gay.

 

[Midswat]

 

[VTA]

How about the very legislation in Hutchinson? Employment and residence?

You are OK with a person firing someone simply for being Christian? Or evicting them for being Christian?

Of course not. Firing someone is far far different then allowing them access to your personal space to propagate their practices, which contrast your own. Providing employment is based on performance of specified tasks regardless of personal habits. Providing space for people is almost always predicated on their usage of if.

 

[VTA]

That man needs God. :halo

 

[JBond]

Sorry for pwning you so bad yesterday Jbond.

Friends?

Not sure about being pawned...You still are confused on some aspects of this topic, but sure, we can still be interweb buddies. I have to admit to trolling you a little. You swallowed the bait like a gay guy at a rest stop on a highway.

 

[Midswat]

But in this instance, their "use of the space" is the same as heterosexuals use of the space.

 

[Midswat]

Not sure about being pawned...You still are confused on some aspects of this topic, but sure, we can still be interweb buddies. I have to admit to trolling you a little. You swallowed the bait like a gay guy at a rest stop on a highway.

Yeah, except what happened was you couldn't provide answers to my questions so you tagged your smarter tag team parter VTA to come in and do your bidding while you and your church members burnt crosses in the gays yards because the Bible teaches intolerance.