Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 20 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11772 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue is forcing her to participate in a same sex wedding ritual; she doesn't want to attend. Don't you believe in consent?
No, that isn't the issue moron, as she wasn't invited to participate in the wedding, nor was she asked to attend. She was asked to make floral arrangements. Period.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
If same sex marriage can force Christians to attend religious services against their beliefs, why not the same for atheists?
Was your bigot forced to attend the service? Yes or no Brian?

Brian_G = Village Idiot
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11773 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue is forcing her to participate in a same sex wedding ritual; she doesn't want to attend. Don't you believe in consent?
If same sex marriage can force Christians to attend religious services against their beliefs, why not the same for atheists?
Who was forced to attend religious services, Brian? Oh, that's right, NOBODY was.

You are the reason this country has to put directions on a bottle of shampoo.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11774 Oct 24, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know much about polygamy and "America" do you?
Huh....so I take it you're an expert on "....polygamy and 'America' "?
It was the fundamentalists that had to fight and bribe even other christians to conform to their idea of marriage between one man and one woman.
Not quite sure of the time frame or context of that
Fundies had their way for awhile but that's all unraveling now, isn't it?
The Glibtees are the Unravelers.
Just think. One day you can tell your grandchildren stories about how when you were a kid, marriage was between one man and one woman and they can say, "Shutup Grampa, stop kidding us".
That assumes marriage still exists as a legally recognized relationship. Who knows, maybe after the Glibtees are done, polys get their turn, after that,....
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11775 Oct 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh....so I take it you're an expert on "....polygamy and 'America' "?
<quoted text>
Not quite sure of the time frame or context of that
<quoted text>
The Glibtees are the Unravelers.
<quoted text>
That assumes marriage still exists as a legally recognized relationship. Who knows, maybe after the Glibtees are done, polys get their turn, after that,....
Speculations of a dimwit.... how exciting.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11776 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue is forcing her to participate in a same sex wedding ritual; she doesn't want to attend. Don't you believe in consent?
If same sex marriage can force Christians to attend religious services against their beliefs, why not the same for atheists?
The florist can make the floral arrangements at his/her place of business and have the delivery person take them to the wedding site. Problem solved, Brian.

Quit whining about and defending law breakers.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11777 Oct 24, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Geez Brian.......how many times MUST you be told that she is NOT attending the wedding......she is PROVIDING flowers for it and NO she doesn't need to be there to set them up.......so, again she is NOT attending ANYONE'S wedding, just the flowers she sells!!! Damn, your thick headed........lol!!!
Are you claiming the Christian photographer didn't need to attend the same sex wedding either? How does that work?

Same sex marriage means its supporters suing Christians who decline to participate in those religious ceremonies. If you believe in religious freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11778 Oct 24, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
No, that isn't the issue moron, as she wasn't invited to participate in the wedding, nor was she asked to attend. She was asked to make floral arrangements. Period. Was your bigot forced to attend the service? Yes or no Brian? Brian_G = Village Idiot
She was asked to participate in a same sex wedding and she declined. Don't you believe people have the religious freedom to select which religious ceremonies they will support? Would you support an atheist who declined to participate in a same sex wedding?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11779 Oct 24, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Speculations of a dimwit.... how exciting.
That's quite a compliment coming from the King of dimwits. Thank you, your highness.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11780 Oct 24, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
The florist can make the floral arrangements at his/her place of business and have the delivery person take them to the wedding site. Problem solved, Brian. Quit whining about and defending law breakers.
Then, the florist's artistic product would be used to support a religious ceremony she finds objectionable; if she has no religious freedom to decline the gig, how about artistic freedom? Would you force an artist to support a religious ceremony? How do you claim to support tolerance and freedom, while ignoring the plight of Christians sued to participate in same sex weddings?

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11781 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>She was asked to participate in a same sex wedding and she declined. Don't you believe people have the religious freedom to select which religious ceremonies they will support? Would you support an atheist who declined to participate in a same sex wedding?
What if it's a civil weeding ceremony officiated by a judge or justice of the peace, Brian? That's not a "religious" ceremony. Are you saying Christians have no issue with providing goods and services to same sex wedding ceremonies that aren't religious in nature?

Answer, coward.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11782 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Then, the florist's artistic product would be used to support a religious ceremony she finds objectionable
So your complaint about "attending" a same sex wedding ceremony was just another of your lies. Thanks for confirming.
Brian_G wrote:
if she has no religious freedom to decline the gig, how about artistic freedom?[//QUOTE]
Artists aren't exempt from complying with the law either, Brian.

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]Would you force an artist to support a religious ceremony?
I expect artists offering goods and services to the public to comply with the law the same as any business is expected to comply with the law.
Brian_G wrote:
How do you claim to support tolerance and freedom, while ignoring the plight of Christians sued to participate in same sex weddings?
The "plight" of Christians is their own doing, Brian. Breaking the law has consequences. But then you apparently expect Christians who commit murder to be exempt from wrongful death lawsuits by the victim's surviving relatives, huh Brian?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11783 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Are you claiming the Christian photographer didn't need to attend the same sex wedding either? How does that work?
Was anyone discussing the photographer Brian? I thought you were discussing the florist. What's the matter, things not going your way so you want to try and come at it from a different angle?!!!

Pssssst. Brian dear. People that are "attending" the wedding aren't paid. The photographer was not "atteneding" the wedding. He was hired to be there. He has a public business that has to adhere to the laws of the state. He chose to believe his religion placed him above the law. He was wrong. So are you.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage means its supporters suing Christians who decline to participate in those religious ceremonies.
Participants aren't paid. Both the individuals you are discussing were not "participants" of the weddings.

But don't let facts get in the way of you pretending that the Christians are the victims in these scenarios!!! Nothing funnier then watching fundies try and play the persecution card!!!
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe in religious freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.
If you believe the religious are above the law, keep Brian_G on as village idiot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11784 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>She was asked to participate in a same sex wedding and she declined.[QUOTE]
Lie. She was approached to be hired (as in "being paid") to make floral arrangements. Participants at weddings are not paid.

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]<qu oted text>
Don't you believe people have the religious freedom to select which religious ceremonies they will support?
She wasn't asked to support it. She was asked to do her job, for which she would receive compensation.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> Would you support an atheist who declined to participate in a same sex wedding?
I would support anyone that didn't want to participate in a wedding. Participation is a choice. Neither of the people you keep mentioning were participants. They were business people beholden to the laws of their states, regardless of their bigoted religious beliefs.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11785 Oct 24, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, how so?
How soooooooo.....? That All women are treated the same?
I am an American Citizen, a Veteran, over the age of 21 and STILL was NOT able to choose the person I wanted to marry UNTIL 2008...
As am I, that too, ditto. You could marry, it just wasn't legally recognized.
..STRICTLY because of her gender...
Would you have preferred a different reason?
....that was a violation of my Due Process and Equal Protection......and over the last 5 years my legal marriage was treated UNEQUAL by the Federal Government SIMPLY because my wife is NOT of the opposite-sex......
So if a woman, regardless of self described sexual orientation/attraction marries a man, her due process is violated, or not violated?
so, excuse me if I don't see that what you want is for OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES TO REMAIN GETTING "SPECIAL" RIGHTS, BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES STRICTLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE A POLE AND YOUR WIFE HAS A PLUG........
If not for that "....POLE....AND PLUG...", neither you or I would be here. Do you think marriage was just conjured up recently by the state to somehow to "discriminate" against "same sex couples"? That somehow centuries of officially recognized marriage, since Jamestown, that is was recognized in just such a way as to exclude "same sex couples"?
laws and benefits still have to follow the Constitution and until some state can show that ALLUSIVE compelling State interest as to why a man and a woman are the ONLY folks who should be allowed to marry........and so far the State HASN'T been able to..
Marriage isn't even mentioned in the constitution, nor "sexual orientation", "homosexual", "heterosexual", nor "BGLTQP"! Actually states have been able to show that "ALLUSIVE" compelling state interest, and have the court cases dating back over 150 years to show it! But now thanks to the advent of sexual identity politics, some courts/states have succumbed to the idea, that marriage is simply a union of two people regardless of gender composition! Please tell me what is the compelling state interest in designating a same sex relationship "marriage", why is there a sudden need for it now? Clearly such a compelling need would have manifested itself decades, if not centuries, prior to 2004.
....then to deny a Gay or Lesbian person their FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry as they see fit is denying them both Due Process and Equal Protection.......something you can't explain nor grasp!!!
What I don't understand is this. A person with a self described same sex attraction/orientation chooses to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, the same way as any other person of their respective sex, and their "due process and equal protection" is not violated, but because some people with SSSA, want to marry some one of the same sex, and are prohibited from doing so, their "due process and equal protection" is "denied".

So does that mean the individual gets to choose which marriage requirement s/he doesn't like, and have it removed, so as not to "violate their due process and equal protection"? By that reasoning, bisexuals, the "B", in GLBT, should be able to, if they so choose, marry a person of each sex! Please explain why that "denial" is acceptable, but the same sex "G", and "L" "denial" is not?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11786 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Then, the florist's artistic product would be used to support a religious ceremony she finds objectionable; if she has no religious freedom to decline the gig, how about artistic freedom? Would you force an artist to support a religious ceremony? How do you claim to support tolerance and freedom, while ignoring the plight of Christians sued to participate in same sex weddings?
No one was asked to participate. And Christians aren't under any plight. They are beholden to the laws of the state and the federal government just as they always have been and always will be. Being a fundie doesn't place one above the law.

But here's an idea. Why don't you ask a few other irrelevant hundred questions from every angle you can think of. Then come back and see if being a fundie Christian places one above the law yet. Here's a hint for you question boy, the answer will always be no.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11787 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Are you claiming the Christian photographer didn't need to attend the same sex wedding either? How does that work?
Same sex marriage means its supporters suing Christians who decline to participate in those religious ceremonies. If you believe in religious freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Your religion does NOT give you the right to ignore the law.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11788 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>She was asked to participate in a same sex wedding and she declined. Don't you believe people have the religious freedom to select which religious ceremonies they will support?
'Religious freedom' DOES NOT exempt anyone from the law, Brian. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp. The courts have been over and over this and you are WRONG!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#11789 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>She was asked to participate in a same sex wedding and she declined. Don't you believe people have the religious freedom to select which religious ceremonies they will support? Would you support an atheist who declined to participate in a same sex wedding?
you do not understand the difference between "participating", "attending" and "service provider".

go find the definitions and then get back to us for a discussion. we've all tried using common words we all know and understand, but they haven't sunk into your thick skull yet. so, go find someone that CAN make you understand, or a source that uses words you understand, and then get back with us for at least a somewhat informed discussion ("somewhat informed" on your part - not the rest of us as we ALL already understand the differences between those terms and the legal ramifications thereof)
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11790 Oct 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How soooooooo.....? That All women are treated the same?
<quoted text>
As am I, that too, ditto. You could marry, it just wasn't legally recognized.
<quoted text>
Would you have preferred a different reason?
<quoted text>
So if a woman, regardless of self described sexual orientation/attraction marries a man, her due process is violated, or not violated?
<quoted text>
If not for that "....POLE....AND PLUG...", neither you or I would be here. Do you think marriage was just conjured up recently by the state to somehow to "discriminate" against "same sex couples"? That somehow centuries of officially recognized marriage, since Jamestown, that is was recognized in just such a way as to exclude "same sex couples"?
<quoted text>
Marriage isn't even mentioned in the constitution, nor "sexual orientation", "homosexual", "heterosexual", nor "BGLTQP"! Actually states have been able to show that "ALLUSIVE" compelling state interest, and have the court cases dating back over 150 years to show it! But now thanks to the advent of sexual identity politics, some courts/states have succumbed to the idea, that marriage is simply a union of two people regardless of gender composition! Please tell me what is the compelling state interest in designating a same sex relationship "marriage", why is there a sudden need for it now? Clearly such a compelling need would have manifested itself decades, if not centuries, prior to 2004.
<quoted text>
What I don't understand is this. A person with a self described same sex attraction/orientation chooses to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, the same way as any other person of their respective sex, and their "due process and equal protection" is not violated, but because some people with SSSA, want to marry some one of the same sex, and are prohibited from doing so, their "due process and equal protection" is "denied".
So does that mean the individual gets to choose which marriage requirement s/he doesn't like, and have it removed, so as not to "violate their due process and equal protection"? By that reasoning, bisexuals, the "B", in GLBT, should be able to, if they so choose, marry a person of each sex! Please explain why that "denial" is acceptable, but the same sex "G", and "L" "denial" is not?
Want some cheese with that whine?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11791 Oct 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
What I don't understand ...
... would fill the Library of Congress.

How many times does it need to be explained to you before you can grasp reality? Over and over and over with you nitwits, yet learning does not occur. If you can't change your mind when given the FACTS, are you sure you still have a mind?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do white men like to watch white women have... (Jan '14) 22 min Sadbuttrue 107
Many Blacks NOT allowed to post on Topix Afam 23 min Sadbuttrue 5
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 26 min Carly HI YAH 118,226
Black Men: The Sorriest Men In America 27 min Sadbuttrue 3
Why does Maceo Patterson lie about being Sick t... 28 min Sadbuttrue 4
FRENCH THREAD in AA Forum? (Oct '09) 39 min Savant 4,207
Black African's Moors Ruled Europe 700 Years (Aug '12) 43 min trollslayer 2,552
Why do I hate white people so much? 44 min lomaxx 99
Major Protesting in Baltimore Right Now 1 hr Savant 513
Who's gonna win? Manny Pacquiao or Floyd Maywea... 4 hr massman 74
More from around the web