Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12216 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you can be a real idiot. I work for a well respected university that does not discriminate in its admission process. so yes, really? it will affect us if it is allowed to go unchecked.
HOW will it affect you?

A " well respected university" in Alabama? riiiiiiiiiight....

Did you get fired from astronaut camp?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#12217 Nov 2, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no. That isn't what they singed up for when they bought their business/vendor's license. Play by the rules or don't play. Easy enough to understand.
what i said is how i felt that it should be. maybe you missed that.
the rules had changed over time since she first went into business.
the law in question needs to agree with the constitution of the state of washington. talking about playing by the rules.
besides she has not broken the law as written.

all you seem to want is for people to be forced to condone and support you lifestyle choices. that is not what America was founded on.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12218 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<
in reality she did not beak the washington law as written.
riiiiiiiiiiiight..... That's why she lost in court.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12219 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i have family in north jersy, be careful with your childish attempts to insult.
Oh puh-leez. Take your idle threats somewhere else, punk.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12220 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
as for your black people in my state... you are ignorant. name me one Christian business man that would be inclined to try it if it was legal. and how long would he stay in business? what would be the economic situation of our state if we had people that did that?
What the hell are YOU smoking?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12222 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>they only lost it on the pavilion so to answer your question the cma never lost their tax exemption.
I'm sure that made sense to you.... the rest of us see that as a clear contradiction. They only lost it on the pavilion.... they never lost it? WTF?

The facts are: they DID lose their tax exemption. It's a matter of public record, you idiot.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#12224 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>try again and this time make a claim that is true.
http://www.queerty.com/washington-florist-ref ...
A gay couple from Richland, Washington was shocked when the florist with whom they have been doing business for nearly a decade refused to supply flowers to their September wedding, thanks to her relationship with Jesus.
When Rob Ingersoll got engaged to his partner Curt, they turned to Barronelle Stutzman of Arelene’s Flowers where they’ve been tip-toeing through the tulips for the past nine years. Ingersoll had sent bouquets to Curt with cards reading,“Love, Rob” so it was a surprise to him when Stutzman, citing her religious beliefs, politely declined.
As for Stutzman, she maintians that she’s not homophobic, she simply subscribes to the notion of traditional marriage: one man, one woman.
“We hire gay people. I have friends that are gay, that wasn’t the issue,” she told KNDU.“The issue is that I just didn’t want to participate in the marriage.”
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/washington-florist-ref ...
then sadly the article makes this statement,
Well, of course she hires gay people, who does she think is going to work in a floral shop?
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/washington-florist-ref ...
if that isn{t a sexist discriminatory statement i don{t know what is. can anyone say hypocrisy?
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Um... No, it's called humor. It's from Queerty, silly boy. It's not written for YOU. A gay florist is an easy joke for its intended audience. I thought it was funny. You can act all indignant about it if you want.
humor? i found it offensive and i would think that every florist i know would find it offensive in one way or another. it just shows how wrapped up in yourselves you are.

that being said you ignored that the fact that the claim that she didn{t know that they were homosexuals until the request for the wedding proved she was discriminating against homosexuals was in fact based on a lie.
was that humor also?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12225 Nov 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The arguments for same sex marriage are feelings based; they are offended by contrary points of view.
On the contrary, the arguments for same sex marriage are constitutionally based while your arguments against it are based on bigotry. And yes, your bigotry is offensive to civil society, but you're allowed to express it nonetheless.
Brian_G wrote:
I prefer logic
Do you plan to learn what logic is soon so you can start incorporating it into your comments?
Brian_G wrote:
and keeping marriage one man and one woman for the transcendent social good instead of satiating individual lust.
Same sex couples are no more lustful than their opposite sex counterparts. Just another example of your lack of logic.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12226 Nov 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Reason 9: Fallacy of Composition
Marriage is good for society, it isn't good for every part of society.
Reason 1: Unconstitutionality Fallacy: Neither you nor the state can constitutionally make that determination on behalf of individuals wishing to exercise their fundamental right of marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage isn't for everybody.
That includes a large number of heterosexuals. But as usual, your advocated solution ignores their much larger negative impact on society.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12227 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
barry wrote:
<quoted text>try again and this time make a claim that is true.
http://www.queerty.com/washington-florist-ref ...
A gay couple from Richland, Washington was shocked when the florist with whom they have been doing business for nearly a decade refused to supply flowers to their September wedding, thanks to her relationship with Jesus.
When Rob Ingersoll got engaged to his partner Curt, they turned to Barronelle Stutzman of Arelene’s Flowers where they’ve been tip-toeing through the tulips for the past nine years. Ingersoll had sent bouquets to Curt with cards reading,“Love, Rob” so it was a surprise to him when Stutzman, citing her religious beliefs, politely declined.
As for Stutzman, she maintians that she’s not homophobic, she simply subscribes to the notion of traditional marriage: one man, one woman.
“We hire gay people. I have friends that are gay, that wasn’t the issue,” she told KNDU.“The issue is that I just didn’t want to participate in the marriage.”
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/washington-florist-ref ...
then sadly the article makes this statement,
Well, of course she hires gay people, who does she think is going to work in a floral shop?
Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/washington-florist-ref ...
if that isn{t a sexist discriminatory statement i don{t know what is. can anyone say hypocrisy?
<quoted text>humor? i found it offensive and i would think that every florist i know would find it offensive in one way or another. it just shows how wrapped up in yourselves you are.
that being said you ignored that the fact that the claim that she didn{t know that they were homosexuals until the request for the wedding proved she was discriminating against homosexuals was in fact based on a lie.
was that humor also?
"..that being said you ignored that the fact that the claim that she didn{t know that they were homosexuals until the request for the wedding proved she was discriminating against homosexuals was in fact based on a lie."

I never said or ignored anything of the kind. OBVIOUSLY she knew they were gay, or why would she refuse to do the wedding?

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12228 Nov 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Reason 9: Fallacy of Composition
Marriage is good for society, it isn't good for every part of society. Marriage isn't for everybody.
I assume you do not believe that marriage would not be 'good' for same-sex couples (based upon then forum we are in).

Specifically, how would marriage not be good or harm same-sex couples?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12229 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
flowers are a statement of support, sympathy or celebration. flowers always are a positive expression.
By the person or people purchasing them, not by the person creating the floral arrangement.
barry wrote:
they are also an artistic expression. she had made and sent flowers to each from the other expressing their love to each other.
But she had no issue previously when the men purchased flowers to send to their partner expressing their love for each other. So obviously a male buying flowers expressing love for another male isn't the issue.
barry wrote:
she declined the ss wedding because she fells that it is morally wrong.
Then her recourse if she feels that way is not to marry someone of the same sex. From a legal perspective, she doesn't get to pick and choose which of the reasons her customers purchase flowers are morally acceptable to her. She's required by law to when operating a business as a public accommodation to the general public to refrain from discriminating against protected classes of people that have been historically discriminated against.
barry wrote:
wedding flowers are usually delivered and set up at the event with the input of the florist involved.
Nut it's not a requirement. Regardless, that happens before the actual event begins.
barry wrote:
she did not want to be associated with this event in any way shape or form. her name was not going to be associated with the event.
How would it have been associated with the event? When attending weddings, do you typically see banners or signs proclaiming who created the floral arrangements?
barry wrote:
your only claim to discrimination is because of the homosexuality of the clients.
Exactly. And her refusal to provide device to them on that particular occasion is the basis of the discrimination complaint.
barry wrote:
however by claiming discrimination you are saying that two heterosexual men can not enjoy the benefits of a legal union that washington state would recognize as a marriage.
I'm not saying that at all. You're the one making that stupid statement. Washington allows two people regardless of their sex to marry. That has nothing to do with the florist's decision whether to provide service to couples getting married. Marriage law applies to the individuals getting married; anti-discrmination law applies to businesses.
barry wrote:
So in reality, if the florist refused service to two same heterosexuals who wished to get married because that would be discrimination.
If the reason the florist gave for refusing that couple service was their sexual orientation, yes.

What YOU fail to understand is anti-discrimination law protects classes of people. In this case, the class is "sexual orientation". That protects all variants of sexual orientation including heterosexuality and bisexuality, not just homosexuality. The class is generally established because of the historical discrimination against particular variant(s) of the class (in this case homosexuality), but the legal protection extends to ALL variants of the class.

However, if the florist refused to provide service because it was two men involved, it's still discrimination because sex is also a protected class of anti-discrmination laws, one that is universal among anti-dsicrimination laws, unlike sexual orientation.
barry wrote:
or you would have to show that she would provide flowers for their ceremony also.
No, one need not show what a person accused on violating anti-discrmination law would or would not do in hypothetical situations. The issue at hand is the person's ACTUAL behavior in a given situation, not hypothetical behavior. You're simply ignorant of legal procedure.

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12230 Nov 2, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
I assume you do not believe that marriage would not be 'good' for same-sex couples (based upon then forum we are in).
Specifically, how would marriage not be good or harm same-sex couples?
Sorry for the double negative. Let me do this again.

To Brian_G (or any of his allies)

I assume you believe that marriage would not be 'good' for same-sex couples (based upon the forum we are in).

Specifically, how would marriage not be good or harm same-sex couples?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#12231 Nov 2, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hell are YOU smoking?
Nothing. How about yourself? It seems to make you angry. You might want to re-evaluate your attraction to it. Just sayin'.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12232 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, perhaps they will clearly define them and find a balance between freedom, religious freedom and discrimination.
SCOTUS would have to rule that businesses offering goods and services not religious in nature have a right to freedom of worship for starters because it's the business that is sued, not the person accused of discrimination (although a business owner or corporate officer can be included as a defendant because of their position as a legal representative of the business).

Then SCOTUS would have to rule running a business is an act of worship or an expression of faith since there is already precedent for distinguishing between acts based on beliefs versus the actual religious beliefs. None of our rights, including freedom of worship, is absolute and all are subject to restriction if the restrictions are for constitutionally permissible reasons.
barry wrote:
really now, was the couple harmed? were they prevented from getting married? did they have a problem getting flowers for their ceremony?
How were blacks harmed by having to sit at the back of the bus or use different building entrances or drinking fountains? Discrimination causes emotional harm even in the absence of actual economic harm.

Look at the reasoning SCOTUS used in Windsor v. United States that struck down section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional:

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
barry wrote:
no, but they are trying to put a gun to the head of the florist and other Christians and force them to participate in something that is against their moral convictions.
The only thing these Christians have been asked to do is provide the goods and services they purport to be in business to provide the general public. So you are essentially claiming their business is against their moral convictions. So one wonders why they chose to engage in that business if they find it so morally distasteful.
barry wrote:
Why?because their feelings were hurt not because they were prevented from having their ceremony.
Emotional harm is harm nonetheless. People can seek compensation under any number of laws for emotional harm suffered when others break the law. It's not a unique concept to anti-discrmination law.
barry wrote:
in reality she did not beak the washington law as written.
Just because you're too stupid to understand the law as written doesn't negate the fact she broke the law.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12233 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
obviously you are not a muslim
Correct.
barry wrote:
nor do you understand that like Christianity there are different sects, denominations of muslims.
On the contrary, I'm well aware of that fact. The issue the lack of universal interpretation of various religious scriptures even when they are crystal clear. How else do you explain Christians who claim their religious beliefs exempt them from compliance with civil law when both 1 Peter and Romans explicitly command Christians to obey civil authorities and laws?
barry wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/1766 5989/ns/business-us_business/t /target-shifts-muslims-who-won t-ring-pork/#.UnUbGHBzHlY
MINNEAPOLIS — Muslim cashiers at some local Target stores who object to ringing up products that contain pork are being shifted to other positions where they don’t need to, the discount retailer said Saturday.
The Star Tribune reported this past week that some Muslim cashiers at local Targets had declined to scan pork products such as bacon because doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs.
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/09/feds-rul...
Somalis win prayer case at Gold'n Plump: The agreement to permit short prayer breaks and accommodate rules against handling pork could set a precedent," by Chris Serres for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, September 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):
In a landmark settlement that could change the way Muslims are treated in the workplace, St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump Inc. has agreed to allow Somali workers short prayer breaks and the right to refuse handling pork at its poultry processing facilities.
The federally mediated agreement is among the first in the nation that requires employers to accommodate the Islamic prayer schedule and the belief, held by many strict Muslims, that the Qur'an prohibits the touching and eating of pork products.
These employers opted to make accommodations for the religious beliefs of the employees, some apparently voluntarily, others apparently under threat of an EEOC complaint. Regardless, that's a win for everyone. In the case of Target, however, it wasn't necessarily a requirement if the employee involved specifically interviewed for a cashier position yet wasn't able to perform the actual work required by the position. However, Target chose to move the employee to a position that didn't create such conflicts which is commendable on their part.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12234 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>legally you do. any new law creating new circumstances must be based on all possible circumstances that might be related to the law.
Nope. The anti-discrimination law was enacted prior to the law allowing same sex weddings. Legislatures don't go back and reevaluate every law that might be affected by a new one and revise he existing laws accordingly. Conflicts between laws are adjudicated in the legal system using existing legal precedent where available or creating new precedent if navigating uncharted legal waters.

As I said, you're simply f-ing clueless about our legal system and laws.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12235 Nov 2, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Way too wordy. Switch to decaf.
Or perhaps you should just seek medical assistance with your VA benefits for your apparent Attention Deficit Disorder rather than demanding everyone accommodate your mental impairment.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12236 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>in my business he, she, it is. her body doesn{t match his brain so something is confused. perhaps the brain can be adjusted.
That's not the standard medical protocol in such cases. But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12237 Nov 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no tf, it is not the end of the story as all would agree that she would not do the same for two old farts living in a rest home who wanted to have a party celebrating a legal union that washington state would recognize as a marriage even if they where heterosexuals and not at all interested in each other sexually.
Again, your hypothetical constructs are of no relevance nor you claims of omniscience to know what the accused would do in instances of your hypothetical contracts. Legal cases are adjudicated on facts, not hypotheses. The facts are known so the case is closed and will be resolved on the basis of those facts.
barry wrote:
so she did not discriminate against established customers for whom she had sent flowers to each with expressions of their love one for the other.
Previous compliance with anti-discmination law doesn't excuse a current action that violates it.
barry wrote:
she discriminated against the event.
The "event" didn't ask her to provide goods and services; PEOPLE did.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min smile n wave 1,583,016
Ban On Terminators 🤖🔫💀 2 min Black Dragon 5
So you blacks really think us Asians are on you... 5 min Yisraelite Suprem... 4
Rapper mystikal wanted for [email protected] Lol and smh ... 10 min Black Dragon 10
Democratic party destroys 220 year old Christop... 13 min Black Dragon 14
News Trump's lack of moral compass leaves America on... 30 min youll shoot your ... 247
News Republicans have courted racists for years. Why... 32 min C Kersey 122
Is there any intelligence at all among the blac... 2 hr Harrisson 40
Rape by Cop 4 hr The Power Of Mast... 48
Tomi Lehren dating a Black Man!!!! 4 hr Redefined 136
Power of Master Lee for President. 5 hr The Power Of Mast... 30
More from around the web