Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
13,761 - 13,780 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14951
Dec 26, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a matter to be decided by the courts.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, they most most certainly can demonstrate she refused service to members of a protected class.
<quoted text>
Which is bad news for you since you're the one claiming she's discriminating against an event and not against a member of a protected class.
<quoted text>
Like most lawsuits, many breaches of laws are alleged to maximize the likelihood at least one and possibly more than one prevail through trial. This is no different than criminal or civil or other admiinsitrative proceedings. So conspiracy may fail. Other alleged breaches of law may not. That's the nature of legal proceeedings.
and the court will decide that the ag acted beyond the scope of his authority.
they might be a protected class but she obviously did not refuse to service them based on their class as they were well established customers. she declined to be associated with the event, a ss wedding. so yes i am claiming that the event is not protected and that would mean that she does not have to serve it.
your last comment avoids the question and does not address the fact that she is not involved in any conspiracy.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14952
Dec 26, 2013
 
Goodness, I bet you thought you were all that and a bag of chips when you found whatever cut and paste site you thought would help you!! Honestly, do you just spend days going back over posts from months ago simply so you can waste everyone's time?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>well, not so fast.
yes, these are a set of ten commandments. however this were copied and written on the stones by moses. exodus 34:27,28
According to your Sky Santa Manual, the set I presented are the ONLY set referred to as "The Ten Commandments". Your little book doesn't mention different sets of Ten Commandments. It has different sets of commandments yes, but only one set referred to as the "Ten Commandments". The set that I presented, not the set you wish.
barry wrote:
however the ten commandments in exodus 20 were written in the stones by God.
exodus 32:15,16
Where in your manual are these referred to as the "Ten Commandments"? Oh, that's right, they're not.
barry wrote:
deuteronomy 4:13 also calls these the "ten commandments"
No, Deuteronomy refers to the "Ten Commandments", Deuteronomy does NOT verify that it is the version you wish it were.
barry wrote:
and repeated in cap.5:6-21 the same commandments in exodus 20; the traditional ones that we all know and love.
Where are these referred to as the "Ten Commandments"? Oh, that's right, they aren't.
barry wrote:
Deuteronomy 10:4 also calls these the "ten commandments"
No, Deuteronomy refers to the "Ten Commandments". Deuteronomy 10:4 does NOT verify its the set you wish it were.
barry wrote:
<quoted text
so, "According to the bible, the [preceding that you posted] are [not] the only commandments called the Ten Commandments," in fact the other commandments are never referenced in total again in the Bible.
Um, nothing you presented negates the FACT, that the set I presented are the ONLY set referred to in your clumsily written Santa manual as the "Ten Commandments".
barry wrote:
<quoted text
so, it seems that you are the only one confused about what Christians rightly think and believe are the ten commandments to guide us in our lives.
Christians believe the set you like are the real set, because you want them to be, not because they are. Like most things in your little book, you people have to overlook factual context in order to have it reflect the agenda of your particular denomination.

FACT: The set I presented, according to your bible, are the set that were placed in the ark of the covenant. According to your bible, they are the ONLY set referred to as the "Ten Commandments".

Feel free to try another fundie spin at this one Barry!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14953
Dec 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so they can choose whether or not they want to be in a protected class of people today or tomorrow.
Is that what I said? I simply stated that a Bisexual person can change and does choose who they want to be with.........they are still in a protected class simply because they are BISEXUAL and are part of the GLBTQI Community!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14954
Dec 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>and the court will decide that the ag acted beyond the scope of his authority.
they might be a protected class but she obviously did not refuse to service them based on their class as they were well established customers. she declined to be associated with the event, a ss wedding. so yes i am claiming that the event is not protected and that would mean that she does not have to serve it.
your last comment avoids the question and does not address the fact that she is not involved in any conspiracy.
Gee, give it up......the florist will MOST likely lose in Court just like the photographer from New Mexico and the baker in Colorado.........now, the photographer's case has been taken up by SCOTUS, so by or before NEXT summer......we should have an answer on who is right......my guess is that SCOTUS will NOT rule in the photographer's favor as it would OPEN up legal discrimination against a group of individuals for no other reason as because a business DOESN'T like them!!!

Good luck with your opinion.....because so far the Courts have disagreed with you!!!
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14955
Dec 26, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I was correct in that a strict reading of Muslim scripture forbids eating pork, not handling it.
<quoted text>
Many religious people "believe" things that have no actual basis in their religion's scripture or holy texts.
<quoted text>
In that particular case, yes.
<quoted text>
Religious beliefs can't.
<quoted text>
No freedom of religion means people are free to profess whatever religious beliefs they want. Asserting that someone has the "right to be wrong" when it comes to religious convictions implicitly assumes you can prove one or more other religious convictions to be true. If you could absolutely prove one religion correct and all others wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, why would people anyone, much less millions of people cling to wrong beliefs? It's the fact religious beliefs can't be proven wrong that allows the proliferation of religions and and denominations within religions.
<quoted text>
You have a right of free speech but you have no right to force anyone to listen to you, much less require them to discuss their religious beliefgs with you. You're conflating your Christian religious belief of the great commission with US consitutional law. Freedom of religion is no way obligates people to listen to your religious beliefs, much less discuss their own.
<quoted text>
As private citizens, yes. As business owners subject to laws and regulations governing public accomodations, no.
there you go again trying to tell the muslims what their "scripture" says.
you say;
"Many religious people "believe" things that have no actual basis in their religion's scripture or holy texts." i guess then that you are an authority on the understanding of their texts...not.

and yes, you agree that there are court decisions that set precedent for employers accommodating the religious beliefs of the employees.

my point was that religious beliefs can't be proven right or wrong. so if i have a strong religious belief that is different than yours than the concept of religious freedom says that i must accept your right to be wrong and to accept the fact that you freely think that i am wrong. so simply put the concept of religious freedom says that everyone has a right to be wrong.
and no where did i say that you or anyone else was obligated to listen to someone's opinion. so we agree on that also.

as to "public accommodations" she does not fall under the category of "public accommodations" as defined by federal law.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14956
Dec 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so we can define race, gender, a handicap, but just what is "sexual orientation"? could you define that for us? what are its parameters?
Goodness Barry, for someone that for months now has stated repeatedly that Bigot Stutzman didn't discriminate based on sexual orientation, how could you make that claim if you don't even know what sexual orientation is? Seems very odd you could make a claim about something you now admit you don't know a thing about.

Here you go hon, educate yourself:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14957
Dec 26, 2013
 
If you don't want Christians sued because of their religious beliefs or workers locked out (during Christmas) because they believe marriage is one man and one woman; then keep marriage law as is and don't radically rewrite it for everyone.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14958
Dec 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
and your snide comment about "all those same-sex marriages of OTHER purposes happening all over the place" shows your naivety with what has already happened or been tried when it comes to adoption and marriage relationships.
Oh, do enlighten the room Barry. What has "already happened"? Please show us where gaggles of straight people are pretending to be gay so that they can marry for purposes other than to commit to each other.

I'll make it easy on you, just present 10.

When your done with that top 10, most importantly.....demonstrate how these supposedly "sham" weddings of two people of the same gender, outnumber the number of marriages of two people of opposite gender that are set up for purposes other than commitment.

Let us know when you can accomplish that!!!!!! Twit.

"what has already happened or been tried"!!!!! You fundies and your lies make me sick.

Hey, how you coming with presenting the RESEARCH you said was out there the showed that gender identity and sexual orientation were related? Will you be citing that anytime soon for us Barry? Why do you cowardly keep avoiding this?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14959
Dec 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so they can choose whether or not they want to be in a protected class of people today or tomorrow.
Hey there shyt for brains. Sexual orientation refers to homosexuals, bi-sexuals, and ......wait for it........ HETEROSEXUALS. They are ALWAYS a protected class regardless of which one they belong to.

Your mythical "switching" of orientations on the spin of a dime, that we see SOOOOOOOO much of everywhere, just gaggles of people expressing various sexual orientations based upon the day of the week or the color of the room, well, their switching off and on and off and on and off and on and off and on DOESN'T EVER make them protected, unprotected, protected, unprotected.

But please Barry, don't let the facts get in the way of your make believe reality. Please do come back and beat the last pulp you can out of this lame, pathetic nonsense about people switching sexual orientations on a daily or monthly basis. We read so much about this phenomenon, it seems odd that you are the only one talking about it. You know, especially given that you just acknowledged a couple posts about that you don't even know what sexual orientation means.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14960
Dec 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barry wrote:
....straight or homosexual must be assumed to be.......
SPOTTING THE BIGOT 101

Bigots will be absolutely fine with using the non clinical term when referring to themselves (notice how "straight" as absolutely fine for Barry), but will ALWAYS use the clinical when referring to their opposition!!!

Fundy bigots LOVE to keep the word "sexual" present when discussing gay people!!!! The time and effort they put into doing this reveals MUCH about who they really are, and also negates any pretense that they aren't operating on an agenda!!!

Great work Barry. I'm sure you will win the Shill of the Month award. You deserve it!!!!

“no one told me”

Level 1

Since: Dec 07

Denver

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14961
Dec 26, 2013
 
JohnInToronto wrote:
Do they really think all the black folks in Illinois are going to start to vote Republican just because of SSM?
I DON'T THINK SO!
Anything is possible, all blacks did used to be republicans after all.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14962
Dec 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>and the court will decide that the ag acted beyond the scope of his authority.
Really? Didn't work that way in New Mexico for the bigot photographer, or in Colorado for the bigot baker. You see Barry, the courts can clearly see that no religious rights are infringed upon in these situations. These bigots are merely trying to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. These bigots aren't being infringed upon in any way.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
they might be a protected class but she obviously did not refuse to service them based on their class as they were well established customers.
Bullshyt. Every time you try and strut out this disingenuous piece of bullshyt, it just makes me laugh. I'm still trying to figure out if you actually believe what you are saying. Given the bigotry in your posts, I'm doubtful.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she declined to be associated with the event, a ss wedding.
It was a wedding, the same event she'd serviced for decades. The participants were ss, not the wedding. And she wasn't ever associated with the event. Even if she had not broken the law and had provided the flower arrangements, she would STILL not be associated with the event. The FLOWERS were to be part of the event, not her.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so yes i am claiming that the event is not protected and that would mean that she does not have to serve it.
Of course that's what your claiming, because you're trying to defend a bigot. She didn't turn down the event, she turned down the participants. The event didn't try to patronize her business, the participants did. THAT'S who was refused.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14963
Dec 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barry wrote:
"God not only blessed..."
now that is the most bizarre statement that i have ever heard. however i am genuinely interested in how you come to that conclusion.
History lesson, you may want to start taking notes. For its first 15 centuries, the Western Christian Church only blessed marriages of couples who needed one, because they had gone the fruitful and multiplied route. The Church would bless a couple's betrothal, which Gave God's approval to have sex for procreative purposes only. They would only bless a couple in marriage if they had been successful. Couples were married by civil authorities well before the Church would do it. The Council of Trent turned this notion on its head by insisting that couples get married BEFORE they actually needed to. You really should look up the views of the early Protestants on the subject, they were uniformly opposed to that change.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14964
Dec 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
as to "public accommodations" she does not fall under the category of "public accommodations" as defined by federal law.
Yes, she most certainly does, both according to the STATE (which is what the case is about right now, right Barry? Not federal)

According to Washington State (the capitalization emphasis is mine to help you out Barry, we all know how intentionally slow you like to appear):

Places of public accommodation include, but are not limited to:
• Public resorts;
• Places of accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;
• Public schools;
• Private institutions open to the public for an event or gathering;
• Places of patronage, including government offices, STORES, shopping malls, theaters, libraries, hospitals, and transit
facilities.

But just to be clear, according to federal US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private (thus treating private business enterprises as if they were part of the government), that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt.

Tell us Barry, if her business is not considered a Public Accomodation, what spin would you like to pretend her business is? Is her floral shop a private club? Is it a religious institution?

Spell it out for us Barry, what type of business was she running if not a retail service establishment?
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14965
Dec 26, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the dictionary meanings of the word obey is "to submit or conform in action to".
Link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obey...
And a thesaurus lists "submit" as a synonym of "obey".
Link: http://thesaurus.com/browse/obey... (direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcm d=(none)&__utmv=-&__ut mk=177191205
So apparently you just use your ignorance of the English language as a means to avoid compliance with Christian scripture.
<quoted text>
Perhaps if so many Christians had not cited their religious beliefs to justify slavery and segregation, blacks wouldn't have been torn from their families and homelands and mistreated in the US for so long either.
Perhaps if so many Christians had not persecuted Jews for so many centures and branded them "Christ killers", German Christians would not have been so conditioned to turn a blind eye to more of the same.
And by the way, gays and gypsies were also targeted and sent to concentrations camps and killed in Nazi Germany. Apparently there are any number of minority groups through the years that Chtristians have actively mistreated or by their inaction allowed to be mistreated...
yes, my ignorance of the english language. how lame is that. my wife is an english teacher with advanced degrees who speaks at state, national and international conventions. her sister is a few hours short of her doctorate in english and will retire to teaching in a college/university setting. one of my sons has his degrees in two languages. the other has a minor and is also fluent in two languages. i said all of that to point out that since i also work in two languages i understand a few things about translating.
the NT was translated from the greek. the word in question that is translated "submit" in the one passage and "subject" in the other is never translated "obey" although obey certainly could be inferred. however since the word "obey" was available to them at the time of the translation, it was not used because it was not a proper translation. in fact the two words that are translated "obey are never translated "submit" or "subject". the meaning is distinctly different. therefore the choice of the word does not mean "obey"
the profit Daniel certainly did not obey the king when he chose to pray in spite of the law. however he did submit to the punishment that the law required. the three hebrew children told the king to go ahead and throw them in the fiery furnace because they were not going to bow the knee to his statue. they also submitted to the punishment of the law. peter certainly did not obey the law when it came to preaching and proselytizing but he did submit to the punishment/consequences. the apostle paul did the same. in fact you can see that all the apostles and the early church while peacefully subject to the government never completely obeyed the government when it came to matters of conscience and obedience to the word of God.
so the Bible itself gives us the interpretation of the passages.
and then you trot out the slavery thing because a few people called themselves "Christians" and tried to use the Bible as an excuse. well perhaps if the real Christians would have had some courage and stood together it would not have been an issue in this country. the slavery of the Bible was not the slavery that was practiced here in the south and many knew it.
the same could be said for the germany situation.
perhaps you are right it was the fault of the " Chtristians" but it was also the fault of real Christians who were afraid to stand up and lay down their possesions and their lives if necessary.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14966
Dec 26, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>History lesson, you may want to start taking notes. For its first 15 centuries, the Western Christian Church only blessed marriages of couples who needed one, because they had gone the fruitful and multiplied route. The Church would bless a couple's betrothal, which Gave God's approval to have sex for procreative purposes only. They would only bless a couple in marriage if they had been successful. Couples were married by civil authorities well before the Church would do it. The Council of Trent turned this notion on its head by insisting that couples get married BEFORE they actually needed to. You really should look up the views of the early Protestants on the subject, they were uniformly opposed to that change.
the bizarre gets more bizarre. how about a credible source for this?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14967
Dec 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

barry wrote:
<quoted text>the bizarre gets more bizarre. how about a credible source for this?
Oh look, the fundie that NEVER supports his own claims, even after being asked on numerous occasions, now wants other to cite. Typical hypocrisy.

We're all still anxiously awaiting the "research" you stated that was being conducted that concludes that gender identity and sexual orientation are related. Will you be citing the research any time soon Barry?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14968
Dec 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>. the slavery of the Bible was not the slavery that was practiced here in the south
Oh lookie! Not only do we have justifiable discrimination and bad discrimination according to Barry, but we have justifiable slavery and bad slavery.

What a POS you are.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14969
Dec 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text> but it was also the fault of real Christians .....
"real Christians". What a load of BS. Would the "real Christians" be the ones that lie about research? Or would they be like the ones that think some slavery is justifiable?

Here's Barry at Sunday School.....
http://www.eatliver.com/i.php...

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14970
Dec 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
i have never had a bank ask me what i was borrowing money for unless i thought that i could get a better rate for a mortgage or a car loan. btw never took out a car loan.
This is bizarrely self-contradictory. You’ve never had a bank ask you why you were borrowing money… unless they DID ask you? So did they or didn’t they?

And was it for a car loan? Something that you’ve never asked for? How can you say that they’ve only asked you what the money was for if it was for a car loan, and then admit that you’ve never asked for a car loan? If you’ve never asked for a car loan, then you have no experience on whether they ask the reason or not.

I have no way of knowing if you’ve truly ever asked for a bank loan. But I do know that some banks DO ask why money is being borrowed. It helps them assess whether the loan is a risk. I don’t know whether ALL banks do this, or YOUR bank, but there are banks that do. Suppose the loan is for a small business, and that business is a gay bar? Can the banker deny them NOW, based on his religious beliefs?
barry wrote:
a doctor/hospital should be able to decline selective abortions. that would be a better example.
And what if a doctor or hospital decided to decline service to a same-sex married couple? Or decline visitation rights? Or refuse to share diagnoses with the legal spouse? What if the management of a cemetery that manages a family plot refuses to allow a legal member of that family to be buried alongside their loved ones?

There are endless permutations for these questions. To leave the matter vague, or to allow everyone to set their own standards, is unworkable, and only duplicates the national climate of the Jim Crow era. A single standard, enforced equally for everyone, is the best and fairest way.
barry wrote:
and your snide comment about "all those same-sex marriages of OTHER purposes happening all over the place" shows your naivety with what has already happened or been tried when it comes to adoption and marriage relationships.
By all means, educate me. What has already happened or been tried?
barry wrote:
a gas station would have no association with the event. and besides why would they ask?
So where is the line drawn? Which types of businesses can discriminate, and which must serve? For legal purposes, there would have to be an established standard. Could a motel deny a room to a same-sex couple? Suppose the gas station attendant DOES ask, just out of conversational curiosity? Where you folks headed? To our wedding. Oh, I can’t help you get THERE… religion, you know.

There would need to be legal standards defining the “level of participation” of a business, to determine at what point a business may opt out. How would you suggest setting those standards?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

505 Users are viewing the African-American Forum right now

Search the African-American Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Random thoughts... (Sep '07) 6 min Wow 78,343
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Grey Ghost 1,081,854
Old BM Dysfunctional Impotent Dyck vs White Fre... 6 min T-BOS 19
Three characteristics of the devil or should i ... (Mar '10) 11 min Jeremy Evans 96
Anyone remember THX??? (Jan '14) 11 min Thoranson 60
Another BM with a HOT WW Wife__----------- 13 min melissa__ 311
Why Do White Boys Show YouTube Videos Of Blacks... 14 min AAAM 229
I Love White Police Officers!!!!!!!! 54 min Gremlin 76
Paris Hilton is a RACIST. She "hates" black men 55 min Aussie Bob 133
About foreign born blacks. ---------- 1 hr Aussie Bob 573
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
Ashburn Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••