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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15251 Jan 7, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is on Monday night at the local VFW.
I can't help but notice that you have posted, yet not responded to my query.

"The question then becomes whether that restriction is, in itself, constitutional. In order to be constitutional, such a restriction would have to further a compelling governmental interest.

So, Pietro, what governmental interest is furthered by limiting marriage to being between one man and one woman?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TP39MT577...

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15252 Jan 7, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
He MIGHT tell you that he doesn't have to answer because YOUR questions don't "get to the heart of the issue" as he sees it.
They could, though to do so is to tacitly admit that they are a mental midget incapable of addressing the topic at hand. I'm not sure that Pietro fully understands what a fool they regularly make of themselves.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15253 Jan 7, 2014
heartandmind wrote:
..., bi?...and the "bi" reference is made to you since it seems to bother you. why does it bother you, bi?...
^^^Here's more sexual innuendo from heartandmind. Do you ever wonder which innuendos he uses to address homosexuals?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15254 Jan 7, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Here's more sexual innuendo from heartandmind. Do you ever wonder which innuendos he uses to address homosexuals?
And here's more idiotic crap from Brian. What's your point?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#15255 Jan 7, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Here's more sexual innuendo from heartandmind. Do you ever wonder which innuendos he uses to address homosexuals?
again, you skipped the question. so here's the post AGAIN with the same question (now for the third time):

we see where you skipped this question and request for some hard data :

"....and that "will" of the voters? how about you try to show us from ALL the eligible voters that were registered with those states, just how many voted against same sex marriage? how big was that percentile of the entire voting base in each of those states?

bi, truly, get the facts before you spout off. "

why is it that you cannot EVER supply hard data or facts supported by real, provable data? is it just because you prefer to rely upon bumpersticker-like comments? is it that you're just inherently lazy? or are you afraid that the true facts will slap you in the head and make you see where you're wrong, bi?

...and the "bi" reference is made to you since it seems to bother you. why does it bother you, bi? does it hit just a little too close to home or something?

...and when you respond to this post, do not ignore the initial question regarding data as you typically ignore those types of questions.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15256 Jan 7, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro? SPECIFIC??
Wutterya, new here?
His answer will be (if I may), "What governmental interest is furthered by limiting marriage to only two people?"
Because, somehow, to him, that's "being specific". Answering a question with a question is evidently how debate and discussion are done, where he comes from. He MIGHT tell you that he doesn't have to answer because YOUR questions don't "get to the heart of the issue" as he sees it.
The type of post that warrants the creation of a "nail on the head" icon.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15257 Jan 7, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
so the question is does her making/creating flower arrangements, taking them to the site and setting them constitute a "store"? they weren't picking out flower arrangements already on display in her "store" they were asking her to service their event.
her making/creating arrangements and delivering them as a service is not a " Places of patronage" nor a " Places of accommodation".they wanted her to have a part in their "wedding" and to be publicly associated with their"wedding"
there i hope that you now understand the difference between a store and a service. one is a place the other is an action.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15258 Jan 7, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
you are so classy. your ignorance of what slavery was in the Bible is no excuse to act and talk like a jerk.
how about you give us a few examples of the word "slave" or "slavery" as found in the Bible.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15259 Jan 7, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
ok, you keep claiming that i said there was "research" when you know that i never said that there was research. there is no need for any research.
the relationship is that just as we must accept that a man might really be a women trapped in a man's body based solely on his claim, we must also accept that a person is a homosexual just because they claim to be one. that is the relationship. in both cases there is no physical proof to support either claim.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15260 Jan 7, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
By all means, educate me. What has already happened or been tried?
<quoted text>
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?
]the original faulty premise is that some one might be denied a wedding loan based on the gender of the participants. i stated that there really isn't anything called a wedding loan, and there isn't. when taking out a personal loan banks don't really ask what you are borrowing the money for. you either qualify for the loan or you don't. a car loan on the other hand is a special kind of loan that uses the car to be purchased as collateral and may help you qualify for a loan that you might not otherwise get. a school loan is another type of loan with different regulations. a mortgage also is very different because of the purchase not only becomes collateral but is assumed to go up in value.
now, it doesn't get any simpler than that. there is no such thing as a "wedding" loan. a loan for a wedding would be a personal loan.
so to help you understand, i never have taken out a car loan as i have never needed one. my personal credit is very good and my bank knows me personally.

What i said was this;
"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."
because if the car or the land is going to be part of the collateral then they want to know what it is.
and as a business man and my business involves property, i do have a lot of experience with banks and loans. yet i am virtually debt free.

and your snide remark questioning how i know about car loans when i have never taken one out is really ignorant. if you really know about loans and buying cars,you're not likely to take out a car loan

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15261 Jan 7, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so the question is does her making/creating flower arrangements, taking them to the site and setting them constitute a "store"? they weren't picking out flower arrangements already on display in her "store" they were asking her to service their event.
her making/creating arrangements and delivering them as a service is not a " Places of patronage" nor a " Places of accommodation".they wanted her to have a part in their "wedding" and to be publicly associated with their"wedding"
there i hope that you now understand the difference between a store and a service. one is a place the other is an action.
Would delivering a mattress to their bedroom also constitute infringement on a storekeeper's delicate sensibilities? I hope you understand, now, that there has to be a line past which discrimination cannot occur. And you have never even attempted to draw that line.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15262 Jan 7, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
If it does in fact all boil down to the definition of marriage, you still have one crippling hurdle to clear, Pietro.
[/QUOTE

Oh do tell.

[QUOTE]
It cannot be denied that defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is a restriction. The question then becomes whether that restriction is, in itself, constitutional.
Uhhhh....huh. So now "limiting" marriage to a union of one man and one woman as 'husband and wife' is suddenly not constitutional?
In order to be constitutional, such a restriction would have to further a compelling governmental interest.
And it does. The state has a vested interest in privileging that union, male female, which can and does produce the next generation. Marriage serves to bind men and women to each other and provide a publicly recognized union for them and their children. It is vital for societal stability. By contrast, a sane sex union produces nothing.
So, Pietro, what governmental interest is furthered by limiting marriage to being between one man and one woman?
Be specific.
Yes. Again....a same sex union is just that. There has never been a societal need for a "same sex" marriage, a contradiction in terms, for such a union produces nothing generating a state interest.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15264 Jan 7, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Don’t you think they have the right to select what they sell on their own website? They just don’t have the right to limit whom they sell TO. There are no books which one group of people may purchase, that another group may not.
What about a smaller company online? Mary’s Home Décor of Localville, or some such. Is she “participating” in the establishment of someone’s standard of living, and may she decline to ship orders if she believes, or discovers as fact, that she is shipping to a gay couple?
You are not suggesting any places where a line can be drawn, where standards are set. Such unregulated business practices are ripe for abuse.
It’s all well and good for you to just say “lame” after my ever example, but that style of argument would not get you very far in a courtroom.
<quoted text>
Here’s how I would accommodate that: If we sell things that you can’t touch, then don’t ask for a job. Don’t apply for jobs that you cannot do.
<quoted text>
It can become obvious. Such a business could already know that this were the case, if they were serving family or friends that they knew were trying for a green card. The point illustrates that businesses who want to discriminate in this way are not being consistent. I’ve never in my life heard of a florist or baker refusing to serve a divorced person’s second wedding, which should be equally against their religion. Some of these news stories even describe reporters calling these businesses posing as customers who want cakes or flowers to celebrate divorce, abortion, cloning, and wedding ceremonies for two dogs. None were rejected. These people are hypocrites, who only want to discriminate against gay people, and no one else.
<quoted text>
...
so you agree with the censorship of books? no, i didn't say that. i'm just imagining how jonah would twist your words.
so let's take your mary,
if mary makes chair and sells it in a store. anyone who has the money should be able to come int her store and buy the chair.
if mary says that she can design a special chair custom made for you, but the chair does not already exist then mary ought to be free not to have to go to your house or place of importance and custume design the chair if she has a moral objection to the place or the event.

now i happen to agree with you on the can't touch example however, that is not the way that the courts have gone and their thinking is that there are enough other things that they can touch and there are enough other people who have no objections that accommodations can and should be made.

and finally; why must a person be "equally against" a second marriage after a divorce. a few are but that is rare.

and your "some of these news stories"... hard to believe those stories. especially the abortion claim.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15265 Jan 7, 2014
barry wrote:
then you trot out the tried and true inter racial marriage. i say let them try it if they want to.

barry wrote:
until they refuse a couple based on the assumption of their inter racial status and find out that they are wrong. then let the law suits roll
.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
...
No, you do not say that. You contradict this claim in your very next sentences:
<quoted text>
You see? You completely agree with me that a law should be established in advance, so that the lawsuits CAN roll in. You just seem to want this law selectively applied.
And you agree with me AGAIN, on another point:
<quoted text>
You obviously see the confusion that would arise if businesses had to GUESS if they could discriminate or not. Business owners should not be forced to “have fun” and risk making this mistake. They should know in advance what the established standard is, to keep them out of trouble.
<quoted text>
Yet such shunning occurs every day, all over the world. The people who do it claim it is because of their “morals”. This merchant’s denial is an outgrowth of that attitude.
<quoted text>
You don’t have to abide by anything I say. But I know that my morals are BETTER, at least in this case. Morals should guide people to welcome everyone into the fold of humanity, not label innocent people as an outsider caste.
<quoted text>
If you can’t tell the difference between criminals and innocent citizens, your morals need severe re-examining.
Obviously i did say it. who can define interracial marriage?
let them go ahead and ban them again. until some one bans a light skin negro from marrying a dark skin negro. or a sicilian caucasion from marrying a pale skinned swede.
it is sort of like the sheriff in texas who held an American citizen because his skin was brown and his english was bad therefore he must have been an illegal immigrant. one slightly richer dark skinned American citizen in texas.
so go ahead and try not to do any interracial wedding events make it legal. you will never get it right and someone will sue you.

now i doubt that anyone can be confused about the gender of a ss wedding. unless of course someone has been altered.

barry wrote:
however this couple was never shunned or villainized. they were well established customers.

your reply;
"Yet such shunning occurs every day, all over the world. The people who do it claim it is because of their “morals”. This merchant’s denial is an outgrowth of that attitude."

i fail to see the relationship or the problem what does the shunning all over the world have to do with the fact that the florist did not shun them in spite of their orientation.

and so you think that your morals are better. you are free to think so just don't force me to act according to your "better" morals and i''ll try not to force you to act according to my "better" morals.

your last statement is completely irrelevant. certainly not all morality is criminal. and maybe just maybe not all crimes are moral issues. but society's general concept of morality does influence our laws. and morals are designed to create divisions.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15266 Jan 7, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The truth is usually a lot stranger than fiction. Do your own homework, I did. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.
really hard to prove that something is made up when it is made up out of nothing true. you made the claim now back it up with some documented history.
oh wait there is no such history so i must now prove a negative. riiight.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15267 Jan 7, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you DON'T believe that you're the ONLY person in these threads with higher educational degrees, are ya? Because I'm glad you and your family have all of these great degrees, but many of us here have major degrees as well........so, no need to brag about your family's accomplishments!!!
first of all, i never said that i had higher education degrees. i did brag about the family to show that sometimes i am sick of english norm that wasn't norm last year and may not be norm next year.
secondly we were talking about words and their translation from one language to another. i do understand the rules of translating as i translate just about every day but am not licensed to translate because i am not good enough. there is a difference between conversant and fluent, my boys are fluent. i am conversant.
so are your degrees and life's experiences in multiple languages?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15268 Jan 7, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If the court does, it will be based on their interpretation of Washington law and not your wishful thinking and general ignorance of the legal process.
<quoted text>
She most certainly did refuse service to them based on their membership in a protected class when she refused to provide flowers for their wedding.
What is it with stupid people like you that can't seem to understand anti-dsicrimination laws apply to EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of customers wanting to buy goods and services from a business deemed a public accommodation and that EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE IS EVALUATED INDEPENDENTLY for compliance with the law?. It doesn't matter if Baronelle sold flowers to these gentlemen one time or one thousand times previously; the only fact that matters is she refused to sell them flowers when they requested them for their wedding.
Again, if you're this f-ing stupid about the law, then you have no business discussing it in a public forum.
<quoted text>
Again, the "event' didn't enter her store to buy flowers.
<quoted text>
Your claim is irrelevant. Anti-discrimination law doesn't address "events'; it addresses individuals trying to buy goods or services from a business deemed a public accommodation. Refusing to provide service to members of a protected class is a violation of the law, regardless of the reason the customers wished to purchase the goods or services.
<quoted text>
And if the court agrees, then the charge will either be dropped or she'll be found not guilty. Again, your ignorance of the legal process doesn't negate how it actually works.
"Your claim is irrelevant. Anti-discrimination law doesn't address "events'; it addresses individuals trying to buy goods or services from a business deemed a public accommodation. Refusing to provide service to members of a protected class is a violation of the law, regardless of the reason the customers wished to purchase the goods or services."

exactly the point, events are not covered. she declined the event because she would decline the event for any ss couple regardless of their orientation. so ss couples are not covered either. individuals are covered. the individuals were established customers of hers in spite of their orientation.
i can refuse to provide service to anyone as long as i equally refuse to provide requested service to everyone. their orientation does not give them special rights.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15269 Jan 7, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the nature of religious scripture when there is no universal agreement as to its interpretation. Of course, you didn't have an issue telling me my assertion about the Christian new testament verses about obeying civil authorities was incorrect either, did you hypocrite?
<quoted text>
If you acknowledge religious beliefs can't be proven right or wrong, then your phrasing the "right to be wrong" regarding religious belief is not only poorly articulated but rather stupid as well.
<quoted text>
It's even simpler and more accurate to state everyone has the freedom to profess their religious beliefs without implying a value judgment of "right" or "wrong".
<quoted text>
On the contrary, you said you had the right to be heard. But that was weeks, if not months, ago now and I'm not wasting my time going back to find the exact post since you can't be bothered to respond to others' comments in a timely manner.
<quoted text>
Pay attention: Baronelle isn't being charged with breaking federal anti-discrmination law; she's being charged with breaking the anti-discrimination law of the state of Washington. And her business most certainly does qualify as a public accommodation as defined by the state of Washington. And you think otherwise, it just proves you're illiterate and uneducated since you're unable to read and accurately comprehend the pertinent Washington statute that's been cited for you several times already.
you make a false accusation but that is not surprising.
certainly i don't "have an issue telling [you that your] assertion about the Christian new testament verses about obeying civil authorities was incorrect" i also don't try to stop you from living your conviction if you choose to always obey civil authorities. however we all know that that is not a conviction of your's so who is the hypocrite?

then you say;
"t's even simpler and more accurate to state everyone has the freedom to profess their religious beliefs without implying a value judgment of "right" or "wrong".
how does that apply to the conversation about the florist? did she call them sinners, evil people, did she try to stop them from getting married? no she respected their right to be wrong. now it's time perhaps that they respect her right to be wrong.
you see, you really have a problem with people who think that you are wrong and don't want to have any part with your error. but it's ok if they are wrong as long as you don't have to have any part with their error.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15270 Jan 7, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Pay attention: Baronelle isn't being charged with breaking federal anti-discrmination law; she's being charged with breaking the anti-discrimination law of the state of Washington. And her business most certainly does qualify as a public accommodation as defined by the state of Washington. And you think otherwise, it just proves you're illiterate and uneducated since you're unable to read and accurately comprehend the pertinent Washington statute that's been cited for you several times already.
yes mam, but it would really be helpful if you could post or link to the washington state law or legal definition that supports your claim.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15271 Jan 7, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhh....huh. So now "limiting" marriage to a union of one man and one woman as 'husband and wife' is suddenly not constitutional?
<quoted text>
And it does. The state has a vested interest in privileging that union, male female, which can and does produce the next generation. Marriage serves to bind men and women to each other and provide a publicly recognized union for them and their children. It is vital for societal stability. By contrast, a sane sex union produces nothing.
<quoted text>
Yes. Again....a same sex union is just that. There has never been a societal need for a "same sex" marriage, a contradiction in terms, for such a union produces nothing generating a state interest.
Not when it deprives same-sex couples and their families of the same legal protections.

If, as you claim, marriage is vital for societal stability, then same-sex families deserve the same advantages as they too have children and families do they not?

What is the state interest in promoting one family over another family?

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
A man is his Character Not his Penis 4 min SadButTrue 1
IRBW And Their Fantasies. 5 min SadButTrue 563
The real reason black men say blonde hair and b... 19 min Mick 211
Why don't prostitutes sleep with black men? (Jul '16) 24 min whites suck 57
OOKLAND OR SAN FranSICKO? If you had to, which ... 26 min Fucisil 4
Why did God give White Man a Small Penis ? (Jul '16) 27 min itsy bitsy weiner 5
Is Feminism a Cancer? (Oct '16) 47 min SadButTrue 324
Why do bm give ww a pass on racism? 1 hr IT IS I 217
Do Blacks See It As An Upgrade To Date Whites? 6 hr KIP 107
More from around the web