Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

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?

“True Blue”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Sunburnt Country

#15272 Jan 7, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That is true, for example at one time a "gay man" was a womanizer, now a gay man is one who is not sexually attracted to women.
However not every definition changes, some, "man", "woman", for example, haven't changed.
And in the old days a "gay lady" did not mean a lesbian, it meant a prostitute. So it always had a sexual meaning, as well as the innocent "bright and happy".
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/...

So what? The language changes over centuries. If you don't believe me read Shakespeare, then read Chaucer. Even some Victorian novels show this.

“True Blue”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Sunburnt Country

#15273 Jan 7, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no right to rewrite marriage law for everyone; judges should base decisions on law and the even application of precedent. Judge Shelby ignored law and precedent to decide in favor of a mascot victim group. The harm comes from ignoring law to impose your own morality on the majority without their consent.
America is about government that represents the people, not government that imposes its will without the consent of the governed. Same sex marriage is wrong because we don't consent.
YOU don't consent, there's a difference.

“True Blue”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Sunburnt Country

#15274 Jan 7, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, no. The Contract A&E has with the Robertson clan for Duck Dynasty is specific about controversial subjects, political views, etc. which have no place in a redneck paradise intended for comic purposes. The consequences of breaching the contract are quite clear too. Old Phil just got carried away by his own big mouth.
The fact that these supposedly grown men and the childish nonsense they indulge in while making "big" money, then saying a prayer over a meal is full of comic possibilities. Phil made a public speech thinking his views are valid and GLAAD protested his ignorance and intolerance and A&E bitch slapped him for it.
That's ALL that happened.
We all have freedom of speech but try working at a public job and saying "eff you" to a customer and see what you get for it;0)
That's a good example. Or the old free speech doesn't mean you can yell out Fire! in a crowded place.

As for Phil Robertson, we could just call him a dumb quacker.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15275 Jan 7, 2014
barry wrote:
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.
Again, the "event" didn't ask her to provide services; people did. And people are covered by the law.

Quit being such a feckless moron.
barry wrote:
so ss couples are not covered either. individuals are covered.
And two individual gay men were refused service, thus violating the Washington's anti-discrimination law.
barry wrote:
the individuals were established customers of hers in spite of their orientation.
It doesn't matter if they were provided service hundreds of times previously. Businesses don't accrue "good behavior" credits that can be used to offset actual violations of the law. The only thing that matters was she refused service in this particular instance to members of a protected class.
barry wrote:
i can refuse to provide service to anyone as long as i equally refuse to provide requested service to everyone.
And since she provides services for weddings, she's obligated under the law to provide such services to anyone asking for wedding services. Washington law recognizes MARRIAGES, period; it doesn't distinguish between same sex or opposite marriages so business owners can't create artificial subcategories of services in order to justify their discrimination.
barry wrote:
their orientation does not give them special rights.
Under Washington law, all sexual orientations are part of a protected class that may not be discriminated against by businesses deemed public accommodations like the florist in this case. So no special rights, just the same civil right everyone in Washington has to be free from discrimination on account of their sexual orientation.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15276 Jan 7, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Sweetie, you are the one claiming what I wrote can't possibly be right, it would be up to you to prove your claim. I've already done my research and it isn't my fault that you are too intellectually lazy to find out for yourself.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15277 Jan 7, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>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?
But I'm not the one disobeying civil authorities and then whining I'm allowed to do so because of my religious convictions, am I you lying *sswipe?
barry wrote:
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?
That was in regards to your stupid assertion of what freedom of religion was and had nothing to do with the florist in Washington.

Again, if you can't answer posts in a timely manner to the point you've forgotten the context of the post, then either refresh your memory by reviewing past posts or just skip responding to it altogether.

Coddling your senility and stupidity grows wearisome.
barry wrote:
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.
This isn't about the florist's or the gay's couples religious beliefs, you stupid *sswipe. This is about the couple being refused service by the florist in violation of Washington's anti-discrmination law. Which by the way is a general law applicable to all people in Washington and, under SCOTUS precedent reiterated in Justice Scalia's opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, can permissibly impact religious beliefs as long as the law does not target religion specifically:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/...
barry wrote:
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.
No, I have a problem with stupid people like you who are ignorant of the law and refuse to correct their ignorance and then keep reasserting erroneous statements about their civil rights relative to the civil rights of others.

Since you appear to be uneducable, I'm forced to conclude your stupidity is a genetic condition. In which case you should engage your intellectual peers who are in grade school and refrain from bothering educated adults in public forums.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15278 Jan 7, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>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.
How many times do I have to do so? You've already ignored it the last 3 times I've posted that information.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15279 Jan 7, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Not when it deprives same-sex couples and their families of the same legal protections.
The same legal protections as husband and wife?
If, as you claim, marriage is vital for societal stability
It is.
, then same-sex families deserve the same advantages as they too have children and families do they not?
The same advantages as a husband and wife raising their own children, products of their union? How is that possible?
What is the state interest in promoting one family over another family?
There ya go again, speaking out for plural marriage families. What a guy!

Since: Jan 10

Westerville, OH

#15280 Jan 7, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
And in the old days a "gay lady" did not mean a lesbian, it meant a prostitute. So it always had a sexual meaning, as well as the innocent "bright and happy".
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/...
So what? The language changes over centuries. If you don't believe me read Shakespeare, then read Chaucer. Even some Victorian novels show this.
Yeah, and the word fa@@ot means “a bundle of sticks and branches bound together” but idiots like this goon have no issue with using it as a derogatory term for Gay Men.

Since: Jan 10

Westerville, OH

#15281 Jan 7, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Prattle on nightmare. With possibly 7% to 10% of the population belonging to the GLBT Community I don't think the human race will be going extinct anytime soon. So put it in file 13 where it belongs, no state or European Country where SSM is legal has shriveled down to a few remaining heterosexuals who have to work double time to sustain the population.
I understand basic biology very well and it's a non issue here.
Same sex attraction has been with us since the dawn of time, not only among homo sapiens but many other mammals, fish, fowl and insects. It's about time it was finally recognized as what it is.....a natural phenomena. Now, people who want to make a commitment to be together and establish legal kinship will be able to do so, it's really no big deal. It doesn't affect you in any way, other than your already unstable state of mind.
Let's face it, the birds and bees don't mind at all, it's people who (like yourself) get hysterical over anything to do with S - E - X that are having fits and fevers.
I have to wonder, were you potty trained at gunpoint?
Excellent, excellent post. It’s impressive how 7% to 10% of the population can get these nutbags all stirred up.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15282 Jan 7, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
And in the old days a "gay lady" did not mean a lesbian, it meant a prostitute. So it always had a sexual meaning, as well as the innocent "bright and happy".
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/...
Very good, Rosa did some homework! Now maybe the rest of the SSMers will believe what I had posted before, several times.

A "gay man" used to be a womanizer! Ironic.
So what? The language changes over centuries. If you don't believe me read Shakespeare, then read Chaucer. Even some Victorian novels show this.
Yes language does change. "Lesbians" used to be reresidents of the isle of Lesbos. Technically the still are. Now it more commonly refers to women who are sexually attracted to other women. Now even men can be lesbians.

All the language in the world doesn't change the facts of life. As my father used to say, three go to bed, but three get up!

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15283 Jan 7, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The same legal protections as husband and wife?
<quoted text>
It is.
<quoted text>
The same advantages as a husband and wife raising their own children, products of their union? How is that possible?
<quoted text>
There ya go again, speaking out for plural marriage families. What a guy!
Family tax, inheritance, and child care etc. At least 1,800 legal consequences which put same-sex families at a disadvantage.

Biological relationships are irrelevant. Would you deprive adopted children and children raised by step parents the advantages of marriage?

Plural marriage is equally irrelevant.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15284 Jan 7, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Biological relationships are irrelevant. Would you deprive adopted children and children raised by step parents the advantages of marriage?
And seeing that once a couple adopts, that adoptive child is then considered just as much a "REAL" child as are ANY biological children.......in fact the couple might as well have given birth to that adoptive child because that is how the courts will view that child....plain and simple!!!

This is just one of many reasons that marriage is so much considered a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and that ALL families deserve the same legal protection under the law and another reason why Same-Sex couples seek the right to marry!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15285 Jan 7, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
YOU don't consent, there's a difference.
And the majority in Utah, California, Iowa and where it began, Massachusetts; all these states had marriage redefined by activist courts. They ignored law, precedent and the consent of the governed to impose their morality by court decree, not legislation or referendum.

Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

“True Blue”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Sunburnt Country

#15286 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And the majority in Utah, California, Iowa and where it began, Massachusetts; all these states had marriage redefined by activist courts. They ignored law, precedent and the consent of the governed to impose their morality by court decree, not legislation or referendum.
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
The Mormons redefined marriage back in the 19C in Utah. Then they had to make it monogamous again in 1890, in order to become a state.

“True Blue”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Sunburnt Country

#15287 Jan 8, 2014
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and the word fa@@ot means “a bundle of sticks and branches bound together” but idiots like this goon have no issue with using it as a derogatory term for Gay Men.
Yeah, that's sad but true.

The reason it came to mean that, was that it was firewood used to burn homosexual men and others @ the stake. Glad those days are gone.
:-(((

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15288 Jan 8, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
The Mormons redefined marriage back in the 19C in Utah. Then they had to make it monogamous again in 1890, in order to become a state.
Exactly, we have the right to define marriage equality in law, we won in 1890 and we'll win again today.

Marriage is one man and one woman. Same sex marriage is antidemocratic and sex segregationist.

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
Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives 1 min iamcuriousnow 33
DNC night 1 had Higher RATINGS than RNC 2 min Hillary 2016 15
Why would anyone support Hillary Clinton? 3 min T-BOS 2
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Incognito4Ever 1,404,266
Michelle Obama to speak at DNC tonight 8 min Go Blue Forever 39
News Black therapist with hands up shot by cops whil... 10 min Go Blue Forever 180
why do white people hate other races so much (Dec '14) 12 min wdt26 481
The DNC Convention 2 hr Hillary 2016 23
More from around the web