Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“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

Rainsville, 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

Rainsville, 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

Rainsville, 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

Rainsville, 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

Rainsville, 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

Rainsville, 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

Rainsville, 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?

“Filia Spartacus”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Libertas

#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.

“Filia Spartacus”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Libertas

#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.

“Filia Spartacus”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Libertas

#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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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!

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
Poll People who lie about their race are.. 5 min Ugh 40
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Yeah 1,250,627
Are white women attracted to black men? (Aug '06) 6 min Bobby T Canada 123,674
News Why the Confederate flag flies in SC 7 min PolakPotrafi 2,018
Love my White Daddes 8 min Sharkiesha Coleslaw 1
I am a bm and I am sticking with bw. PERIOD! 8 min Moorspeaks 111
Black girls!!!we're not taking your men! we've ... 9 min Donny Brook 123
All women prefer white men 1 hr TranshumanX 5,190
Race War Probability? 1 hr KIP 19
More from around the web