Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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

#5117 Jun 28, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
...
You do realize you sound just like Hitler, don't you?
<quoted text>
As I pointed out, we decided that half a century ago. You can't refuse flowers for an interracial wedding any more than you can for a gay wedding. If you own a funeral home, you can't refuse services to black people or Muslims or gays.
If your church facilities are reserved for services to the congregation--whether they be baptism, weddings, or funerals--you are free to make your own rules. But if your church is in the habit of renting out its facilities to the public, the public includes all interested parties.
so while i praise jewish people and point out their success in the business world you want to call me hitler?
you're the one who refuses to acknowledge their position in our society and the economic markets.

interracial marriage is a matter of race. it is covered by the "Civil Rights Act" title seven.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5118 Jun 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Business owners who practice discrimination are doing just that, dear. <quoted text>No dear, it isn't, these laws were enacted by our elected representatives, it's our form of government in action.
<quoted text>The couple and their event are one and the same dear. The simple fact of the matter is that she would be violating the law that doesn't permit the kind of discrimination she has chosen to engage in. Throw the book at her.
i am not your dear.
a business usually is privately owned and not a part of the "public square".

what you want to do is bully everyone to applaud your lifestyle and your opinions. sounds a little like ceasar.

the event and the couple are one and the same? that's creative.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5119 Jun 28, 2013
So good to know that Barry is an equal opportunity bigot. Perhaps he and Paula Dean can commiserate with one another about how everyone is just picking on them.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5120 Jun 28, 2013
barry wrote:
i am not your dear.
Of course you are, sweetie.
barry wrote:
a business usually is privately owned and not a part of the "public square".
Providing goods and services to the public, even a privately owned business is operating in the public square. Depending on where that public square happens to be, the bases for which services can be refused are limited by federal, state and local law. There hasn't been an absolute right to refuse service in decades. If you don't like that, you don't have to be in business now do you?
barry wrote:
what you want to do is bully everyone to applaud your lifestyle and your opinions. sounds a little like ceasar.
Not expecting applause dear, just don't want to be ambushed by your personal choice of bigotries when I order flowers for my wedding. You already know that you can't hang up a no f*** sign in your window, what makes you think you can make one up for me when I ask for your services? God says so? Sorry, the law don't allow you to blame Him. Many of the folk who have gotten themselves in nose deep in this and claimed Christian redemption haven't been at all Christlike in their refusal. Some of them have been right b*st*rds.
barry wrote:
the event and the couple are one and the same? that's creative.
If the only weddings she refuses on this allegedly moral basis are the "gay" ones, she'll have one heck of a time convincing anyone otherwise.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5121 Jun 28, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
So good to know that Barry is an equal opportunity bigot. Perhaps he and Paula Dean can commiserate with one another about how everyone is just picking on them.
Paula doesn't deserve that. You can probably count the number of 60 year old White folk from Georgia who HAVEN'T ever used the N word on one hand. Racism was the order of her day, it neither surprises me nor disappoints me that it had some effect on her. At least she got out of the habit. Then to associate her with "barry", that's just insult to injury.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5122 Jun 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Paula doesn't deserve that. You can probably count the number of 60 year old White folk from Georgia who HAVEN'T ever used the N word on one hand. Racism was the order of her day, it neither surprises me nor disappoints me that it had some effect on her. At least she got out of the habit. Then to associate her with "barry", that's just insult to injury.
I haven't paid much attention to Ms Dean--either before or after this blow-up. I was inclined the same way you are when I first heard of it, but she has a very bad case of foot-in-mouth. Every time she opens her mouth, she makes it worse.

Like Barry, she doesn't even understand why her words are offensive. But I have seen people of good will who are older than Ms Dean overcome those blind spots. I think if Ms Dean would shut up and listen to her critics, we might all be better off.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5123 Jun 28, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
I haven't paid much attention to Ms Dean--either before or after this blow-up. I was inclined the same way you are when I first heard of it, but she has a very bad case of foot-in-mouth. Every time she opens her mouth, she makes it worse.
Like Barry, she doesn't even understand why her words are offensive. But I have seen people of good will who are older than Ms Dean overcome those blind spots. I think if Ms Dean would shut up and listen to her critics, we might all be better off.
I haven't been following the specifics of the "scandal", just following the fall out. I had heard that these weren't recent comments, just things she was known to say in the past. I spent a lot of time growing up in Virginia and Maryland in the 60's, it was a word one heard and picked up. I watched her cooking show occasionally in the past, I like good southern cooking. She struck me as a nice lady, who was going to be in over her head when those working behind the scenes for her made her damn near unavoidable.

Nobody deserves comparison to "barry", he's in a ass all his own.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5124 Jun 29, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I haven't been following the specifics of the "scandal", just following the fall out. I had heard that these weren't recent comments, just things she was known to say in the past. I spent a lot of time growing up in Virginia and Maryland in the 60's, it was a word one heard and picked up. I watched her cooking show occasionally in the past, I like good southern cooking. She struck me as a nice lady, who was going to be in over her head when those working behind the scenes for her made her damn near unavoidable.
Nobody deserves comparison to "barry", he's in a ass all his own.
You should probably read up on a few of Ms Dean's pronouncements. She has an ongoing foot-in-mouth problem. That said, I don't imagine that she ever treats any individual differently nor with disrespect.

On the other hand, though my home-town just north of Mason-Dixon was not as rabidly prejudice as towns just south, all of the symptoms you describe existed there. My mother was one of the leaders who realized how badly things needed to change. I certainly heard the n-word. But that is probably the only bad word that I never used. Ever.

I'm afraid Ms Dean needs to move into proactive opposition to subtle prejudice.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5125 Jun 29, 2013
The Supreme Court assumes Congress and President Clinton acted with malice when they passed and he signed DOMA.

It's official, they've been labeled haters by the highest court in the land.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5126 Jun 29, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
They should have the right to shop at a public business, without being beholden to the religion of the employees or owners. If they aren't doing anything illegal, then my opinion of what they'll do with my product should not factor in. I can't imagine how your system would work. No one would know if they would be welcome at ANY given business.
I would be a despicable person if I did what you suggested. You are building up walls and fences when you should be opening doors.
<quoted text>
...
you're trying to expand the conversation and shift the emphasis. the point is no one should be forced to participate in, condone or celebrate anything that they feel is immorally wrong. as a contractor i should not be required to work on a strip joint. nor should i be required to offer my services to a religious organization that i believe is greatly harming its people.

they were always free to buy flowers from her. they wanted her to go and arrange the flowers for them at the ceremony. flowers are an expression of support. this lady respectfully declined the invitation to go and support their wedding.
they were always welcome AT her business. she just simply declined to participate in showing support for their wedding.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5127 Jun 29, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
...
<quoted text>
Let the majority rule, huh? And the minority be damned? Yep, sounds like religion to me. I perfer to operate WITHOUT religion, and so I hold NO group as inferior or unworthy to associate with.
that is not what i said;
barry wrote: if i had a problem working at a ss wedding reception, and i would, i certainly would expect to be free not to work that event. i also recognize that my employer should also be free do decide whether or not what i bring to his business is really a benefit to him and he should be free not to employ me. the line that i draw is keep government out of our lives and let free speech, and free enterprise take care of the situation."

you prefer to operate without religion yet you set yourself up as the authority to determine what is right and fair.
i prefer to operate on a level playing field were everyone is free to make their own choices. and everyone one is free not to associate with whom they wish not to associate. in the end free market and feree enterprise will work it out.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5128 Jun 29, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>...
<quoted text>
Does this give them license to reject customers who should be protected under state discrimination laws? Does it give them license to reject ANY laws? Does being religious elevate a person above obeying the law?
<quoted text>
I would support businesses advertising that they're discriminatory, but I sure wouldn't call them people of "conscience". They aren't doing any good by pretending they're morally superior to people who are different from themselves. Why is religion so DIVISIVE?
<quoted text>
And if they DON'T hang their religion all over the place? Or if they have a non-majority religion? Is any belief system "too small" to warrant being ignored in your system?
<quoted text>
...
<quoted text>
...
no and yes. state laws are trumped be applicable federal laws and federal laws are trumped by the constitution.

and you are doing the same thing are you not? pretending to be morally superior by not being "divisive".

and to your final question. no, no belief system is to small; if they want to limit their market, then good luck staying in business. what ever sector of society one refuses to do business with just opens a door for a competitor to do business with them.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5129 Jun 29, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
So if someone wants their same-sex wedding catered by Olive Garden, or hosted at a Marriott Hotel, those chain business cannot refuse? Am I wrong that you'd support their refusal right, even though they're clearly NOT independent contractors?
<quoted text>
"Moral" reasons. LOL. Let me know if you come up with one. It's not "moral" to reject or condemn people who haven't broken any laws, or harmed anyone in any way.
<quoted text>
What I hold sacred is personal, and it would be wrong for me to use it to curtail public behavior in a public setting. Especially when it breaks the law. ESPECIALLY when the people I'm targetting haven't done a damn thing wrong or illegal.
<quoted text>
That doesn't mean we should fear to tread in someone's business, based on what they might hold sacred.
You may think the Subway example was dumb, but I guarantee you that in a nation of 300,000,000 people, SOMEONE holds tomatoes sacred. There will be 300,000,000 different sacred idols, each one forbidding association with some "disapproved" portion of the population.
<quoted text>
You should be able to demand REASONABLE accomodations for your beliefs, but this idea of being able to pre-select a demographic as unservable is not reasonable.
<quoted text>
Oh, no doubt. That's why you mentioned it, I'm sure.
Forget it. Why bother discussing it? You're not going to change, I'm not going to change. Religion makes people see themselves as superior to others, and equality becomes an obstacle, or a distant, alien concept intended for heathens and sinners. Theists are actually ENCOURAGED by their religion to cordon themselves off from "outsiders", status-wise, and they call it a GOOD thing. Division among humanity is what comes from assuming that a supernatural agency has chosen you and your group as its best representatives. You haven't given a single decent reason for declining or refusing to serve gays, Muslims, JW's, strippers, Catholics or Mormons, other than they don't belong to your "in-group". This kind of insular xenophobia isn't good for ANYONE. Thanks for the enlightenment.
marriot and the like are not private businesses. they also are interstate businesses and if you want to apply the civil rights act which i think would be a stretch since life style choices and activities are not covered in it, then they are specifically covered in the CR Act.

Moral reasons; "It's not "moral" to reject or condemn people who haven't broken any laws, or harmed anyone in any way."
it seems that you have made your own version of a moral judgement. i respect that. just don't force me to celebrate it or condone it. i respectfully disagree with you. especially since this whole conversation is not about rejecting anyone but rather rejecting a ceremony that they wanted this lady to participate in by making and setting up flower arrangements.

"That doesn't mean we should fear to tread in someone's business, based on what they might hold sacred." not sure what that means, except to say all she wanted to do was stay out of their business/celebration.

nice try with the subway tomatoes. meat would have been a better example.

we are not talking about pre-selecting a demographic as being unservicable. just a specific event that many hold sacred.

i have never refused to work for "gays, Muslims, JW's, strippers, Catholics or Mormons". i have all for customers. you are slandering the issue. the reason i decline to work on their established places of business/worship is because i do not want to be perceived as supporting their business or worship. however i do support their right to do so and would even actively speak up to defend their right. i just will not condone it in any way.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5130 Jun 29, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it hysterical the lengths to which one side will go to be able to put their bigotry on display.
If one is such a crappy businessman that they want to let their political beliefs get in the way of their business, I say let them do it, and then let them close their doors when people don't patronize the bigots.
that is the whole point.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5131 Jun 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Delivering flowers is no more participation in the wedding than delivering a tent. How, exactly, would you as a jurist make a legally clear distinction between the right of the flower shop NOT to do business and the requirement of the party store to rent a tent?
What about the party store that delivers the table cloths and dishes? Oh yeah. That's the same party store that owns the tent. How about the chuppa at the Jewish wedding? Would be party store be forced to rent that, too?
Your attempt to draw fake distinctions only sinks you deeper into the quicksand of your hypocrisy.
it involves more than just delivering flowers. apparently your experiences with weddings have not included upper society events.
a tent expresses nothing. flowers are a universal expression of praise, celebration and sympathy etc.

no i am not drawing fake distinctions but you however want to force people of faith, that just doesn't happen to be your faith, to participate, celebrate and condone something that they personally feel is wrong and immoral. you want to force your moral values and your life style on them.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5132 Jun 29, 2013
Vice President Joe Biden voted to enact DOMA into law when he was in the Senate.

Our Highest Court decided he voted out of malice. The jokes on you!
anonymousofcours e

Honolulu, HI

#5133 Jun 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You should probably read up on a few of Ms Dean's pronouncements. She has an ongoing foot-in-mouth problem. That said, I don't imagine that she ever treats any individual differently nor with disrespect.
On the other hand, though my home-town just north of Mason-Dixon was not as rabidly prejudice as towns just south, all of the symptoms you describe existed there. My mother was one of the leaders who realized how badly things needed to change. I certainly heard the n-word. But that is probably the only bad word that I never used. Ever.
I'm afraid Ms Dean needs to move into proactive opposition to subtle prejudice.
yes of course, that is how north of the Mason Dixon line manages racism.....very subtly. we all know it's still there. one just has to watch more closely, pay attention to "private" conversations which occur among two Caucasian people, how Caucasians are given treatments and privileges which differ from non-Caucasians. How do I know this? Because, I am mixed yet can definitely pass for Caucasian. It's amazing the info I have discovered until they learn I am not actually full Caucasian nor am I assimilated to white culture.

the same level of racism occurs in the North just as well as the South, but you're correct in saying that it is subtle! I guess that makes you proud? Or, clever?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5134 Jun 29, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read the WHOLE article?
Yesssssss....I did.
Do you realize Olson responded? Quite eloquently, I think.
Yes......and not quite.
From the article YOU cited: Olson responded by saying that polygamy raises questions "about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody — it is an entirely different thing."
"If a state prohibits polygamy," he said, "it’s prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."
He didn't argue that it shouldn't be legal. Nor did he point out the legal reality. Gay and lesbian citizens CAN marry, as marriage is legally defined, a union of husband and wife, in 30 plus states, and that marriage would be valid nation wide. He also didn't address the issue of incest. The question raised by the justice is still valid.
And I'm still trying to figure out if you support or oppose it. Without taking a side, you REALLY just look like your only goal is to forestall debate about SSM, to load it up with as much baggage as you can find so that discussion is too cumbersome.
It seems most SSMers want to the state to redefine legal marriage for them and no one else. Plus ignoring the fact that legal SSM opens the door to polygamy. So the ultimate goal is fundamently alter the Anglo American definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife. Who knows....we may reach a point when it becomes pointless for the state to recognize marriage at all.
We could say that the repeal of DADT increased the odds that SSM would become legal. We could go back further and say that Lawrence v. Texas increased the odds that DADT would fall. Each step might have (or might not have, who knows) precipitated the next.
L v. T paved the way for SSM. Didn't Scalia opine that? SSM paves the way for polygamy, which has ways loomed in the background as the issue took shape. We now have polygamists cheering the recent ruling.
Did you support the decision in Lawrence,
I hadn't given it much thought. Homosexuality is what it is.
or the repeal of DADT?
I thought Clinton was playing politics with that. Strange that a man who never served, and with all other other issues facing the country at that time, he chose that issue. Personally, I was concerned of the impact it could have on military impact, and morale of the troops in the field.
Maybe THOSE will one day precipitate polygamy, and should have been denied on those grounds. We could deny ANY right, if we're worried about who else may want it in the future.
No right is being denied, every man and woman has the same right to marry, as marriage is defined. U seek a right based on your redefinition of marriage. So why can't the same reasoning be applied to polygamy? Their right to marry is based on heir definition of marriage. Everybody gets to define it, and the state just rubber stamps it, right?
Parson Browne

Delaware, OH

#5135 Jun 29, 2013
homosexuality is a disgusting perverted sin
its no wonder gays are condemned to the pit
but they can be redeemed if they confess their sins and turn around from their filth
KingsloveQueens

Sunnyvale, CA

#5136 Jun 29, 2013
Parson Browne wrote:
homosexuality is a disgusting perverted sin
its no wonder gays are condemned to the pit
but they can be redeemed if they confess their sins and turn around from their filth
God loves the person not the sin ..C/S with your statement above (= nice to know we have normal people with values and morals and the love of God still in existance..

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 8 hr Eagle 12 64
News Barbara Bush (Feb '11) 9 hr Barbara P Bush 7
News Backpedaling on same sex marriage? What did the... 20 hr Elizabeth1912 1
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) Feb 24 Rainbow Kid 36,049
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) Feb 23 Shiralee 5,286
News Muslim cleric tells Australians: 'Husbands shou... (Jan '09) Feb 23 Rabbeen Al Jihad 65
News OK divorce bill passes committee vote Feb 22 wontyoumarrymebill 1
More from around the web