Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

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

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Comments
4,881 - 4,900 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5113
Jun 28, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thank you for the answer. My point is that there are always going to be exceptions, and yes I agree the situation would have to outside the parameters of what the "reasonable person" would find unacceptable prejudice.
There aren't exceptions, just choices not covered. The law protects on the basis of your choice of religious beliefs, but not other deeply held beliefs. Being a Neo-Nazi or in the KKK does not meet the standard of having a religious belief and thus not protected. When the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, denying someone services based on the fact that you do not approve of what they are doing with it, i.e. getting married, is going to get your butt in trouble every time. If your ONLY qualification for providing services to any given wedding is that they be of the opposite sex, you've pretty well screwed yourself and pretty much undercut any claim of religious liberty, because you ain't flocking over anyone else not marrying according to your beliefs.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5114
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Should have blacks let the free market handle things, and stopped their sit-ins?
nope, they were protesting against existing laws that prevented the free market from handling it.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5115
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You're kidding, right? Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964!
<quoted text>
...
well, well, the civil rights act.

"Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:"

"Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 barred unequal application of voter registration requirements...."[doesn't apply]

"Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This particular provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in motels, hotels, theatres, restaurants and all other public accommodations which were engaged in interstate commerce."

can you show that the florist was engaged in interstate business?

"Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Outlawed state and municipal governments from barring access to public facilities based off an individualís religion, gender, race, or ethnicity."

seems that the law is based on "an individualís religion, gender, race, or ethnicity." lifestyle choices like ssm are not covered.

"Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Provision that discouraged the desegregation of public schools..." [doesn't apply]

"Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prevented discrimination by government agencies who received federal funds...." {doesn't apply}

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This fundamental provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination by employers on the basis of color, race, sex, national origin, or religion." again we were talking about a business transaction and ssm does not seem to be covered by "color, race, sex, national origin, or religion."
- See more at: http://civil.laws.com/civil-rights-act-of-196...

titles 8-11 don't apply either.

so once again, who decided that all commerce must be carried out without discrimination? commerce discriminates all the time.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5116
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
...
<quoted text>
Well, we can't make people move here. The Hispanics are starting to move in, though. And there's a very large (for New Hampshire) influx of Muslims in Manchester.
<quoted text>
...
good luck with your interpretation of equal opportunity and equal protection.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5117
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5118
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5119
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5120
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5125
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5126
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5127
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5128
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5129
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5130
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5131
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5132
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••