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 (Page 299)

Showing posts 5,961 - 5,980 of17,538
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6404
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

barry wrote:
<quoted text>so since she would decline to contract for any ss wedding reception how is that a violation of "equal protection"?
It's not. It is a violation of the state anti-discrimination law. If you weren't an idiot, you would have caught that.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Again, the jury didn't seem to buy the story, George "pick[ed} fights", I think they saw him more as a neighborhood watchman. Certainly, you have the right to protect your property and watching intruders isn't the same thing as picking a fight.
The jury seemed to believe Tray was the aggressor, based on the physical evidence. George's head was bashed against the street but Tray only had two wounds, bruised knuckles and a bullet hole.
Do try to quit being such a bigoted, off topic, clueless twit.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6405
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

The AssTroll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
You're one stupid Queer.
Replace the first two words with "I am", and delete the last word (on second thought, maybe not) and you are spot on.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6407
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no "couple's right" to marry. It's an individual right. The right to marry, is the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship. In thirty plus states that relationship is defined as the union of husband and wife.
So, an INDIVIDUAL Gay man should have the right to marry another INDIVIDUAL Gay man of his choosing.....is that better for ya, Pete?

Well, it may be that way now......it might not be that way over the next couple of years:-)

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6408
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

The AssTroll Stopper wrote:
What's up AssTroll, you pathetic piece of Sh!t. Had your daily d!ck up your a:ss this morning?
You're so curious about everyone's sex practices! Why not just TRY it already and get it out of your system? No one even needs to know.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6409
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's just defamation; can't you do better than calling political opponents, "stupid people"?
OK. How about willful liars? You do know that NOM spreads known lies, don't you?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6410
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no "couple's right" to marry. It's an individual right. The right to marry, is the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship. In thirty plus states that relationship is defined as the union of husband and wife.
...soon to be overturned....

Continue your whining.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6411
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The bottom line, Tray got in a fist fight and George got in a gun fight; George won. The police instructions are meaningless, you have the right to watch your neighborhood. I recommend you carry a gun like George, so you don't get beat to death.
I don't remember hearing the NRA telling black teenagers to arm themselves against neighborhood goofballs.

P.S. Tray's father LIVED IN THAT GATED COMMUNITY.
Pietro Armando

Medford, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6412
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
So, an INDIVIDUAL Gay man should have the right to marry another INDIVIDUAL Gay man of his choosing.....is that better for ya, Pete?
Let's not forget the lesbians!:)

The point is in order to legally marry, marriage must first be legally defined. An individual enters into the relationship legally recognized by law. Thus in 30 plus states, to marry, means to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Well, it may be that way now......it might not be that way over the next couple of years:-)
Perhaps not.....perhaps over the course of the next decade or two, marriage as we know it, may cease to exist. Where is the line drawn again?
Pietro Armando

Medford, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6413
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
...soon to be overturned....
Marriage as a legal union with boundaries? Any legal significance beyond a contract?
Continue your whining.
Yet the rainbow crowd cries "foul" when polygamy is mentioned.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6414
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's not forget the lesbians!:)
The point is in order to legally marry, marriage must first be legally defined. An individual enters into the relationship legally recognized by law. Thus in 30 plus states, to marry, means to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
<quoted text>
Perhaps not.....perhaps over the course of the next decade or two, marriage as we know it, may cease to exist. Where is the line drawn again?
Marriage WON'T cease to exist.......just your image of it as being only conjugal and only between a man and a woman.

Yes, in 30 states or 31, or 35 depending on who you opt to listen to, but there are currently 9 states that in the next year or so will probably get closer to granting the right to marry for Gay and Lesbian couples......but that's something you can't handle....so, why are you here repeating yourself daily?
Pietro Armando

Medford, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6415
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage WON'T cease to exist.......just your image of it as being only conjugal and only between a man and a woman.
Where, Nor Cal, is the line drawn?
Yes, in 30 states or 31, or 35 depending on who you opt to listen to, but there are currently 9 states that in the next year or so will probably get closer to granting the right to marry for Gay and Lesbian couples...
Those nine states have opted to replace marriage conjugality, the union of husband and wife, with the Orwellian sounding phrase, "marriage equality", with no answer as to where the line ends.
...but that's something you can't handle....
More like, the nation as a whole.
so, why are you here repeating yourself daily?
I ask u the same, if not to banter with me. Ciao.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6416
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Where, Nor Cal, is the line drawn?
<quoted text>
Those nine states have opted to replace marriage conjugality, the union of husband and wife, with the Orwellian sounding phrase, "marriage equality", with no answer as to where the line ends.
<quoted text>
More like, the nation as a whole.
<quoted text>
I ask u the same, if not to banter with me. Ciao.
There are currently 13 States and DC......and the line is drawn at currently 2 consenting adults.........now, if family wants to marry.....then they MUST petition the States to remove the "NOT BE RELATED BY BLOOD" from their requirements and IF 3 or more want to marry.....then they MUST fight to decriminalize polygamy and then fight for the right to marry.......neither concern me nor affect my marriage.......I'm secure in my marriage.....why aren't you?

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6417
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

nhjeff wrote:
Good boy, Brian! You're following the script laid out by the gun manufacturers: more half-cocked George Zimmermans shooting their guns at innocent youths will cause more innocent youths to want guns to protect themselves. Of course, everyone will stand their ground until no one is left standing. Then Everyone else will hear about gun fights in the streets and need their own firearms to protect themselves. The more people who own guns, the more shootings. The more shootings, the more people need guns to protect themselves.
If you, like Brian, have neither common sense nor morals, buy stock in gun manufacturers instead of a gun. Hen huddle in your house while you watch the carnage on the TV news and your profits rise.
After reading the autopsy report, or just looking at the pictures of George's bashed head; I don't think you can characterize Tray as 'innocent'. He wasn't innocent of assault and battery. Why do you think Tray hit George?

The left tried to make this a racial dispute but the jury didn't buy that argument. The issue is our homeowner's right to defend our property.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6418
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Issa vows IRS hearing will show DC involvement in Tea Party targeting
By Bernie Becker - 07/18/13 11:42 AM ET

Claims that the IRS controversy can be blamed on staffers in a Cincinnati office are "absurd," House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Thursday.
Issa said Thursday's hearing on the IRS controversy would definitively show that Washington officials were deeply involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.
He faulted the White House for casting blame on the Cincinnati staffers, saying that claim would be “debunked” at the hearing, where Elizabeth Hofacre, an Ohio-based staffer who dealt with tax-exempt applications, and Carter Hull, a D.C.-based tax law specialist, are testifying.
“Washington made a catastrophic mistake” in dealing with the Tea Party applications, Issa said....
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domesti...
Some Never Came Home

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6419
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Brian_G wrote:
Issa vows IRS hearing will show DC involvement in Tea Party targeting
By Bernie Becker - 07/18/13 11:42 AM ET
Claims that the IRS controversy can be blamed on staffers in a Cincinnati office are "absurd," House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Thursday.
Issa said Thursday's hearing on the IRS controversy would definitively show that Washington officials were deeply involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.
He faulted the White House for casting blame on the Cincinnati staffers, saying that claim would be “debunked” at the hearing, where Elizabeth Hofacre, an Ohio-based staffer who dealt with tax-exempt applications, and Carter Hull, a D.C.-based tax law specialist, are testifying.
“Washington made a catastrophic mistake” in dealing with the Tea Party applications, Issa said....
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domesti...
And pray tell us bumper sticker boy,what the hell does that have to do with the topic of this thread? How about you get on topic or STFU,and move along now! I mean are you ever on topic? NO!

“"ENOUGH"”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6420
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no "couple's right" to marry. It's an individual right. The right to marry, is the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship. In thirty plus states that relationship is defined as the union of husband and wife.
Basta! Basta! Basta! ;)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6421
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

BASTA wrote:
<quoted text>
Basta! Basta! Basta! ;)
Pasta! Pasta! Pasta! ;)

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6422
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
Issa vows IRS hearing will show DC involvement in Tea Party targeting
By Bernie Becker - 07/18/13 11:42 AM ET
Claims that the IRS controversy can be blamed on staffers in a Cincinnati office are "absurd," House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Thursday.
Issa said Thursday's hearing on the IRS controversy would definitively show that Washington officials were deeply involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.
He faulted the White House for casting blame on the Cincinnati staffers, saying that claim would be “debunked” at the hearing, where Elizabeth Hofacre, an Ohio-based staffer who dealt with tax-exempt applications, and Carter Hull, a D.C.-based tax law specialist, are testifying.
“Washington made a catastrophic mistake” in dealing with the Tea Party applications, Issa said....
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domesti...
Funny, when one reads the transcripts of the hearing, Issa comes off as the disingenuous liar that he is. Only an absolute moron would believe his unfounded ramblings. Then again, only an absolute moron would continually post such irrelevant drivel on a thread where it has no relevance.

Do you know what Brian? You are an absolute moron. I decided to go with the direct approach, because I think you lack the mental capacity to infer the obvious.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-19...

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6423
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
Issa vows IRS hearing will show DC involvement in Tea Party targeting
By Bernie Becker - 07/18/13 11:42 AM ET
Claims that the IRS controversy can be blamed on staffers in a Cincinnati office are "absurd," House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Thursday.
Issa said Thursday's hearing on the IRS controversy would definitively show that Washington officials were deeply involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.
He faulted the White House for casting blame on the Cincinnati staffers, saying that claim would be “debunked” at the hearing, where Elizabeth Hofacre, an Ohio-based staffer who dealt with tax-exempt applications, and Carter Hull, a D.C.-based tax law specialist, are testifying.
“Washington made a catastrophic mistake” in dealing with the Tea Party applications, Issa said....
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domesti...
Do get back to us on this topic, if ever they come up with any PROOF. So far they don't have any.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6424
Jul 24, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some criteria on which discrimination is not only permissible but required by common sense.
It is not discriminatory to refuse to hire a high school drop out (with no subsequent qualifying accomplishments) as a college professor. It is not discriminatory for a basketball team to refuse to hire someone who can't make a layup.
But many forms of discrimination--religion, ethnicity, physical challenges, etc.--are prohibited. Under Washington law, sexual orientation discrimination is also prohibited.
Sorry businessmen are not free to do whatever they want in their businesses. But we made the decision to regulate business practices long long ago. Your denial doesn't change anything. Except it makes you look foolish.
there was no discrimination based on sexual orientation. this person was an established customer who had done business with the florist before.
the event is what is in question. no discrimination involved.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 5,961 - 5,980 of17,538
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••