Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17560 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.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6553 Jul 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Wastey
Honestly, why do u, or any other SSMers care if polygamy or incest is legalized?
Many of us DON'T care if that happens. Haven't you caught on to that yet? Many of us would CHEER if they got that right. Indeed, who SHOULD be getting their panties in a bunch over OTHER PEOPLE'S relationships? No one, that's who.

But you haven't been asking WHETHER those relationships should be legalized (at least not that I've seen). You've been asking why they shouldn't be immediately legalized WITH same-sex marriage. That's a different question.

For THAT question, we've been giving you answers. Answers like: Because they're separate issues. Because they have unique obstacles that need to be addressed first. Because they make changes to the finer points of marriage law, which same-sex marriages do not. Because there is no national push to address the matters, not on the scale of gay rights. Because they have well-documented histories of (patriarchal) abuse. Because people aren't born with the propensities to ONLY love multiple people at a time, or to ONLY love relatives.

Some of these reasons may be adapted, or directly applied, to arguments against polygamy and incest. But they all recognize the need to view these issues individually, taking separate steps to address their separate aspects.

This doesn't mean we care that polygamy and incest not be legalized. It means we care enough to be methodical, thorough and fair about all these issues, rather than suggest they all be crammed into a legal blender, in hopes that one solution pours out for all of them.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6554 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This lady wasn't asked to change her convictions in any way. She was asked to do her job. She was free to keep her "religious" convictions the entire time she made and set the arrangements.
she was asked to have a part in the celebration of their "wedding". she declined because of her religious convictions. what you really want her to do is be forced to have a part in and celebrate your religious convictions.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6555 Jul 26, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
no, i am not "guessing". if she'd have agreed to provide flowers for the wedding ceremony, the case wouldn't have been filed. if she'd have given another reason for not providing a service or flowers for the wedding, the case wouldn't have been filed.
she set the precedent of choosing to do business with the couple in prior transactions. so how is it that she can claim that homosexuality is against her relgious belief and then not perform another transaction with the same couple? either she is religiously offended by it or not.
money is money. period. end of story. apparantly she doesn't have that much use for is as she refused a job, so let her pay up if she doesn't need money in the first place.
you can't pick and choose your customers once you open your doors for business. your customers pick you or they don't. if you're in the business, i'd presume you're in it to make a profit. money is apolitical. it has no gender. it has no political party.
her having no problem with doing business with them in the past demonstrates that she does not have a problem with homosexuals. however when they want to publicly announce and celebrate their immorality [as her religious convictions hold] she does not want any part of that. she made no attempt yo stop them from getting "married" nor did she publicly protest the event. they are the ones making a public issue out of it.
and i pick and choose my customers all the time. the moment i can't will be the moment i retire. every private business to some extent picks and chooses their customers.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6556 Jul 26, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I just wanted to answer your question about whether or not she was making "a lot" of money from her flowers.
<quoted text>
...
you still have no knowledge of what you are talking about. some small businesses are just hobbies and don't really make enough money to live off of.
so you haven't answered anything.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6557 Jul 26, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
If Olson's answer was inadequate, one wonders why the case was won.
It didn't fully address the question.
But in MY humble opinion, marriage is the legal recognition of the mutually-protective bond formed by two unrelated adults who have chosen each other as life partners. We restrict it to two, because any more dilutes the bond that one person can have for another, complicating the nature of the relationship so severly that the benefits of marriage cannot be consistently, or even properly, applied. We restrict it from family, as marriage CREATES a familial bond, and ascribes many rights which family members already have.
Thank you for that humble opinion. The reason, or least the primary one one, restricted to two, is because, despite the practice of polygamy througought history, it has been viewed in this country, at least in the 19th century, as "barbaric", "uncivilized", and "unChristian". That moral view has carried to the present day, although to a lesser extent. Now that SSM is legal, and homosexuality is viewed as "morally acceptable", at least more so than 20-30 years ago, polygamy has gained, albeit slowly, greater moral acceptance too, in my humble opinion. What's the major difference in terms of morality, between a man who fathers several children out of wedlock with several differs women, and either doesn't support his children in any way, or offers limited support, and a man who does the same but views the women as his wives, they view him as their husband, and he is supportive of bis children? So the former is acceptable, but the latter, taboo?
Hopefully I don't need to explain why we restrict it to adults, or humans, or the living, or whatever other bizarro "slippery slope" relationships that some people fear.
No not necessary. Marriage is an consenting adult relationship. No animals need apply.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6558 Jul 26, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
....
<quoted text>
It was the handiest info I was able to find on short notice. Where are YOUR statistics to counter any of it?
<quoted text>
Not at all. Religion is probably the number one excuse people give when they want a "reason" to discriminate and treat people who are different as untouchable outsiders.
<quoted text>
Wow, that's pretty reprehensible. Nepotism much?
<quoted text>
If you "do the same for anyone", then there was no reason to mention that you give discounts to people associated with your church. Either you give your fellow church-goers special treatment, or you treat all customers the same. Which is it?
<quoted text>
Not really sure what that has to do with public merchants treating various customers with various levels of discrimination.
<quoted text>
That still doesn't seem related to the issue of treating particular people as pariahs, even when they're law-abiding citizens.
Why is it that religion, which it seems SHOULD be a unifying force of compassion and community, instead only divides people into insular groups who look down on others? Why should a person's supernatural beliefs give them license to treat their fellow citizens as if we lived in a caste system? Why should religious people even WANT to treat people like this?
Maybe I have the wrong idea about religion, but it seems that religion should drive people to seek out ways to help their fellow humans whenever they can, instead of seeking out legal loopholes to shun them. Do religious people simply ask themselves "Who would Jesus refuse service to"? Shouldn't religion make people BETTER, by encouraging outreach and bridge-building, instead of making people WORSE through ostracization and xenophobia?
There's nothing to be proud of in figuring out who you can label as an "outsider".
the handiest info that lacked everything pertainable to the case:
what were the cost of the materials and flowers involed to make the arrangements?
what was the cost of labor involved to make, deliver and set up the arrangements?
how much would she actually charge for the service and what percentage of profit does she expect to make?
your statistics really add nothing too the conversation as we don't know how they would apply to her.

barry wrote:
i generally give discounts to people associated with my church.
Wow, that's pretty reprehensible.

your reponse: Nepotism much?
barry wrote:
but i do the same for anyone who appears to be an upstanding citizen that is well respected in their community if i get the sense that perhaps they can't afford to pay the going rate as in widows.

"nepotism" is show favor to family relatives.
well i guess those in my church are like my family. a really big family.
however you asked:
"If you "do the same for anyone", then there was no reason to mention that you give discounts to people associated with your church. Either you give your fellow church-goers special treatment, or you treat all customers the same. Which is it?"
i don't "do the same for anyone" i do the same for anyone who for circumstances beyond their control can't afford the going rate and who appear to be well respected in their community; like widows and senior citizens.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6559 Jul 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>she was asked to have a part in the celebration of their "wedding".
She was asked to make flower arrangement. She was not asked to celebrate. And your apostrophe's are dismissed as the childishness they are.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she declined because of her religious convictions.
She declined because the participants were gay. That's against the law in Washington. Her religious convictions do not place her above the law.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
what you really want her to do is be forced to have a part in and celebrate your religious convictions.
I don't want that bitch to do anything. Please stop inserting me into it, it's childish.

What the couple wanted was for her to make flower arrangements and place them in the church, just as she had done for other weddings in the past. No one was "forcing" her to do anything. And at NO TIME was she asked to "celebrate" or change her own religious convictions. But rather than do her job, she went out of her way to publically shit on the couple's event and then cry foul and invoke the tired "Christian persecution" routine when she was called on it. It's the same tired routing that YOU perpetuate with your propagandist "forcing", "slave", etc. No one feels sorry for bigots.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6560 Jul 26, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
barry, you continue to show us just how blindly ignorant you choose to remain, despite all of our attempts to educate - even to the point of showing you the state's statute that explicetly says you can't discriminate because of gender preference.
but, please, do keep it up, particularly in your own business - we'll be reading about cases brought against you soon enough, if you continue your practices.
good luck. and your attoney's going be a very wealthy person.
so let's look at the law again.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx...
a] is employment n/a
b] concerns facilities n/a
c] is real estate n/a
d] is credit transactions n/a
e] is insurance transactions n/a
g] is breast feeding n/a

f] is as close as you come to having an argument.
it says:
"The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws..."

so it really does not apply. there is no "formation or execution of any express or implied agreement". this is her choice all by her self. she is not participating in any boycott or agreements that affect this case.

and then section 2 limits the suit to "actual damages sustained by the person..." and "reasonable attorneys' fees".

so just what were the actual damages sustained by this couple? they still got married i would assume and i'm sure another florist provided flowers.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6561 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
She was asked to make flower arrangement. She was not asked to celebrate. And your apostrophe's are dismissed as the childishness they are.
<quoted text>
She declined because the participants were gay. That's against the law in Washington. Her religious convictions do not place her above the law.
<quoted text>
I don't want that bitch to do anything. Please stop inserting me into it, it's childish.
What the couple wanted was for her to make flower arrangements and place them in the church, just as she had done for other weddings in the past. No one was "forcing" her to do anything. And at NO TIME was she asked to "celebrate" or change her own religious convictions. But rather than do her job, she went out of her way to publically shit on the couple's event and then cry foul and invoke the tired "Christian persecution" routine when she was called on it. It's the same tired routing that YOU perpetuate with your propagandist "forcing", "slave", etc. No one feels sorry for bigots.
they're not "apostrophe's" they are "quotes" as in this "quote unquote" wedding.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6562 Jul 26, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
this sticks out, barry.
the state of washington in it's statute that was enacted in 2009, well before it allowed same sex marriage, clearly stated that homosexuality was protected from discrimination. so now you understand that homosexuality is not "chosen". well well well. folks, his eyes are opening here to reality, eh?
but the "wedding" ceremony is. try to understand what is being discussed.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6563 Jul 26, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
1. zimmerman was found "not guilty" not "innocent" - there's a huge difference between the two.
2. if you look closely at the photos of the back of zimmerman's head, you'll see those wounds. every single one of those cuts had clean, or crisp edges - not ragged edges as would occur when having your head pounded. pounding flesh "explodes" flesh and creates ragged edges. kind of suspicious.
3. when the police arrived on the scene and later in martin's body examination, they found no blood on his hands. and that was the testimony of the police. also, again, kind of suspicious. if martin's wounds on his knuckles would've occurred as zimmerman claimed, then martin would've had blood on his knuckles.
that was all hashed out in the trial. apparently no one agrees with you.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6564 Jul 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So why didn't the Honorable Justice Kennedy, and the other members of the gang of five, impose SSM nationwide? Seems contradictory to their belief to allow all those state constitutional amendments stand.
Because YOU and idiots like you would be screaming bloody murder is my guess.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6565 Jul 26, 2013
Some Never Came Home wrote:
<quoted text>
But the bottom line remains as well as the fact that the police instructed him to cease and desist and NOT to follow him! Travon was going to visit his father and had every right to be there! Zimmerman should have taken the orders he was given and no one loses their life! You really don't know what exactly happened,Zimmerman could have gone up to him with his gun pointed at Travon and he simply felt he had to defend himself! Get off your high horse and try again bigot!
the bottom line is they never said that. you are misquoting them. not even close.
and the evidence shows as testimony indicates, gz did not have his gun drawn.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6566 Jul 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they all "impact" couples and families? Would presumption of paternity be legally impactful?
<quoted text>
As in husband and wife. Wastey, you have yet to offer a reason why children whose bio mom and dad are plural marriage practitioners, should get the same protections you seek for children "of" SSCs. No matter how much you try, no matter how long you hold your breath, you can't keep the "marriage equality" train from going off on a different track. Movements don't always proceed along the path the founders intended.
I think SCOTUS realizes that 3 is greater than 2. That would be GREATER protection, not equal protection. What's to keep someone from marrying 500 different people and making claims for benefits against each marriage? Do you guys even know how to think?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6567 Jul 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>they're not "apostrophe's" they are "quotes" as in this "quote unquote" wedding.
They are still dismissed as childish. Good to see you're still on the semantics wagon though. One of the best indicators of how desperate one is.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6568 Jul 26, 2013
Some Never Came Home wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry,I already carry a gun and have as a cop for 35 years! Zimmerman should have listened to the instructions from the cops and as I stated previously no one would have died! He stalked the kid and then shot him! Again stupid,you weren't there and don't have a clue as to what actually took place! Who knows maybe I'll see you walking somewhere minding your own business and I'll maybe stalk you and murder you,you know stand your own ground? That law in fact needs to be repealed! It's one thing to defend your own home but it's another to stalk someone because you're suspicious and then not expect what could happen! Travon had every right to be where he was! In most states Zimmerman is in prison for decades,where he should be now! Sorry but I've got a little more experience in these matters and you are a rank amateur!
then at least stop lying to us about what the police said to gz.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6569 Jul 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
(Smiling, chucking, and shaking head). Ya know Wastey...you seem all right...you advocate for what u believe in, and although I disagree, I can respect that. However, we both know, the poly people are still there, they ain't going away.
http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-po...
It’s been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something.
You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.
The left is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling. Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of “fundamental rights” and equal protection. Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Because it’s so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification. The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.
What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion.
When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
blah,blah,blah,blah blah

This has NOTHING to do with polygamy. JESUS TAP-DANCING CHRIST!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6570 Jul 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>but the "wedding" ceremony is. try to understand what is being discussed.
We're discussing a florist that thinks her radical religious agenda supersedes the law. No one has forgotten.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6571 Jul 26, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Because YOU and idiots like you would be screaming bloody murder is my guess.
Oh gee that makes sense. Thanks Rosie.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#6572 Jul 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Zimmerman lived elsewhere. So he could not have been defending his neighborhood.
2. Zimmerman had no authority to stalk people for any reason what-so ever. He was not hired by anyone in the neighborhood to do so.
3. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon who stood his ground. If not for Zimmerman's previous actions, none of this would have taken place.
oops your facts start out wrong.

"The Retreat at Twin Lakes is a 260-unit gated townhome community in Sanford, Florida.[60][61] The population in the development, at the time of the shooting, was about 49% non-Hispanic white, 23% Hispanic (of any race), 20% black, and 5% Asian, according to Census figures.[47] Both George Zimmerman and Tracy Martin's fiancée were renting homes in the development when the shooting occurred.[24] At the time of the shooting, Martin had been staying with his father's fiancee at The Retreat.[23]"

and they just keep on going wrong.

"In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.[4][4][63]"

so it is only natural that your conclusion would be wrong.

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 Romantic Honeymoon Hotels When You're on a Budget 53 min JANE 1
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 7 hr Belles Echoes 35,235
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 11 hr WasteWater 505
News JP's refusal to perform same-sex marriage draws... 11 hr Lawrence Wolf 5
News Please sign our petition against heterosexual d... (Feb '09) 13 hr Vicente Fox 125
News 'Hindu girl forced to convert to Islam' (Apr '10) 18 hr JOSH 537
News Meet The "Real Housewives Of Miami" (Feb '11) 22 hr Cape Coral Real E... 10
More from around the web