Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12012 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so then you agree with my point that by california law a man can now be recognized as a lesbian.
that was my point that you or your friends called ridiculous.
There is NO California law that says a man can be a lesbian. Jesus tap-dancing Christ.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12013 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"In December of 1869, an organization was formed under the name,“The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” The following year, a charter was obtained from the New Jersey State Legislature that set this land aside as a place for the perpetual worship of Jesus Christ."
"The OGCMA has adopted the Apostles' Creed as its Statement of Faith.
I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen."
"By charter, all trustees must be members of the United Methodist Church. At least ten of these members must be clergy and at least ten must be non-clergy. There are also Associate Trustees which may belong to any Christian denomination."
sure sounds to me that they are run by a church.
and just because it was rented to "non-Christians" in the past does not mean that it was rented for activities that the church would be morally against.
now who is being dishonest here?
You are.

The Camp Meeting Association agreed to using the pavilion as a public place in exchange for a tax abatement.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#12014 Oct 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Law? WTF???
Research it for yourself. It's a pavilion on the boardwalk in Ocean Grove. The organization that owns the property was given a tax exempt status by the State in exchange for equal public access. By refusing the gay couple, it violated it's agreement with the State and lost its tax exempt status.
You are such an asshole. If they dipped you in Preparation H you would disappear altogether.
they decided to not file for tax exemption on the pavilion. all other property is still tax exempt. they have stopped performing weddings there. no more discrimination.
you might do some research before you make such strong claims.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12015 Oct 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee......black men marrying white women over a hundred years prior to the Virginia ban.....who would've thunk it!?
Was it SCOTUS, no it wasn't.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12016 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>hey x-breath, explain what is nonsense. or is it too complicated for you?
Here's the nonsense:

<quoted text>i believe that sex had nothing to do with it. i think that you meant to say sexual orientation.
that being said, you can not prove that sexual orientation had anything to do with her refusal to have any part of their ss wedding. because of the latest SC ruling on ssm in california you must recognize that two heterosexual men could form a union that by washington law could be recognized as a legal marriage and yet have nothing to do with homosexuality. you would have to prove that she would service that event before you can claim any type of discrimination.
so the law you posted deals with and protects classes of people it does not protect events that may be traditionally associated with one class of people.
so there is no discrimination here that i need to defend. it would be up to you to prove that she discriminated against an unprotected event solely on their homosexuality.

What did you do with the money your Mom gave you for Law School?... drink it all up?

Events aren't protected, PEOPLE are.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12017 Oct 30, 2013
Oh and another point, WHAT Supreme Court 'ruling' on SSM in California?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12018 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>they decided to not file for tax exemption on the pavilion. all other property is still tax exempt. they have stopped performing weddings there. no more discrimination.
you might do some research before you make such strong claims.
They had their exemption REVOKED by the State.

You might do some research BEFORE you make such silly claims.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12019 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>and in the course of what i have been discussing here, the florist in question has/had been treating her homosexual customer as an equal and equally as all her other customers. she was never judgmental of her customer.
She did not treat them equally. She had made floral arrangements for weddings in the past, but refused to make floral arrangements for the gay couple's wedding. That is not treating them equally, that is discriminating. And she most certainly was judgemental. She judged their relationship, and she judged their commitment to one another. She's a bigot.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12020 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so what does the photographer declining to shoot a ssw have to do with marriage equality. religiously speaking and marriage equality speaking they were still free to marry and they were free to find another photographer. they were also free to tell all their friends about how evil and awful the photographer was.
however the photographer apparently had no religious freedom.
Apparently you are trying to think you have more knowledge than the Lawyers do.....maybe she should hire you!!!

The photographer has a PUBLIC business......and regardless of her religious beliefs is required to provide such service......she refused and has lost every case as will the florist in Washington.....don't like it, then file a brief with the court on her behalf......I'm certain it will not help......besides, how do you know that the florist knew her customer's sexual orientation prior to him asking her to provide flowers for his wedding? All that has been mentioned was that he was a long standing customer of her's......he also might not have known she was an Evangelistic Fundamentalist until that moment in time......either way, she denied him a PUBLIC service based on her religious beliefs against his sexual orientation!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12021 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
this was the original conversation. so let's stick to the original point instead if trying to shift away from it.
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Homosexuality isn't a "practice" barry, it's a characteristic. One can't "practice" homosexuality.
"Gee, for someone that discusses what an expert he is on the subject, you sure do say a lot of stupid things about it."
and my response was;
"excuse me. if a homosexual man was to be celibate would he not then, not be "practicing" homosexuality?"
Yes, you did say that. And as I corrected you before, and will correct you again, if one is celibate, it is "sex" they are not practicing. Sex and homosexuality are not the same thing. Sex is an act, homosexuality isn't.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you were the one who claimed that "One can't "practice" homosexuality." but obviously they can or they can choose not to.
They can choose not to "practice" sex. They will still be homosexual. It will still be the same gender that they are innately attracted to, both romantically and physically, regardless of whether they act on it and have sex.

But please, don't let facts get in the way of your fictional understanding of what a sexual orientation is.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12022 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i believe that sex had nothing to do with it. i think that you meant to say sexual orientation.
No Barry, what I meant to say was sex. Sex is the noun that the law uses to represent gender. And it was because of the gender of the participants that you bigot florist refused her services.

As I've noted before, I'm fully capable of stating what I mean, I don't need you to offer up what you "think" I meant.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
that being said, you can not prove that sexual orientation had anything to do with her refusal to have any part of their ss wedding. because of the latest SC ruling on ssm in california you must recognize that two heterosexual men could form a union that by washington law could be recognized as a legal marriage and yet have nothing to do with homosexuality. you would have to prove that she would service that event before you can claim any type of discrimination.
Well, since I didn't state sexual orientation was the reason, but instead noted that her reason was the gender make up of the couple, her bigotry would apply in both scenerios. And she would still be breaking the law.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so the law you posted deals with and protects classes of people it does not protect events that may be traditionally associated with one class of people.
She has serviced weddings in the past, so it was not the event that she was refusing to service. The event didn't try to employ her. She refused this wedding because of the gender of the participants. She broke the law. And the fact that you continue to try and exonerate her says much about your character.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so there is no discrimination here that i need to defend.
I love that you acknowledge that you would defend discrimination. Says a lot.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
it would be up to you to prove that she discriminated against an unprotected event solely on their homosexuality.
No, it isn't up to me. It's up to the court. And she didn't discriminate against an event. An event wasn't employing her. A couple was employing her. A couple she felt shouldn't marry because their gender make up. Unfortunately for her, gender is protected from discrimination in Washington.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#12023 Oct 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
They had their exemption REVOKED by the State.
You might do some research BEFORE you make such silly claims.
Either way, they win.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12024 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you make at best a weak point. the physical danger is not the same and really when was the last time that you heard of a lesbian "raping" another girl in a lesbian manner?
LOL!!!! Oh Barry, do tell. What is "a lesbian manner"? LOL!!! Damn!! If rape occurred in a "lesbian manner" would it be illegitimate rape or legitimate rape??!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12025 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so then you agree with my point that by california law a man can now be recognized as a lesbian.
that was my point that you or your friends called ridiculous.
We call it ridiculous because you are calling a woman a man. We also call it ridiculous because like all fundies, you spend wwwaaaaaaayyyyyyy to much time making up ridiculous scenerios that haven't occurred and don't affect you in any way. Glad I could clear that up for you.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12026 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
the fact that you want a physical boy at the High school level to be able to play on the girl's soccer team just because he says he identifies himself as a girl is really stupid and dangerous for those other girls.
No, what's stupid is when you intentionally say things like "he says he identifies himself as a girl" as if one would say that on a whim and without conviction. Of course, this is probably because you are stupid enough to think there will be gaggles of young boys that will risk enduring the taunts and teasing of their peers just so they can lie about such a thing in order to get some "special" treatment.

But since you made the point, please do support it. Outline the "dangers" specifically for us.
barry wrote:
the fact that you think that a physical girl should be able to play on the boy's soccer team because she claims to identify as a boy is really not an issue.
"claims" to identify!!!! Your intentional rhetoric is insulting.

So, let me see if I get this right. Physical girl on boy's team is not an issue, but physical boy on a girl's team is fraught with danger!!!
barry wrote:
i've always said that if she can make it and compete, have at it. it is already permitted all around the country if no girl's team exists regardless of any sexual identity issues.
And when these permissions were made all around the country, fundies like you were raising holy hell at how this would "confuse" children, and how it would be dangerous!!!! See the pattern dear?
barry wrote:
the physical danger issue takes care of it's self by her not being able to out perform the others and not make the team.
Apparantly in your world, little boys are all on steroids.
barry wrote:
the fact that you want to physically mix the naked bodies of elementary school kids while they are still in their developmental stage both physically, emotionally, mentally and according to you sexually is way beyond irresponsible.
You are the only one concerned with and discussing the naked bodies of children. That's sort of creepy actually.
barry wrote:
not even to mention those high schoolers in the hormonal development.
Gays have been mixed with straight kids for years in their hormonal development. Both naked and clothed. And the world continues turning just fine. You see dear, unlike fundies, the gays and the trannies have self control. We don't need a lot of fancy rules established for us by Sky Santas in order to keep ourselves in check.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12027 Oct 30, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Either way, they win.
However they DIDN'T win......they lost....now they have stopped allowing the Pavilion to be used by the PUBLIC in general!!!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12028 Oct 30, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Either way, they win.
The State wins, that's for sure. Imagine the taxes on beachfront property...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12029 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so if there is no "homosexual activity" then how do we know that one is or might be homosexual? or how do we Know if they are heterosexual? or if they are bi-sexual?
Damn you are slow. One knows if one is homosexual by what one "feels" not by what one "does". Who do we establish crushes on? Who do we want to make out with? What arouses us.

Do you need me to get out some crayons and draw you pictures? Honestly, what freaking difference does it make to you how one knows that are gay? What does it have to do with you? Oh, that's right, absolutely nothing.
barry wrote:
so you then go on to list a lot of common activities that people all around the world might participate in but you seem to want to deny that some people choose only to have sex with the opposite sex and others only choose to have sex with the same sex while still others with both.
I denied no such thing. Honestly, your comprehension skills are nearly non-existent. What I stated was a correction of you use of the term "homosexual activity" since there are no activities that only gays do. Activities don't have a sexual orientation.
barry wrote:
now the labels identifying them exist and basically it is based on their choice of a particular type of sexual partner. you can deny "homosexual activity" exists all you want but even our laws are based on the concept.
Really? Present one.
barry wrote:
"1.not familiar; not acquainted with or conversant about: to be unfamiliar with a subject.
2. different; unaccustomed; unusual; strange: an unfamiliar treat.
Nothing about unfamiliar implies lack of understanding."
so because you are simply unfamiliar with something you acknowledge that it does exist.
blah, blah, blah, blah. Your "thinking" phase is still non existent. I creation of your addled mind.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12030 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>that's an interesting comment. she "says" she is a boy but she would at least need help with hormones. so she thinks she is a boy but her body is telling her otherwise. sounds like she is confused.
No dear, it's YOU that sounds confused.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12031 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i just love how you all try to relate this to blacks.
I just love how you continue to try and defend discrimination. Says much about your character.
barry wrote:
those who decided to deny service to blacks did not stay in business very long did they?
Same with those that will now try and use "religious conviction" in order to discriminate against gays.

You are aware of course that a similar occurrence played out in New Mexico. Right dear? Same scenario, only it was a photographer rather than a florist.

Here's how that panned out.....

"Last month, in Elane Photography v. Willock, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the application of the state’s anti-discrimination law to a wedding photography business that had refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. The photographer made a variety of arguments against the application of the law, each of which the New Mexico high court rejected. Accordingly, in New Mexico, most businesses may not refuse service to gay and lesbian couples on the basis of either the First Amendment freedom of expression or the First Amendment freedom of religion, even if the business at issue involves an expressive component, and even though the people who own or operate the business might harbor religious objections to same-sex relationships."

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr Rose_NoHo 7,030
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 10 hr john parise 32,000
News Documentary explores drag scene in city of the ... Tue snowpale 2
News Alabama chief justice tells judges: Refuse gay ... (Feb '15) Mon ThomasA 40
News Anti-Gay Church Protests Brookfield 'Mega Church' (Jul '12) Jul 24 fuuny 21
News Space ship found in ice, Hillary's boozing, and... Jul 23 Tex- 18
News Anti-gay marriage fight costs Kentucky at least... Jul 23 One 17
More from around the web