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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12032 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. It is operated as a public facility in lieu of tax breaks. In addition, as I noted, the facility had been rented out on many an occasion to non-Christians for non religious purposes.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12033 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>not familiar with how law works?
Actually, we are aware that sexual orientation is neither mentioned or referenced in the law you are bitching and moaning about. That's what lesbianism is, a sexual orientation. So the law you are quoting doesn't state ANYTHING about a man being a lesbian.

You see Barry, the rest of us don't suffer from your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Hey, I'm still waiting for you to present your study of how gender identity and sexual orientation are related. Will you be presenting that anytime soon, or will you simply continue to cowardly ignore it?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12034 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?
Thanks for finding this information. Same sex marriage supporter can't deal with truth; that's why they call us bigots.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12035 Oct 30, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
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.
She chose not to participate in a same sex wedding ceremony, not to support or service it. Don't you believe individuals have the right to not attend (or attend) religious services as they choose?

Same sex marriage is the death of freedom.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12036 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!?
Actually, the Virginia ban was originally enacted in 1691, over 150 years prior to the 1850-1870 time period in your citation regarding New York. New York was one of 7 states that never enacted anti-miscegenation laws.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12037 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.
Sex is a surrogate characteristic for sexual orientation in the case of same sex weddings. Granted, fools like you blather on about the potential for same sex heterosexuals marrying each other but that wouldn't remotely be the typical sexual orientation of same sex wedding partners.
barry wrote:
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.
It's implicit in citing the same sex of the wedding participants.
barry wrote:
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.
No,the law doesn't require proof of your hypothetical constructs in order to prove discrimination against a protected class. You're simply ignorant of legal procedures.
barry wrote:
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.
The business refused to provide goods or serves to members of the general public that were also members of a protected class. That fact is what violated the law. Why the customers wished to purchase the goods or serves is irrelevant and not a defense to justify the refusal of service.
barry wrote:
so there is no discrimination here that i need to defend.
And yet the case wasn't dismissed as frivolous so there was a reasonable basis for filing the complaint.
barry wrote:
it would be up to you to prove that she discriminated against an unprotected event solely on their homosexuality.
All that must be proved is the business owner refused to provide service to a customer that was a member of a protected class. There are no exemptions to the law based on "events" so asserting them isn't a valid defense.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#12038 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion;"
this is what the washington state constitution says, " no one shall be "molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion".
did you notice the "Absolute freedom of conscience" phrase?
they will have a hard time showing that this case has nothing to do with "religious sentiment"
as well as they will have a hard time showing that they were denied service simply because they were homosexuals. they were in fact established customers and known to be homosexuals.
the law is the law.
argument made.
Sorry Barry, a swing and a miss. The reality is that she had previously provided services when she didn't know that the customer was gay, and the only time she denied service was when it became apparently that they were gay, because they were marrying a same sex partner.

You can spin and rationalize all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Baronelle broke Washington State's anti-discrimination law, and providing a service for a same sex wedding in no way impacts her religious freedom.

She broke the law, plain and simple.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12039 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i just love how you all try to relate this to blacks.
those who decided to deny service to blacks did not stay in business very long did they?
And yet there were plenty of businesses during the era of segregation that posted "no blacks" signs and not only stayed in business but thrived. So apparently we can add history to the list of things about which you're ignorant.
barry wrote:
or did you for get that the issue with service to blacks was covered by the law of the land. at the time the law dictated and demanded the discrimination.
Racial segregation in public accommodations was NEVER universally required throughout the land. You're simply a f-ing liar.

THE SCOTUS ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson said separate but equal was OK; it didn't state that separate was required.
barry wrote:
no law denies anyone from providing flowers to a ss couple for any kind of service or ceremony even if the event is not legally recognized by the state.
But there are laws that prohibit businesses that are public accommodations from refusing to provide goods and services to customers based on protected characteristics of the customers.
barry wrote:
and actually i will assert the "true scotsman" fallacy and remind you that if i knew of a business that would deny service to blacks i would also not choose to do business with them.
I didn't ask what you would do in such a situation; I asked:

"Should business owners also be allowed to refuse service to blacks too? After all, many Christians asserted their religious beliefs as justification for slavery and segregation. Why should such Christians be forced to provide goods and services to blacks against their sincerely held religious beliefs?"

My reference to the "no true scotsman" fallacy was to preclude you from stating such Christians are not "true" Christians if they cite religious beliefs to justify discrimination against blacks. Such Christians existed during the eras of slavery and segregation. Such Christians exist today although greatly reduced in number.

Avoiding that uncomfortable fact doesn't make it go away.
barry wrote:
but the issue at hand is not about denying service to homosexuals is it?
On the contrary, that is EXACTLY the issue at hand.
barry wrote:
they had been established customers with her known for their homosexuality. she declined to have any part in the event that they were celebrating.
The law doesn't reward people for compliance, it punishes for noncompliance. That the business owner complied with the anti-discrimination law when serving these particular customers dozens of time previously neither exempts nor excuses a current act of noncompliance.
barry wrote:
and if you want to say that only homosexuals can choose to form a ss legal union that would be recognized as and bestow those "1,000" legal benefits same as any other marriage then you are yourself discriminating.
I haven't said that. But that's neither case nor the facts at hand.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12040 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion;"
this is what the washington state constitution says, " no one shall be "molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion".
did you notice the "Absolute freedom of conscience" phrase?
they will have a hard time showing that this case has nothing to do with "religious sentiment"
The business owner isn't being denied freedom of conscience or being punished because of her religious sentiments, beliefs or worship. She can publicly state to her customers she doesn't approve of homosexuality or same sex marriage because of her religious beliefs. But running a business isn't an act of worship nor an expression of religious belief or sentiment. And businesses are subject to applicable laws and regulations in order to be licensed to do business.

Religious belief doesn't exempt one from compliance with laws. Because if a Christian can cite religious beliefs to refuse service to gays, then what stops someone from asserting religious beliefs to discriminate against women, blacks, Jews, Muslims, the handicapped, military veterans, Chinese or any other protected characteristic in current anti-discmrination laws?
barry wrote:
as well as they will have a hard time showing that they were denied service simply because they were homosexuals. they were in fact established customers and known to be homosexuals.
They only need to prove the business owner refused them service once to have a valid anti-discrmination claim. One doesn't earn gold stars for previous compliance with anti-discrmination law which they can then use to excuse future noncompliance.
barry wrote:
the law is the law.
And your ignorance of the law is still ignorance.
barry wrote:
argument made.
Nope, you've merely asserted an uninformed opinion.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12041 Oct 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
There is NO California law that says a man can be a lesbian. Jesus tap-dancing Christ.
A man born of the Greek isle of Lesbos emigrates to California. He is a lesbian.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12042 Oct 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
There is NO California law that says a man can be a lesbian. Jesus tap-dancing Christ.
A man born on the Greek isle of Lesbos emigrates to California. He is a lesbian, a male lesbian.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#12043 Oct 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
A man born on the Greek isle of Lesbos emigrates to California. He is a lesbian, a male lesbian.
And there are only Men on Isle of Man. But that still doesn't prove anything.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12044 Oct 30, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
And there are only Men on Isle of Man. But that still doesn't prove anything.
(Chucking)..... Good come back!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12045 Oct 30, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
And there are only Men on Isle of Man. But that still doesn't prove anything.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_people...

People of the Isle of Man are Manx people. The words Manxman and Manxwoman are also used.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12046 Oct 30, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the Virginia ban was originally enacted in 1691, over 150 years prior to the 1850-1870 time period in your citation regarding New York. New York was one of 7 states that never enacted anti-miscegenation laws.
Wait....waitaminit....did Little Terry do some homework? Why yes he did! Bravo Little Terry!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12047 Oct 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
My pronouncement is just that.......I'm a Lesbian attracted to women more specifically my wife......is that so hard for you to grasp?
Uhhhhhh.....no....I stated that. You professed a same sex attraction.
And being a Lesbian has NOTHING to do with being from the Greek Island of Lesbo!!!
Ahhhhhhh.....but folks from that Island are Lesbians.
You got confused by my question........interesting... ...so, you have little or no comprehension......okay, got it!!!
That's it what you have, but if it works for you......
If I have the FUNDAMENTAL right to marry someone of the opposite-sex......why do I NOT have that same FUNDAMENTAL right to marry the person of my choosing who happens to be the same sex as myself?
By that reasoning, why don't you have a FUNDAMENTAL right to marry__________a close relative, or more than one person)? Simplest saying "I don't want to", doesn't address the question.
When you claim that I have the right as ANY other woman does to marry a man, in essence you are asking me to live a lie instead of marrying the person who I CHOOSE to marry instead of just because they are opposite-sex than myself!!!
No one is asking you "to live a lie". You can marry whomever you want without state recognition. However the right to marry, still requires a legal definition of marriage! Why is that so hard to grasp! So if you can change the legal definition of marriage for your needs/desires/wants, so you don't "have to live a lie", why can't someone else.

Just out of curiosity, if a woman who once identified as a lesbian, or one that still does, CHOOSES chooses to marry a man, is she "living a lie"?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12048 Oct 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
A man born of the Greek isle of Lesbos emigrates to California. He is a lesbian.
No, he's not.......he's just a man who loves women.......you will post anything just because you don't like what is happening.....that's sad!!!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12049 Oct 30, 2013
barry wrote:
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.
They did that after they refused to rent the property for a civil union ceremony and thus were still bound their tax abatement agreement with the state to offer public access to the facility on an equal basis at the time they violated their agreement. Withdrawing the facility from public use after their violation of the agreement doesn't excuse or exempt a violation that occurred while the agreement was still in effect.
barry wrote:
you might do some research before you make such strong claims.
And you should pay more attention to the context of why this was even mentioned in the thread. It was cited by Brian_G as an example of violating Christian religious freedom when in fact his assertion was one of his usual lies.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12050 Oct 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for finding this information. Same sex marriage supporter can't deal with truth; that's why they call us bigots.
On the contrary, Barry just asserted his opinion as fact like you do, Brian, and also like you lied as a result.

Here is a link to the results of the administrative investigation of the discrimination complaint. All the facts cited about the venue being operated as a public accommodation open to the general public on an equal basis in return for a property tax abatement are substantiated by this investigation. Your assertions are not substantiated and thus are lies.

http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases08/pr200812...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12051 Oct 30, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, there's always just been a deep cultural, historical, legal, social and religious understanding of beating the crap out of any gay people who dare raise their heads.
Uhhhhhhhhh........what? "Gay" as in "homosexual" ain't that old. So who was "beaten the crap out of" before then? Besides this is what I said:

Pietro Armando wrote:
It the reason marriage is recognized, remember SSM is a recent invention, not even 10 years old. There's no deep cultural, historical, legal, social, and or religious understanding of marriage as a union of two people regardless of gender composition.
Good thing that's ending. Now we can expect to be included in all that cultural, historical, legal, social and religious understanding.
Oh of course it will...after all what percentage of legally married couples are same sex female, and same sex male? Who knows, if history is any guide, SSM might not last that long.
But we haven't changed a single word of the Constitution. Our parades and rainbows had no effect there. What we changed were laws that were ADDED to insist that this bond was necessary. We were successful in our attempts to change that, because those laws ran afoul of the Constitution.
The constitution is open to interpretation. One judge, can reach a decision 180 degrees from another's. "Rights" that the founding father's would have found alien, or did not address, can be read into the constitution. "Sexual orientation" is a case in point. Words such as "homosexual", or "heterosexual", didn't even exist in 1787, nor would exist until a hundred years later.
So, the parades were not what made this possible. What made it possible is the fact that laws like DOMA only temporarily hid the fact that the bond you describe was never a necessity to begin with.
Silly me, but same sex sexual bonds are so vital to societal stability, that all human societies, cross time and place, have acknowledged them, couldn't function without them.
Sure, and a state could decide to disregard humanity, and grant marriage to animals, or they could disregard life, and let people marry the dead or inanimate objects.
Let's see it happen first. Fearmongering does not an argument make.
Let's stick with living consenting adults. So why is conjugality, opposite sex expendable, but not monogamy, or cosanguinity? They can't be that vital or NECESSARY? Can they?
Ah, you mean back in the "good ole days" when we suppressed our identities and pretended to be heterosexual
What did the nice gay folks do before the invention of political sexual identity labels? After all, "homosexual" didn't appear until the late 1800s, "gay" to refer to "homosexual" a few decades after that. Maybe, just maybe, someone was looking for a way, other than Lucky Charms, to market the rainbow!
The "have always" argument also fails. Many people "have always" treated gays like lepers, locking us out of every conceivable social convention. Military units "have always" functioned without gays. Many clubs and organizations "have always" excluded gay people as a rule.
Please enlighten me. Same sex sexual behavior, SSSB, ain't new, yet, no cross time, cross place SSM? Why haven't human societies organized themselves around the "two person regardless of gender composition" marriage model?
The irony is, i.....
Irony? As in a "gay man" was a womanizer in decades past, to a "gay man" who isn't sexually attracted to women! That kind of irony?
What men and women "have always" done is not at issue. No one is trying to stop them. They will continue to be free to do what they have always done. But the "historic understanding" of marriage does not serve as a justification for continuing to exclude same-sex couples as well.
Why stop there? Same sex trios? Polygamy? Polyamory? Include every ADULT HUMAN combo, yes?

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
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 2 hr amo 262
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr Just Think 4,992
News Residents irritated by Journey guitarist's SF w... (Dec '13) Fri T Bone 3
News Designers can refuse to dress the Trumps. Other... Fri wouldbuy 1
News Trump's victory has unleashed a wave of same-se... Fri Holy Guacamole 10
News Rev. Long was at Cedar Springs Baptist Church i... (Sep '10) Fri sad 6
News 7 Weird But Real Jobs Jan 18 wichita-rick 9
More from around the web