Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,568

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.

Full Story
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12647 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes dear, it does. Read the law again. See the word "sex"? That means gender.
<quoted text>
People can be classed by gender fool.
<quoted text>
She would still be discriminating based on gender. That's against the law.
She's a bigot Barry, and the fact that you continue to try and elevate her as being above the law says MUCH about your character.
<quoted text>
Read your last sentence Barry. That's discrimination. If she equally declines to service the weddings of ss couples, that's discrimination.
But please, don't let facts get in the way of you pretending that if one blames their discrimination on their religion that they aren't really bigots. We all know the routine dear.
so if you agree that she would equally decline any ss wedding regardless of whether the participants were male or female, homosexual or heterosexual.... where is the illegal discrimination? no gender nor orientation discrimination can be shown.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12648 Nov 6, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
So she wasn't discriminating against gay people, she was discriminating against a gay wedding. ahahahahahah ahahahah
hahahahahaah.
Yeah.
You have a screw loose.
she was discriminating against a ss wedding ceremony. the difference is still a difference. she was not blocking them from their wedding. she was declining to be associated with the ceremony.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12649 Nov 6, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so what is your point?
would a small corner deli have the right to not hire muslims based on their religious belief and practices?
'the right wing religious wackos want to force businesses to accommodate people who are unwilling to do their jobs based in religious excuse- making'? but you want them to be forced to accommodate people against their religious convictions
We established fifty years ago that merchants must offer goods to the public without discrimination. Before that, black people were not allowed in many restaurants and department stores. Black people could be refused a room at a hotel. That has ended. A meal is a meal (even if it's cooked by a celebrity chef who takes his artistic accomplishments too seriously). A hotel room is a hotel room. And a flower is also a commodity.

A ham is a ham. You either sell them in your store, or you don't. You can't choose whom you will and won't sell to. You can't sell matzo and refuse to sell it to gentiles, either.

If a PETA member asked for a job at your deli, would you have to accommodate his sincerely held beliefs? Would a furrier be forced to hire him?(If he's Hindu, for instance, that comes under religious protection.)

Part of being hired is being willing to perform the tasks required for the job.(Hence, computer programmers won't be hired as master carpenters. That's hardware, you know.) So Target has accommodated these groups by hiring them for jobs that they are willing to do.

I might be willing to hire you to scrub toilets in my store. But I would certainly not hire you to deal with the public.
Max

Montréal, Canada

#12650 Nov 6, 2013
Black people against gay people. You americans are so funny to watch.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12651 Nov 6, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so if you agree that she would equally decline any ss wedding regardless of whether the participants were male or female, homosexual or heterosexual.... where is the illegal discrimination? no gender nor orientation discrimination can be shown.
In that case, it is simple gender discrimination.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12652 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, shit for brains, you do realize that if there were two old heterosexual men who wanted to form a legal union for tax reasons, they could do it with women, right dear? In fact, people have been doing it for years.
And whether a couple that is getting married has no interest in sex is none of your business. You're concern for other people's sex lives is creepy.
yes they could, but why does it have to be 'with a woman'? why not now with another man that they trust?
and there are more reasons than just taxes.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12653 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
the event wasn't employing her, the participants were. It's the participants she refused to do business with. It's the participants she turned down.
Oh, and by the way, it is NOT "agreed by all sides" that she knew their orientation previously. It is only agreed that she had sold them flower arrangements previously.
think again,

http://www.queerty.com/washington-florist-ref...
A gay couple from Richland, Washington was shocked when the florist with whom they have been doing business for nearly a decade refused to supply flowers to their September wedding, thanks to her relationship with Jesus.
When Rob Ingersoll got engaged to his partner Curt, they turned to Barronelle Stutzman of Arelene’s Flowers where they’ve been tip-toeing through the tulips for the past nine years. Ingersoll had sent bouquets to Curt with cards reading,“Love, Rob” so it was a surprise to him when Stutzman, citing her religious beliefs, politely declined.

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/washington-florist-ref...

was that site good enough for you?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12654 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Buttblossom, nothing about lesbian sex "takes the place of the male". The only ignorant on in this discussion is you.
<quoted text>
Rape is rape, it's an act of violence and control, it doesn't have different "manners" dolt.
lesbian sexual penetration requires the use of something foreign to the classification of sexual organs. something takes the place of the male organ.
sorry.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12655 Nov 6, 2013
barry wrote:
tap dancing?
you made a cut and dry statement on firm authority of what you claimed the koran said. you did not allow for religious interpretation nor religious freedom.
No, I cited a statement by a Muslim authority who cited the specific passage of the Qur'an that dealt with the issue. The actual prohibition is against consuming pork, not handling it in wrapped packaging. Avoiding the latter is a practice adopted by some Muslims to reduce the risk of violating the actual prohibition. Hence it's an interpretation.
barry wrote:
i recognize their religious freedom to be wrong and to equally feel that i am wrong. i make no attempt to force them to agree with me but i do defend their right to be wrong as i am sure that something i may believe is also wrong. i also then accept their and my freedom to recognize error and change or adjust the belief.
I'm sure you're oblivious to how insulting it sounds to characterize their religious freedom as a right to be wrong.
barry wrote:
now let me address your claim that,
(both 1 Peter and Romans explicitly command Christians to obey civil authorities and laws)
please quote the passages in question.
If you don't know the passages being referred to in these books of the Christian new testament, my quoting them won't eliminate your ignorance.
barry wrote:
then, moving on you ignore the fact that what i posted included court cases that demanded the business accommodate the religious beliefs of the muslims. on advice from their lawyers they did not see any option as legal precedent had already been set.
I didn't ignore anything. I specifically noted:

"These employers opted to make accommodations for the religious beliefs of the employees, some apparently voluntarily, others apparently under threat of an EEOC complaint. Regardless, that's a win for everyone."

The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs, not absolute accommodation of it. That's not always possible for small employers. For larger ones like Target it is.
barry wrote:
now while your explanation about target is therefor lame
No it's not. Potential employees have an responsibility to tell prospective employers if there are aspects of the job they're interviewing for that that can't perform.
barry wrote:
it does beg the question as to why this couple who were turned down by the florist didn{t simply choose to accommodate the florist{s religious convictions and move on to another florist thus avoiding any conflict. could it be that they did not act commendably?
Because customers aren't legally required to accommodate the biases of the business owners where they shop. The business purports to offer goods and services to the general public so any member of the general public has a reasonable expectation and a legally enforceable civil right (if covered by an applicable anti-discrmination law) to purchase those good and services on an equal basis with other customers. Again, your ignorance of he law doesn't negate what the law says.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12656 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, kumquat, that is NOT what the California law says. The California law states that the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM will recognize a woman born with male genitals as the woman she is and identifies as.
The California law doesn't affect "we" at all.
<quoted text>
Um, with whom are you agreeing? Yourself? Dolt much?
<quoted text>
Your "point", and the law itself are two completely different things.
<quoted text>
btw, I wouldn't expect many transgender people to be in your social circle. They would avoid you and your ignorance and your intolerance.
<quoted text>
Well, tough shit for you. Transgendered people will continue to be recognized and accommodated in the public sector. Your desire and intent to call them and recognize them as something the aren't won't really bother them. Smile dear, you've earned the Hazel Massery Award of the day. Hold on to it proudly dear.
since you claim that the law says...
how about posting a quote from the law that says whatb you claim.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12657 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A sports god in your own mind I'm sure
<quoted text>
Why is it no longer level dear? Oh, that's right, in your world boys are better than girls at sports!!! Um, dumbbutt, the students, boys or girls would have to qualify for the team using the same benchmarks. They either qualify or they don't. Oh, and I'm not sure if you know this, but there are always advantages and disadvantages in school sports. The size of the school and number of available students would be one.
<quoted text>
If the girls can't qualify, they can't qualify. If they qualify, then they play and the same dangers exist for both genders on the team.
Oh, and I wasn't mocking the physical dangers because you haven't established any. I was mocking you and your moronic 1950 mind frame.
<quoted text>
The girl either qualifies or doesn't. There will always be students that are faster or stronger, and neither are directly correlated to their gender.
<quoted text>
The established standards for who qualifies for a sports team have been affected by this new law? I think not moron.
<quoted text>
Yes, we all know how fundies HATE to have to be sensitive to other people's feelings. The outright hubris of your intolerance is hysterical. One can only picture Jesus moaning about how being sensitive to other people's feelings is a horrible thing.
Oh, and for the record, you haven't established any safety issues. The student either qualifies for the team or they don't, using the same exact standards.
<quoted text>
Um, a lot of adults attending high school in your trailer park Barry? That would explain a lot.
<quoted text>
Most universities already have non-discrimination policies covering this in place. This is 2013 Barry.
<quoted text>
Um, no one has mentioned transvestites Barry. Why are you bringing them up? Another prime example of how uneducated you are on anything being discussed here.
<quoted text>
Well, let's see....who's expressing a problem with the new law? LOL!!!
<quoted text>
Calling something a problem without establishing the cause/effect negative results doesn't make something a problem.
Go peddle your "sky is falling" routine to your fellow sheeple. No one else is buying it.
espn game of the week twice, Ncaa Playoffs, state playoffs, international matches.
been there and done that.

schools compete according to size. big school, small school has very little to do with it. not really up on sports are you? don't have any experience with sports medicine do you?

and then you make this statement,
'If the girls can't qualify, they can't qualify. If they qualify, then they play and the same dangers exist for both genders on the team.'
how about if the boys qualify for the girl's lacross team? or there is no men's volleyball team? how about if the boys qualify?
how about you get real.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12658 Nov 6, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so are you suggesting that it is possible that the anti'discrimination law would not neccessarily apply to the new law allowing ss weddings?
No, I'm ot suggesting that at all. Legislators are well aware (or have staff that can fin out) of existing laws and potential conflicts. If they wanted to give legal exemption to sexual orientation discrimination to wedding vendors, they could easily have included it in the language that enacted legal recognition of same sex marriage.
barry wrote:
as for legislatures don{t go back... you do realize that there is a law pending in the washington state legislature that would specifically exempt businesses from having to participate in anything (such as weddings)if it was against their religious and moral convictions.
Yes, I'm aware of that fact. My point was legislators don't think of every implication a new law might have on existing law to either include provision sot address those implications in the new law or to revise existing laws in parallel. If they do nothing, then the courts become involved, However, as you point out, legislators can also pass new laws to fix issues created by laws previously passed.
barry wrote:
so, if that passes would it not make the whole point moot?
Yes. But not until such an exemption is enacted.
barry wrote:
and if as you correctly say,(Conflicts between laws are adjudicated in the legal system using existing legal precedent where available) would not the precedent of a business being forced to accommodate an employee's religious belief and practice not then protect a hired florist?
No. The florist isn't an employee of the the customer. They'd either be an employee of the business or the owner of the business. If the former, the employee could possibly assert an EEOC claim but I believe an employer must have a certain number of employees before being subject to that law. If the latter, the owner must comply with all applicable laws, including anti-discrmination law.
Max

Montréal, Canada

#12659 Nov 6, 2013
If black people were treated like shyt they would unite along with all other minorities, including gay people. If they don't want gay people to marry, then obviously they think like the white republicans ; they think they own the land and that they are superior.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12660 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Um, a lot of adults attending high school in your trailer park Barry? That would explain a lot.
<quoted text>
Most universities already have non-discrimination policies covering this in place. This is 2013 Barry.
<quoted text>
Um, no one has mentioned transvestites Barry. Why are you bringing them up? Another prime example of how uneducated you are on anything being discussed here.
<quoted text>
Well, let's see....who's expressing a problem with the new law? LOL!!!
<quoted text>
Calling something a problem without establishing the cause/effect negative results doesn't make something a problem.
Go peddle your "sky is falling" routine to your fellow sheeple. No one else is buying it.
um, i own the trailer park. just kidding but i do rent out a trailer.
i'll go back to what i said. you were making an argument about children. i was pointing out that high schoolers are not children. Bo Jackson was 19 when he played football and baseball and ran track while in hs. there is not a single hs girl who could have survived a collision with him.
and no, no university has a policy that prevents complete sexual discrimination in sports. a boy can not ´play on the girl's volleyball team. a boy can not run on the girl's track team.

'Girls were more likely to miss > 3 weeks of sports activity (as opposed to <1 week for boys) and were twice as likely to require surgery. Girls were also found to be twice as likely to incur major knee injuries as a result of non-contact mechanisms, often involving landing, jumping or pivoting.'
http://www.virtualmedicalcentre.com/news/stud...

http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/HealthNotes/B...

so let's just let the boys compete against the women.

you have a man's moniker but you are not much of a gentleman when it comes to protecting the young ladies.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12661 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It would appear from his posts that the following are happening at abandon in his trailer park:
* Straight men marrying straight men for tax credits!
* People have their gender identity directly linked to their sexual orientation!
* Transgendered and transvestites are the same thing!
* Girls that are into sports are extremely dainty!
* Boys pretend to be transgendered so they can shower with girls
I also imagine there's a lot of banjo playing.
creative
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12662 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Only because you've failed to establish one. All you repeatedly do is demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Absolutely nothing. And because you know nothing about homosexuality, you present feeble arguments based upon the nonsense you have created in your own mind about what you think homosexuality is. Since your starting point is invalid, everything you state based upon that starting point is stupid.
<quoted text>
The rest of society knows (the correct spelling of the word btw) one is a homosexual when they do any of the following:
* state they are gay
* display pictures of their wedding somewhere in plain sight
* state that they think another person of the same gender is "hot" or "cute".
* Hold hands with the person they are dating.
* Have a gay bumper sticker.
* asking an HR director about domestic partner benefits, or signing up one's same gender spouse on an insurance form
Some other examples, but not always a clear indicator...
* play on a gay sports league
* wear gay supportive t shirt
* have drinks at a gay bar
* have a membership in a gay supportive organization
* attend a gay pride festival
There are many, many straight people that do all the things from the second list, but it would at least be a starting point for questioning it.
Your post seems to indicate that its very important that straight people be able to recognize gay people. It isn't. Your recognition is irrelevant. But don't let that stop you from trying to make it into an issue.
Are there any other ridiculously stupid questions we can clear up for you?
so if someone says they're a homosexual that settles it. and if someone says that their gender identity is confused that they really are a man in a women's body that settles it. we as a society must accept it.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12663 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
He already IS something, that you want to pretend he isn't, based solely on physical indicators that you have established as a benchmark of something that they are not a benchmark for.
Gender is established by the brain moron, not the genitals. Perhaps if you invested in some research and scientific information culled post 1950 you would know this.
But please, don't let facts get in the way of your continued delight in publically demonstrating how ridiculously uneducated you are on the matters being discussed.
Morons like you that peacock their ignorance are a HOOT!
brains can be trained if one has any. bodies have to be changed. scientific information changes all the time.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12664 Nov 6, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>medical protocol changes by the day so what is the fact of the day today?
Not every medical protocol, no. If you want to know the current medical protocol, I suggest you research it. That might help fill in some of the obvious gaps in your knowledge of transgender issues. It's admittedly a complex and difficult subject matter for most people, gays included.
barry wrote:
if the brain does not match the body is it a physical problem or a mental problem or is it even a problem at all?
It depends on the individual and how much incongruence between their gender identity and physical sex characteristics they can tolerate. A possible outcome if the person meets the criteria after medical and psychological evaluation is sex reassignment surgery where the physical sex characteristics are altered to match the gender identity.
barry wrote:
what do we choose to adjust and why adjust it at all?
sounds like confusion to me but don't let logical questions get in your way.
It's simply ignorance on your part. And ignorance in this context simply means a lack of knowledge. The thread topic isn;t transgender issues and it's far from a simply discussion to have and I don't claim to be an expert by any means. I'd suggest if your wish to know more about transgender issues, you do some research.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12665 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And marriages are now "anti Christian" activity? Guess so since they are now denying any. Who knew that weddings were "anti Christian" activity? Thanks for letting us know dolt.
obviously some can be. glad to be of a help.
but i did notice that you avoided the question.
the claim was that they rented it out for non Christian activities. so i could have asked for you to show what non christian activities it was rented for. that would have been interesting but instead i asked for something more clear when i said i'll bet that they never rented it out for any anti Christian activities.
your silence confirms my assumption.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#12666 Nov 6, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No Barry, the free market should NOT be allowed to determine this. If the free market was in control, you would still have white only businesses in your trailer park. The free market doesn't get to override the protection of equality established by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. And religious nutjobs don't get to refuse service to individuals that they deem unworthy.
<quoted text>
LOL!! Cling to that Barry. Cling to that while you can!! Just like you people clung to the fact that only ONE state allowed gays to marry!! Just like you people clung to the fact that states had never allowed gays to marry by public vote!!!! Cling desperately to all the things that are being overturned on an increasing basis!!!!! You fundies love to cling to desperation!!!
<quoted text>
Or it could be that perhaps dung falls from the sky during full moons. I love it when you fundies make up these ridiculous scenarios in the hope of pretending you aren't bigots!!! Too funny!!
does anybody really think that a 'whites only' trailer park would stay in business very long? yes the free market would take care of it.
and you keep trying to sday that this florist deemed them unworthy when in reality she only wanted to guard her religious freedom and not be forced to be associated in any way with something that she held as morally wrong.
btw us people? i have never clung to anything. go ahead and get 'married' have at it. just don't drag me into it.

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
It Takes 7 Police Agencies to Break Up Wedding ... 1 hr wichita-rick 17
Young, Evangelical, and Pro-GayBy Gene Robinson 2 hr Mitt s Airtight D... 1
Southern Governor Fights Same-Sex Marriage - An... 2 hr Delbert 11
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 2 hr Garry Ackerman 52
Efforts underway to change GOP on gay marriage 2 hr nhjeff 20
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 4 hr mahz 49,895
Thousands attend first Coal Country Go Tell Cru... 4 hr FearDevil 1
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••