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.

barry

Pisgah, AL

#15066 Dec 28, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should I inform these guys that they are not needed? What do these have to do with establishing a gay lifestyle? Oh, that's right, absolutely NOTHING.
Damn you are stupid.
life·style
the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., THAT TOGETHER constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.
Gays do not mutually share the same habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic levels, etc. Gays do not share a mode of living. Yes, some gays go to gay bars. Just like some straights go to straight bars. That does not establish a mode of living that is then somehow a "heterosexual lifestyle".
As I said before, this is nothing more than a religiously fabricated talking point. And you going directly to "gay bars" exemplifies your bigoted stereotyping.
Guess you better try again, cause you failed to support your rhetoric. Know why? Because you are completely uneducated about all things gay. Your a fundie parrot who hasn't taken the time to educate himself.
why, you were the one that said a bar is a bar, a wedding is a wedding no such thing as "gay" this or "homosexual" that.
then you go and define life style so i thank you.
so together apart from the economics which are no respecter of persons, the homosexual life style is very distinct in all those areas. especially the morals and the attitude.
your religious fabricated talking point idea must have directly influenced the media and the dictionaries. hey, i even quoted from homosexual web sites. they use the adjective to show a distinction. you really look ridiculous trying to deny it and mainstream it.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15067 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>is not "separate but equal" and education a little off topic? there is no real "separate but equal" in education.she suggested that they use another florist. she turned down a profit, risked the loss of good customers, and honestly suggested that they could do better with someone else.
just tell me one thing;
why would you want to hire a florist or a photographer that would be honest enough to tell you that they had a moral problem with the event? how would you know that they would put their heart into producing the best product they could? would they not be at risk for a law suit anyway based on the same "bigot/discrimination " charge if something went wrong?
no, the best option was for them to find someone else and enjoy their day without the distraction of a "bigoted" Christian.
Patrons aren't obligated to know whether one's "heart' is into doing their job. Patrons hire who they want and expect non discriminatory services. Producing lesser results is also discrimination. If a photographer is "not into" the subject then he has issues that he needs to deal with. The law doesn't care if one's "heart" is in it.

Oh, and enjoying the event was already marred by the bigot florist. I'm sure the couple went on to have a lovely time though despite what the florist put them through.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15068 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
name the benifits of discrimination;
Girls sports, affirmative action, academic scholarships. driving restrictions, voting restrictions,
and the list goes on.
Um, where are the "benefits" to society Barry? you've just listed some things that aren't even discrimination, you've not listed "benefits". Do you need to get a dictionary and look up that word?

Maybe your dictionary is right next to your medical journals that have the research you talked about that said that gender identity and sexual orientation are related. Still waiting on that one shill, will you be trotting it out anytime soon?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15069 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so they were unhappy with the way that they were born. so they look to change that because the way they were born is not a problem. riiiiight.
they just want to feel good. that says it all.
Don't like the new law Barry? Too bad. It's because of people like you that it was created. Keep crying.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15070 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>once again, a real class act.
Says the person who thinks there are justifiable discriminations. Your condescension is dismissed as always.
barry wrote:
my religious beliefs and i'm sure hers also are a part of every moment of everyday and everything I do. there is no space for situation ethics. so my beliefs are not irrelevant to my business.
They are irrelevant as related to the PATRONS you moron.
barry wrote:
<
and for you to demand that they be separated from my business is to deny that religious freedom is a fundamental right of our great land.
I made no such demand. You really need to buy a dictionary and look that word up because you are completely incapable of using it correctly. And there is absolutely no religious freedom or religious fundamental right to discriminate in our great land.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15071 Dec 28, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, this should be good. Batter up folks, Barry is going to explain why discrimination is beneficial for society!!!!
<quoted text>
Wow, that was completely non descript and void of any meaning. Give an example please.
<quoted text>
That's not an example of discrimination Barry. The same rules and items apply to everyone that is in competition with each other. That's not discrimination.
<quoted text>
That's not an example of discrimination. A behavior that causes harm to society is treated the same for everyone that exhibits the behavior. That isn't discrimination.
<quoted text>
That's not an example of discrimination Barry. The felon had the right to vote before breaking the law. Once he broke the law, a rule was applied to him equally as it is everyone that broke the same law. That isn't an example of discrimination.
<quoted text>
That's not an example of discrimination Barry. People renting their homes can establish any rules they wish. As long as the rules are applied equally to everyone, there is no discrimination.
<quoted text>
That's not example of discrimination Barry. Intentionally not hiring someone with a criminal record, because of their criminal record, would be an example of discrimination Barry. How would this discrimination benefit society? Specifics.
<quoted text>
The hieght requirement is established for safety reasons and the height requirement is applied to everyone equally. That isn't a form of discrimination.
<quoted text>
That's your prerogative. Provided you NEVER hire someone that comes to a job interview with his pants hanging down to his knees, you've not discriminated.
<quoted text>
And the list didn't include one form of discrimination. Nor did your post in anyway demonstrate how discrimination can be beneficial for society. Your post was an epic fail, and waste of space.
excuse me, "The same rules and items apply to everyone that is in competition with each other." except for the fact that guys are not allowed to play with the girls but a girl would be allowed to play with the guys if she was capable.however she would have to use the bigger ball. of course some of this is not true in california anymore.
we have "girls races and we have boys races. why, because the girls can not run with the boys at the same level.

but jonah has spoken and his favorite expression was "that is not discrimination". of course if anyone else has any ideas on what is not discrimination they are bigots.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15072 Dec 28, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, it doesn't.
jonah has spoken again.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15073 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
barry wrote:
<quoted text>specifics? you or someone on your side insisted that the "wedding" was a private event.
Because it was.
barry wrote:
yet you all also insist that she is a public business.
No, we insist her business is a public business. Because it is.
barry wrote:
so while you all scream that society must stay out of your private lives you are insisting that she have a part in their private event.
Yawn. Oh those gays all screaming!!!! Brraaaaccccckkkkk!!! Oh those uppity gays.

Private lives and private events aren't the same thing Barry. Trying to equate them just shows how desperate you are. And for the hundredth time, she wasn't asked to be part of their private event.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i did not say that she was a " part of the event" i said that she did not want to "have a part" in their event.
She wasn't, her flowers were.
barry wrote:
Maybe you can get that right the next time.
I got it right the first time. It's meaningless. It's just a stupid thing you say to try and justify your discrimination.
barry wrote:
and i suppose that the muslim holy book would think that it would be ok for muslims to have a part in a homosexual wedding.
The only person that continues to bring up Muslims is you Barry. It speaks VOLUMES.
barry wrote:
they don't even want to transport a fare in their cabs that might be carrying a bottle of alcohol.
Was that a story on Fox "news" today?
barry wrote:
you really need to get out more.
I get out plenty. Which is why I'm not a bigot like you.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15074 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>why, you were the one that said a bar is a bar, a wedding is a wedding no such thing as "gay" this or "homosexual" that.
Princess, I use the term "gay bar" to describe a bar that has a higher percentage of gay patronage. Unlike you, I don't use the term pretending that a different business license is issued. We both know this, but because you're failing so bad here, you now think that playing a semantics game will help you out. It hasn't. It merely demonstrates your desperateness. There used to be a poster on Topix for quite some time. His name was Western1. You remind me very much of him. He had no integrity either.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
then you go and define life style so i thank you.
I didn't define it, the folks that wrote the dictionary I took it from did. But you neededn't thank me. From your next rant it becomes obvious you didn't understand it.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so together apart from the economics which are no respecter of persons, the homosexual life style is very distinct in all those areas. especially the morals and the attitude.
Nope, gays don't have a shared set of morals or attitudes dear. You've failed to demonstrate this mythical "lifestyle".
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
your religious fabricated talking point idea must have directly influenced the media and the dictionaries.
The dictionary has "gay lifestyle"? Since when?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
hey, i even quoted from homosexual web sites. they use the adjective to show a distinction. you really look ridiculous trying to deny it and mainstream it.
Barry, I'm sure you do spend a lot of time on homosexuals websites. That's pretty much a given. But I don't remember you demonstrating them discussing the "gay lifestyle". And if they were, it would not be what you are trying to pretend it is!! But we all know that. But feel free to present some examples. Perhaps you can do that right after you show me where I "demanded" that you celebrate it!!!!! Remember that accusation you've trotted out twice now?!! Or how about when you cite the research you mentioned that relates sexual orientation to gender identity?

Like I said. No integrity.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15075 Dec 28, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of bigots like you, the law in California was created. It will be duplicated throughout the country. All those future transgendered children thank you for your bigotry. You have assisted them tremendously.
no, the law will not be duplicated. colorado has a similar law but not to the extent that california has. when the rest of the country sees where you are going with this, this stupidity will be stopped. guys in a male body who think that they are girls should not and will not compete with girls who are in a girls body. maybe they should have a third division of gender in sports. guys who think they are girls competing against other guys who think they are girls.
the reality is a girl in a girl's body can not compete against a guy's body unless there is something wrong with the guy's body or he simply is no good.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15076 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>excuse me, "The same rules and items apply to everyone that is in competition with each other." except for the fact that guys are not allowed to play with the girls but a girl would be allowed to play with the guys if she was capable.however she would have to use the bigger ball. of course some of this is not true in california anymore.
we have "girls races and we have boys races. why, because the girls can not run with the boys at the same level.
but jonah has spoken and his favorite expression was "that is not discrimination". of course if anyone else has any ideas on what is not discrimination they are bigots.
Let me know when you get done twirling and get down to those "societal benefits" you keep mentioning.

BTW, you seem very hung up on boys and girls playing sports. It's a little Sandusky creepy, you might want to dial it back.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15077 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, the law will not be duplicated.
Oh fundies and their crystal balls!!! You're so funny.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
colorado has a similar law but not to the extent that california has. when the rest of the country sees where you are going with this, this stupidity will be stopped.
LOL!!!!!! Oh, here comes that slippery slope. Tell me, is yours inflatable!!! Famous last words of bigots...."you will be stopped"!!!!!
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
guys in a male body who think that they are girls should not and will not compete with girls who are in a girls body. maybe they should have a third division of gender in sports. guys who think they are girls competing against other guys who think they are girls.
the reality is a girl in a girl's body can not compete against a guy's body unless there is something wrong with the guy's body or he simply is no good.
Thank you for sharing your bigoted opinions. Like all your opinions they are stupid. Don't like the new law Barry, too bad. It was created because of people like you. The law owes its existence to your bigotry.

Have a nice day dear. I can't be bothered with anymore of your anger and stupidity today.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15078 Dec 28, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Possibly it's for the same reason that heterosexual women seek divorces more often than heterosexual men. Any speculation you may have is premature and argumentative, not informative.
sounds like women have a bigger problem:) oh wait, can't say that.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#15079 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>jonah has spoken again.
Jonah speaks sense, you only speak gibberish.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15080 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>sounds like women have a bigger problem:) oh wait, can't say that.
You are TOTALLY clueless when you speak about what women can do against men.......have you ever heard of a woman by the name of Jackie Mitchell? She had a minor league contract to play BASEBALL back in the 1920's and during an exhibition game with the Yankees, she struck out both Babe Ruth and Lou Gehig..........and then BASEBALL promptly tore up her contract and ban women from baseball until they NEEDED them during WWII. The AAGPBL was formed and women played baseball using the same equipment and ball as the guys did, but for obvious sexiest reasons still had to go out and look like women.......you should read just how long the league was around and when it made it's way into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown:
http://www.aagpbl.org/

A little history about Jackie Mitchell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Mitchell

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#15081 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you didn't call him out now because of his race did you?
Yeah right!
-/

I only judge people on their own actions, unlike some.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15082 Dec 28, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn. Your attempt to begin your rant by setting yourself up as some "nice guy" has failed. You acknowledged that you are not a nice guy the moment you stated that some discrimination is justifiable.
<quoted text>
And you've been informed on numerous occasions that Baronelle was never asked to "celebrate" anyone's marriage. Your attempts to paint Baronelle as a victim fail. Everytime.
<quoted text>
Her freedoms were not affected in anyway. But you keep throwing that bullshyt out Barry. She didn't have, and will never have, a freedom to discriminate through her public business.
<quoted text>
You would lose that bet. Like most fundies, your baseless assumptions are wrong. She is totally free to spend her money on any ad she wants. She's also free to experience the reprocussions that arise from her expressing her freedom of speech. She is NOT free to discriminate from her place of public accommodation.
You and your alternate reality scenerios are becoming a complete bore.
<quoted text>
the same state that issued her her business license for her place of public accommodation.
<quoted text>
The only one expressing an agenda here is you Barry. The purpose for all those weddings is the same. To legally unite two people. Period.
<quoted text>
But someone did deny their services in a discriminatory manner. Someone shyt all over this couple by thrusting her unsolicited religious opinion on them in a place of public accommodation. Someone broke the law. And that someone is Baronelle Stutzman.
disappoints you doesn't it? i don't care if you want to "marry" someone of the same sex or even someone who thinks they are the same sex as you. just don't drag me into it. i don't want anything to do with it. and neither does she.
now you claim that she was never asked to "celebrate" their wedding yet she was asked to make flower arrangements celebrating their wedding. how does an artist do that if she are not in the mood to celebrate their wedding? sounds to me that they would have been better off getting another florist who would be able to express the joy of the moment with flowers.
everyone knows that she was asked to create something celebrating the wedding that she was morally opposed to.
her freedom to live by her religious morals certainly was affected.
and you keep claiming that she discriminated but can't show that her discrimination was exclusive to any of the protected classes.
and you keep claiming that she is a "public accomodation but can not show a legal definition from the state of washington or the federal standard that says that she in fact is.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15083 Dec 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You are TOTALLY clueless when you speak about what women can do against men.......have you ever heard of a woman by the name of Jackie Mitchell? She had a minor league contract to play BASEBALL back in the 1920's and during an exhibition game with the Yankees, she struck out both Babe Ruth and Lou Gehig..........and then BASEBALL promptly tore up her contract and ban women from baseball until they NEEDED them during WWII. The AAGPBL was formed and women played baseball using the same equipment and ball as the guys did, but for obvious sexiest reasons still had to go out and look like women.......you should read just how long the league was around and when it made it's way into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown:
http://www.aagpbl.org/
A little history about Jackie Mitchell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Mitchell
so you trot out one girl who because men were not accustomed to her speed and pitch (she only had one pitch) were over zealous in swinging happened to strike out. did she ever strike out anyone else?
now if you are going to try and throw some "facts" around you might be careful as the internet might tell a different story.
the "AAGPBL" played one year with almost the same rules and equipment as the guys. apparently it didn't work out so well.
when the name was changed to the "AGPBL" in 1949 the ball was a 10" ball instead of the standard 9". the base paths were 72' instead of 90'. the pitcher's mound was 50' instead of 60'
in their final year of play they gave it a go with a standard ball and pitcher's mound but the base paths only went to 85'
so no, women can not play on the same level as men and they never did.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15084 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you trot out one girl who because men were not accustomed to her speed and pitch (she only had one pitch) were over zealous in swinging happened to strike out. did she ever strike out anyone else?
now if you are going to try and throw some "facts" around you might be careful as the internet might tell a different story.
the "AAGPBL" played one year with almost the same rules and equipment as the guys. apparently it didn't work out so well.
when the name was changed to the "AGPBL" in 1949 the ball was a 10" ball instead of the standard 9". the base paths were 72' instead of 90'. the pitcher's mound was 50' instead of 60'
in their final year of play they gave it a go with a standard ball and pitcher's mound but the base paths only went to 85'
so no, women can not play on the same level as men and they never did.
There is MORE than just one.....but your misogynistic attitude clearly is showing on what you think women are capable of......that's sad, does your wife and daughter know how you truly feel about them?

Yea they can, the fact that men feel the need to change the playing field is what is sad!!!!

I know more about Gender Equity than you can hope........my thesis is ALL about what women go through who work in Non-traditional occupations!!!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15085 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
so these people are protected solely on their feelings on that day. not on anything tangible, just on their word.
Just like you expect others to accept your word regarding your religious beliefs on any given day.
barry wrote:
then the second question becomes what are the limits, what are the parameters of "sexual orientation"? what is an "orientation"?
Sexual orientation is already has a definition in the medical community. That you're ignorant of it doesn't negate its existence.
barry wrote:
they are claiming protection based on a legal term which has not been defined.
Sexual orientation isn't a legal term any more than "religion" is a legal term. The law uses common authoritative definitions of what sexual orientation and religion are.
barry wrote:
now i agree that your religion example is a viable example except that religions that are recognized are well defined.and not all "religions" and religious activities are recognized as completely protected.
We aren't discussing freedom of religion; we're discussing anti-discrimination law. So actual religious beliefs and practices aren't relevant per se as the law is only concerned with whether someone discriminates against another person and cites that person's religion/religious beliefs as the reason.
barry wrote:
but since you brought up religion... the courts have ruled that religious beliefs and practices and taboos must be accommodated where there is no extreme hardship involved.
In an employment setting under Equal Employment Opportunity law, yes.
barry wrote:
so where are the religious rights of the florist?
The florist is a business owner, not an employee. EEO law doesn't apply in this situation. Anti-dsicrimination law does. And that law protects customers of public accommodations, not owners of public accommodations.

Seriously, how can a supposedly educated adult who claims to have a college education not understand the difference between different types of laws and the settings to which such laws apply?
barry wrote:
are not the couple involved, the ag and the aclu bringing this suit against the florist simply because she wants to live and work by a recognized religious standard.
No. She's being sued for violating consumer protection law by the former and anti-dsicrmination law by the latter on behalf of the gay couple she to whom she refused service. She's not being sued because of her religion or religious beliefs.
barry wrote:
should not she also be accommodated?
Why should her desire to discriminate against a protected class be accommodated? What's to stop people from claiming their religious beliefs to justify discriminating against blacks like they did during the eras of slavery and segregation? Anti-discrimination laws exist because people have historically discriminated against disliked minorities and denied them access to public accommodations, housing, employment, etc.

Further, SCOTUS has previously ruled In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith that general laws that incidentally burden religious beliefs are OK as long as such laws apply to everyone and don't target religion/religious beliefs specifically. From the majority opinion:

"Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

This applies as well to the anti-dsicrmination law about which you whine incessantly.

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 Lesbian granted rights of 'husband' in same-sex... (May '17) 21 min Rainbow Kid 32
News $20m same-sex marriage survey underspend should... 50 min Rainbow Kid 4
News Our latent racism (Jun '16) 4 hr Be wary of trolls 40
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 6 hr positronium 14,076
News Organization of Arab Student celebrates culture... 10 hr fat tired old and... 8
News Anti-gay married Republican quits after he is c... 11 hr youll shoot your ... 61
News Free Woods: 19th century community unique in area (Feb '11) Sat Versa Havard Brown 5
More from around the web