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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6247 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>well your "do not seek knowledge is a distortion of the story. the only knowledge that God wished to with hold from them was the difference between good and evil. there was no evil at the time. why learn about it?
so now that you have freely expressed your opinion and your bias let's get back to the subject of whether your opinion and world view should trump my opinion and world view or vise versa. i would think not. freedom of speech should allow us to discuss it. freedom of religion should allow each of us to consider and practice what we believe to be right if it does not physically harm another person. and free enterprise ought to let each define his own market place and freely fail if they are wrong. that is what this country was built on.
if there was no evil, how could they learn about it?

see your cult makes no sense and proves itself to be the invention of humans... no bias, just the facts regarding your human made cult.

so if your religion teaches you that people of another color are lesser than you, youa re not a racist, just following your religion and you should be able to deny working woth such people? Target should have a black checkout lane and a white checkout lane to support this religious freedom?

see how far off the deep end you have gone?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6248 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>my analogy was specifically to this accusation that you made;
"if you are not a bigot, why do you oppose SSM or homosexuality in general?"
my point was that i have said nothing on this thread about obstructing the legalization of ssm. therefore what i think about that is not part of my argument.
but since you asked... no.
Do you have any rational reason to not support SSM or treat homosexuals as equals? if not, you are a bigot, plain and simple...

“BY THE TIME YOU SEE ME”

Since: Jul 13

YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED

#6249 Jul 20, 2013
snyper wrote:
And the proper LEGAL backlash at their illicit involvement in Civil Politics is ... wait for it ... loss of their Tax Exempt status.
Just hear them SQUEEEEEL !!
You mean to tell me that the LGBT could lose it's...wait for it.....loss of their Tax Exempt status. Just hear you all WHINE!!!!

“BY THE TIME YOU SEE ME”

Since: Jul 13

YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED

#6250 Jul 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you have any rational reason to not support SSM or treat homosexuals as equals? if not, you are a bigot, plain and simple...
Do you have any rational reason to not support normal traditional marriages or treat homosexuals as equal to pedophiles and polygamists? If not, you are a bigot, plain and simple..

“BY THE TIME YOU SEE ME”

Since: Jul 13

YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED

#6251 Jul 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>if there was no evil, how could they learn about it?
see your cult makes no sense and proves itself to be the invention of humans... no bias, just the facts regarding your human made cult.
so if your religion teaches you that people of another color are lesser than you, youa re not a racist, just following your religion and you should be able to deny working woth such people? Target should have a black checkout lane and a white checkout lane to support this religious freedom?
see how far off the deep end you have gone?
If there was no gay mental disorder, then how could you learn about it?

See, your gay cult makes no sense and proves itself to be the invention of gay leaders such as NAMBLA members...no ibas, just that facts regarding your gay made cult. So if your gay cult teaches you that people of another color are lesser than you, you are not a racist, just following your gay cult and you should be a ble to deny working with such people. Barney's Beanery should have a back gay checkout lane and a white gay checkout lane to support this gay freedom.
See how far off the deep end you have gone!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6252 Jul 20, 2013
Covert Stealth Ops wrote:
<quoted text>Do you have any rational reason to not support normal traditional marriages or treat homosexuals as equal to pedophiles and polygamists? If not, you are a bigot, plain and simple..
yes. yes i do.

there is no traditional marriage, as the social construct that marriage is has changed constantly, as all social constructs must, to remain relevant to their society.

pedophiles are child rapers and have no relation to any normal person regardless of their gender preference...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6253 Jul 20, 2013
Covert Stealth Ops wrote:
<quoted text>You mean to tell me that the LGBT could lose it's...wait for it.....loss of their Tax Exempt status. Just hear you all WHINE!!!!
LGBT has a tax exemnpt status? are you a complete moron?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6254 Jul 20, 2013
Covert Stealth Ops wrote:
<quoted text>If there was no gay mental disorder, then how could you learn about it?
See, your gay cult makes no sense and proves itself to be the invention of gay leaders such as NAMBLA members...no ibas, just that facts regarding your gay made cult. So if your gay cult teaches you that people of another color are lesser than you, you are not a racist, just following your gay cult and you should be a ble to deny working with such people. Barney's Beanery should have a back gay checkout lane and a white gay checkout lane to support this gay freedom.
See how far off the deep end you have gone!
no one needs to learn about it.

did you choose which gender you are sexually attracted to? neither did anyone else...

since you seem to have the mind of a second grader, i don't think i should talk of this subject with you anymore without a note from your parent or legal guardian...

have a moronic night...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6255 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i love that "what else you got" attitude. there is no requirement for me to agree that what you feel is sacred must be sacred.
I see. Marriage is only sacred to you based on the participants. As long as it's not those people. Your statement reconfirms that it isn't the event, but the participants.
barry wrote:
<quoted text> and i never asked yo to agree with my point of view either. just respect it.
Sorry, but I and other gays are under no obligation to "respect" or to be "tolerant" of those that seek to disrespect our marriages and who would seek to oppress us. That's not respect, that's submission.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so if i respect your view i will not ask you to participate in something that you would think is awful.
Sorry, but I also can't respect people that call our marriages "awful".
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so why do you think that as a business man i must now participate in your "sacred" event which i happen to believe is morally wrong?
No one asked you to participate in my wedding. I would never want someone so offensive to be part of my sacred (no condescending apostrophes needed) event.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6256 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>this is where you go wrong. she was not asked to make flower arrangements that would be picked up by the customer. she was asked to make the flowers and deliver them to the event then also to set them up and arrange them.
She's still not participating in the event.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she did not want to have anything to do with that event.
She was still not having anything to do with the event. She was setting up flowers at a time when the event was not occurring.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
how can you not see that that is participating in the event even if she is not formally in the event.
The same way that I see the people that cleaned the church as not being in the event. The same way I see the people who put the lightbulbs in the lights as not participating in the event. The same way I see the person that tunes the piano as not participating in the event.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
in any case strong arming a business person to force them to go against their moral judgments will not be a winning position for the popularity of your position.
Your concern for my popularity of my position is touching. Such a stupid tactic. Oh, and your florist wasn't forced to do anything. Nor was she forced to go against her moral judgments. She was free to dislike that gays marry the entire time she arranged and set up the flowers. She was free to judge the couple all she wanted.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6257 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>first of all, the case of the florist has nothing to do with interstate business.
second of all, she declined to participate in or have any part with an event that she finds as being morally wrong. she never discriminated against the customer as the customer has an established history of doing business with her.
She discriminated against the customer the day she shit on their sacred event. The day she refused to provide services based solely upon characteristics of the participants.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6258 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>then you better go back and edit the court cases.
Which court cases would that be Barry? Please provide some specifics. When you do, I'll be happy to support my statement.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6259 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>really? she would equally decline to service a male to male wedding as well as a female to female wedding. so it is not about the individual it is about the event.
No, it isn't. The event was a wedding. Period. It's purpose was the same as every other wedding. There was nothing unique about the event.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
if two heterosexual males wanted t o take advantage of this new interpretation of the law and form a legal union that the system would call a marriage she would also decline to service their affair.
Again, because of the participants, not the event.(ps - I love that you know speak for this woman and know exactly what she would or wouldn't do.)
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so once again it is not about who they are but it is about the event.
The event will ALWAYS be the same. There is only once event. It's called marriage. Your mythical "gay marriage" doesn't exist. It's a talking point. No one gets "gay married". Sorry.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6260 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>cute.
the point is that she still did not want any part of this type of ceremony.
She had participated in "this" type of ceremony previously. It was only because of the participants that she didn't want to this time. That's discrimination.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she did not want to be associated with it in any way.
And yet she made herself associated with it the moment she decided to shit all over it. She had no problem associating with it that way.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she feels that it is morally wrong.
And she was free to continue feeling that way. She's free to "feel" however she chooses. No one was asking her or forcing her to "feel" any differently. She was asked to do a job, not judge.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6261 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
what you are saying is that no one should be free to have moral convictions unless they are first approved by you.
No one said this. It's bad enough you are speaking so matter of factly for the florist who isn't hear. Please don't presume to speak for those of us that ARE here.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6262 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so? businesses discriminate all the time. banks won't loan money to deadbeats, well the demos have messed that up.
Really? Seriously? Banks have criteria for who can receive a loan. The same criteria is applied to everyone that applies for one. There is no discrimination in your example.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
colleges are not likely to admit academically challenged students.
Because qualifying criteria is applied to those attempting to be admitted. The criteria is the same for all applicants. Again, this is not discrimination.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#6263 Jul 20, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say that, generally speaking, you shouldn't give blood unless you've abstained or been in a mutually monogamous relationship with someone whom you know to be HIV- for six months. I actually think the time period could be shorter, but that is a technical point.
Focusing on anal sex--while it does highlight the practice with the largest risk factor--potentially misses cases of transmission through other vectors. We should take the clinical view: Sex is not guaranteed safe unless it is with a monogamous partner who's known to be uninfected. But blood tests are guaranteed to work after a reasonable time.
Oh, and, my test doesn't require invasive questions about sex practices.
I like your idea better.

The test currently being used to detect HIV cannot reliably detect infections occurring within the last 20 days, for other conditions that are tested for, the window closes after 24 hours. While based on current testing, the exclusion could be cut to a month and still be effective, but that would be a tough sell, 6 months should allay anyone's rational concerns, emphasis on the rational.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6264 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
ssm were/are not universally recognized as legal.
Historical context isn't an argument, it's obfuscation.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
however why would we force everyone to have to participate, condone, celebrate and support it. especially if there was a feeling of moral objection.
1) The oppressed aren't under an obligation to honor other people's messed up morality. Sorry, but you keep throwing out the word "moral" as if you or Christians have ownership of it. You don't. What the florist did, but shitting on that couples marriage was not moral. It was petty and ugly. I don't find those attributes to be moral. Neither do most people I know.

2) NO ONE was asked to participate. NO ONE was asked to celebrate. Please stop with this shtick, it's tired.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
opinions are not changed by strong arm tactics of lawsuits.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that your or the florist's opinion matter. They don't. And I hate to break it to you, but strong arming is almost ALWAYS the way that the oppressed achieve their rightful place in society. The oppressed aren't required to wait until the opinions of the religious or the bigoted change. Equality isn't not yours to give, so we don't have to wait on your opinions.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
but he free market and economics are a strong persuader. let it speak.
We're tired of waiting for it to speak. We're now making sure it is spoken TO.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6265 Jul 20, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine two customers in a row checking out with an oversized stock pot. The first customer is recognizably Jewish by the yamaka he wears. And the clerk rings him up without a question.
But he asks the second customer what he intends to cook"
"Will you be boiling lobsters in that pot?"
"No, we can't afford lobster in my household."
"Good. Will you be cooking meat in the pot?"
"Yes, I plan to use if for pot roasts."
"Will you be making any cream sauces in the pan?"
"Yes, I will make cream soups in the pan."
"I'm sorry. That is an abomination. I cannot sell you the pan."
That is what this florist has done.
Brilliant.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#6266 Jul 20, 2013
barry wrote:
and all of those people are just so pure in their intentions and upstanding in their ethics that they will follow these guidelines perfectly for the good of us all.
sarcasm intended
The last time that an infected pint got through and someone was became HIV+ as a result, when the donor filled out his initial questionnaire, he had not yet done anything which would have excluded him as a donor. He later developed a drinking/anonymous sex habit that involved both males and females and he donated within a few days after a tryst resulted in infection. Nobody ever asked him during the years he was donating if anything had changed in his life. Oops. That was in 2008. 1.5 million blood transfusions before that back in 2002 is where the next previous 2 infections can be found. Caused by a single donor, donated within days of an infection she wasn't aware she had. Please notice that I kept saying she. As in she was not in any of the categories covered by the ban. The system works amazingly well, as far as medical treatments go, blood and blood product transfusions are among the safest. People donating blood, as opposed to people who are selling it, are more likely to be honest if asked. If you haven't done anything risky in the last 21 days, the point where seropositivity can be detected in any sample of your blood, you are safe to donate, it really doesn't matter if your partners are male, female or a combination of both. Set the risky behavior question at six months and most folk who couldn't honestly say they cleared that hurdle wouldn't be donating.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 20 min Respect71 61,686
Jade NE 39 min Boss Hog 13
News Lyft driver in Indianapolis orders gay couple o... 50 min Frankie Rizzo 39
News Kim Davis challenger: Man whose marriage licens... 1 hr SCREWER 19
News New Castle students plan silent show of support... (Apr '07) 1 hr Sinner 7
News Gay Kentucky man loses bid to challenge GOP cle... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 11
News Westboro Baptist Church to picket Broomfield gr... 2 hr Gremlin 3