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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9946 Sep 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Unrehabilitated Bakers
SEP 16, 2013,
s the debate over gay marriage began heating up, supporters of the idea insisted that it was a matter of basic libertarianism.“Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t have one,” went the bumper-sticker-turned-rallying -cry. Of course, it was never going to be that simple with regard to something as foundational as marriage, and now we are starting to see there are real consequences to being publicly opposed to the practice. In last week’s issue, Mark Hemingway wrote of Christian businesses around the country that have rankled state authorities for the crime of refusing to participate in gay weddings (“The ‘Human Rights’ Juggernaut,” Sept. 9, 2013).
The most high-profile case involves the seven-year legal battle of a New Mexico wedding photography business that was fined in excess of $6,000 for refusing to shoot a gay commitment ceremony. State and local authorities have also threatened or fined an inn in Vermont, a printer in Kentucky, a florist in Washington state, and a bakery in Oregon for declining to provide their services in gay weddings and commitment ceremonies. The legal issues involved are not a simple matter of public accommodation, as these businesses all willingly serve gay clients in every capacity other than matrimonial. They just don’t want to be compelled to participate in events of religious significance that run counter to their faith.
Well, in the week since Hemingway’s article appeared, we are sad to report, Sweet Cakes, the bakery in Gresham, Oregon, that was mentioned in the article, has closed its doors. Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian told the Oregonian that he hoped to “rehabilitate” Sweet Cakes as one outcome of the state investigation into the matter, but the family that owns the business had long been receiving threats, and activists were already pressuring local vendors not to do business with the bakery. After shuttering the premises, the owners hung a sign on the door that reads,“This fight is not over we will continue to stand strong. Your religious freedom is becoming not free anymore. This is ridiculous that we cannot practice our faith anymore. The LORD is good and we will continue to serve Him with all our heart.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/unreha...
Are you high?

How, specifically, does providing a service for a same sex marriage infringe upon one's free exercise of religion or free expression?

Be specific.

You have consistently failed to answer this simple question.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9947 Sep 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
She DIDN'T deserve to be treated like a 2nd class citizen because she was legally married to someone of the Same-Sex.......
What exactly is a "second class citizen"? Is this a legal designation?
it had NOTHING to do with her NOT wanting to pay her taxes....
Uhhhhh....huh...so why didn't she pay the tax?
.and if a heterosexual widow/widower whose legal opposite-sex spouse had died and they were assessed this OUTRAGEOUS inheritance tax......they'd have sued as well.......what a crock, Pete!!!
So the person was gay, or bi, and had an opposite sex spouse, would that matter
What excuse will you be using when there are NOT 30 states, but 10 or less......still gonna be using that "It still a requirement to establish marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, in ## plus states"? or will you just accept that your side lost the battle?
What excuse will you use when a state legalizes some other form of marriage? Object to their use of "marriage equality"?
Right, all men regardless of sexual orientation can marry all women regardless of sexual orientation the way Pete wants it to be.....lol!!!
No just the way it was nationwide prior to 2004, and still is in 30 plus states.
Problem with your thought process is this.....NOT all MEN are interested in women,
So what...there are some men interested in multiple women....should they be allowed legal multiple female spouses?
therefore they should be able to make that decision based on who they are, who they love and who they want to spend the rest of their lives with WITHOUT it coming down to the gender of the person they want to marry!!!
No one says they can't, they don't need the state involved to do that. Talk about repeating yourself....something you accuse others of doing.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9948 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If the government does not issue a marriage license, nor chooses to legally recognize marriage at all, the right does not exist for individuals. They are free to marry as they see fit, by what ever format, whether it be religious, or secular.
<quoted text>
If the license is no longer issued, it matters not if people marry, no legal recognition is maintained. Marriage then returns to the private, and/or religious realm.
<quoted text>
Some states have chosen not to succumb to contemporary efforts to fundamentally legally redefine a significant social institution.
<quoted text>
It does, as it created you and I, however, not every instance of colitis will result in conception.
<quoted text>
Agreed.
<quoted text>
It is grounds for annulment in certain states, and it illustrates the differences between the two relationships, opposite sex, and same sex. This not every aspect of American marital jurisprudence applies to SSMs..
<quoted text>
Marriage remains a fundamental right based on it definitional foundation, not what an individual chooses to call marriage. If that were so, any number of other consenting adult relationships could legally be designated marriage. Gender, as in the inclusion of both, in one legally recognized relationship, is the reason the state recognizes marriage. If one gender is removed, marriage as it has been legally, historically, socially, and/or religiously, it is no longer marriage, and thus does not require a compelling state interest in its recognition.
"If", assumes facts not in evidence. Marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual.

Pejorative don't change the fact no one has demonstrated any compelling governmental interest that can support the laws that restrict marriage based on gender. The fact 30 states have passed such laws demonstrates prejudice remains strong, but prejudice, no matter how popular, fails as a valid excuse for such restriction.

Again, I agree failure to consummate can be grounds for divorce if, but only if, it was a reasonable expectation of marriage. It is not grounds when there is no such expectation, as with someone who is paralyzed or otherwise incapable or even unwilling, if that was understood at the time of marriage. Failure to procreate is also not grounds for divorce, unless a false representation was made at the time of the contract. Neither procreation ability or ability to have sex, are requirements for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons.

Again, you get it backward. Fundamental rights do not need to provide any interest to the government, compelling or not. Fundamental rights come first, and the government must show a compelling governmental interest if it tries to restrict that right. Restrictions have been made. The restrictions on age, informed consent, incest, and number, all provide compelling governmental interests in protecting citizens. Gender fails that test.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9949 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary. Logic dictates the state interest in marriage is absent in a same sex relationship. It matters not if two men, or two women marry, for it is not necessary for societal stability. It's union does not produce anything necessitating a compelling state interest.
<quoted text>
It is you Bill, that has drank from the spiked rainbow punch of sexual identity politics.
<quoted text>
Common decency does not require different situations be treated the same. If common decency is your goal as it relates to marriage, then there is no reason not to extend that common decency to those men and women who practice plural marriage, or other who have another view of marriage beyond yours.
And again, you get it backward.

Fundamental rights do not need to provide any interest to the government, compelling or otherwise.

Fundamental rights apply to each individual, because they are human. There is no other requirement.

The government must show a compelling governmental interest if it tries to restrict that right. Restrictions have been made. The restrictions on age, informed consent, incest, and number, all provide compelling governmental interests in protecting citizens. Gender fails that test. Gender is an irrational restriction on the fundamental right of marriage.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9950 Sep 16, 2013
Removal of the number restriction is an entirely different argument than removing the gender restriction.

Removing the number restriction would require altering the body of laws of marriage. It also requires changing the structure of society for everyone.

Removing the gender restriction does none of that. Entirely different cannot be considered equal.
Only 2=2.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9951 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Only 2=2.
Expecting Pietro to be able to count, might be expecting a little too much.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#9952 Sep 16, 2013
barry wrote:
no one is asking to do anything illegally.
Yes, the florist is asking to illegally side-step state laws which require her to provide services to all customers equally. This was a law which existed PRIOR to legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
barry wrote:
the issue here is that the florist DID NOT want to to do what was against her moral convictions.
It's TOO BAD that she didn't want to do this. By applying for a business license, she has agreed to abide by business laws, and that will entail some risk of serving people in situations that may go agains her moral convictions (which aren't particularly "moral", if you ask me).

How far does the "moral convictions" argument go? What ELSE might she decide to opt out of, due to her "convictions"? Who else can use that as a waiver to state law? If she finds interracial marriages "immoral", can she refuse to serve them too? If she decides that Jews are an imperfect race, can she refuse them? Are there any limits? "Moral convictions" sounds like a vague and poorly defined claim, which anyone could use to get out of anything. Why BOTHER having laws at all, if people's superstitions can be used to ignore them?
barry wrote:
she was in no way forcing someone alse to do something illegal or anything that would be against their moral convictions.
No, just against their rights as a consumer.
barry wrote:
neither was she trying to stop someone from doing something that they [personally felt was morally ok while she felt that it was morally wrong.
That isn't the issue, there's no reason for you to introduce it. I'm sure she wasn't murdering anyone either, but that doesn't make her a hero, since murder was never part of the issue.
barry wrote:
that is what freedom is all about.
Maybe so, but it isn't what business law is all about.
barry wrote:
she is the tolerant one while the ASG and the homosexual customer are showing how intolerant they are to diversity and freedom.
No, they are celebrating diversity and freedom, by living their lives according to the laws which allow it. She is certainly NOT "tolerant" by deciding that some of her services should be out of reach of law-abiding gay customers.
barry wrote:
you are very judgmental. you would not hire photographer because of a t-shirt but you would force one to participate in your wedding even if he was morally against it.
I would expect anyone hired for an event (especially one as formal as a wedding) to show up dressed appropriately. Would YOU be considered "judgmental" if YOUR wedding photographer showed up in torn shorts and a tank top with food stains on the front? Or would you (rightfully) expect a certain level of professionalism in their attire?

I would also expect these people to put their (shallow) morals aside so that they can fulfull the legal expectations of merchants.
barry wrote:
and then this;
"Why do religious people need special exemptions to be a-holes? They should be NICER than everyone else, if their religion is so great, not crueler."
really? why would you force an a-hole to have a part in your wedding?
since when must people conform to your definition of nice?
Never. I'm not DEMANDING that anyone conform to anything. I'm just wondering. Religion seems to make people eager to put up wall of division between themselves and anyone they deem unworthy. The nicest people I've known have been the least religious. It seems strange to me that religion should have the opposite effect.

But I might still hire an a-hole to conduct the business aspects of my wedding (which is not the same thing as them having a "part" in it), because I wouldn't use someone's level of kindness to judge whether they would be competent in a business relationship. I should be able to expect nice people AND mean people to exhibit the SAME level of professionalism in business.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9953 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I gave up hope on him a long time ago. Now it's just a matter of correcting the record, and practice in showing the excuses to be irrational.
Perhaps you can ascend to the next level like me where you rub Pietro's nose in his lies and delusions sufficiently that he simply stops responding to your posts. Then you have the freedom to pick which of his post to correct without the need to address his uniformed and repetitive responses to your own posts.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9954 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you can ascend to the next level like me where you rub Pietro's nose in his lies and delusions sufficiently that he simply stops responding to your posts. Then you have the freedom to pick which of his post to correct without the need to address his uniformed and repetitive responses to your own posts.
Are you feeling neglected Terry....is that why you've used profanity in your lasts few posts to me?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9955 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you can ascend to the next level like me where you rub Pietro's nose in his lies and delusions sufficiently that he simply stops responding to your posts. Then you have the freedom to pick which of his post to correct without the need to address his uniformed and repetitive responses to your own posts.
I'm getting there... I've asked him several times to explain the foundation for the fundamental rights listed in the bill of rights, but he won't address it. It appears he knows fundamental right come from being human, not from the government, but that destroys his assertion marriage must provide some compelling interest for the government, rather than admitting the government must show a compelling reason for restriction rights, not recognizing them.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9956 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you feeling neglected Terry....
As I commented to NYE, it's actually nice to pick the posts to which I respond without having to address your constant regurgitation of irrelevant or refuted crap and general ignorance displayed in your replies to my posts.
Pietro Armando wrote:
is that why you've used profanity in your lasts few posts to me?
I used the word "f-ing" twice in my last post to you. There was no profanity in my last "few" posts other than that. Lides' observation about your counting skills appears right on the money.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9957 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm getting there... I've asked him several times to explain the foundation for the fundamental rights listed in the bill of rights, but he won't address it. It appears he knows fundamental right come from being human, not from the government, but that destroys his assertion marriage must provide some compelling interest for the government, rather than admitting the government must show a compelling reason for restriction rights, not recognizing them.
I've come to the conclusion that while generally politer than most trolls, he suffers the same willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills that they do.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9958 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm getting there... I've asked him several times to explain the foundation for the fundamental rights listed in the bill of rights, but he won't address it. It appears he knows fundamental right come from being human, not from the government, but that destroys his assertion marriage must provide some compelling interest for the government, rather than admitting the government must show a compelling reason for restriction rights, not recognizing them.
1.) Marriage is not listed in the Bill of Rights

2.) Marriage exists as a fundamental right based on the male female relationship.

3.) If the state does not license marriage, or legally recognize it at all, it does not exist, as a right.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9959 Sep 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I've come to the conclusion that while generally politer than most trolls, he suffers the same willful ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills that they do.
Awwwwww Terry.....you flatter me.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9960 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
1.) Marriage is not listed in the Bill of Rights
It doesn't need to be.

Try to keep up. The 14th Amendment mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.
The US Supreme COurt has held 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right.
Pietro Armando wrote:
2.) Marriage exists as a fundamental right based on the male female relationship.
You've yet to offer any state interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
3.) If the state does not license marriage, or legally recognize it at all, it does not exist, as a right.
The problem with your statement, is that it lacks a basis in reality. EVERY state in the union, ALL 50 OF THEM, license and legally recognize marriage.

Do you really mean to mount an argument against all legal marriages? That would be pretty inept, which means it is right up your alley.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9961 Sep 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Expecting Pietro to be able to count, might be expecting a little too much.
A man and a woman = A woman and a man

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9962 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Awwwwww Terry.....you flatter me.
Why, is being called willfully ignorant and lacking in critical thinking skills the most complimentary thing anyone has every said about your intellect?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9963 Sep 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't need to be.
Try to keep up. The 14th Amendment mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.
The US Supreme COurt has held 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right.
Exactlly, marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
You've yet to offer any state interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional.
Its not a restriction, its the definitional composition. Remove either the wife, or husband, and the state has no compelling interest.
The problem with your statement, is that it lacks a basis in reality. EVERY state in the union, ALL 50 OF THEM, license and legally recognize marriage.
Do you really mean to mount an argument against all legal marriages? That would be pretty inept, which means it is right up your alley.
If the state didn't license marriage, would it exist as a right?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9964 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
A man and a woman = A woman and a man
Without a state interest served by restricting the legal protections of marriage to being between opposite sex couples, your observation is irrelevant.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9965 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Marriage is not listed in the Bill of Rights
2.) Marriage exists as a fundamental right based on the male female relationship.
3.) If the state does not license marriage, or legally recognize it at all, it does not exist, as a right.
Apologies if we've covered this here recently. I know we've covered it several times, yet it keeps coming up.

1. The Bill of Rights includes the 9th amendment, which makes it clear that rights not spelled out, are still rights of the people, not the government. The Supreme court has affirmed marriage as one of those fundamental rights protected by the constitution, 14 times.

2. Fundamental rights come from our creator, not from the government. They need not provide any benefit to the government to qualify. The Bill of Rights was intended as a restriction on the government, not a restriction on the rights of the people. It also requires equal protections of the law for all persons, not just the ones that meet your qualifications.

3. Again, you present facts not in evidence. The government has recognized marriage since the beginning. As marriage is a fundamental right protected by the constitution, there is no getting rid of it now. Is the same true of free speech, press, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc?

What is the basis of the fundamental rights listed in the Bill of Rights?

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Terra Firma 25,283
News Why does the Texas criminal code still ban "hom... 2 hr Chris Rather 40
News Catholic parents fight gay couple's adoption 3 hr Mullahing It Over 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 46,340
News 'Reading a book can't turn you gay,' say author... 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 105
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 6 hr GomerPyle 13,282
News Audra McDonald joins Michael Tilson Thomas for ... 6 hr Mullahing It Over 3
News Anxiety in America up since Donald Trump became... 9 hr Will 80
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 10 hr Wondering 5,416
More from around the web