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.

“"The 14th Amendment Works"”

Since: Jul 13

Livermore California

#11591 Oct 18, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Cut him some slack, he really doesn't know any better. Take him away from his coloring books and alphabet blocks and he thinks he's a grown up.
So says the shining hope for all of humanity? LOL,How about you STFU and move along now you creepy little junivile boy,mommy's calling you,time for dinner and school in the morning!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11592 Oct 18, 2013
lides wrote:
No, Brian, it doesn't affect their free exercise. They are not allowed to project their religious views onto their customers, doing so violates the free exercise of the customer. Anyone who isn't an idiot can see that the business owners may still believe as they wish, worship where they wish, and behave as they wish. If they think they are being Christlike by denying service, they are sorely mistaken. Matthew 25:35-40
You see Brian, these people are not attempting to follow their religion, they are bigoted hypocrites, just like you.
^^^We disagree on a theological issue; I claim turning down an invitation to support and serve a same sex wedding is a fundamental religious freedom. Forcing Christians to attend these rituals is intolerance, not freedom.

Those business owners didn't "project their religious views onto their customers", they only declined an invitation to attend a same sex couples religious ritual. They served those customers before, the issue isn't discrimination against homosexuals; the issue is the religious freedom to attend or not attend religious services.

The left is anti-freedom and pro equality; they believe in celebrating differences, not merely tolerating differences. That's how the intolerance and fascism enters our law; PC anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws. Many gays on the right oppose court legislated marriage law.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11593 Oct 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^We disagree on a theological issue; I claim turning down an invitation to support and serve a same sex wedding is a fundamental religious freedom. Forcing Christians to attend these rituals is intolerance, not freedom.
Those business owners didn't "project their religious views onto their customers", they only declined an invitation to attend a same sex couples religious ritual. They served those customers before, the issue isn't discrimination against homosexuals; the issue is the religious freedom to attend or not attend religious services.
The left is anti-freedom and pro equality; they believe in celebrating differences, not merely tolerating differences. That's how the intolerance and fascism enters our law; PC anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws. Many gays on the right oppose court legislated marriage law.
Many gays oppose court legislated marriage law? They oppose interracial marriages?

Can you name the "many gays"?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11594 Oct 18, 2013
Racial differences are trivial and tiny but gender differences are the difference between the survival and extinction of the human species. Gender differences permeate culture, language, science and law.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11595 Oct 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
^^^We disagree on a theological issue; I claim turning down an invitation to support and serve a same sex wedding is a fundamental religious freedom. Forcing Christians to attend these rituals is intolerance, not freedom.
This isn't a theological issue, dimwit. Providing a service for someone who holds a differing belief structure does not violate the religious freedom of a business owner.
Brian_G wrote:
Those business owners didn't "project their religious views onto their customers", they only declined an invitation to attend a same sex couples religious ritual. They served those customers before, the issue isn't discrimination against homosexuals; the issue is the religious freedom to attend or not attend religious services.
Yes, Brian they did. You are defending people who broke the law.
Brian_G wrote:
The left is anti-freedom and pro equality; they believe in celebrating differences, not merely tolerating differences. That's how the intolerance and fascism enters our law; PC anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws. Many gays on the right oppose court legislated marriage law.
Funny, you are the one arguing for some people to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.

Brian, face it, you are arguing a losing issue, the business owners' rights were not violated, their denial of service was against the law in each jurisdiction, and they will eventually lose all of their legal challenges.

You are defending people who broke the law, plain and simple.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11596 Oct 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure that efforts to define or measure religious extremism are pointless. Find Scalia's recent interview where he outlines his fear of the Boogeyman. AN ACTUAL BOOGEYMAN. Define and measure THAT. Then explain to me how the legal decisions of such people represent rationality.
Exactly, its subject to the claimant's personal views, beliefs, bias, etc.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11597 Oct 18, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Many gays oppose court legislated marriage law? They oppose interracial marriages?
Can you name the "many gays"?
No, he can't. He's a moron. He's been informed of some gays that have stated they don't care to marry and he's deceitfully twisted that into "opposition". Brian_G is just another liar for Jesus.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11598 Oct 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Racial differences are trivial and tiny but gender differences are the difference between the survival and extinction of the human species. Gender differences permeate culture, language, science and law.
Gays marrying doesn't effect heterosexuals from continuing to procreate you stupid moron. The only threat to the human species is our current course of OVER population you idiot.
Angel

Aurora, CO

#11599 Oct 18, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays marrying doesn't effect heterosexuals from continuing to procreate you stupid moron. The only threat to the human species is our current course of OVER population you idiot.
.

And that's the truth.thank you.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#11600 Oct 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^We disagree on a theological issue; I claim turning down an invitation to support and serve a same sex wedding is a fundamental religious freedom. Forcing Christians to attend these rituals is intolerance, not freedom.
Those business owners didn't "project their religious views onto their customers", they only declined an invitation to attend a same sex couples religious ritual. They served those customers before, the issue isn't discrimination against homosexuals; the issue is the religious freedom to attend or not attend religious services.
The left is anti-freedom and pro equality; they believe in celebrating differences, not merely tolerating differences. That's how the intolerance and fascism enters our law; PC anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws. Many gays on the right oppose court legislated marriage law.
bi, these business owners were not invited guests. they were not particpants (as in part of the wedding party - bride, groom, best man, etc). they were vendors to an event. they were mere suppliers of a service. an exchange of cash for services rendered.

furthermore, there are laws - public, secular laws - that were put into place to level the playing field for all persons involved in commerce in that state or region. those laws were put into place with a specific set of rules of how to put laws into place - they were put into place by the state's congress. the state's congress is elected by the voting public within that state. congress, in effect, was doing it's job when it put into place laws for the public to follow.

these particular laws you're objecting to were put into place in accordance with their state constitution. there was no previous challenge by anyone within that state. everyone was made well aware of the enactment and the meaning of those laws (even though that is not a requirement in the validity of those laws that are enacted by a state's congressional body).

the laws do not direct anyone how to think, feel or believe. they cannot or else they'd be in violation of the u.s. constitution.

the laws specify actions - actions on the part of a businessperson - that are lawful and legal. the laws specify actions that are illegal. the laws create a framework that everyone must abide by. the laws do not dictate the everyone has to be in business, they just specify that if you're in business within that state, these are the laws you must abide by. the laws specify the actions to be taken in the event of illegal activity.

we see your objections. and we can surmise from your objections that you are against lawful activity. you are against following the duly created laws and regulations within a state where you're doing business. therefore, we can conclude that you support outlaws and criminals and criminal activity.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11601 Oct 18, 2013
AP "PORTLAND, Ore.- Although itÂ’s still not legal for same-sex couples to marry in Oregon, the state is now recognizing the marriages of those who tie the knot in another state or country."
http://www.edgeprovidence.com/index.php...

-----

Effectively adding another state to the same-sex marriage list. I'm sure there will be an increase of couples flocking north to Washington, marrying, then returning home to Oregon where their new marriage will be fully recognized.

How long will it take Oregon to realize all those marriages north of their border generate revenues best kept in state before they take to step for equality?

I particularly liked this from the article:

"We cannot identify any defensible state interest, much less a legitimate or compelling one, in refusing to recognize marriages performed between consenting, unrelated adults under the laws of another state," [Deputy Attorney General Mary H.] Williams wrote.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11602 Oct 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly, its subject to the claimant's personal views, beliefs, bias, etc.
And we need to be vigilant of the kooks whose "personal views, beliefs, bias, etc" are based on supernatural nonsense, or voices in their heads telling them which citizens are abominations.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11603 Oct 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^We disagree on a theological issue; I claim turning down an invitation to support and serve a same sex wedding is a fundamental religious freedom.
Well, you would be wrong, Brian.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11604 Oct 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Racial differences are trivial and tiny but gender differences are the difference between the survival and extinction of the human species. Gender differences permeate culture, language, science and law.
Same sex marriage would have no impact whatsoever on survival and extinction of the human species. Do you really believe it has impact?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11605 Oct 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
We disagree on a theological issue; I claim turning down an invitation to support and serve a same sex wedding is a fundamental religious freedom. Forcing Christians to attend these rituals is intolerance, not freedom.
Their business duties aren't waived simply because they have a religion. I don't understand how you can be calling their commercial involvement an "invitation" or "attendance". I don't "invite" the kid at my local Subway to make my sandwich. They make sandwiches openly, for everyone, so they'd better make it for me! The plumber who comes to fix my shower head isn't "attending" an event in my bathroom. He advertises his services to everyone, and he'd better damn well provide them!

There are LAWS in place which state that, no matter how religious a business owner may be, they are still beholden to business laws, which state that the SAME services which they provide EVERYONE, must be provided even to those who are "undesirable" according to their religion.

The presence of a religion is not an excuse to abandon civil responsibilities. Operating a business is not part of anyone's religious practices, so they don't get to use their business as an example of free worship. If the doors are OPEN, then they're open to ALL.

And it's no defense to say that they allow gay customers IN the doors while only restricting SOME services to them. Business owners don't get to open the doors on the STREET to gay customers in a display of tolerance, while locking up some services behind more doors WITHIN the business.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11606 Oct 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Their business duties aren't waived simply because they have a religion. I don't understand how you can be calling their commercial involvement an "invitation" or "attendance". I don't "invite" the kid at my local Subway to make my sandwich. They make sandwiches openly, for everyone, so they'd better make it for me! The plumber who comes to fix my shower head isn't "attending" an event in my bathroom. He advertises his services to everyone, and he'd better damn well provide them!
There are LAWS in place which state that, no matter how religious a business owner may be, they are still beholden to business laws, which state that the SAME services which they provide EVERYONE, must be provided even to those who are "undesirable" according to their religion.
The presence of a religion is not an excuse to abandon civil responsibilities. Operating a business is not part of anyone's religious practices, so they don't get to use their business as an example of free worship. If the doors are OPEN, then they're open to ALL.
And it's no defense to say that they allow gay customers IN the doors while only restricting SOME services to them. Business owners don't get to open the doors on the STREET to gay customers in a display of tolerance, while locking up some services behind more doors WITHIN the business.
Brian_G, like many fundamentalists, believes that his religion entitles him and those that share it with privileges above the law. Sadly for them, they are learning they are mistaken in that belief.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11607 Oct 18, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
Brian_G, like many fundamentalists, believes that his religion entitles him and those that share it with privileges above the law. Sadly for them, they are learning they are mistaken in that belief.
I'm not so sure they're learning this.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#11608 Oct 18, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian_G, like many fundamentalists, believes that his religion entitles him and those that share it with privileges above the law. Sadly for them, they are learning they are mistaken in that belief.
yet, bi, in other threads, has denied that he's Christian or a follower of any sort of religion.

Since: Jan 10

Westerville, OH

#11609 Oct 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, its subject to the claimant's personal views, beliefs, bias, etc.
Exactly, your posts are personal views, beliefs, bias, etc. Totally devoid of reason, logic or intelligence. You haters are all a bunch of hysterical drama queens. All flash with nothing under the tiara but dead space.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11610 Oct 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
And we need to be vigilant of the kooks whose "personal views, beliefs, bias, etc" are based on supernatural nonsense, or voices in their heads telling them which citizens are abominations.
Gotcha..... We also need to be vigiliant of the kooks whose personal views, beliefs, bias, etc. are based on just plain athiestic or secular nonsense, or "some are more equal than others Orwellian new thought", which tells them which "abominations" are acceptable, and which aren't.

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
Freak Archives 7 min Jade NE 6
News Tennessee judge rules gay couples have equal pa... 19 min Rose_NoHo 11
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 27 min Terra Firma 52,149
News Gay Teen Vogue editor defends mag's anal sex guide 28 min Big Dawg 131
News California College Fires Black Gay Man For Twee... 42 min Gilbert 5
News Hamilton Fringe Festival posters with feminist ... 1 hr Gilbert 2
News Gay men - to be allowed to donate blood three m... 1 hr Gilbert 3
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... 1 hr Tinker 490
News Gay couple grilled by judge about their sex liv... 2 hr Wanka Wanka 98
More from around the web