Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13289 Nov 13, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no right to polygamy, Blankie.
Polygamy is a perfectly appropriate topic in any discussion of marriage X-Box. Calm down and get on topic?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13290 Nov 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
"Greater" protection. Too funny. How can someone get "greater" protection? There is no "greater" protection to give them than equal protection and everybody gets that already dummy.
You a a greater idiot than you appear to be.
By including more than two people in one marriage. It isn't difficult to understand, Frankie. That you seemingly don't says more about you than anything else.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13291 Nov 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I have a crooked biased mod on me. If I register he deletes it. I can prove this, he has admitted it, bragged about it. If he were brave enough to deal with me intellectually instead of with cowardice and dishonesty, I still would be registered.
Have you ever considered registering and not being a troll?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#13292 Nov 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is a perfectly appropriate topic in any discussion of marriage X-Box. Calm down and get on topic?
Perfectly appropriate red herring.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13293 Nov 13, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is the state suing?
Why do you feel it's other people's responsibility to do your research?
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The ACLU is losing so much credibility.
According to you. No one cares about what you find credible, you're a proven liar.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They are trying to defend Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon terrorist.
So? Is he not entitled to defense? Last I knew, defense was a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Oh, that's right, you fundies don't like Constitutional rights when they disagree with your prejudices.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13294 Nov 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Same for polygamists.
I think I've made my position on polygamy clear. You're a polygamist. I'm a polygamist. We just show some restraint, and settle on one mate. Some people don't like that idea. It doesn't mean anyone has been "blocking their rights". How long did polygamists have to fight to serve openly in the military?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#13295 Nov 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
UCLA prof of law. Says the slippery slope is real but insignificant. I agree. Instead of telling them the slippery slope is not real you should agree that it is real but it doesn't matter.
But silly Frankie. I'm the bad guy. Don't listen to me. You keep insisting it doesn't exist, you know best! But remember. People don't buy bullsh!t. Even the dummies. And bullsh!t is not the way to make your case.
Things have changed since 2008. His argument is a fallacy. He should resign and become a janitor.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13296 Nov 13, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I've made my position on polygamy clear. You're a polygamist. I'm a polygamist. We just show some restraint, and settle on one mate. Some people don't like that idea. It doesn't mean anyone has been "blocking their rights". How long did polygamists have to fight to serve openly in the military?
Still fighting. If the military finds out they are polygamists they will be discharged with prejudice and sentenced to prison. So I don't know they answer to your question but I do know that homosexuals can openly serve in the military but polygamists cannot.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13297 Nov 13, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Things have changed since 2008. His argument is a fallacy. He should resign and become a janitor.
He is in full support of SSM. And was in 2008 too. His paper was an attempt to settle the slippery slope argument and he did an excellent job in that paper.

If you would just be reasonable you'd tell them yes, the slippery slope is real but here's why it doesn't matter. But you choose to spin it. That makes enemies, not supporters.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#13298 Nov 13, 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!
"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."
wow, that is clueless.
dna, chromosomes and physical indicators/attributes have nothing to do with it.
do you know how stupid you sound?
the brain can be washed. physical "indicators can be changed. dna and Chromosomes as of yet can't be.

how about they accept themselves for who they are and how they are made and stop trying to say they are something they are not?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13299 Nov 13, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfectly appropriate red herring.
Polygamy is good people's choice of marriage. It is not a fish.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#13300 Nov 13, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No dear, the rest of us are well aware that no institution called ss marriage exists.
But don't let that fact get in the way of your obsession about gaggles of straight people marrying people of the same gender.
but all of us people that passed the third grade also recognize that different types of marriages exist and are identified by the use of adjectives.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#13301 Nov 13, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the Christian persecution card. Love it! The stench of your desperation reeks.
"now as to your first assertion her freedom of conscience not being denied, it certainly is being molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion"

it is noted that you did not deny that her "freedom of conscience" was in fact being denied and molested and disturbed in "person or property"
barry

Pisgah, AL

#13302 Nov 13, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
so then, WHY does the rest of society NEED to know?
because if we are supposed to let a boy who says he thinks that he is a girl play on a girls team and use the girls locker room how do we know that he really "is a girl"?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#13303 Nov 13, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I love that you call discrimination moral. Says so much about you.
discrimination is a healthy part of society. judging between what is right and wrong is a healthy part of society. disagreeing on what is right and wrong is a healthy part of society. being free to discuss those differences is a healthy part of society.
being free to live according to one's moral convictions is a healthy part of society. that is of course until they happen to disagree with you or reject your choice of life style.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#13304 Nov 13, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah the irony! The fundie trying to defend discrimination is complaining about someone else's civility.
it's not the "fundie" that resorts to childish name calling and insults.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13305 Nov 13, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Still fighting. If the military finds out they are polygamists they will be discharged with prejudice and sentenced to prison. So I don't know they answer to your question but I do know that homosexuals can openly serve in the military but polygamists cannot.
Not quite accurate. It's not polygamy that will get a person penalized and discharged, it's bigamy, a crime even by civilian standards. Bigamists don't even tend to be open to their OTHER SPOUSES about their activities, let alone their commanding officers. People simply aren't permitted to marry over and over. I can think of many good reasons for this, and I expect that at the time that it was criminalized, many BETTER reasons were presented that I would never think of.

Homosexuality was once criminalized also, and we went to court and made an (obviously) successful case for decriminalizing it. Polygamists, or bigamists, need to start there.

But this STILL doesn't represent discrimination against a class of people. "Polygamist" isn't an identity that pervades a person's sense of self. A monogamist can become a polygamist with ease, and a polygamist can equally revert back to a monogamist at any time. We ALL have that potential. We aren't ALL being discriminated against, just because there's a limit on the number of people that can be named as power of attorney.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#13306 Nov 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
But the event didn't try to purchase flowers, people, did.So unless she didn't do floral arrangements for ANY wedding, she discriminated against people when refusing to provide the requested services for their wedding.
<quoted text>
So what was she afraid of? That she might actually get more business from those who attended the ceremony? It's unlikely people who opposed to same sex marriage were invited or or attended the wedding so it's unlikely her reputation would suffer among her fellow bigots.
<quoted text>
It's implicit when the reason given is the fact the wedding participants are of the same sex. Citing her religious beliefs is a justification for her refusal, not the actual reason she refused.
<quoted text>
I wasn't "trying" anything. I was simply stating facts. Whether the florist refused to provide services because two men asked her or two gays asked her, the result is discrimination either way because both sex and sexual orientation are protected classes in that state. To avoid discrimination, she has to provide a reason that doesn't implicate a protected characteristic possessed by the person being refused service.
<quoted text>
No. Why would you stupidly assume that?
<quoted text>
It could be depending on the reason she gave for refusing service. Had she been bright enough to simply say, "sorry, I'm unable to provide flowers that day", then there'd be no discrimination case to litigate.
people in general are not a protected class. she discriminated against all people who would want her to have a part in their wedding ceremony if it happened to involve two people of the same sex.
i wonder what she would have done if it was a guy who thought he was a girl who was marrying another guy?

she is afraid of being associated with something that she felt was morally evil. she didn't want any shred of an appearance that she was ok with two guys getting married.

"Citing her religious beliefs is a justification for her refusal, not the actual reason she refused."
so now you are a certified and licensed mind reader.
it's ok for a guy to claim his a women trapped in a man's body and we shouldn't question that but you are free to question her claim.

"Whether the florist refused to provide services because two men asked her or two gays asked her, the result is discrimination either way because both sex and sexual orientation are protected classes in that state."

so who's ss wedding would she provide flowers to? all people groups are discriminated against equally if they were to ask for her services for a ss wedding. there is no illegal discrimination against any group of people.

""sorry, I'm unable to provide flowers that day", then there'd be no discrimination case to litigate."
funny, you would prefer that she lie. i doubt that situation ethics is something that she believes is morally acceptable either.
apparently a little dishonesty doesn't bother you.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#13307 Nov 13, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, that was exactly the problem. Baronelle had provided services to this client in the past, and only denied service when it became apparent that they were gay.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx...
1: The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:
b: The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement
Simply put, she broke the laws of the state of Washington, and she has no valid defense for her actions. Just as she can't turn someone away because of their race or religion, she can't turn them away because they are gay.
Simply put, providing a service for someone who holds differing views does not violate the proprietors free exercise of religion.
lids, since i know that you have read my previous posts, and since i have posted it several times, that is the words of the men involved that she did in fact previously know that they were homosexual, that she had in fact made up flower arrangements expressing their love for each other and had in fact sent them then what i must point out is that your whole post is based on a lie.
she knew and had known that they were homosexuals and had provided flowers for them even when it was apparent that they were homosexuals.

then you go to quote the law but you fail to show that if two heterosexuals for whatever legal motive wanted to form a legal marriage in washington, that she would have provided flowers for their ceremony/celebration.
so that being said you can not show that she declined to service their ceremony based purely on their sexual orientation.
part b does not apply,
her business is not a "place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement"
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#13308 Nov 13, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>because if we are supposed to let a boy who says he thinks that he is a girl play on a girls team and use the girls locker room how do we know that he really "is a girl"?
I gotta tell you, that's what I'd do if I was 13! Showers with the girls! Of course I'd be busted the first day for "obvious" reasons. They'd say Frankie put your pants on and get the hell out of here. But i would have gotten to flash the chicks and check em all ot real good for future reference! YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times.

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 Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 1 min Christsharians on... 19
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 min who cares 15,841
News Yarmuth joins protest against Kentucky Farm Bureau 8 min Robin Hood 1
News This gay Senate candidate is running in the lan... 53 min Strel 51
News How Donald Trump is slowly teaching Republicans... 56 min Imprtnrd 45
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 1 hr Born Liars 174
News WikiLeaks Outs Saudi Gay Man, Rape Victims, and... 1 hr Love 10
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr lake bay boy 38,754
News Pastors Rarely Asked to Wed Same-Sex Couples 7 hr WasteWater 72
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 21 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,957
More from around the web