Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments (Page 758)

Showing posts 15,141 - 15,160 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16374
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is the discussion is about a business deemed a public accommodation and subject to general laws, not the private home of an individual protected by freedom of religion. Different circumstances, different rules. See the SCOTUS majority opinion by Justice Scalia in Employment Division v. Smith.
Not sure what's set you off on a rampage against gays again, Dan. I thought you'd moved past that several years ago. However, if you mistakenly believe one's religion or religious beliefs exempts one from compliance with general laws (like anti-discrimniation laws), you're simply wrong. It's settled constitutional law. And interestingly enough, the precedent goes back to Reynolds v. United States in which SCOTUS ruled against Mormons claiming exemption from anti-bigamy laws because of their religious beliefs under the first amendment.
Up for debate little man.

You don't go disrespecting one's freedoms in this country by screwing them over in a method that manipulates the law asshat.

If so then a full grown man who got a black eye from a bad fall could easily call the law and claim his wife gave him a shiner and have her arrested for domestic battery without question as a tool leading to his divorce.

Gays are using these tools now and if they don't stop we will.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16375
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is the discussion is about a business deemed a public accommodation and subject to general laws, not the private home of an individual protected by freedom of religion. Different circumstances, different rules. See the SCOTUS majority opinion by Justice Scalia in Employment Division v. Smith.
Not sure what's set you off on a rampage against gays again, Dan. I thought you'd moved past that several years ago. However, if you mistakenly believe one's religion or religious beliefs exempts one from compliance with general laws (like anti-discrimniation laws), you're simply wrong. It's settled constitutional law. And interestingly enough, the precedent goes back to Reynolds v. United States in which SCOTUS ruled against Mormons claiming exemption from anti-bigamy laws because of their religious beliefs under the first amendment.
Gays are no better than heterosexuals but odd how they don't own up to their screwups.

Listen...gays are on the fringe of acceptance but the closer they get the more they decide to play the fool.

I don't get gays as do MOST people. Maybe they should play nice. HMMMMMMMMM???

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16376
Feb 5, 2014
 
Denver Dan wrote:
Up for debate little man.
You don't go disrespecting one's freedoms in this country by screwing them over in a method that manipulates the law asshat.
We've moved past the era when religious beliefs were used to justify slavery and segregation. It doesn't fly when trying to discriminate against gays either. SCOTUS precedent is clear: your religious beliefs don't exempt you from compliance with general laws that incidentally burden but don't specifically target religion.
Denver Dan wrote:
If so then a full grown man who got a black eye from a bad fall could easily call the law and claim his wife gave him a shiner and have her arrested for domestic battery without question as a tool leading to his divorce.
Gays are using these tools now and if they don't stop we will.
What does this have to do with citing religious beliefs to justify breaking anti-discrmination laws?
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16377
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
We've moved past the era when religious beliefs were used to justify slavery and segregation. It doesn't fly when trying to discriminate against gays either. SCOTUS precedent is clear: your religious beliefs don't exempt you from compliance with general laws that incidentally burden but don't specifically target religion.
<quoted text>
What does this have to do with citing religious beliefs to justify breaking anti-discrmination laws?
Hey punk -

---we haven't "moved past" the idea religious freedoms were not a basic CIVIL RIGHT just because a bunch of sexually confused idiots thinks so.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16378
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Denver Dan wrote:
Gays are no better than heterosexuals but odd how they don't own up to their screwups.
Yes, no gay person has ever admitted to making a mistake. <rolls eyes>. Remember what what I said about sweeping generalizations applying both ways, Dan. You just seem intent on picking a fight with gays today.
Denver Dan wrote:
Listen...gays are on the fringe of acceptance but the closer they get the more they decide to play the fool.
I don't get gays as do MOST people. Maybe they should play nice. HMMMMMMMMM???
Did you not "get" blacks either when they complained about being discriminated against by businesses? Because if you defend people citing religious beliefs to refuse to sell cakes, photographic serves, etc. to gay people for their weddings, it's really no different than people who cited their religious beliefs to justify Jim Crow segregation. They cited religious beliefs too. Recall, the Southern Baptist Convention actually apologized (finally) for their support of racism.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16379
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, no gay person has ever admitted to making a mistake. <rolls eyes>. Remember what what I said about sweeping generalizations applying both ways, Dan. You just seem intent on picking a fight with gays today.
<quoted text>
Did you not "get" blacks either when they complained about being discriminated against by businesses? Because if you defend people citing religious beliefs to refuse to sell cakes, photographic serves, etc. to gay people for their weddings, it's really no different than people who cited their religious beliefs to justify Jim Crow segregation. They cited religious beliefs too. Recall, the Southern Baptist Convention actually apologized (finally) for their support of racism.
None in this forum has bitch.- Next.

What do you even know about racial discrimination in the past idiot.- It has NO connection to those wanting to marry their cow or have sex with their fraternal brother from college idiot. Let alone the pains they had to endure.

It so angers me given I have family that endured those times and to hear from some QUEER he didn't get his wedding cake from a single baker in a city friendly TO gays is such a joke it's unbelievable when compared to reality real discrimination was about.

Get lost drama homo. You've got no more ammo that a little toddler crying to her momma why she didn't get the Cap'n Crunch cereal instead of the Cheerios her mother bought for her.

Gays are nothing but punks explaining their delays in life.

“Let the games begin. . .”

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16380
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Cute.
Fact is neither the gay community as a whole nor the straight community will identify themselves as being pedophiles because neither of us is not yet you want to use the same idea to label heterosexuals as being little kiddy rapists.
Better get your shit straight loser because MOST people identify gays as being a danger to children now.
You stupid queer - I too think it's a misconception people view gays as a threat to children but you start attacking heterosexuals in the same fashion you're SCREWED buddy. You're digging your own grave.
He only mentioned the heteros who do molest little girls. So you shouldn't need to worry - right?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16381
Feb 5, 2014
 
Denver Dan wrote:
Hey punk -
---we haven't "moved past" the idea religious freedoms were not a basic CIVIL RIGHT just because a bunch of sexually confused idiots thinks so.
I never stated religious freedom wasn't a basic civil right. But freedom of religion is no more absolute than any other of our civil or fundamental rights. Freedom of religion does not extend to running a business and discriminating against classes of people you dislike in direct violation of anti-discrmination laws. Period. If you don't like it, I suggest you take it up with SCOTUS. They made that ruling, not me. But I do agree with it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16382
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
None in this forum has bitch.- Next.
What do you even know about racial discrimination in the past idiot.- It has NO connection to those wanting to marry their cow or have sex with their fraternal brother from college idiot. Let alone the pains they had to endure.
It so angers me given I have family that endured those times and to hear from some QUEER he didn't get his wedding cake from a single baker in a city friendly TO gays is such a joke it's unbelievable when compared to reality real discrimination was about.
Get lost drama homo. You've got no more ammo that a little toddler crying to her momma why she didn't get the Cap'n Crunch cereal instead of the Cheerios her mother bought for her.
Gays are nothing but punks explaining their delays in life.
Go take two Midol and untwist your panties, Dan. You've apparently cut off the circulation to your brain, again.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16383
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Go take two Midol and untwist your panties, Dan. You've apparently cut off the circulation to your brain, again.
ROFL - You always seem to to ground me.-
SteamRoller

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16384
Feb 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
None in this forum has bitch.- Next.
What do you even know about racial discrimination in the past idiot.- It has NO connection to those wanting to marry their cow or have sex with their fraternal brother from college idiot. Let alone the pains they had to endure.
It so angers me given I have family that endured those times and to hear from some QUEER he didn't get his wedding cake from a single baker in a city friendly TO gays is such a joke it's unbelievable when compared to reality real discrimination was about.
Get lost drama homo. You've got no more ammo that a little toddler crying to her momma why she didn't get the Cap'n Crunch cereal instead of the Cheerios her mother bought for her.
Gays are nothing but punks explaining their delays in life.
Me suck you long time.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16385
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Marriage was created so children may be raised in a home by their mother and father. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16386
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
Marriage was created so children may be raised in a home by their mother and father. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
When are you going to quit with that charade? They are the same if a STR8 couple get divorce...or a guy says ........see ya to his g/f if she gets pregnant. Then don't leave out the child that gets physically abused by the parents.....the list goes on.....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16387
Feb 6, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage was created so children may be raised in a home by their mother and father. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
Brian, does the state intervene when a child is born out of wedlock?
Does it prohibit divorce?

If not, your argument is out of gas.

One more question, if a gay couple were to sign a document stating that they relinquish all rights to adopt a child, would you support their right to marry, or is this just another in a series of Bull**** rationalizations on your part? I know, it is an absurd hypothetical, but since your argument is bat **** insane, it is the only one that fits.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16388
Feb 6, 2014
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
What is your interpretation of why it is illegal if not moral disapproval? As nhjeff pointed out, the term "odious" was used.
The question in Reynolds, if you had actually bothered to read the decision, is the legality of the grand jury, and whether this was an infringement of religious freedom. the court decided that neither was the case.

It's a good idea to know a little about a case before one starts spouting BS. Particularly, if they are intent upon including things that are outside the scope of the ruling rendered.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16389
Feb 6, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage was created so children may be raised in a home by their mother and father. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
And you have yet to provide a single example of a child who had better alternatives. We're waiting, but we're not holding our breath.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16390
Feb 6, 2014
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The question in Reynolds, if you had actually bothered to read the decision, is the legality of the grand jury, and whether this was an infringement of religious freedom. the court decided that neither was the case.
It's a good idea to know a little about a case before one starts spouting BS. Particularly, if they are intent upon including things that are outside the scope of the ruling rendered.
Most of the Court’s argument is dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution’s religion clauses, but also noteworthy is its passing comment on the basis of the law in question, a basis that the Court at that time apparently found unquestionably legitimate:“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”

Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice.
- See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16391
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the deal.
You play grabass with your "partner" all you want.
I agree you should hold that right. Crap - marry the fruit, who cares???
But when it comes to you and yours suddenly taking your newly found freedoms and telling heterosexuals how to live and behave we'll shove your fresh found freedoms back to where they came.
OK??????????
Could you present the post number where some one told you how to live or behave? Yeah, I didn't think so. Just another jackass whiner. You sound like a sniveling 8 year old.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16392
Feb 6, 2014
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Most of the Court’s argument is dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution’s religion clauses, but also noteworthy is its passing comment on the basis of the law in question, a basis that the Court at that time apparently found unquestionably legitimate:“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”
Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice.
- See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972...
Do you notice that from a decision that is over 100 pages in length, you can find one sentence in passing that supports your absurd notion?

One could almost draw the conclusion that this was not the main thrust of the courts ruling, and that it was in fact little more than a passing mention. None of which negates the simple fact that the court held against Reynolds, and the decision has not been reversed.

Even you must be smart enough to see that the court seems to think that the issue of polygamy poses a substantially differing set of legal issues than interracial marriage, or same sex marriage, which is why the court addresses these issues separately, instead of making sweeping changes to existing law and jurisprudence.

Quit being an idiot and come back to the topic at hand, Frankie. If you are able.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16393
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Love the spin!
No spin required. Try educating yourself rather than just being childish smartass.

http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.asp...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 15,141 - 15,160 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

35 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Croatia same-sex vote: Croats strongly vote aga... (Dec '13) 2 min BJ4me 119
Outrage as Australian judge says incest, pedoph... 21 min Observer 20
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 26 min Varitas 50,406
Pelosi backs gay-rights bill despite concerns 29 min Fa-Foxy 5
CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple We... (Dec '13) 34 min canser suxs 15,417
Tony Perkins Warns Support of Gay Rights by 'Li... 51 min Wondering 8
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 59 min Poof1 1,766
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••