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.

Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16690 Feb 12, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I have a degree in cultural anthropology.
haahahah
hahahahahaha
hahahahahahah

That lie gets funnier each time you tell it.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#16691 Feb 12, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering he has 17 children, not all will opt for that kind of relationship. I wonder if daughters of lesbians want a monogamous relationship with a woman.....hmmmmm...nice try Nor Callie.:)
i've got an old friend that i've had since college. her mom was a lesbian. my friend is straight, is married now 25 yrs to one man and they together raised a daughter - who is also straight.

i have 2 lesbian friends who are a long time couple (12 yrs at this point) and are raising a daughter. the daughter is straight.

conversely, most of my friends that are gay had straight parents.

i can't even say "nice try, pietro" on your attempt to theorize.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#16692 Feb 12, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you trot out one girl who because men were not accustomed to her speed and pitch (she only had one pitch) were over zealous in swinging happened to strike out. did she ever strike out anyone else?
now if you are going to try and throw some "facts" around you might be careful as the internet might tell a different story.
the "AAGPBL" played one year with almost the same rules and equipment as the guys. apparently it didn't work out so well.
when the name was changed to the "AGPBL" in 1949 the ball was a 10" ball instead of the standard 9". the base paths were 72' instead of 90'. the pitcher's mound was 50' instead of 60'
in their final year of play they gave it a go with a standard ball and pitcher's mound but the base paths only went to 85'
so no, women can not play on the same level as men and they never did.
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
There is MORE than just one.....but your misogynistic attitude clearly is showing on what you think women are capable of......that's sad, does your wife and daughter know how you truly feel about them?
Yea they can, the fact that men feel the need to change the playing field is what is sad!!!!
I know more about Gender Equity than you can hope........my thesis is ALL about what women go through who work in Non-traditional occupations!!!
men need to change the playing field? are you clueless?
if there is more than one how about listing them?
My wife was on a state championship softball team. she played at various times on our men's fast pitch team but never hit the ball out of the infield. not a bad fielder though. she understands sports completely.
try your next thesis on women competing against men in any sport. even in gymnastics the rules are different.
women can not physically compete with men at the same level. and for you to take exception to that just shows your inability to face reality.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#16693 Feb 12, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so here is the refusal. as a "born again Christian" who feels that homosexual marriage is against God's law I would have great difficulty in producing the best product for you. you would be better served to hire another florist who would enjoy doing your "wedding" that way you don't have to blame any dissatisfaction with my work on my Christianity and you will be more relaxed and enjoy your event with out that distraction."
they probably would have sued anyway.
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that refusal is based on their sexual orientation which is a protected class for Washington anti-disrmination law and thus illegal. A perfectly legal refusal would be "I'm sorry, I'm not available (or don't have capacity) on the day you requested."
There's no need to explain why you aren't available or don't have capacity. In fact, it's the insistence on pontificating about your religious beliefs that contributes to the breaking of the law. You aren't merely content to decline the business, you insist upon publicly judging and condemning the customers as immoral as well.
<quoted text>
No, it's about teaching people they aren't above the law regardless of the justification they give.
so i was right. it is not about equality but it is about your agenda of forcing someone to do what they feel is morally wrong solely on your opinion that their opinion is morally wrong.
see, you want us to lie to you, but unfortunately for us, we feel that lying is morally wrong.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#16694 Feb 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians.
<quoted text>
I've already cited the verses. Your apparent attention deficit disorder isn't my problem.
no, you did not cite any verse that said that Christians had to obey the laws or the government of the land. you cited verses that used different words that you claimed meant the same as "obey" but in actuality have a different meaning therefore the different word was used.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16695 Feb 12, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution.
Brian, you really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you.

Does the 14th Amendment mandate that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws? If so, your idiotic assertion is not true.
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't freedom or equal rights since same sex couples may live as married in every state.
Brian, you have yet to offer a state interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional, and begin to indicate that you are not an imbecile.
Brian_G wrote:
Bigamy and incest marriage are felonies in many states but no state criminalizes same sex marriage.
There are state interests served by preventing both such unions.
Brian_G wrote:
The issue is rewriting marriage law for everyone based on sex segregation instead of the perfect integration, diversity and affirmative action in one man and one woman marriage.
Brian, you are an idiot. The government is currently segregating by arbitrarily denying some consenting adults the right to marry, absent any state interest served by preventing them from doing so.
Allowing people to marry the adult same sex consenting partner of their choosing is in no way segregation.
Segregation noun
1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated
2a : the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means
b : the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seg...

Allowing individuals to chose is not segregation. One would need to be a bald faced liar, or a complete imbecile to claim otherwise.
Brian_G wrote:
^^^Another perfect example of inanity and vile defamation.
The truth is an absolute defense against defamation, Brian.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16696 Feb 12, 2014
barry wrote:
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so here is the refusal. as a "born again Christian" who feels that homosexual marriage is against God's law I would have great difficulty in producing the best product for you. you would be better served to hire another florist who would enjoy doing your "wedding" that way you don't have to blame any dissatisfaction with my work on my Christianity and you will be more relaxed and enjoy your event with out that distraction."
they probably would have sued anyway.<quoted text>so i was right. it is not about equality but it is about your agenda of forcing someone to do what they feel is morally wrong solely on your opinion that their opinion is morally wrong.
see, you want us to lie to you, but unfortunately for us, we feel that lying is morally wrong.
If you think making flower decorations for a wedding is "morally wrong" you are brain damaged. If you don't want to follow the law, don't go into business. Your stupid religion doesn't give you they right to ignore the law.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#16697 Feb 12, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your bigotry disappoints me as a human. That's the only disappointment I feel.
<quoted text>
No one believes that for a second.
<quoted text>
Neither you nor Baronelle were "dragged" into anything. she was asked to make flowers. You aren't involved in any way, much as you keep pretending otherwise.
<quoted text>
She's not an artist, she's a florist. And her mood is irrelevant. Patrons of her business aren't required to know her mood.
<quoted text>
Sounds to me like you just want to continue making up reasons that her discrimination was justified. It wasn't.
<quoted text>
No, nobody knows that, it's just something you make up to try and justify her discrimination.
<quoted text>
Her freedoms weren't affected in any way. You continue to labor under the erroneous idea that she has some religious freedom to discriminate her services. She doesn't.
<quoted text>
It's been demonstrated ad nauseum, you just prefer to pretend otherwise. "I can't do YOUR wedding"
<quoted text>
This too has been shown, you just continue to ignore it because you don't like it. That's typical of fundies.
i have made my living as a contractor, even was a photographer in the past. i still work from time to time as a contractor even though i don't have to because my skill set is still in demand. i am blessed to increase my livelihood in other areas that are less physically challenging at my age because i am good at them also.
in all of the above areas you would gladly drag me into it. she was asked to use her creative artistic skills to create something that would celebrate an event that she felt was morally wrong. the couple would have been better served to just simply ask someone else who would enjoy doing it for them. but no they and you feel obligated to prove a point with no respect for anyone's religious freedom.
and florists aren't artists? just google "artistic" and "florists"
time to get with it a little..
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16698 Feb 12, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, you did not cite any verse that said that Christians had to obey the laws or the government of the land. you cited verses that used different words that you claimed meant the same as "obey" but in actuality have a different meaning therefore the different word was used.
OMFG! You can't be THAT stupid.

Romans 13

13 Every person should place themselves under the authority of the government. There isn’t any authority unless it comes from God, and the authorities that are there have been put in place by God. 2 So anyone who opposes the authority is standing against what God has established. People who take this kind of stand will get punished. 3 The authorities don’t frighten people who are doing the right thing. Rather, they frighten people who are doing wrong. Would you rather not be afraid of authority? Do what’s right, and you will receive its approval. 4 It is God’s servant given for your benefit. But if you do what’s wrong, be afraid because it doesn’t have weapons to enforce the law for nothing. It is God’s servant put in place to carry out his punishment on those who do what is wrong. 5 That is why it is necessary to place yourself under the government’s authority, not only to avoid God’s punishment but also for the sake of your conscience. 6 You should also pay taxes for the same reason, because the authorities are God’s assistants, concerned with this very thing. 7 So pay everyone what you owe them. Pay the taxes you owe, pay the duties you are charged, give respect to those you should respect, and honor those you should honor.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16699 Feb 12, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i have made my living as a contractor, even was a photographer in the past. i still work from time to time as a contractor even though i don't have to because my skill set is still in demand. i am blessed to increase my livelihood in other areas that are less physically challenging at my age because i am good at them also.
in all of the above areas you would gladly drag me into it. she was asked to use her creative artistic skills to create something that would celebrate an event that she felt was morally wrong. the couple would have been better served to just simply ask someone else who would enjoy doing it for them. but no they and you feel obligated to prove a point with no respect for anyone's religious freedom.
and florists aren't artists? just google "artistic" and "florists"
time to get with it a little..
Religious freedom has NOTHING

NOTHING

NOTHING to do with flower arranging.

Religious freedom means you are free to BELIEVE. It does NOT mean you are free to ignore the law.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#16700 Feb 12, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Still socked it to'em didn't she;0)
Ouch! Someone really ruffled your Bantam feathers didn't they? Lol....no matter. Next time I need to give birth to 14 pounds worth of twins I'll get a macho guy like you to do the job. Or can you stand that level of pain? Nope, didn't think so. Baseball, bah. You want to pick and choose your levels buddy? No way, try my level, sparky.
BTW, I had a strawboss once who told me to do a man's work if I wanted a man's pay. I told him that being a five foot tall woman, I could do anything a 5 foot tall man could do, bring him on....and I did.
right, she pitched to three people. struck out babe ruth and lou gehrig and walked tony lazzerri. she never pitched again to a major league player.
i wasn't the one who brought her up.
so we are talking about women being able to play competitively against guys at the same level. we were also talking about guys who think that they are really girls stuck in a man's body being given the right in california to play on the girl's teams against other girl's teams. that is not what equal opportunity is about.
now as for you being able to do the work of another man your size... go for it. work is a different thing although when it comes to construction you might not be able to keep up. however if you have been following this conversation you would know that i have never been against women playing on a men's team or a men's sport if they have the skills to do so. but the issue is that a male body has physical advantages over the female body and it would not be fair to let a guy play on a girl's team simply because he thinks or says he is a girl in a man's body.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16701 Feb 12, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
Religious freedom has NOTHING
NOTHING
NOTHING to do with flower arranging.
Nor, apparently, does it have anything to do with cake baking.
"As a general rule, when the Court has held religious-based conduct to be free
from regulation,“the conduct at issue in those cases was not prohibited by law,”
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 876; the freedom asserted did not bring the
appellees “into collision with rights asserted by any other individual,” Braunfeld v.
Brown, 366 U.S. at 604 (“It is such conflicts which most frequently require intervention
of the State to determine where the rights of one end and those of another begin”); and
the regulation did not involve an incidental burden upon a commercial activity. United
States v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 261 (“When followers of a particular sect enter into
commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as
a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes
which are binding on others in that activity.”)
Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is
distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to
legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law (§ 24-34-601. C.R.S.); it
adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the
marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate
regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that
barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free
exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple
due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a
biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that
argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, supra."
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

However, good luck getting the dullest of the dull posting here to understand basic logic and reasoning.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#16702 Feb 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
<quoted text>
Whether floral arrangement is art or craft is debatable. Regardless, a craftsman or artist who sells the result of their talents/skills to the general public is still a public accommodation and subject to anti-discriminiation laws. And being asked to create floral arrangements containing certain flowers or colors is not being asked to "have a part in the event" any more than the caterer that sets the table for dinner. Fi n artist/craftsperson wants control over who they seek their work to, then they are free to pursue the wholesale business model where they can pick and choose their distributors.
<quoted text>
...
Then there's no excuse for your ignorance and stupidity regarding the speed of civil legal proceedings.
there you go again. i can't find anywhere where the state of washington defines a flower shop as a place of "public accommodation". new mexico does so maybe they do. however where the case will fall apart is that nowhere is going to an event and setting up flowers or taking pictures defined as a public accommodation. since the public does not have free access to the event nor do the vendors have free access to the event, the event is not covered.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#16703 Feb 12, 2014
barry wrote:
Christians don't ask Jews or muslims to serve pork at their receptions.
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
...
<quoted text>
That's because weddings receptions aren't businesses and therefore not public accommodations subject to anti-discrimination laws; they're private parties with a host(s) and invited guests. Such events are governed by social conventions and the rules of etiquette, not civil law.
That you think a guest at a private social event is remotely comparable to a customer of a business selling goods/services to the general public just demonstrates how stupid you are.
wow, did you miss the point.
but then you clearly make the point that weddings and other events are not covered by the law.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#16704 Feb 12, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious freedom has NOTHING
NOTHING
NOTHING to do with flower arranging.
Religious freedom means you are free to BELIEVE. It does NOT mean you are free to ignore the law.
religious freedom affects daily life. if we are not free to live by what we believe, then there is no religious freedom.
and you are right. religious freedom has nothing to do with arranging flowers but i has everything to do with where you would want me to deliver those flowers.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16705 Feb 12, 2014
barry wrote:
there you go again. i can't find anywhere where the state of washington defines a flower shop as a place of "public accommodation". new mexico does so maybe they do. however where the case will fall apart is that nowhere is going to an event and setting up flowers or taking pictures defined as a public accommodation. since the public does not have free access to the event nor do the vendors have free access to the event, the event is not covered.
"PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
• Public resorts;
• Places of accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;
• Public schools;
• Private institutions open to the public for an event or gathering;
• Places of patronage, including government offices, stores, shopping malls, theaters, libraries, hospitals, and transit facilities."
http://www.hum.wa.gov/documents/Brochures/PA0...

"(2) "Any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement" includes, but is not limited to, any place, licensed or unlicensed, kept for gain, hire, or reward, or where charges are made for admission, service, occupancy, or use of any property or facilities, whether conducted for the entertainment, housing, or lodging of transient guests, or for the benefit, use, or accommodation of those seeking health, recreation, or rest, or for the burial or other disposition of human remains, or for the sale of goods, merchandise, services, or personal property, or for the rendering of personal services, or for public conveyance or transportation on land, water, or in the air, including the stations and terminals thereof and the garaging of vehicles, or where food or beverages of any kind are sold for consumption on the premises, or where public amusement, entertainment, sports, or recreation of any kind is offered with or without charge, or where medical service or care is made available, or where the public gathers, congregates, or assembles for amusement, recreation, or public purposes, or public halls, public elevators, and public washrooms of buildings and structures occupied by two or more tenants, or by the owner and one or more tenants, or any public library or educational institution, or schools of special instruction, or nursery schools, or day care centers or children's camps: PROVIDED, That nothing contained in this definition shall be construed to include or apply to any institute, bona fide club, or place of accommodation, which is by its nature distinctly private, including fraternal organizations, though where public use is permitted that use shall be covered by this chapter; nor shall anything contained in this definition apply to any educational facility, columbarium, crematory, mausoleum, or cemetery operated or maintained by a bona fide religious or sectarian institution."
RCW 49.60.040
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16706 Feb 12, 2014
barry wrote:
religious freedom affects daily life. if we are not free to live by what we believe, then there is no religious freedom.
Providing service to someone with differing beliefs does not infringe upon the religious freedom of the proprietor. Denying service to a customer because they hold differing beliefs absolutely violates the free exercise of the would be customer.

"As a general rule, when the Court has held religious-based conduct to be free
from regulation,“the conduct at issue in those cases was not prohibited by law,”
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 876; the freedom asserted did not bring the
appellees “into collision with rights asserted by any other individual,” Braunfeld v.
Brown, 366 U.S. at 604 (“It is such conflicts which most frequently require intervention
of the State to determine where the rights of one end and those of another begin”); and
the regulation did not involve an incidental burden upon a commercial activity. United
States v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 261 (“When followers of a particular sect enter into
commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as
a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes
which are binding on others in that activity.”)
Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is
distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to
legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law (§ 24-34-601. C.R.S.); it
adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the
marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate
regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that
barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free
exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple
due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a
biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that
argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, supra."
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
barry

Pisgah, AL

#16707 Feb 12, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
OMFG! You can't be THAT stupid.
Romans 13
13 Every person should place themselves under the authority of the government. There isn’t any authority unless it comes from God, and the authorities that are there have been put in place by God. 2 So anyone who opposes the authority is standing against what God has established. People who take this kind of stand will get punished. 3 The authorities don’t frighten people who are doing the right thing. Rather, they frighten people who are doing wrong. Would you rather not be afraid of authority? Do what’s right, and you will receive its approval. 4 It is God’s servant given for your benefit. But if you do what’s wrong, be afraid because it doesn’t have weapons to enforce the law for nothing. It is God’s servant put in place to carry out his punishment on those who do what is wrong. 5 That is why it is necessary to place yourself under the government’s authority, not only to avoid God’s punishment but also for the sake of your conscience. 6 You should also pay taxes for the same reason, because the authorities are God’s assistants, concerned with this very thing. 7 So pay everyone what you owe them. Pay the taxes you owe, pay the duties you are charged, give respect to those you should respect, and honor those you should honor.
stupid?
where is the command to "obey" the government? being under the authority means to live within the rules of the government. that would mean taking legal efforts to change the rules if you disagreed with them. and it would mean accepting the legal consequences but it does not mean that we must do what the gov tells us. the Bible is full of examples of believers and Christians who disobeyed the government and accepted the legal consequences but they did not go against what the Word of God told them to do.

btw you use a strange translation.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16708 Feb 12, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
The mayor of Sochi says no gays live here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25464...
Gay rights means to live like a human, not rewriting marriage law for everyone.
Being human means having the fundamental right to marry someone congruent with their sexual orientation, not being told by bigots like you to marry an opposite sex person or don't marry at all, Brian. You're really no different than the mayor of Sochi; you just draw the line of discrimination against gays in a different and somewhat less onerous place.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#16709 Feb 12, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if you weren't looking at the wrong statute for defining a public accommodation as it applies to anti-discrminiation law, you ignore still ignore the very first sentence which states "INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO". For the intellectually retarded like you, that means the list that follows is NOT all inclusive of every possible example of a public accommodation.
<quoted text>
That's because you left out the part defining discrimination as an unfair practice that is prohibited by public accommodation. The specific language of RCW 49.60.215 begins with the following:
"It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination...
And this section is a list of prohibited practices by public accommodations, not a definition of a public accommodation.
Are you really this illiterate?
<quoted text>
And once again, you willfully ignore the post which included my reference to the applicable statute and text. Your intellectual dishonesty apparently knows no bounds. Once more, for the learning disabled moron calling himself "barry":
RCW 49.60.040
Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.[Note to barry: this means the definitions apply specifically to chapter 49 of the Washington statues which is the chapter that details anti-discrimination law]
"Any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement" includes, but is not limited to, any place, licensed or unlicensed, kept for gain, hire, or reward, or where charges are made for admission, service, occupancy, or use of any property or facilities, whether conducted for the entertainment, housing, or lodging of transient guests, or for the benefit, use, or accommodation of those seeking health, recreation, or rest, or for the burial or other disposition of human remains, or for the sale of goods, merchandise, services, or personal property, or for the rendering of personal services..."
Note specifically where it states:
"for the sale of goods, merchandise, services, or personal property, or for the rendering of personal services"
That makes Baronelle's flower shop a public accommodation as defined by Washington law as it applies to anti-discrmination law.
The bottom line is you're wrong. And you've been wrong since day one on this topic. Willfully ignoring the posts that prove you wrong is childish, immature and cowardly.
well thank you. so her shop may fall under the definition of a "public accommodation" but her leaving her shop to deliver and set up flowers at an event is not covered.

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 Judge who's against gay adoption misses discipl... 12 min Europhobia 3
News Trump Renominates Lesbian to EEOC, and the Righ... 13 min GodSmacked 3
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 20 min NotSoDivineMsM 346
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 21 min GodSmacked 26,933
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 27 min Frindly 14,954
News Leaked Mormon Church booklet for leaders claims... 31 min jcofe 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr cpeter1313 58,463
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 1 hr Theocraencyclical 129
More from around the web