Catholic Church Waging War on Women a...

Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays

There are 218493 comments on the Fables of the reconstruction story from Oct 30, 2007, titled Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays. In it, Fables of the reconstruction reports that:

“Pharmacists must seek to raise people's awareness so that all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role”

Pope Benedict XVI said Monday that pharmacists have a right to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing emergency contraception or euthanasia drugs - and told them they should also inform patients of the ... via Fables of the reconstruction

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fables of the reconstruction.

STO

Vallejo, CA

#255986 Jun 16, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
On what basis could they decline if the government says it is a constitutional right? Do you think someone's constitutional rights can be denied just because someone else doesn't like what they do?


You are asserting if both parties have rights, those rights will conflict --- a couple's right to marry and the clergy's right to deny presiding over any wedding. Why do you believe the couple's right will win? As it is, now, the clergy can deny marrying anyone for any reason they want. How will SSM suddenly cancel out the clergy's freedom to practice his/her religion?

Your basic premise is that legalizing SSM will obliterate the Establishment Clause. I don't see any evidence that would happen.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#255987 Jun 17, 2015
Junket wrote:
Lol! Brian, where do come up with your outlandish notions? Higher taxes to pay for what exactly? SSM has been recognized in CT since 2008. Not a single ripple has resulted. Connecticans tax money is now being allegedly used to improve/replace infrastructures and promote busing. Marriage equality has not changed anything for those opposed; merely has benefited those oppressed.
Higher taxes to pay for more benefits; government licensed sex segregated marriage is all about the money.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#255988 Jun 17, 2015
Brian_G wrote:
Higher taxes to pay for more benefits; government licensed sex segregated marriage is all about the money.
Tell me, twit, does these nebulous "benefits" exist for straight married couples, yes or no? If so, under what legal theory would you exclude same sex couples from equality under the law?

Don't like the "benefits" then work to fix them. The reality is that there isn't some taxpayer funded incentive to marriage, and depending upon the financial disposition of the parties to the marriage, there could be a marital tax penalty.

You are dumber than a rock.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#255989 Jun 17, 2015
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Higher taxes to pay for more benefits; government licensed sex segregated marriage is all about the money.
Care to explain your rationale for what appears to be a ludicrous belief on your part? What benefits? Plenty of couples are opting not to marry these days. That should more than offset whatever paranoid notion has settled into your noggin.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#255990 Jun 17, 2015
Junket wrote:
Care to explain your rationale for what appears to be a ludicrous belief on your part? What benefits? Plenty of couples are opting not to marry these days. That should more than offset whatever paranoid notion has settled into your noggin.
Only if you can decide whether couples opting not to marry will offset the costs or if there are not costs to marriage benefits; pick one.

It's all about the money; if it was about freedom they wouldn't be suing the baker, photographer or florist.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#255991 Jun 17, 2015
Brian_G wrote:
Only if you can decide whether couples opting not to marry will offset the costs or if there are not costs to marriage benefits; pick one.
What are these benefits, that you think exist, that are a tax liability. Be specific.

If such a benefit does exist, then it needs to be equally available to anyone who chooses to marry.
Brian_G wrote:
It's all about the money; if it was about freedom they wouldn't be suing the baker, photographer or florist.
No, twit, it is about enforcing the law. The baker, photographer, and florist were sued for their illegal actions, each had their day in court, and each lost.

Grow a brain.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#255992 Jun 17, 2015
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Only if you can decide whether couples opting not to marry will offset the costs or if there are not costs to marriage benefits; pick one.
It's all about the money; if it was about freedom they wouldn't be suing the baker, photographer or florist.
Pick one what, Brian? I've tried to follow your Point A to outer space, but I surrender. Lawsuits are a dime a dozen these days. I'm fairly sure that bakers, photographers and florists have been sued in the past. Perhaps not florists. I'm having a hard time envisioning that one, but anything is possible these days.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#255993 Jun 17, 2015
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Higher taxes to pay for more benefits; government licensed sex segregated marriage is all about the money.
Same sex legally married couples will be able to file a joint tax return. That will not affect you. They will also be free from an inheritance tax, should one of them pass away. That will not affect you. Their blood relatives will not be able to challenge the surviving partner for whatever wealth the couple may have accumulated. That's no different than a man/woman marriage, and again, it won't affect you.

If SSM were to cause "higher taxes to pay for more benefits", then every straight marriage would, as well. And since there are wayyyyyyy more straight people marrying, blame your imagined "higher taxes to pay for more benefits" malarkey on them.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#255994 Jun 17, 2015
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Only if you can decide whether couples opting not to marry will offset the costs or if there are not costs to marriage benefits; pick one.
It's all about the money; if it was about freedom they wouldn't be suing the baker, photographer or florist.
Civil lawsuits cost money. Court fees. Attorney fees. It wouldn't be worth the time and money to sue a baker, photographer or florist if the motive was financial gain and only financial gain. They don't have boatloads of money.

These lawsuits are about discrimination -- to put precedent on the books which says you can't refuse service to people because they are gay. No different than if they were black or female or Muslim, etc.

So, no, Brian, you are absolutely wrong.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#255995 Jun 17, 2015
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as "constitutional rights".
The purpose of the laws of the constitution is to protect the peoples inherent rights.
You have the inherent right to freedom of speech, whether or not your government protects that right with a constitution, or whatever depends upon the competency of your government.
Hi Mary, did you have a relevant point to make?
Ink

Millsboro, DE

#255996 Jun 20, 2015
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be their constitutional right to legally marry. It's never been a constitutional right to have a specific person perform your marriage.
If the gay couple wants a specific person or church to marry them and they don't then they will sue for discrimination as has already happened in the case of the photographer and the cake maker.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#255997 Jun 20, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If the gay couple wants a specific person or church to marry them and they don't then they will sue for discrimination as has already happened in the case of the photographer and the cake maker.
Oh ferkrissake, Ink. Religions discriminate. That's why there are so many of them. It is their right to discriminate, protected by the Establishment Clause.

Catholicism can't be forced to be Protestant. Protestants can't be forced to be Jewish can't be forced to be Mormon can't be forced to be Jehovah's Witness, and on and on.

Why do you think lil' ol' same sex marriage has the power to take down every religion/faith in America? Seriously?

What you are asserting is that (for example) a Satanic Cult could force a Presbyterian Church to use their building and make their clergy preside over a ceremony that is in complete contradiction to Christianity.

Ludicrous.

You're not even discussing SSM, at this point. In fact, you're not even discussing marriage, anybody's marriage.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#255998 Jun 23, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
If the gay couple wants a specific person or church to marry them and they don't then they will sue for discrimination as has already happened in the case of the photographer and the cake maker.
They can't. Churches aren't subject to anti-discrimination laws. They're not public accommodations.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#256000 Jun 24, 2015
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
They can't. Churches aren't subject to anti-discrimination laws. They're not public accommodations.
It can also be pointed out that photographers and bakers are NOT religious institutions and ARE subject to anti-discrimination laws.

But Ink doesn't pay any attention to any explanation ever given... just ignores and denies and keeps repeating the same ridiculous nonsense like a broken record. She is not programmed to understand reality and logic, she is programmed to repeat nonsense and lies.

People can try to sue for just about anything, but a lawsuit against a priest for refusing to marry ANYONE for ANY REASON will fail in every American court. Either ink is too dense to understand that, or she is willfully fear-mongering... trying to SCARE people who are stupid enough to believe the garbage and jump on her anti-gay bandwagon.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#256001 Jun 26, 2015
Hey Ink!

Is the sky falling?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#256002 Jun 27, 2015
The_Box wrote:
They can't. Churches aren't subject to anti-discrimination laws. They're not public accommodations.
Wait for it...
STO

Vallejo, CA

#256003 Jun 27, 2015
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Wait for it...
You're gonna be waiting a long time. Maybe forever...
Ink

Millsboro, DE

#256004 Jun 28, 2015
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
It can also be pointed out that photographers and bakers are NOT religious institutions and ARE subject to anti-discrimination laws.
But Ink doesn't pay any attention to any explanation ever given... just ignores and denies and keeps repeating the same ridiculous nonsense like a broken record. She is not programmed to understand reality and logic, she is programmed to repeat nonsense and lies.
People can try to sue for just about anything, but a lawsuit against a priest for refusing to marry ANYONE for ANY REASON will fail in every American court. Either ink is too dense to understand that, or she is willfully fear-mongering... trying to SCARE people who are stupid enough to believe the garbage and jump on her anti-gay bandwagon.
So you are saying that only religious institutions will be protected under the law and religious individuals won't be. How should we punish those indiviuals who don't think the way you do?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#256005 Jun 28, 2015
STO wrote:
You're gonna be waiting a long time. Maybe forever...
Maybe tomorrow...
Ink

Millsboro, DE

#256006 Jun 28, 2015
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh ferkrissake, Ink. Religions discriminate. That's why there are so many of them. It is their right to discriminate, protected by the Establishment Clause.
Catholicism can't be forced to be Protestant. Protestants can't be forced to be Jewish can't be forced to be Mormon can't be forced to be Jehovah's Witness, and on and on.
Why do you think lil' ol' same sex marriage has the power to take down every religion/faith in America? Seriously?
What you are asserting is that (for example) a Satanic Cult could force a Presbyterian Church to use their building and make their clergy preside over a ceremony that is in complete contradiction to Christianity.
Ludicrous.
You're not even discussing SSM, at this point. In fact, you're not even discussing marriage, anybody's marriage.
Perhaps you should read the pros, cons and concerns of the Supreme Court judges instead of relying only on your own opinion. There will have to be more rulings on this matter as the suits come to the forefront.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/20...

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 Malloy's Hollywood moment at the DNC 12 min Orlando 1
JADE Cafe 17 min Orlando 6
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 28 min Lawrence Wolf 205
Afternoon Delight Cafe 30 min Orlando 6
News Clooney's restraining order 33 min stoned luck aka ... 29
News Orlando massacre spurs fear, solidarity among L... 39 min TerriB1 611
News Chelsea Clinton Blasts the GOP Platform's Suppo... 57 min Prosperity Fundie... 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 38,644
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Terra Firma 14,985
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 4 hr Gator 68,801
More from around the web