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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#13638 Nov 19, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
Oh yes dear, they were gay. What you don't seem to understand is that your fellow phobe Barry has spent weeks creating an argument to support Baronelle Stutzman, and his entire "argument" centered on the fact that she didn't deny her services because they were gay. And now you've come along and told the truth and knocked the wind completely out of his goal post moving defense!!!!!

Wondering, everyone in this room knows that the bigot florist refused her services because the clients were gay. Even Barry knows this. But because he's an intentionally deceitful fundie, he's gone out of his way to create thousands of mythical alternate realities to try and pretend otherwise. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with him!!!!
Baronelle Stutzman was sued because she refused to provide her art to support a same sex wedding ritual; where's her artistic freedom? Does political correctness compel a Christian to participate in religious rituals? Can a leftist photographer refuse a gig to photograph a Tea Party Rally; I say yes. It's OK to tolerate people who don't support your political goals, in fact that's civil behavior.

Same sex marriage is about State and Federal law; bigger government. Change isn't always good, see Obamacare for example.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#13639 Nov 19, 2013
albtraum wrote:
Lololol....thanks for the giggle ;0) I have copied and pasted this post onto notebook on my computer. I want to share it with my facebook friends, my co-workers and total strangers at the bus stop!
You remind me of the first time I watched "All In The Family" and listened to one of Archie Bunker's rants;0)
I'm glad albtraum is amused; I don't use insults to make my point. I respect people too much, to treat them badly. I discuss the issue; same sex marriage is bad because of the arguments used by its supporters. See the post above for one example.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#13640 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm glad albtraum is amused; I don't use insults to make my point. I respect people too much, to treat them badly. I discuss the issue; same sex marriage is bad because of the arguments used by its supporters. See the post above for one example.
you're treating people badly by wishing to deny americans with full citizenship the right to legally marry. you treat people badly by lieing. you treat people badly by being obtuse and refusing to answer questions.

supporting "traditional marriage" is bad because those people are stupidly obtuse. see all of brian's posts (yes, 30k plus) as prime examples.

see bi, that's how you insult people. don't like it? then stop posting up here or at the very least stop being obtuse and stop ignoring questions.....and try a little hard facts to go with your commentary.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13641 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Baronelle Stutzman was sued
Because she broke the law.
Brian_G wrote:
because she refused to provide her art to support a same sex wedding ritual; where's her artistic freedom?
Artistic freedom is not a legal protection. In no way would providing service for a same sex wedding impact her artistic freedom.
Brian_G wrote:
Does political correctness compel a Christian to participate in religious rituals?
Actually, if I am not mistaken, this was a civil ceremony.
Brian_G wrote:
Can a leftist photographer refuse a gig to photograph a Tea Party Rally; I say yes.
Political beliefs do not constitute a protected class.
Brian_G wrote:
It's OK to tolerate people who don't support your political goals, in fact that's civil behavior.
Funny, why do you consistently advocate doing just the opposite? Your entire argument regarding Baronelle is that she has the right not to tolerate others who believe differently than she does.

Brian, your hypocrisy is showing.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is about State and Federal law; bigger government.
How? Be specific.
Did making interracial marriage legal create bigger government?
This may be the dumbest argument you have made to date.
Brian_G wrote:
Change isn't always good, see Obamacare for example.
It's funny to watch your rambling obfuscations that verge off to any number of other topics because you have no valid on topic argument.

Keep it coming, Brian. You make a greater fool of yourself with each post.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#13642 Nov 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
you're treating people badly by wishing to deny americans with full citizenship the right to legally marry.
^^^This is untrue and he knows it; I advocate everyone have the same right to marry under the same laws. There is no orientation test for a marriage license and gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. It's perfectly legal for a gay to marry a lesbian in every state.

.
heartandmind wrote:
you treat people badly by lieing. you treat people badly by being obtuse and refusing to answer questions.
^^^I don't understand, did he mean "lying"?

.
heartandmind wrote:
supporting "traditional marriage" is bad because those people are stupidly obtuse. see all of brian's posts (yes, 30k plus) as prime examples.
The quote above shows many same sex marriage supporters believe male/female marriage is bad and say so. Isn't that reason enough to support male/female marriage?

.
heartandmind wrote:
see bi, that's how you insult people.
^^^This is how "heartandmind" insults people; sexual innuendo. The above quote contains an often repeated sexual orientation label. Do you know what slurs heartandmind uses for homosexuals?

.
heartandmind wrote:
don't like it? then stop posting up here or at the very least stop being obtuse and stop ignoring questions.....and try a little hard facts to go with your commentary.
^^^I'm not here to serve "heartandmind", I'm here to support our Church leaders and keep marriage one man and one woman.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#13643 Nov 19, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because she broke the law.
Says who? The gays were customers for 10 years, no discrimination there. When it became a gay marriage her 1st amendment protected religious rights were violated. She's suing back and I think she will win.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#13644 Nov 19, 2013
lides wrote:
...Funny, why do you consistently advocate doing just the opposite? Your entire argument regarding Baronelle is that she has the right not to tolerate others who believe differently than she does. rian, your hypocrisy is showing....
The issue isn't tolerance, the issue is being forced to serve a same sex wedding ritual; Ms. Stutzman was sued by the State's Attorney General and the ACLU. Why not simply find another florist? Where's the harm, I see fiscal harm to Stutzman and a trivial emotional harm to plantiffs. Aren't there any gay florists in Washington or are they trying to put the Christian bakers, florsts, wedding photographers and other straight vendors out of business?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13645 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't tolerance,
You brought it up. However, I tend to agree. The issue is that Stutzman violated the laws of the state of Washington.
Brian_G wrote:
It's OK to tolerate people who don't support your political goals, in fact that's civil behavior.
You brought it up when you said this, and proved your own hypocrisy.
Brian_G wrote:
the issue is being forced to serve a same sex wedding ritual; Ms. Stutzman was sued by the State's Attorney General and the ACLU.
She was sued, because she break the law.
Brian_G wrote:
Why not simply find another florist?
Because she was in violation of the laws of the state of Washington.
Brian_G wrote:
Where's the harm, I see fiscal harm to Stutzman and a trivial emotional harm to plantiffs.
Once again, she was in violation of the laws of the state of Washington. Any damages to her business are the result of her own actions. had she not broken the law, she would not have "damages."
Brian_G wrote:
Aren't there any gay florists in Washington or are they trying to put the Christian bakers, florsts, wedding photographers and other straight vendors out of business?
That's not the issue. The issue is that she denied service, and in so doing broke the law.

It isn't a difficult concept to grasp, Brian. If you break the law, you should expect to be sued.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#13646 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Baronelle Stutzman was sued because she refused to provide her art...
Some day, you need to learn the difference between "art" and "craft."

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#13647 Nov 19, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Says who? The gays were customers for 10 years, no discrimination there. When it became a gay marriage her 1st amendment protected religious rights were violated. She's suing back and I think she will win.
So, obviously, you would have been just as supportive if she had refused flowers for a mixed-race wedding? Or a funeral for a PWA?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#13648 Nov 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's useless for me to try to discuss the topic. I sure would like to, but I get bashed and or deleted for supporting polygamy.
aw.... poor wittle Blankie.... running out of excuses.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#13649 Nov 19, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Says who? The gays were customers for 10 years, no discrimination there. When it became a gay marriage her 1st amendment protected religious rights were violated. She's suing back and I think she will win.
ahahahahah
ahahahahahah
ahahahahahahah

No one violated her religious rights. Do you even know what those rights are, or are you just repeating what you heard on Glenn Beck? There is no religious right to break State law.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#13650 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Baronelle Stutzman was sued because she refused to provide her art to support a same sex wedding ritual; where's her artistic freedom?
Her artistic freedom comes from creating floral arrangements, not selling them. If she wishes to sell her creations o the general public as a business, she must abide by the same anti-dscirmination laws as other businesses.
Brian_G wrote:
Does political correctness compel a Christian to participate in religious rituals?
She's not "participating" in a wedding ritual, religious or otherwise. She's a vendor, not a wedding guest or family/friend with a role in the wedding ceremony.
Brian_G wrote:
Can a leftist photographer refuse a gig to photograph a Tea Party Rally; I say yes. It's OK to tolerate people who don't support your political goals, in fact that's civil behavior.
Political affiliation isn't a protected class for anti-discrimination law, despite your lie yesterday implying it was. So a vendor can refuse service to someone based on their political affiliation.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is about State and Federal law; bigger government. Change isn't always good, see Obamacare for example.
Ensuring equal protection of the law is a responsibility of government, Brian. It's not an optional activity that can be cut or defunded simply because you dislike a particular minority group.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#13651 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I'm glad albtraum is amused; I don't use insults to make my point.
And rarely do you use rational, informed or logical thought in making your points either, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
I respect people too much, to treat them badly.
So you advocate discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays because you "respect" them? Really? And in what universe is inflicting harm on others considered not "treating them badly"?
Brian_G wrote:
I discuss the issue; same sex marriage is bad because of the arguments used by its supporters. See the post above for one example.
The fact people use accurate words to describe you and your opinions doesn't negate their constitutional arguments for legal recognition of same sex marriage, Brian. Nor does your whining constitute a valid argument against it.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#13652 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> ^^^This is untrue and he knows it; I advocate everyone have the same right to marry under the same laws.
Equal application of the law doesn't make it constitutional, Brian. After all, anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to whites and blacks but nevertheless were ruled unconstitutional. Advocating for the status quo harms gays.
Brian_G wrote:
There is no orientation test for a marriage license
The gender restriction of marriage laws is a de facto sexual orientation test since it only allows gays to marry a member of a gender incongruent with their sexual orientation.
Brian_G wrote:
and gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else.
That's the same logic used to justify anti-miscegenation laws, Brian, and look what happened to those laws.
Brian_G wrote:
It's perfectly legal for a gay to marry a lesbian in every state.
It was perfectly legal for a black woman to marry a non-white man in every state prior to Loving v. Virginia too, Brian. Citizens shouldn't have their fundamental rights infringed just to satisfy your bigotry.
Brian_G wrote:
^^^I don't understand, did he mean "lying"?/[QUOTE]
And this is an example of his observation that "you treat people badly by being obtuse".

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]The quote above shows many same sex marriage supporters believe male/female marriage is bad and say so. Isn't that reason enough to support male/female marriage?
No. Just as you stating same sex marriage is bad isn't reason enough to prohibit it.
Brian_G wrote:
^^^This is how "heartandmind" insults people; sexual innuendo. The above quote contains an often repeated sexual orientation label. Do you know what slurs heartandmind uses for homosexuals?
"Bi", when referring to sexual orientation, isn't deemed derogatory, offensive or a slur in English language dictionaries, Brian; it's simply considered slang. If you don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality of homosexuals, why would you consider being called "bi" and insult? Why not just correct him?
Brian_G wrote:
^^^I'm not here to serve "heartandmind", I'm here to support our Church leaders and keep marriage one man and one woman.
Indeed. We already know you're here to promote discrimination and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays based on your prejudice against them.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13653 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Baronelle Stutzman was sued because she refused to provide her art to support a same sex wedding ritual;
Art!! I love it!! Um, Brian_G, neither art, nor flower arrangements, "support" anything. And your bigot florist was sued because she broke the law.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
where's her artistic freedom?
Don't know or care, since her artistic freedom doesn't supersede existing non-discrimination laws.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Does political correctness compel a Christian to participate in religious rituals?
Nope, but your bigot florist wasn't asked to participate. Participants in weddings don't get paid Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Can a leftist photographer refuse a gig to photograph a Tea Party Rally; I say yes.
And you would be wrong according to the law of the state of Washington.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
It's OK to tolerate people who don't support your political goals, in fact that's civil behavior.
You seem to be under the impression that rudely refusing to provide your business services is a form of tolerance. It isn't.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is about State and Federal law; bigger government. Change isn't always good, see Obamacare for example.
Brian_G_Village_Idiot, please demonstrate in our country's history when and where a group of citizens were granted equal representation, where it was later discovered to be a bad thing and that equal representation was repealed. Provide the example to support your ridiculous assertion. Oh, wait, you can't. Because there is NOTHING bad about equality. There is only bad associated with INEQUALITY....you know, what YOU keep fighting for.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13654 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm glad albtraum is amused; I don't use insults to make my point.
Idiot, you have YET to actually make a point.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I respect people too much, to treat them badly.
Promoting inequality for a sect of society IS treating them badly. Your statement is a lie.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I discuss the issue; same sex marriage is bad because of the arguments used by its supporters. See the post above for one example.
You're yet to present ONE reason that marriage equality is bad. I've proven this numerous times by stringing your arguments together in one post, demonstrating you're a parrot shill idiot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13655 Nov 19, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Says who? The gays were customers for 10 years, no discrimination there. When it became a gay marriage her 1st amendment protected religious rights were violated. She's suing back and I think she will win.
She didn't refuse the marriage her services, she refused the participants. You said so yesterday, remember? "One more time, just for you: It's because they are gay and she believes gays have no business being married" http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0... Why are you backtracking now?!!!! LOL!!!!!!

How did poor Barry take the news when you told him how you admitted the truth of things??!!!

Oh, and her 1st amendment rights weren't violated in any way, shape or form. If you disagree, then present the specifics of the violation. Good luck with that. She will lose this case, in the same manner the photographer in New Mexico lost his similar case.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#13656 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't tolerance, the issue is being forced to serve a same sex wedding ritual. Ms. Stutzman was sued by the State's Attorney General and the ACLU. Why not simply find another florist?
So when hotels, restaurants and other public accommodations refused to serve blacks during the era of segregation, you think blacks should have just found a different hotel, restaurant or business? Because many white Christians of that era justified serration based on their religious beliefs, Brian. So why did we even bother to dismantle institutionalized segregation, much less free the slaves? Tell us, Brian, we're all ears.
Brian_G wrote:
Where's the harm
There's emotional harm when when one is discriminated against.
Brian_G wrote:
I see fiscal harm to Stutzman
Of her own doing. First she refused business, thereby decreasing her own business revenue. And her legal expenses are a direct result of her decision to violate the law.
Brian_G wrote:
and a trivial emotional harm to plantiffs.
You can attempt to trivialize emotional harm all you want, Brian, but it's a recoverable harm under numerous laws. The key factor here is Ms. Stutzman caused both the financial harm to herself as well as the harm to her victims.
Brian_G wrote:
Aren't there any gay florists in Washington or are they trying to put the Christian bakers, florsts, wedding photographers and other straight vendors out of business?
Do you want them and other gays to start wearing pink triangles like they were required to in Nazi Germany so they can be more easily identified and targeted for discrimination, Brian?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13657 Nov 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
you're treating people badly by wishing to deny americans with full citizenship the right to legally marry.
Who is being denied the right to legally marry, as it is defined by the state?

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.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min EditorAtLarge 59,318
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Yep yep 1,704,486
News The Latest: Jimmy Kimmel squarely blames Trump,... 8 min rwreck86 16
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 12 min Voter 1,879
News 2 dead, 17 wounded in shooting at Kentucky high... 15 min The Tall Cool One 693
News For a weekend, Texas is a battleground for Trum... 1 hr Da Troot 1
News Florida governor calls for FBI director to resi... 1 hr Used to be a demo... 30
More from around the web