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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15045 Dec 28, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
<quoted text>
Sexual orientation has a medical definition. That you're ignorant of it doesn't negate its existence. That you think the other protected classes are all so cut and dried also demonstrates your ignorance.
<quoted text>
Race is NOT genetic per se; there is no "race" gene. Race plays no part in how human are classified by species or sub-species. Rather it is more of a social construct based on various physical (and sometimes behavioral) human characteristics that considered together define racial types. I do agree these physical characteristics can't be changed but the history of anti-miscegenation laws amply demonstrates there was no consensus of how much non-white ancestry made one "colored".
<quoted text>
But classes apply to people, not creeds and people far more frequently change their creeds than they do their stated sexual orientation, yet you whine only about the latter and not the former as it applies to anti-discrimination law.
<quoted text>
If defined solely as one's birth country, generally not. But then there's the issue of children born to refugees taking refuge in countries other than their own and the parents of such children would likely debate the national origin of their children is their birth country.
<quoted text>
Actually, there a several military discharge statuses. Is someone dishonorably discharged still considered a military veteran for anti-discrmination purposes? I would presume so but have never actually researched it.
<quoted text>
What is a Christian? Where is the legal definition of this term? What are its parameters? Who can prove any of that idea?
After all, you yourself are on record as differentiating between "real" Christians and those you consider not to really be Christians regardless of how those people self-identity. You've also made your disdain of certain denominations of Christianity known. And the same issue exists for most any mainstream religion.
Bravo.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15046 Dec 28, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, dips!t, then how about Brown v. Board of Education that led to the SCOTUS ruling overturning the legal doctrine of "separate but equal" on which segregation was based?
is not "separate but equal" and education a little off topic? there is no real "separate but equal" in education.she suggested that they use another florist. she turned down a profit, risked the loss of good customers, and honestly suggested that they could do better with someone else.
just tell me one thing;
why would you want to hire a florist or a photographer that would be honest enough to tell you that they had a moral problem with the event? how would you know that they would put their heart into producing the best product they could? would they not be at risk for a law suit anyway based on the same "bigot/discrimination " charge if something went wrong?
no, the best option was for them to find someone else and enjoy their day without the distraction of a "bigoted" Christian.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15047 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
you or your side keep saying that the couple in question wanted to "hire" her. now which is it.
you claim;"That's not the point of anti-discrmination laws."
Your disingenuous daftness is childish. Your command of the English language is terrible. First you don't know how to properly truncate adjectives, and now you pretend that words only have a singular meaning. Hiring is a common verb used to explain many circumstances. When we use the term "hire" we use it to mean "to engage the services of". You, childishly then like to apply a completely different meaning to the word (as in, the state or condition of being hired) and pretend you have an argument. You don't. The couple was "hiring" her as in being patrons. You would like to pretend they were placing her on a payroll and issuing her a W2 at the end of the year.

So which is it, are you being childish or are you really this stupid?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so what is the point to force everyone to live and act according to your standards inspite of what they may feel is morally wrong?[/QUJOTE]
How was she being forced to "live" differently. She makes flower arrangements. That is what they were going to ask her to do. How does that affect how she lives? She was free to pretend their marriage was morally wrong the entire time she did her job.

[QUOTE who="barry"]<quot ed text>
and i guess you would be ok if she took out an add explaining that somehow there is a legal right to force her to serve an event that she feels is associated with immorality and then would specifically apologize to God himself about serving the wedding in question.
and you seem to think that it's ok to attack another protected class of people who down through the ages were also discriminated against.
Yawn. There you go again with the persecution routine. So tired.

She broke the law. Her religious convictions do not place her above the law. Had she but treated all her patrons equally and with the same respect she wouldn't be in the mess she is in now.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15049 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you would have us throw out all moral convictions?
No. We would ask that you not use your moral convictions as an excuse to discriminate.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she did not discriminate against the couple in question.
Yes she did.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
they were well established customers.
And has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, this fact does not alter that her refusal of services was discrimination.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she truthfully and honestly declined an event.
No, she declined the patrons. She said, "I can't do YOUR wedding". The event was not patronizing her business, the couple was.

How you coming on demonstrating that RESEARCH you noted about how sexual orientation and gender identity are related. We be seeing a cite to that any time soon?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15050 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>is it not level now in the state of washington?
"How and whether to express one's sexuality and ..." my point was that she did not assume that two people "in love" were automatically going to be engaging in sexual activity.but two people who were going to marry probably would.
It's not her concern.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she did not condemn the individuals she declined the event because of her view of morality and the association of what marriage carries with it.
She didn't decline the event because she wasn't asked to be part of the event. She was asked to make flowers. Her shop was also not set up to express her moral views, and her patrons were not coming to her shop to hear her moral views. Patrons of her shop were under the impression that they would be treated equally since that is what the law demands. The law doesn't recognize your bigot, make belief "justifiable" discriminations.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15051 Dec 28, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
And her refusal to provide service based on that "judgment" is deemed illegal and thus she broke the law and is suffering the consequences.
<quoted text>
Yes, and people ask because they liked the floral arrangements enough to consider using that vendor themselves, not because they're trying to ascertain a vendor's religious convictions.
<quoted text>
Then she should have offered a refusal that didn't break the law.
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. because it's not really about equality but it's about the agenda.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15052 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>well for one, you completely reject her right to live by a moral code that is well established and well known.
Really? Was her moral code posted in her business? Seems odd. Oh, and I didn't reject her right to live in any way. Neither did the patrons. She makes her living making flowers, that is what they went to her shop for. She wasn't asked to "live" differently in anyway.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
you call her a bigot because you yourself are bigoted against people who honestly hold to a religious standard of living.
No, I call her a bigot because she does not treat her patrons equally. Her religious standard of living has nothing to do with her business.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
you want the laws of the state to force her to do something that to her and many others would be morally wrong.
Really? She was asked to make flowers. Since when is that morally wrong?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
now for two, you don't seem to think that other amoral people who happened to be heterosexuals would not see an advantage of registering a union between two people of the same sex so that it could be recognized as a legal marriage and benefit from the perceived advantages given to married couples. you seem to want to deny that right to heterosexuals.
that makes you a bigot.
What rights of heterosexuals did I state I wanted to DENY? I never stated that two heterosexuals couldn't enter into your imaginary scenario. Your accusation of bigotry is dismissed.

What I stated for the record, was that this scenario you trot out is stupid. But I'm sure eventually there will be two straight people stupid enough to do this. They will risk being subject to the very discrimination that you promote in order to save some tax dollars because they will be too stupid to know that they could get the same benefits by fake marrying someone of the opposite gender. What you will NEVER be able to do Barry is to demonstrate that the imaginary number of people you think will do this will ever be more than the already existing number of straight people that have already done, and will continue to do. Your scenario is retarded.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i defend her right to live as her religion morally dictates.
Great. How she "lives" was never affected by being asked to make flowers. Her mode of living was never affected.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i defend your right to do the same even if i feel that you are seriously wrong.
I feel religion is seriously wrong. But I would NEVER believe that I had the right to deny my services because the patron was a religitard. You see Barry, I'm not a bigot.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15053 Dec 28, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The Christian new testament states that quite clearly. Except to people who cherry pick what parts they choose to obey.
whose doing the cherry picking? i was simply asking for the references. and if it is so "quite clearly" how about you posting the references that say a Christian must obey the law.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15054 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>haven't been to many weddings have you. three questions get asked all the time.
who did the flowers? who's the photographer? and who catered the reception?
I've been to many weddings. Know what I've NEVER heard? I've never heard anyone ask what the religious convictions were of the florists, the photographers, and the caterers. I've never heard anyone ask if the florist, photographer or caterer expressed their approval of the wedding. I've also never heard any participants of a wedding refer to the florists, the caterers or the photographers as "participants" of the wedding.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
normal people are aware of that.
Normal people are aware that the moral convictions of the florists, caterers and photographers aren't part of their services.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
those of us in a business that relates to a lot of people or those of us with a large group of associates go to a lot of weddings. food is usually great.
yes, it was a wedding. a wedding that even the papers and news services describe as a ss or "gay" wedding
How you or the news describe the wedding, doesn't alter the fact that it is just a wedding. Like every other wedding.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/wash...
"Washington Florist Who Refused Gay Wedding Job Says She 'Had To Take A Stand'"
"Same-sex weddings became legal in Washington state in December 2012."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-...
"Washington state florist sued again for refusal to service gay wedding"
"...Washington state voters in November to allow gay marriage, but the ACLU's lawsuit is not based on the legality of same-sex marriage in the state."
"Washington is one of nine states along with the District of Columbia that allow same-sex marriage."
Yawn. The term "gay marriage" is common for news usage. It doesn't alter the fact that the participants are not entering into "gay marriage". They are issued the exact same marriage license. The state recognizes the exact same union.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
this also from same source;
[the lawsuit] "centers on the state's law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, said Doug Honig, spokesman for the ACLU of Washington state."
maybe you better tell him it needs to be based on gender.
I don't need to tell him anything. He knows what he is doing. He won't be arguing against your made up scenerios. Her discrimination is plain and clear, despite all your moving goal post reasons.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15055 Dec 28, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, look at Barry going all the way back to the middle of November to pick up a dead horse and bring it back to beat it all over again.
Barry, you were discussing how your bigot florist was ok making and sending flowers expressing the love of two men, but she wasn't ok with making flowers for two gay men that were marrying. Your "reasoning" for this was that marriage implies something "more than love". The question that was asked of you was to provide what "MORE" that was expressed couldn't apply to homosexuals that it did to heterosexuals. I didn't make it a homosexual issue, your bigot florist did. Because according to you the marriage of the homosexuals implied something that wasn't ok, but the marriage of heterosexuals didn't imply such a thing.
But based on your ridiculous and inaccurate response, I now understand the bigoted point you were trying to make. You and your bigot florist are now going to use "sex" as your argument for her bigotry.
1) Your bigot florist has no idea if the men expressing love BEFORE marriage were having sex. If this was such an issue for her, why didn't she ask the very first time they made arrangements to send flowers to each other if they were having sex yet? Seems she should have found this out before ever greedily accepting their money the first time. After all, she would need to know if they were having sex so that she could abruptly inform that that her relationship with Jesus prevented her from sending floral arrangements to people having sex outside of marriage. She would also have had to ask all her straight customers this as well.
2) A marriage does NOT imply a physical union. That is an inference that you fundies like to make. Mostly because you are all obsessed with the subject. There are many people that marry that are incapable of having sex. And people are fully capable of having sex without marriage. Marriage = sex is only a mantra of you religitards. normal people base their marriages on much more, and normal people don't equate the marriage of two people as an "expression" of their "physical union".
Hey next time, why don't you troll way back to Septembers posts and find another one you can bring back here. Hey, when you do, perhaps you can cowardly stop avoiding direct questions!!!!! Here are some outstanding accusations you've made that you still have yet to support...
1) Name the benefits that society has had as the result of discrimination.
2) Name 5 types of discrimination that qualify as the "justifiable discrimination" you referenced previously.
3) Provide the studies you said that existed that stated that sexual orientation and gender identity were related.
4) And lest you think we've forgotten, cite the sources of all these "updates" you have provided concerning the Bigot Baronelle case.
Why such a coward Barry?
so here we go again. playing dumb is not your suit.
you asked;
"The question that was asked of you was to provide what "MORE" that was expressed couldn't apply to homosexuals that it did to heterosexuals."
and the obvious answer is the physical consummation of the relationship is assumed in both cases. but you knew that. however homosexual sex is considered to be Biblically immoral, sin. in the before marriage relationship sexual activity can not just be assumed. a person can be loved without having to have a sexual relationship, they are not likely to be "married without a sexual relationship.
the rest of your points are just stupid.

name the benifits of discrimination;
Girls sports, affirmative action, academic scholarships. driving restrictions, voting restrictions,
and the list goes on.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15056 Dec 28, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No Barry, the obvious answer is that they wish to feel better about themselves. It's only YOU that is having the problem with it. Because you're an uneducated bigot.
so they were unhappy with the way that they were born. so they look to change that because the way they were born is not a problem. riiiiight.
they just want to feel good. that says it all.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15057 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, it's you who believe that everyone else should have "privileges" except for Christians
Really? Exactly which privileges do people have that I have stated Christians shouldn't have? Be very specific Barry? Exactly what privileges are you alluding to?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
.that religious freedom is somehow secondary to everyone needing to accept, agree with and celebrate your choice of life style.
That's the second time you've accused me of asking for (actually last time you said "demand") people to celebrate my imaginary lifestyle. The first time you accused me of this I asked to cite the post where I did that. You cowardly avoided responding, yet here you are again accusing me of it. Says a lot about you Barry.

Your florist's religious freedoms were never affected in anyway. Had she not discriminated and made the floral arrangements, her religious freedoms STILL would not have been affected in any way. And her (and your) acceptance, agreement and celebration were NEVER asked for.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
and yes, certain discrimination is a necessary and beneficial part of normal life.
And yet you still can't provide one example of this discrimination. ALL discrimination is evil, and NO discrimination benefits life. The only people that benefit from discrimination are those that are doing it. Bigots like you.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15058 Dec 28, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshyt. If your god will judge sin, then you and bigot Baronelle aren't required to. And making floral arrangements doesn't make Bigot Baronelle some how more involved with a couple's sex. Keep spinning Barry, you're too funny..... and still VERY desperate to excuse Baronelle's discrimination. It says much about your character.
<quoted text>
Let's be clear.... I don't thing YOU are a person of love. People of love don't believe in justifiable discriminations. People of love don't deceitfully lie.
<quoted text>
People of love don't force their religious opinions onto others. It's disrespectful. And people of love don't use their religious convictions as an excuse to discriminate their public services.
<quoted text>
Blow this horseshyt out your ass. We want operators of public businesses to treat all their customers equally.
<quoted text>
Oh, here we go, the "Christian persecution" card. Like that's not tired and lame. Tolerance shouldn't have to be demanded, only bigots think that way. Tolerance should be extended because its the right thing to do, at least actual loving people think so.
And exactly where is my intolerance Barry? Did I ask Baronelle to change her religious views? Did the couple that wanted to have her make flowers? Did I tell Baronelle that I wouldn't hire her because of her religious beliefs? Did the couple? Was Baronelle informed that she would no longer be able to practice her faith? Please provide some specifics to exemplify this intolerance you accuse.
<quoted text>
Pffffffff. Employing a public florist has nothing to do with love. Her religious beliefs are NOT part of her business, and they never should have been offered. They are irrelevant to her business. They were NOT solicited.
<quoted text>
Gee, I know many Christians that would make floral arrangements for all their customers equally. Only bigots feel their religious convictions are an excuse to discriminate against certain people.
once again, a real class act.
my religious beliefs and i'm sure hers also are a part of every moment of everyday and everything I do. there is no space for situation ethics. so my beliefs are not irrelevant to my business. and for you to demand that they be separated from my business is to deny that religious freedom is a fundamental right of our great land.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15059 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>except her right to religious freedom and to live according to her moral conscience.
Her religious freedoms and her life were not affected by making floral arrangements. She isn't a martyr, stop acting like she is.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
her right to not be associated with something that she felt was immoral.
She was never asked to be associated with it.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
it was not her refusal but the ag jumping in for some political gain when he did not yet have any standing in the issue. and the aclu thinking that they must jump in.
No, it was her refusal. The others are just doing their job. Too bad she didn't.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she did not anounce her actions to the world. it was your wonderful couple who went to the media and cried about their feelings being hurt.
No, it was my wonderful couple that stood up for their rights. Their rights to be treated fairly and equally. Sorry, I know you hate that we gays have those rights, but we do.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
"It really hurt..." Ingersoll told the Tri-City Herald. " "We laid awake all night Saturday. It was eating at our souls."
That's terrible. Even more terrible is you mocking them. But no one would expect less from a bigot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15060 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>a Christian first obeys God. sometimes that will not agree with the government. a Christian is however supposed to be subject to and submit to that gov. so if obeying God means the gov will throw us in jail then to jail we go. but a Christian will not disobey God nor be part of anything that God is against.
in case you forget God would be above all human law.
apparently you couldn't understand the question.
Here it is again..... "Since when? When were Christians given privileges above the law? Where are these privileges established?"

I didn't ask about your imaginary god. And by the way, Christians aren't "supposed to be subject to", they "ARE subject to". That's why they are punished when they do things outside the law. If you have questions about this, ask Baronelle, I'm sure she can fill you in.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15061 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i believe the APA is the "American Psychiatric Association"
they recently stated in the "DSM-5" (a manual of psychiatric disorders that is widely used by mental health professionals "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders") had described pedophilia as a “sexual orientation”.
of course after a big public outcry they changed it to a "sexual interest". in much earlier editions of the DSM, homosexuality was considered a disorder but now of course they don't think so.
Yes, science has no problem in correcting it's mistakes, in changing with advanced knowledge, and in seeking further understanding. That's why you fundies hate it so much!

Oh, and Barry shill dear, you needn't start off your propaganda with "I believe....". We all recognize you for exactly who you are dear.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15062 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>if you wanted to have an abortion, am i supposed to love you so much that i would drive you to the clinic?
You dear would be an individual. But for the record, if you were a cab driver and I waited 40 minutes for you to show up, only to tell me you wouldn't drive me there, yes, I would awk for legal recourse.
barry wrote:
if you wanted to do drugs must i love you so much as to loan you money to buy them? if you wanted to kill your wife must i love you so much as to help you do it? if you wanted to lie on your tax return must i love you so much as to encourage it?
if homosexuality is wrong but legal must i then be silent and go along with it just because it fits your definition of love?
Love does what is right, love makes an effort to protect others from what is wrong. it may not be popular but that is love.
You've not described love.

What you HAVE done though is try to compare homosexuality, an inate characteristic that causes no harm to one's self or to society, with.....MURDER, DRUG USE, ABORTION and LYING.

Thank you so much for stepping over that previous post you tried so hard to stay behind. Your agenda becomes clearer and clearer princess.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15063 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>specifics? you or someone on your side insisted that the "wedding" was a private event. yet you all also insist that she is a public business. so while you all scream that society must stay out of your private lives you are insisting that she have a part in their private event.
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
SHE was not part of the event. She was NEVER asked to be part of the event. Neither was the person who cleaned the floor, nor was the person that provided the cake, nor was the person that made the food. NONE of these people were part of the event. She was asked to bake flowers, and because she's a bigot, she felt it was appropriate to have an opinion about how and where the flowers would be placed.
<quoted text>
...
<quoted text> I didn't bring up Muslim florists, YOU did. You made an accusation about Muslims florists and I asked you to support it. As always, you failed to support it so now you just throw out a bigoted stereotype comment about Muslims. Good to know it's not just the gays you don't like.
i did not say that she was a " part of the event" i said that she did not want to "have a part" in their event.
maybe you can get that right the next time.

and i suppose that the muslim holy book would think that it would be ok for muslims to have a part in a homosexual wedding. they don't even want to transport a fare in their cabs that might be carrying a bottle of alcohol. you really need to get out more.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15064 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
the question was " is that preference locked in for life or might it change?"
I know what the question was.
barry wrote:
the difference is; is that person really part of a protected class of people or do they just think they are?
They are always part of a protected class whether they are homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Had the florist been gay and chose not to accommodate the heterosexual people trying to employ him because he didn't think that heterosexuals should marry, he would be in the same shit as Baronelle. Your imaginary "special class" of protection doesn't exist.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15065 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so shouldn't that protection go both ways? shouldn't her religious freedom and conscience be taken into consideration?
No. There is no religious freedom to discriminate. The fact that you ignore that is irrelevant.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min OBAMANATION 1,681,026
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Bongo 51,692
News Ex-Arizona sheriff, Trump ally Joe Arpaio runni... 6 min youll shoot your ... 89
News Members of Haitian community react to Trump's c... 7 min waikikileaks 338
News Trump: Why allow immigrants from a shithole cou... 16 min Politically Incor... 154
News Nielsen acknowledges Trump used 'tough language... 19 min Rev Cash Dollar 11
News US agency to work with states to ensure proper ... 29 min Rev Cash Dollar 1
More from around the web