Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

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

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Comments (Page 241)

Showing posts 4,801 - 4,820 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5028
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry. You have nothing. If you brought that up in court they would laugh you out of the place. That is a tangent. Courts have no time for tangents, besides it means you really have no pertinent argument.
Yet you are unable, or unwilling, to address the simple question I posed. How do we, as a society, define marriage? Is not complicated. Spouting off about courts, indicates rhetoric is more important than the issue itself. Really Wastey, a honest answer that addressed the question would suffice.
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5030
Jun 27, 2013
 
thread to long to follow...

Has the backlash started yet or is it still "brewing"?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5031
Jun 27, 2013
 
lides wrote:
Brian, you have attempted to spread misinformation that has been proven to be falsehood. You have no valid on topic argument, and now your position has also lost before the high court.
"What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."
-Justice Kennedy, delivering the opinion for the majority
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12...
The majority sees a more sinister motive, pointing out
that the Federal Government has generally (though not
uniformly) deferred to state definitions of marriage in the
past. That is true, of course, but none of those prior stateby-state variations had involved differences over something—as the majority puts it—“thought of by most people
as essential to the very definition of [marriage] and to
its role and function throughout the history of civilization.”
Ante, at 13. That the Federal Government treated this
fundamental question differently than it treated variations
over consanguinity or minimum age is hardly surprising—
and hardly enough to support a conclusion that the
“principal purpose,” ante, at 22, of the 342 Representa-
tives and 85 Senators who voted for it, and the President
who signed it, was a bare desire to harm. Nor do the snip-
pets of legislative history and the banal title of the Act
to which the majority points suffice to make such a showing. At least without some more convincing evidence that
the Act’s principal purpose was to codify malice, and that
it furthered no legitimate government interests, I would
not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry.
But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important
to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court
does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does
not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define
the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5032
Jun 27, 2013
 
Chief Justice Roberts
[ibid]

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5033
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The majority sees a more sinister motive, pointing out
that the Federal Government has generally (though not
uniformly) deferred to state definitions of marriage in the
past. That is true, of course, but none of those prior stateby-state variations had involved differences over something—as the majority puts it—“thought of by most people
as essential to the very definition of [marriage] and to
its role and function throughout the history of civilization.”
Ante, at 13. That the Federal Government treated this
fundamental question differently than it treated variations
over consanguinity or minimum age is hardly surprising—
and hardly enough to support a conclusion that the
“principal purpose,” ante, at 22, of the 342 Representa-
tives and 85 Senators who voted for it, and the President
who signed it, was a bare desire to harm. Nor do the snip-
pets of legislative history and the banal title of the Act
to which the majority points suffice to make such a showing. At least without some more convincing evidence that
the Act’s principal purpose was to codify malice, and that
it furthered no legitimate government interests, I would
not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry.
But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important
to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court
does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does
not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define
the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage.
Writing in the minority.

Do you always support your views utilizing the losing side? It's a not terribly effective tactic.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5034
Jun 27, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
...
The organization isn't mythical, now is it? Such organizations actually exist. Suppose they are ordering supplies for a rally against atheist rights, or against gay rights? Can I refuse to ship them their products, because I don't want to be perceived as celebrating or condoning what they do? Are you arguing that ONLY religious people should have this "right" to discriminate?
<quoted text>
...
i would hope that you would. this should be a free country. why should they have the right to force you to do something that you believe is wrong?
so to answer your question, no.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5035
Jun 27, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You are willing to profit from trade with gays and lesbians, but you want to arbitrarily withhold those services and goods that you wish to withhold. That makes you a hypocrite.
Let's change the flower example slightly. I have twice rented tents for celebrations of my marriage from the only local provider of those services. The next nearest party rental company is 100 miles away. Should the party supply store be able to withhold custom from my husband and me because it would be "approving" of our union? Of course not. They show up the morning of the event, put up the tent and tables, then take them away the next day. That's it. That's what they do. As long as the tent and table are in good condition when they take them back, what kind of celebration we had is of no concern.
a tent is a tent is a tent. it is the same tent that was used at the sporting event at the local school or the concert in the park. there are no distinguishing marks on it. a tent is not an expression of celebration. flowers are always an expression of something whether it be praise, love, or sympathy. tents are not an expression of anything.
now would you expect the Calvary Baptist Church who has been known to "rent" out its fellowship hall for wedding receptions and anniversaries etc to "rent" you their hall for a ss wedding?
or would you expect to be able to borrow a tent from Bob Jones University just because they may have a practice of loaning their's out to alumni of the school?
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5036
Jun 27, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
...
If this is going to be a religious issue, then it seems to me that people in related jobs should be expected to label their businesses according to their religion, so that they can continue to cater to ONLY that religion, and there'll be no confusion among customers.
<quoted text>
...
they usually do. you can find testaments of their faith usually hanging all over the walls of their business.
however you bring up an interesting idea. perhaps those who wish to have exceptions of conscience should identify them selves as people of conscience and everyone would know what to expect. i really don't think that too many of us would have a problem with that.
but like i said, usually they have Bible verses and "pictures" of Jesus prominently displayed in their business. so if you don't like their convictions you are free to go an do business with someone else.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5037
Jun 27, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Florists aren't the only ones who work at weddings. Can ANYONE in a wedding-industry job refuse to provide this portion of their services, and can they refuse this service to anyone? Can caterers refuse to serve at an interracial marriage? Can a golf course refuse to rent its banquet hall to Jews? What if only PART of the staff of a particular business has a problem with the wedding? Can they refuse and make the rest of the staff do their work? Are there ANY lines you would draw with this system?
...
your efforts at finding examples are so lame that it's funny.
can a catering company even exist in today's society with out its self being interracial?
golf courses are probably owned by Jews and probably could not exist without the money that Jewish businessmen spend there.
now getting serious. if i had a problem working at a ss wedding reception, and i would, i certainly would expect to be free not to work that event. i also recognize that my employer should also be free do decide whether or not what i bring to his business is really a benefit to him and he should be free not to employ me.

the line that i draw is keep government out of our lives and let free speech, and free enterprise take care of the situation.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5038
Jun 27, 2013
 
barry wrote:
a tent is a tent is a tent. it is the same tent that was used at the sporting event at the local school or the concert in the park. there are no distinguishing marks on it. a tent is not an expression of celebration. flowers are always an expression of something whether it be praise, love, or sympathy. tents are not an expression of anything.
now would you expect the Calvary Baptist Church who has been known to "rent" out its fellowship hall for wedding receptions and anniversaries etc to "rent" you their hall for a ss wedding?
or would you expect to be able to borrow a tent from Bob Jones University just because they may have a practice of loaning their's out to alumni of the school?
A business owner's right to exercise their beliefs ends at the individual's right not to be discriminated based on suspect classification. When it comes to places of worship, if they are renting facilities to the public at large, they are bound by the same laws as other businesses.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5039
Jun 27, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
...
<quoted text>
My turn to ask for links backing this up. Granted, I'm hardly an expert in this area, but it seems that EVERY shop is owned by SOMEONE who works for themselves. There might as well be NO rules. EVERYONE is an independent contractor! Yay!
<quoted text>
...
actually you just explained it yourself. someone who works for themselves is an independent contractor.
now when it comes to florists there are national chains, franchises, and co-operative contracts. if you join one of these then it would only be right to submit yourself to the terms of the agreement regardless. if you can't for moral reasons, don't join or get out.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5040
Jun 27, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
...
<quoted text>
You don't have a right to declare something "sacred" and therefore off-limits to certain customers. Every person on Earth thinks something different is sacred. Obeying laws doesn't stop you from calling something "sacred" on your own time. No one can force you to believe, accept, condone or celebrate something which you don't. But if you hold a job within a particular industry, then you should be expected to DO that job, without singling out your least favorite citizens for exclusion.
there you go again, making a declaration that speaks volumes about how you view life. essentially there is nothing sacred to you or perhaps your world view is what is sacred to you.
we ought to respect what any one person might really think is sacred. we should not be forced to honor it nor should we be forced to participate in it.
if i hold a job, working as a paid employee, yes i should do what i am paid for or negotiate a compromise, or find another job. i should not demand that my boss also not participate in my beliefs nor should i demand accommodations for my beliefs.
however if i own the business i am not working for someone else i do not hold a job. i am the job. i work when i want to, where i want to, and for whom i want to. this is what freedom is all about. and as i said before there are certain businesses/organizations that i will not work for even if they wanted to pay extra. by the same token there are certain parts of town that i would prefer not to work in. the fact that they might be made up of a specific ethnic heritage really has nothing to do with the choice.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5041
Jun 27, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm trying to keep us discussing whether a business can refuse to serve law-abiding customers. I'm trying to steer us AWAY from discussing whether a business has the right to impose a dress code, whether employers have the right to choose who they hire, or whether a business can eject a rowdy or disruptive customer... all of which you keep trying to bring up, and all of which have nothing to do with the topic.
<quoted text>
Let me try to clear up the confusion on this one....
You said: i wouldn't allow a Bible evangelist to come in and harrass my customers even if i agreed with everything he would say.
To me, this suggests that you're defending your right to toss a customer out if they're creating a disturbance of any kind. I don't disagree with that. But my point is that we aren't discussing customers who are causing a disturbance. Gay customers who walk into a florist to buy flowers are not harassing other customers. There was no reason for you to use the evangelical as an example, it was unrelated to this scenario. Harassing other customers SHOULD constitute a reason for ejecting a person from the premises. But when harassment is NOT happening, as in the case of a gay couple shopping for flowers in a flower shop, then it doesn't serve as an example.
<quoted text>
Oh no! You're taking away other people's rights, and forcing your beliefs onto them to the point where they must accept, condone and celebrate a lifestyle!
It's a stupid example on purpose, because the whole idea is stupid. Businesses can't hold some of their practices as "sacred" just to keep them out of reach of certain people. These discussions BECOME stupid, once someone starts using such vague and meaningless terms as "sacred". Don't stop there, let's throw in "spiritual" and "holy" while we're at it. Maybe an "unnatural" or two, these discussions never get far without one of those.
I don't care about what others consider "sacred" because I don't HAVE to. You don't have to care about what I consider sacred, EITHER. The concept shouldn't be involved in business. If I ran a diner, and you came in to order coffee, pie and ice cream, I'd be off my rocker if I said the coffee and pie were fine, but the ice cream is "sacred" so I don't serve it to your kind.
i didn't bring it up. you tried to shift away from my original point by alluding to and suggesting that i had a problem with such things.

i agree with your premise that homosexual customers are not walking into a business and harassing customers. now let's agree that the florist in question had no problem with a homosexual customer coming into her business and buying flowers for whatever reason. that customer was an established customer. she just simply declined to participate in the celebration of their ssm.

you said this;
"These discussions BECOME stupid, once someone starts using such vague and meaningless terms as "sacred". Don't stop there, let's throw in "spiritual" and "holy" while we're at it. Maybe an "unnatural" or two, these discussions never get far without one of those."
i agree. let's throw them in. if it is important to the person involved we as a society ought not to force them to go against their conscience. but we as a society ought also to be free to not do business with them. i would rather not do business with people that i think might be crazy.
and if you didn't want to serve me ice cream because it is sacred to you and not for my kind, i would know that you were crazy and i would be glad to take my business elsewhere.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5042
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you are unable, or unwilling, to address the simple question I posed. How do we, as a society, define marriage? Is not complicated. Spouting off about courts, indicates rhetoric is more important than the issue itself. Really Wastey, a honest answer that addressed the question would suffice.
Two unrelated consenting adults.

NEXT
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5043
Jun 27, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>A business owner's right to exercise their beliefs ends at the individual's right not to be discriminated based on suspect classification. When it comes to places of worship, if they are renting facilities to the public at large, they are bound by the same laws as other businesses.
so you wish to live in a totalitarian state.
however we are not talking about any "suspect classification" we are talking about a customer demanding that someone participate in, condone and celebrate with them in something that they strongly believe is not right.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5044
Jun 27, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you wish to live in a totalitarian state.
however we are not talking about any "suspect classification" we are talking about a customer demanding that someone participate in, condone and celebrate with them in something that they strongly believe is not right.
Your beliefs are irrelevant. We go by the Law based upon the Constitution. Those laws must be applied equally to all citizens.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5045
Jun 27, 2013
 
barry wrote:
so you wish to live in a totalitarian state.
however we are not talking about any "suspect classification" we are talking about a customer demanding that someone participate in, condone and celebrate with them in something that they strongly believe is not right.
No dear, not a totalitarian state, but one in which all have access to the public square without discrimination. And yes, it is a suspect classification, because the business owner is singling out only same couples and not any other couple who may not meet their moral approval.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5046
Jun 27, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>a tent is a tent is a tent. it is the same tent that was used at the sporting event at the local school or the concert in the park. there are no distinguishing marks on it. a tent is not an expression of celebration. flowers are always an expression of something whether it be praise, love, or sympathy. tents are not an expression of anything.
Really? Thanks for the laugh. What if it's a wedding tent? You know, the white ones with roll-down isinglass curtains? Those are unmistakable: When you see one, you know that there's a wedding.

A flower is a flower and a vase is a vase. And if I choose to give a flower in a vase to my husband, it's no business of the grower or the florist. It is MY expression of love for my partner, not theirs. Their only expression was commerce.
now would you expect the Calvary Baptist Church who has been known to "rent" out its fellowship hall for wedding receptions and anniversaries etc to "rent" you their hall for a ss wedding?
That all depends. If the hall is offered for hire to others without restriction, then I should be able to rent it for any reasonable purpose. If the hall is for the exclusive use of church members, then they can exclude my wedding, even if I'm a church member.

You just said a tent is a tent. And I say a function hall is a function all.

See what a hypocrite you are?
or would you expect to be able to borrow a tent from Bob Jones University just because they may have a practice of loaning their's out to alumni of the school?
I would NEVER EVER EVER be a Bob Jones alum. But if it is Bob Jones's property for the exclusive use of their alums, they have wide latitude in their policies.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5047
Jun 27, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>your efforts at finding examples are so lame that it's funny.
can a catering company even exist in today's society with out its self being interracial?
Well, in lily white New Hampshire (Maine, and Vermont) you certainly can.
golf courses are probably owned by Jews and probably could not exist without the money that Jewish businessmen spend there.
Wow. And Paula Dean thinks she has problems. Not much anti-semetism in that remark.
now getting serious. if i had a problem working at a ss wedding reception, and i would, i certainly would expect to be free not to work that event.
And you would probably be free to find a new job as well.
i also recognize that my employer should also be free do decide whether or not what i bring to his business is really a benefit to him and he should be free not to employ me.
the line that i draw is keep government out of our lives and let free speech, and free enterprise take care of the situation.
As always, you ignore the point that we decided as a society half-a-century ago that commerce must be carried out without discrimination. The question today is not whether businesses may discriminate: They can't. The question is whether gay people should be singled out an as exception so that delicate sensibilities won't be offended. The answer is increasingly clear: NO!
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5048
Jun 27, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Your beliefs are irrelevant. We go by the Law based upon the Constitution. Those laws must be applied equally to all citizens.
that's right, and the last time i checked freedom was a key component of the constitution.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,801 - 4,820 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••