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.

barry

Henagar, AL

#6327 Jul 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What act would that be?????
civil rights act. interracial marriage is a matter of race.
barry

Henagar, AL

#6328 Jul 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what makes you think they have a right to deny doing this part of the job they signed up to do? just because Target appeased them does not mean they have this right.
again freedom to worship does not extend into the real world. it stays in your cult walls...
in the cases of walmart and target, the free market has spoken. free economics made the decision for them. the courts and big brother did not have to get involved. sd let freedom speak.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6329 Jul 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you mean it isn't printed on pink paper with a lace border?
Not unless all the other marriage licenses are printed on pink paper with a lace border......lol!!!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6330 Jul 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>in the cases of walmart and target, the free market has spoken. free economics made the decision for them. the courts and big brother did not have to get involved. sd let freedom speak.
no, the corporation made a decision on its own...

again, this has nothing to do with their religious freedom. they had no religious freedom right to refuse to do part of their job.

you really think we have free markets in the US? what rock are you hiding under?
barry

Henagar, AL

#6331 Jul 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, they don't. If the employer sells pork, then the customer is able to buy pork without discrimination. The accommodation that the employer makes to the employee--putting him into a job that doesn't bring him into contact with pork--is not even close to refusing to sell to the customer. The flower shop refused to sell a product that they offer to the public. That is discrimination, just as much as a real estate or rental agent refusing to show a house, condo, or apartment to a black couple, mixed race couple, or same-sex couple.
<quoted text>
...
"that is not even close..." that was the point. his example was not only wrong it was comparing apples to oranges.

and your example is not applicable either as renting or selling a house/apartment is not about the event it would be about the race of the couple involved. not servicing a ssm wedding reception is not about the type of people that they are but is completely about the event. i doubt hat she would service a wedding reception between two lesbians nor would she service a "wedding" reception between two heterosexual males or females that might have formed a legal union that for whatever reason would be recognized by the state as a "marriage". it is totally about the event and not about the people involved as she already had a normal business relationship established with them.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6332 Jul 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>civil rights act. interracial marriage is a matter of race.
sorry, dude the civil rights act had absolutely nothing to do with marriage in any way shape or form...

it would be best if you understood the issues you are attempting to talk about, lest you make a bigger ass of yourself than you already have...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6333 Jul 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's silly. Pink is for girls. Blue paper with a lace border.:)
Seems you'd be wrong......I mean I've seen more pink dress shirts and ties for men than there should be......in fact pink looks good on some men and some aren't afraid to wear it.

Funny the way some people put stereotypes on the color of a person's cloths......wonder why?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6334 Jul 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Not unless all the other marriage licenses are printed on pink paper with a lace border......lol!!!
new business opportunity...designing decorator wedding licenses to match one's window treatments or china patterns, or even to match your wedding invitations...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6335 Jul 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>new business opportunity...designing decorator wedding licenses to match one's window treatments or china patterns, or even to match your wedding invitations...
Great idea, not sure the State would agree......lol!!!

Though one could copy their legal marriage license on any paper they want.......it won't take away from their legal one!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6336 Jul 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"that is not even close..." that was the point. his example was not only wrong it was comparing apples to oranges.
and your example is not applicable either as renting or selling a house/apartment is not about the event it would be about the race of the couple involved. not servicing a ssm wedding reception is not about the type of people that they are but is completely about the event. i doubt hat she would service a wedding reception between two lesbians nor would she service a "wedding" reception between two heterosexual males or females that might have formed a legal union that for whatever reason would be recognized by the state as a "marriage". it is totally about the event and not about the people involved as she already had a normal business relationship established with them.
The event was a marriage. She had serviced marriages before. The refusal was based on the participants, not the event.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6337 Jul 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Great idea, not sure the State would agree......lol!!!
Though one could copy their legal marriage license on any paper they want.......it won't take away from their legal one!!!
And the legal paperwork acknowledges that the ceremony was a "marriage" not a "gay marriage".

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6338 Jul 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>new business opportunity...designing decorator wedding licenses to match one's window treatments or china patterns, or even to match your wedding invitations...
not sure why the state would care, they sub the work out to an enterprising fellow like me, just like banks do with their designer checks, the state takes its cut and everyone is happy...

they order their marriage licenses and application forms from some printer anyways, why not order them from some printer witha sense of style?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6339 Jul 21, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which court cases would that be Barry? Please provide some specifics. When you do, I'll be happy to support my statement.
Prop 8
Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only MARRIAGE between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Nope, no mention of your mythical gay marriage.

Alaska Ballet Measure 2
To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

Nope, no mention of your mythical gay marriage.

Nevada Question 2
Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.

Nope, no mention of your mythical gay marriage.

Mississippi Amendment
Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman.

Nope, no mention of your mythical gay marriage.

Here you go, here's 27 more of them. Not one mentions you mythical gay marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._sta...

There is only ONE institution, and it's called "marriage". It's the same institution your florist refused to service because of the participants.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6340 Jul 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems you'd be wrong......I mean I've seen more pink dress shirts and ties for men than there should be......in fact pink looks good on some men and some aren't afraid to wear it.
As I have in the past. Charcoal grey suit. Pink shirt. Match tie. Molto bello.
Funny the way some people put stereotypes on the color of a person's cloths......wonder why?
Funny the way pink is associated with girls, blue with boys. Quite common actually.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6341 Jul 21, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8
Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only MARRIAGE between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Nope, no mention of your mythical gay marriage.
Alaska Ballet Measure 2
To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.
Nope, no mention of your mythical gay marriage.
Nevada Question 2
Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.
Nope, no mention of your mythical gay marriage.
Mississippi Amendment
Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman.
Nope, no mention of your mythical gay marriage.
Here you go, here's 27 more of them. Not one mentions you mythical gay marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._sta...
There is only ONE institution, and it's called "marriage". It's the same institution your florist refused to service because of the participants.
Seriously Joanie.... You list all those states which define marriage as a union of one man and one woman, and yet claim "There is only ONE institution, and its called 'marriage' "......and the try to link that to two women having their relationship called marriage by the state. Odd.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6342 Jul 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously Joanie.... You list all those states which define marriage as a union of one man and one woman, and yet claim "There is only ONE institution, and its called 'marriage' "......and the try to link that to two women having their relationship called marriage by the state. Odd.
No, what's odd is someone that thrusts themselves into a conversation when they have the comprehensive skill set of a donkey. Someone like you.

The original comment from Barry was that there were legal documents that referenced "gay marriage" as if it were a separate institution. My post merely showed him he was wrong. Only one institution exists, and that's marriage. In states where gays can marry, there is only one institution. MARRIAGE. When the states I've listed here begin removing their discriminatory statutes, there will still be only one institution. It will still be marriage. There is NO legal documentation or legal suits that have been filed over this issue that address "gay marriage". Not one.

When your mythical two women marry, that is exactly what they do. They marry. They don't "gay marry".

Would it help if I got out some crayons and drew pictures for you?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6343 Jul 21, 2013
barry wrote:
... and when this customer of the florist asked about the wedding reception he probably should have accommodated her by moving to another florist.
Probably. That is, in fact, what I would have done. And I wish this couple and the cake couple and the Vermont inn people had all done just that.
People affront one another all the time while breaking the law, like not stopping for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. We do not spend our lives chasing down those who have insulted us, even if the law is on our side.
But that does not change the fact that the law IS on these couples' sides. So they have the right to pursue legal remedies.
They obviously believe that the publicity will educate others who would also break the law and discourage them from doing so. I am not convinced that this advantage outweighs the disadvantages.
I can see times, however, when I might have little choice but to pursue justice. If the party store that rented my tent had taken the same view as the florist, it would have caused real and tangible harm far in excess of going to another provider in town.
We all draw our lines somewhere. Speaking of which, you've never explained the legally enforceable distinction between the local party store and the florist.
i would think that it was not really a surprise to him.
On the contrary, it came as quite a surprise: the couple thought they had a good relationship with the florist. Had the florist been a stranger, my guess is he would have simply moved on to the next shop. But I am only speculating....

I would have moved on and made sure that anyone who cared never brought their business to that florist again.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6344 Jul 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue isn't stalking, the jury found George innocent because of the evidence; only two wounds on Tray, bruised knuckles and a bullet wound but George's head was pounded against the pavement and his face was battered.
Tray probably attacked George out of homophobia, fear of rape. That's the testimony of Rachel Jeantel.
So Zimmerman had the right to shoot the man he'd stalked out of fear for his life. But Martin didn't have the right to stand his ground for fear of rape?

The only thing I can't figure out is whether you discount Martin's rights because he lost the fight (might makes right, even when you have to pull out a gun), because Martin is black, or because you just approve of vigilante shootings.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6345 Jul 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>civil rights act. interracial marriage is a matter of race.
Actually, that was a decision of the Supreme Court, based on the Constitution, not on any civil rights act.

But same-sex marriage is legal in Washington State by and act of the legislature, affirmed by the electorate. Your argument, again, not only fails, but proves the opposite.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6346 Jul 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"that is not even close..." that was the point. his example was not only wrong it was comparing apples to oranges.
and your example is not applicable either as renting or selling a house/apartment is not about the event it would be about the race of the couple involved. not servicing a ssm wedding reception is not about the type of people that they are but is completely about the event. i doubt hat she would service a wedding reception between two lesbians nor would she service a "wedding" reception between two heterosexual males or females that might have formed a legal union that for whatever reason would be recognized by the state as a "marriage". it is totally about the event and not about the people involved as she already had a normal business relationship established with them.
So, in that strange little uber-libertarian world of yours, it would be fine for a florist to refuse flowers for a interracial marriage, if she found that offensive. She is, after all, discriminating against the EVENT, not the people.

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Poll: 70 percent of Kentuckians support $1 toba... 19 min Truth 36
News White House will ask Supreme Court to end DACA ... 27 min anonymous 17
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 32 min Brilliant 326,071
News Conservatives balk at GOP plan to avert governm... 47 min CodeTalker 1
News Members of Haitian community react to Trump's c... 48 min CodeTalker 340
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr Come on 51,729
News Trump's popularity is slipping in rural America... 1 hr Come on 2,094
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Reality Check 1,681,143
News Oprah speech has Democrats buzzing about possib... 4 hr T TigerWoods 473
News Bipartisan deal would create 12-year citizenshi... 5 hr Impeach the Creep 79
More from around the web