Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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

Pisgah, AL

#6595 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Were her "criteria" posted and public you might have a point.
2) Yes, hers was based on sex (gender).
<quoted text>
She is unable to have this imaginary "criteria" because it violates state law.
But keep grasping at straws. I'm sure you will think you've found another way to validate her discrimination shortly.
and again there is no state law that was violated. in fact she has counter sued to make that very claim. the law does not cover events.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6596 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then she shouldn't have taken part in this type of ceremony in the past. Thus she would have set a precedent that she doesn't service wedding ceremonies. But that isn't the case. She discriminated against this couple because of the couple.
no, she never knowingly took part in a ss wedding in the past. never had any part of one. no discrimination there. so yes she discriminated against this couple but the discrimination was unbiased based only on the event as she had been doing business with them in the past. they were not a problem. the event however changed everything.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6597 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
She was being paid for her services. Go sell that "slave" schtick somewhere else. Imaginary persecution doesn't impress me or anyone else.
the first amendment gives us religious freedom and the free exercise thereof. so don't force her to be part of something that would be against her religion.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6598 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the one dodging questions now am I?
"Who or what group exactly is wanting to donate blood with unpure intentions?"
ok, since you are socially handicapped i'll entertain the question. the homeless, druggies and alcoholics can receive $ for the blood that they donate. they are not donating out of a sense of civic duty.
HUH

Faribault, MN

#6599 Jul 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the first amendment gives us religious freedom and the free exercise thereof. so don't force her to be part of something that would be against her religion.
Yes religious freedom you admit it...Now I have no religion and have the right to and I think same sex marriage is ok so it should be legal for me if I want one....Or do you think only Christians have religosu freedom?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6600 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nature's God and Creator reflect the deism of our founding fathers, they do not reflect Christianity.
Since you like historical documents, here's one for you.(The capitalization is mine)
As the Government of the United States of America IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
- The Treaty of Tripoly,submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, ratified unanimously by the Senate, signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land in 1797.
What does all this have to do with your florist and the discrimination she practiced?
i don't think that my statement was about Christianity but rather about the founding father's respect for God.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6601 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nature's God and Creator reflect the deism of our founding fathers, they do not reflect Christianity.
Since you like historical documents, here's one for you.(The capitalization is mine)
As the Government of the United States of America IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
- The Treaty of Tripoly,submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, ratified unanimously by the Senate, signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land in 1797.
What does all this have to do with your florist and the discrimination she practiced?
so woody and petey were having a conversation about the words "in God we trust" on our money and woody made this claim:

"haven't yet found a solution for the coins...
we have no lions or tigers in northern MN, and i and not afraid of the words, they are offensive to the nation we live in and anathema to the founding goals of our nation. so basically, when we were trying to prove we were a better form of governance than the Soviets, we shat on our founding principles...sad. very sad..."

when i responded about his use of the word anathema really being a word that is related to God.
and then i posted the Declaration to show that the word God was not at all an "anathema" to our founding fathers.

so like i said, your a little off topic trying to claim that somehow i was defending Christianity or claiming that our nation was a Christian nation.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6602 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They could. In the same way that many, many heterosexual opposite gender couples do that already. Just as some gay people do already pretending to be straight and married. The elderly are always looking for ways to save. Why would it be any different?
<quoted text>
Already answered. In my response, you will note that I didn't try and pretend that straight opposite gendered couples somehow have some imaginary piety that you like to pretend. There are always people that will look for ways to work the system, that includes straight opposite gendered couples as well.
Your accusation of discrimination is dismissed.
so then dismiss the accusation of some kind of illegal discrimination against the florist as she would decline to service any and all ss weddings regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6603 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm getting the impression that your desperation is culminating very quickly.
If she refused to service a Muslim wedding, then she would still be breaking the law. She would also be spitting in the face of the "religious freedoms" you keep harping about.
Since you are now at the point of desperately making things up and imagining what she would do in imaginary situations, let me point you back to reality.
You have no idea if the gay couple she refused to service were Christians or not. If they were Christians, and she had serviced other "Christian Weddings", then once again, it comes down to the people, not the ceremony. And no honey, there is no such thing as a "gay wedding". Gay isn't a universal like religion that has tenants and rules and shared philosophies. Despite the stereotyping that you constantly adhere to in your posts, one could not go to a florist and say "I want a gay wedding" and have that mean something universal. It wouldn't describe ANYTHING about the ceremony. Since you seem to think that you are free to speak for this florist and you know everything that she thinks, feels and believes, let me as a gay person ASSURE you, the couple that went to hire her, did NOT ask for a "gay wedding".
But you keep scratching and clawing.
no such thing as a "gay" wedding. the dictionaries and even your source on the internet disagree with you.
now many people can claim to be Christians. that doesn't necessarily mean that they really are. God will decide that.
i appreciate your point that they did not actually use the words "gay wedding" however something in the way that they wanted the flowers and the fact that she would have to deliver them and set them up as well as possible publicity of the event would let everyone know what it was.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6604 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm getting the impression that your desperation is culminating very quickly.
If she refused to service a Muslim wedding, then she would still be breaking the law. She would also be spitting in the face of the "religious freedoms" you keep harping about.
Since you are now at the point of desperately making things up and imagining what she would do in imaginary situations, let me point you back to reality.
You have no idea if the gay couple she refused to service were Christians or not. If they were Christians, and she had serviced other "Christian Weddings", then once again, it comes down to the people, not the ceremony. And no honey, there is no such thing as a "gay wedding". Gay isn't a universal like religion that has tenants and rules and shared philosophies. Despite the stereotyping that you constantly adhere to in your posts, one could not go to a florist and say "I want a gay wedding" and have that mean something universal. It wouldn't describe ANYTHING about the ceremony. Since you seem to think that you are free to speak for this florist and you know everything that she thinks, feels and believes, let me as a gay person ASSURE you, the couple that went to hire her, did NOT ask for a "gay wedding".
But you keep scratching and clawing.
oh, and when polygamy and other poly marriages start to be recognized, i doubt that she will service them either. sexual orientation is a very undefined term.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6605 Jul 26, 2013
barry wrote:
some small businesses are just hobbies and don't really make enough money to live off of.
A business is a business. If a person is issued a business license, and opens their doors to the public, they don't get to say "Oh, this is just a hobby" in order to circumvent the law.
barry wrote:
the handiest info that lacked everything pertainable to the case:
what were the cost of the materials and flowers involed to make the arrangements?
what was the cost of labor involved to make, deliver and set up the arrangements?
how much would she actually charge for the service and what percentage of profit does she expect to make?
your statistics really add nothing too the conversation as we don't know how they would apply to her.
Why is any of that pertainable to the case? She has the same financial considerations for ANY customer who orders flowers. NONE of that factored into her decision to turn away customers. She simply believed that her religion gave her the right to discriminate.
barry wrote:
but i do the same for anyone who appears to be an upstanding citizen that is well respected in their community if i get the sense that perhaps they can't afford to pay the going rate as in widows.
Don't gay citizens count as "upstanding"? They aren't breaking any laws.

I can respect the idea of giving a break to people in a bad situation (though I wonder how you can tell if someone is lying about it), but that's different from giving discounts to the people who go to your church, simply BECAUSE they go to your church.
barry wrote:
i don't "do the same for anyone" i do the same for anyone who for circumstances beyond their control can't afford the going rate and who appear to be well respected in their community; like widows and senior citizens.
And people associated with your church. Nepotism isn't really an honorable or respectable practice, you know, regardless if you want to call those people "family" or not.
barry wrote:
so we should discriminate against conservative Christians? don't be a florist if you happen to be a real conservative Christian.
No, we should refrain from issuing business licenses to people who can't follow public business laws, and who can't view all their customers as equals. It doesn't matter if they're a conservative Christian or not. If someone wants to be a florist (or a merchant in any business), then they should hold their religious views for their private time, and conduct their business in accordance with public law.

Why don't we hear some consistency from these conservative Christians? I have NEVER read an article about them denying service to a divorced person, or a remarried person, or any number of other "sinners". It's ALWAYS the gays. Can't get married. Can't serve in the military. Can't be parents or teachers. Don't conservative Christians have any OTHER focus besides gay people?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6606 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
She was asked to make flower arrangement. She was not asked to celebrate. And your apostrophe's are dismissed as the childishness they are.
<quoted text>
She declined because the participants were gay. That's against the law in Washington. Her religious convictions do not place her above the law.
<quoted text>
I don't want that bitch to do anything. Please stop inserting me into it, it's childish.
What the couple wanted was for her to make flower arrangements and place them in the church, just as she had done for other weddings in the past. No one was "forcing" her to do anything. And at NO TIME was she asked to "celebrate" or change her own religious convictions. But rather than do her job, she went out of her way to publically shit on the couple's event and then cry foul and invoke the tired "Christian persecution" routine when she was called on it. It's the same tired routing that YOU perpetuate with your propagandist "forcing", "slave", etc. No one feels sorry for bigots.
so if she was not asked to celebrate then i guess she could have perhaps ... how do you make a flower arrangement and not be celebrating something or offering support in the form of condolences?

you keep saying that it is against the law but you have not posted or better yet quoted from the law that she supposedly broke.

she declined because the event was a ss wedding. no other reason. they were already regular customers of hers.

and i doubt that she publicly... on their event. i would suspect that she politely told them that she could not in good conscience service the event.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6607 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We're discussing a florist that thinks her radical religious agenda supersedes the law. No one has forgotten.
post and quote the law.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6608 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet it was the same "event" that she had serviced in the past.
<quoted text>
Yet the only thing different about the event were the customers.
<quoted text>
You haven't established the difference (sorry, but quotation marks aren't sufficient). You've only presented that the participants were different.
<quoted text>
Sorry when state laws don't allow you to discriminate against people you don't wish to see as equal.
and the fact that it was two of the same sex does not prove that she discriminates against homosexuals. discriminating against the participants soly because they are not the traditional participants does not break the law. non traditional is not protected.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6609 Jul 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
It didn't fully address the question.
It must've addressed it enough for 5 out of 9 justices to not let the question impede the success of the case.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thank you for that humble opinion. The reason, or least the primary one one, restricted to two, is because, despite the practice of polygamy througought history, it has been viewed in this country, at least in the 19th century, as "barbaric", "uncivilized", and "unChristian".
Which is hilariously ironic, considering the RAMPANT polygamy in the Bible. But then, they were able to make the same compartmentalized declaration about slavery, too.

I have to wonder if the "barbaric" and "uncivilized" observations came from the heavy-duty patriarchal abuse that's been such a predominant part of polygamy. You may find a handful of YouTube examples of people who have built successful, well-balanced polyamorous relationships, but even you must admit that MOST instances of polygamy have revolved around one man and his personal harem. Neil Patrick Harris makes a MUCH better public face for a movement than Warren Jeffs does.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That moral view has carried to the present day, although to a lesser extent. Now that SSM is legal, and homosexuality is viewed as "morally acceptable", at least more so than 20-30 years ago, polygamy has gained, albeit slowly, greater moral acceptance too, in my humble opinion.
And I think that part of the drag on polygamy's progress comes from its KNOWN component of abuse. It's hard to call it "morally acceptable" when these families are hidden away in fortified compounds, prevented from speaking to the press, dressed as if it were 1813, and married off against their wishes at the age of 14. Same-sex marriage at least has the qualifier that both people involved are willing, and of age.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What's the major difference in terms of morality, between a man who fathers several children out of wedlock with several differs women, and either doesn't support his children in any way, or offers limited support, and a man who does the same but views the women as his wives, they view him as their husband, and he is supportive of bis children? So the former is acceptable, but the latter, taboo?
Who are you asking? Me? What is my answer going to be, do you think, about how "taboo" an equitable (key word) polygamous relationship should be? How many times can I say I would SUPPORT a push for legalized polygamy, considering that the right conditions are met?

Let me be clear: THIS IS NOT TABOO TO ME.

It shouldn't be taboo to ANYONE, unless we're finding people (usually women) who are being abused and enforced into these relationships. But even the respectible ones have a lot of work to do. We can't just say "Sure, marry as many people as you want!" without considering the applications of the rights which come with that. We could (and probably would) be handing abusers MORE firepower to dominate the women under their control.

Culturally, historically, polygamy has never been about "Hey, I'm already married, but I'd like to marry you too, and my current spouse is ok with it". It's always been about "The Lord sayeth you art mine chattel, and thou shalt obey the husband". Polygamy is fraught with abuse. You don't just open that up to legalization, with NO concern for the frequent victims.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6610 Jul 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh. There you go with that tired old made up Christian persecution.
How exactly would the florist be being discriminated against? Specifics please. I'm anxious to see you demonstrate this reverse discrimination accusation.
The more appropriate synopsis would be, "don't enter the private sector if your extreme religious beliefs are going to conflict with you servicing all people equally."
however the 1st amendment establishes the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. what you are proposing is what rome tried to do to Christians who would not swear allegiance to ceasar. they could not do business either. it was ok you just couldn't make a living.

the florist clearly has strong convictions about what God says about homosexual sexual activity. she therefore has strong convictions about homosexual weddings. leave her be. no one was harmed but i guess your feelings were hurt.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6611 Jul 26, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
A business is a business. If a person is issued a business license, and opens their doors to the public, they don't get to say "Oh, this is just a hobby" in order to circumvent the law.
<quoted text>
Why is any of that pertainable to the case? She has the same financial considerations for ANY customer who orders flowers. NONE of that factored into her decision to turn away customers. She simply believed that her religion gave her the right to discriminate.
<quoted text>
Don't gay citizens count as "upstanding"? They aren't breaking any laws.
I can respect the idea of giving a break to people in a bad situation (though I wonder how you can tell if someone is lying about it), but that's different from giving discounts to the people who go to your church, simply BECAUSE they go to your church.
<quoted text>
And people associated with your church. Nepotism isn't really an honorable or respectable practice, you know, regardless if you want to call those people "family" or not.
<quoted text>
No, we should refrain from issuing business licenses to people who can't follow public business laws, and who can't view all their customers as equals. It doesn't matter if they're a conservative Christian or not. If someone wants to be a florist (or a merchant in any business), then they should hold their religious views for their private time, and conduct their business in accordance with public law.
Why don't we hear some consistency from these conservative Christians? I have NEVER read an article about them denying service to a divorced person, or a remarried person, or any number of other "sinners". It's ALWAYS the gays. Can't get married. Can't serve in the military. Can't be parents or teachers. Don't conservative Christians have any OTHER focus besides gay people?
your comment is really off subject and out of sync with the conversation.
my response was to a person who threw out a large dollar figure as a statistical average for what wedding flowers cost. his implied accusation was that this devout Christian did not seem to have any problem making a lot of money off of what she considered to be a sacred event. of course he did not provide any pertinent information about the costs involved and what she happens to charge. we buy our flowers from a lady who runs a little shop as a hobby right down the road from us.

now you also show how little you know about me when you imply that i would think that "gay" people could not be upstanding citizens in the community. i have never declined to work on the home of a homosexual person. i would however decline to work on a "gay" bar but then i would decline to work on any bar.
when i ran a retail over the counter business and a lab two of my best employees that i hired were a committed lesbian couple. i have no problem with homosexual people i do however have a problem with some of the things they do. and unless that has a bearing on how they work or the quality of their work, i don't see a problem. how are we going to win their respect if we don't respect those who are respectable?

you're right about some people in "bad situations" lying about it. however their neighbors usually know the truth and it comes out.

i'm sorry that you missed understood my attempt to have fun with the accusation that i was guilty of nepotism for giving discounts to members of our church. i am also sorry that you feel that there would be something wrong with being nepotistic by giving discounts to my family. sorry for you and your family.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6612 Jul 26, 2013
HUH wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes religious freedom you admit it...Now I have no religion and have the right to and I think same sex marriage is ok so it should be legal for me if I want one....Or do you think only Christians have religosu freedom?
when did i say that you couldn't have one?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6613 Jul 26, 2013
barry wrote:
the florist clearly has strong convictions about what God says about homosexual sexual activity.
Too bad these people never have ANY convictions about the hundreds of OTHER so-called "sins" in the Bible. They ONLY target homosexuals. They don't bat an eye at ANYONE ELSE that is supposedly condemned by their religion.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6614 Jul 26, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Why don't we hear some consistency from these conservative Christians? I have NEVER read an article about them denying service to a divorced person, or a remarried person, or any number of other "sinners". It's ALWAYS the gays. Can't get married. Can't serve in the military. Can't be parents or teachers. Don't conservative Christians have any OTHER focus besides gay people?
my conversation is not about whether they can or can't get married it is about whether anyone must be forced to do or participate in something that is against their religious convictions.
i would think that if someone wanted flowers for a divorce celebration that she might just decline to deliver and set up them also. and since when must remarrying be a sin?
i'll bet she declines some bachelor parties also.

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 Who is the real 'racist,' Clinton or Trump? Thi... 1 min Rev Cash Dollar 191
News Why Hillary Clinton's shadiness won't be fatal 2 min californio 113
News Pro-Clinton super PAC to invest in ground opera... 3 min Captain Yesterday 45
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min Dogen 205,604
News Trump backer tweets cartoon of Clinton in black... 4 min Rev Cash Dollar 102
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 min WasteWater 16,230
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Yeah 1,421,364
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 6 min katrina 88 8,165
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 10 min positronium 393,453
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 15 min Cornelius Scudmister 240,224
More from around the web