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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15086 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
so shouldn't that protection go both ways? shouldn't her religious freedom and conscience be taken into consideration?
No. SCOTUS has ruled incidental burdens to religion by general laws (such as anti-discrimination laws) which don't specifically target religious practices are constitutional and not an infringement of freedom of religion. See Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15087 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
is not "separate but equal" and education a little off topic?
Not any more than your discussion of religious accommodation in employment settings. Besides, you asked for an example of someone suing another person or entity and that's exactly what I gave you. It's a landmark court decision as well, that overturned the legal principe of "separate but equal" established in Plessy v. Ferguson that provided the legal foundation on which racial segregation was based.
barry wrote:
there is no real "separate but equal" in education.
Just like creating civil unions and domestic partnerships for gays using the historical "separate but equal" example didn't work either.
barry wrote:
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.
Which does nothing to negate her violation of the law.
barry wrote:
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?
Ultimately, the gay customers that were refused service by Christians didn't actually use their services, did they? The Christians weren't forced to provide services but they were sued for violating the law as the law provides.
barry wrote:
would they not be at risk for a law suit anyway based on the same "bigot/discrimination " charge if something went wrong?
It depends on local/state law. I would venture not since unless gross negligence could be proved which I would think difficult to do for floral, photography of bang services. But I've not researched the law in that regard so can't say for sure.
barry wrote:
no, the best option was for them to find someone else and enjoy their day without the distraction of a "bigoted" Christian.
That would certainly be viewed as the best option for Christians inclined to violate anti-discrmination laws but letting them continue to practice illegal discrimination against others is not necessarily the best option to the victims of such discrimination.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15088 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>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 that refusal is based on their sexual orientation which is a protected class for Washington anti-disrmination law and thus illegal. A perfectly legal refusal would be "I'm sorry, I'm not available (or don't have capacity) on the day you requested."

There's no need to explain why you aren't available or don't have capacity. In fact, it's the insistence on pontificating about your religious beliefs that contributes to the breaking of the law. You aren't merely content to decline the business, you insist upon publicly judging and condemning the customers as immoral as well.
barry wrote:
because it's not really about equality but it's about the agenda.
No, it's about teaching people they aren't above the law regardless of the justification they give.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15089 Dec 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>whose doing the cherry picking?
Christians.
barry wrote:
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.
I've already cited the verses. Your apparent attention deficit disorder isn't my problem.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15090 Dec 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like creating cuses unions and domestic partnerships for gays using the historical "separate but equal" example didn't work either.
"Gays" can enter, and have long before "gay" was used to refer to "homosexuality", enter the same institution, marriage, like any other man or woman, and in the same manner. CUs and DPs are available to men and women regardless of self professed sexual identity.

"Seperate but equal" as it relates to marriage doesn't apply. Thanks for trying.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15091 Dec 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Gays" can enter, and have long before "gay" was used to refer to "homosexuality", enter the same institution, marriage, like any other man or woman, and in the same manner.
But we all know (at least everyone without a bigoted brain) that equal application of the law isn't the same thing as equal protection of the law. The recent federal District court ruling striking down Utah's prohibition against legal recognition of same sex marriages rebuts your stupidity quite elegantly:

"The State asserts that Amendment 3 does not abridge the Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry because the Plaintiffs are still at liberty to marry a person of the opposite sex. But this purported liberty is an illusion. The right to marry is not simply the right to become a married person by signing a contract with someone of the opposite sex. If marriages were planned and arranged bythe State, for example, these marriages would violate a person’s right to marry because such arrangements would infringe an individual’s rights to privacy, dignity, and intimate association. A person’s choices about marriage implicate the heart of the right to liberty that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 851. The State’s argument disregards these numerous associated rights because the State focuses on the outward manifestations of the right to marry, and not the inner attributes of marriage that form the core justifications for why the Constitution protects this fundamental human right."

Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/192781988/2-13-cv-0...
Pietro Armando wrote:
CUs and DPs are available to men and women regardless of self professed sexual identity.
"Seperate but equal" as it relates to marriage doesn't apply.
Not all states that have implemented civil unions and domestic partnerships have made them available to everyone; some states specifically implemented them as a parallel institution meant to give the same legal benefits and privileges as marriage in all but name. That's the epitome of "separate but equal". But as states like Vermont and New Jersey discovered, separate but equal isn't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thanks for trying.
Unlike you, I do more than try; I cite current and relevant case law, not excerpts from 100 year cases that have nothing to do with marriage law.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15092 Dec 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>disappoints you doesn't it?
Your bigotry disappoints me as a human. That's the only disappointment I feel.
barry wrote:
i don't care if you want to "marry" someone of the same sex or even someone who thinks they are the same sex as you.
No one believes that for a second.
barry wrote:
<
just don't drag me into it. i don't want anything to do with it. and neither does she.
Neither you nor Baronelle were "dragged" into anything. she was asked to make flowers. You aren't involved in any way, much as you keep pretending otherwise.
barry wrote:
<
now you claim that she was never asked to "celebrate" their wedding yet she was asked to make flower arrangements celebrating their wedding.[/QuOTE]
Nope, she was going to be asked to make flowers. nothing more, nothing less.

[QUOTE who="barry"]
how does an artist do that if she are not in the mood to celebrate their wedding?
She's not an artist, she's a florist. And her mood is irrelevant. Patrons of her business aren't required to know her mood.
barry wrote:
<
sounds to me that they would have been better off getting another florist who would be able to express the joy of the moment with flowers.
Sounds to me like you just want to continue making up reasons that her discrimination was justified. It wasn't.
barry wrote:
<
everyone knows that she was asked to create something celebrating the wedding that she was morally opposed to.
No, nobody knows that, it's just something you make up to try and justify her discrimination.
barry wrote:
<
her freedom to live by her religious morals certainly was affected.
Her freedoms weren't affected in any way. You continue to labor under the erroneous idea that she has some religious freedom to discriminate her services. She doesn't.
barry wrote:
<
and you keep claiming that she discriminated but can't show that her discrimination was exclusive to any of the protected classes.
It's been demonstrated ad nauseum, you just prefer to pretend otherwise. "I can't do YOUR wedding"
barry wrote:
<
and you keep claiming that she is a "public accomodation but can not show a legal definition from the state of washington or the federal standard that says that she in fact is.
This too has been shown, you just continue to ignore it because you don't like it. That's typical of fundies.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#15093 Dec 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you trot out one girl who because men were not accustomed to her speed and pitch (she only had one pitch) were over zealous in swinging happened to strike out.

so no, women can not play on the same level as men and they never did.
Still socked it to'em didn't she;0)

Ouch! Someone really ruffled your Bantam feathers didn't they? Lol....no matter. Next time I need to give birth to 14 pounds worth of twins I'll get a macho guy like you to do the job. Or can you stand that level of pain? Nope, didn't think so. Baseball, bah. You want to pick and choose your levels buddy? No way, try my level, sparky.

BTW, I had a strawboss once who told me to do a man's work if I wanted a man's pay. I told him that being a five foot tall woman, I could do anything a 5 foot tall man could do, bring him on....and I did.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15094 Dec 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
A&E caved and apologized for trying to silence Phil:
...While Phil's comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the "coarse language" he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would "never incite or encourage hate." We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article and reiterate that they are not views we hold.
But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family … a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about....
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/a-...
If you value freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman. Else, the PC left will try to get you fired.
I just wanted to confirm: Is this the Phil you're talking about sharing American family values? http://freakoutnation.com/2013/12/28/caught-o...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15095 Dec 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Gays" can enter, and have long before "gay" was used to refer to "homosexuality", enter the same institution, marriage, like any other man or woman, and in the same manner.

This is true, now, in eighteen states and DC. But it is still not true in 32 states.
CUs and DPs are available to men and women regardless of self professed sexual identity.
"Seperate but equal" as it relates to marriage doesn't apply. Thanks for trying.
Actually, CU's/DP's are available in only four states, now, and fewer every year. And they are completely unrecognized at the federal level.

Thank you, we will stick to the strategy that brings us to our goal faster, not slower.

BTW: You've been corrected before about the lack of recognition of civil unions and domestic partnerships. So we can only conclude that your repetition constitutes deliberate lying.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15096 Dec 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
But we all know (at least everyone without a bigoted brain) that equal application of the law isn't the same thing as equal protection of the law. The recent federal District court ruling striking down Utah's prohibition against legal recognition of same sex marriages rebuts your stupidity quite elegantly:
"The State asserts that Amendment 3 does not abridge the Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry because the Plaintiffs are still at liberty to marry a person of the opposite sex. But this purported liberty is an illusion. The right to marry is not simply the right to become a married person by signing a contract with someone of the opposite sex. If marriages were planned and arranged bythe State, for example, these marriages would violate a person’s right to marry because such arrangements would infringe an individual’s rights to privacy, dignity, and intimate association. A person’s choices about marriage implicate the heart of the right to liberty that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 851. The State’s argument disregards these numerous associated rights because the State focuses on the outward manifestations of the right to marry, and not the inner attributes of marriage that form the core justifications for why the Constitution protects this fundamental human right."
Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/192781988/2-13-cv-0...
Sounds like an argument for plural marriage too. It's only a matter of time. All the "dignity" that some Federal judges feel "gays and lesbians" should have by legalizing SSM, will be used to legalize polygamy. After that.....siblings?
Not all states that have implemented civil unions and domestic partnerships have made them available to everyone; some states specifically implemented them as a parallel institution meant to give the same legal benefits and privileges as marriage in all but name. That's the epitome of "separate but equal". But as states like Vermont and New Jersey discovered, separate but equal isn't.
The reality is, same sex marriage IS separate, and unequal.
Unlike you, I do more than try; I cite current and relevant case law, not excerpts from 100 year cases that have nothing to do with marriage law.
Actually 100 year old cases have a great deal to do with marriage law. Simply because some federal judges are basing their opinions on feelings, doesn't render such case law irrelevant.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15097 Dec 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sounds like an argument for plural marriage too. It's only a matter of time. All the "dignity" that some Federal judges feel "gays and lesbians" should have by legalizing SSM, will be used to legalize polygamy.
We won't know any time soon since polygamists have sen reticent about filing lawsuits challenging the number restriction on marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
After that.....siblings?
So you've forgotten all the compelling state interests you've been provided repeatedly as to why that's not legal, huh? Perhaps you better be checked out for Alzheimer's.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The reality is, same sex marriage IS separate, and unequal.
Only to bigoted *sswipes like you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Actually 100 year old cases have a great deal to do with marriage law.
Not when the actual issue addressed by the ruling has nothing to do with marriage law. Recall your favorite and oft repeated quote was from a voter registration case, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Simply because some federal judges are basing their opinions on feelings, doesn't render such case law irrelevant.
Unfortunately for you, all the latest defeats you're side has suffered have been based on sound and extensive legal reasoning and precedent, complete with case citations.You only wish those cases were based on the judge's "feelings" because then you can lie to yourself that the rulings aren't valid and and will be overturned on appeal. That just demonstrates your ignorance of the law.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15098 Jan 1, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't. How do we know you might not wake up one day and realize that how other's perceive themselves isn't any of your concern? How do we know that you won't wake up one day and decide that trying to use 1 person's experience to negate the word of millions of people isn't asinine?
How do we know that all you fundamentalist bigots won't all wake up one day and realize what vile people you are?
<quoted text>
What difference does it make? NONE. She is what she is. You're creepy desire to think your input on the matter is of importance is nauseating.
People are who they are, not who you need them to be in order to make your stupid Sky Santa Manuel seem even remotely plausible. Get the f*ck over it already.
the point is that it has been said that homosexuals are born that way and have no choice in the matter. yet there is no genetic evidence nor any physical test that proves that theory. apparently this homosexual was able to change and perhaps she was not born that way. so for you to mock the sincerity of my doubt really shows that your biased and bigoted by your agenda.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15099 Jan 1, 2014
Happy new year everybody. still the greatest country on earth.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15100 Jan 1, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do gay bars discriminate against certain clientele? Nope, they sure don't. They don't treat their straight patrons differently. They don't discriminate like Baronelle Stutzman.
As ALWAYS, everytime you attempt to condescend, you simply demonstrate what an uneducated bigot you are.
so "gay" bars do exist but some how "ss" weddings don't>
Gay bars don't discriminate and "ss" weddings aren't discriminatory either. so what is your point. my point is that a "gay" bar is different than straight bar even if there is no discriminatory difference. and "ss" wedding is different than a normal wedding even though there is no discriminatory difference in who can have a "ss" wedding.
a difference does exist. society and the media recognize that there is a difference hence the us of adjectives to mark that a difference exists.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15101 Jan 1, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's not.
<quoted text>
Thanks for proving what a total f-ing moron you truly are by your inability to properly read, comprehend and comment on a single, complex sentence.
The freedom of conscience clause in the Washington constitution pertains to matters of religious sentiment and belief, which are thoughts, feelings or emotions but not actions. Being required to comply with anti-discrmination laws as a business owner in no way prevents Baronelle from believing her religious doctrine, nor does it force her to change her beliefs or sentiments. She can even profess them as a matter of free speech and publicly announce she thinks same sex marriage is wrong or contrary to her religious beliefs.
The freedom of conscience clause also pertains to worship, which can be an action. However, you are mistaken in thinking that running a business deemed a public accommodation is an act of worship. SOTUS has previously ruled religious activities can be incidentally burdened by general laws as long as those laws don't specific target religion or religious belief, which anti-discrmination law doesn't.
Further, you abysmally fail to understand the clause "no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion" but thinking it applies to the case of Baronelle's refusal to sell flowers to the gay couple. The gay couple simply wanted to buy flowers for their wedding; they're using because Baronelle's refusal violated their civil right of being free from discrimination in public accommodations as a member of a protected class. They are not suing the florist because of her ... beliefs. On the contrary, Baronelle has effectively thrust her religious beliefs into her customers' faces by citing it as the reason for her refusal to obey the law and commit an act of discrimination .
<quoted text>
Selling goods or services isn't "participating" any more than the company that manufactured the toilet paper in the wedding venue's restroom is "participating" in the event.
<quoted text>
...
<quoted text>
So you have no understanding of how slow the gears of the judicial system typically move. Got it.
yep, religious freedom is ok with you as long as no one but you and your's are free to live according to your religious sentiments.
there is no religious freedom if it is confined to inside the walls of the church house. this country was founded originally by people seeking to live there freedom in their daily public lives.
you have yet as far as i can tell shown that "public accommodations" include general retail or sales businesses in the state of washington.
the freedom of conscience claus says that she can not be molested in person or property "on account of religion". religion not conscience.
now it would be nice if they "simply wanted to buy flowers for their wedding" but you know that that is not true. you don't go to the flower shop and pick out arrangements that are all ready made like at walmart and pay for them and take them home. you ask for the florist to make arrangements using her artistic talent that would conform to a scheme and style that you are looking for while expressing the joy of the moment. and then deliver them and set them up at the event, again using her artistic eye to convey your joy at the event. that classifies as having a part in the event.
my son is getting married shortly and people are already asking them who they will use for their florist. no one asks where are they going to buy the toilet paper. that was so lame of you.
what amazes me is that you expect an artist who is morally against ss weddings to by able to do this as well as anyone else. why would you even insist that she do it? get someone else who would also enjoy servicing the event
no, it's all about forcing your event and your agenda down the public's throat.

as to the slow gears of the legal system? i"ll bet that my work puts me in lawyer's offices and court a lot more than you.
.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15102 Jan 1, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
All those examples you cite are RELIGIOUS marriages which are different than CIVIL marriages which are the only marriages sanctioned and recognized by the government. Any religious or civil marriage can be either for opposite- or same-sex couples if the religion chooses or allowed by law in the case of civil marriage.
exactly the point "weddings" are different.
while marriages can be different they are recognized as the same by the state. however adjectives still apply as you pointed out.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15103 Jan 1, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You've done exactly the same thing when you proclaim you're straight or a Christian. Why does it bother you that others do what you have done, hypocrite?
good point but,]i'm waiting for the day that i see a "straight" person claim discrimination and file a law suit because someone discriminated against them because of their "straightness". Christians don't ask Jews or muslims to serve pork at their receptions.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15104 Jan 1, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hon, YOU and other bigots are the only ones trying to pretend that weddings have a kind. They don't. The participants do.
so a ss wedding would not be a traditional wedding, would probably not be a muslim wedding would not be likely be a baptist wedding. not be an officially sanction methodist wedding but could be a lot of other types of weddings. but in the end [npi] it would all be a marriage depending on the state.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15105 Jan 1, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't cite the source of the nonsense you post. Yeah, we know. Fundamentalist Christianity and lying go hand in hand.
your just lazy or willfully ignorant?

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min Truth is might 222,241
News A Celebration in the Streets, Then Screams 3 min Covfefe 388
News The Team from "The Case of Jon Benet" (Feb '17) 6 min Right44 11
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 7 min Snake Eyes 26,391
News Democrat 'incredibly frustrated' with leader ov... 14 min Covfefe 1
News Free speech supporters: Outnumbered, but rally ... 16 min Cordwainer Trout 3
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 18 min American Independent 1,433
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 48 min Gag me 1,581,898
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr CodeTalker 287,574
News Republicans have courted racists for years. Why... 3 hr Retribution 75
More from around the web