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

#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?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15106 Jan 1, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians.
<quoted text>
I've already cited the verses. Your apparent attention deficit disorder isn't my problem.
i do have short term memory problems however i also showed that whatever verses were cited did not have the word "obey" in them and that in fact the greek word used does not translate "obey" so i was hoping that perhaps you had some more information.
now as to "cherry picking" verses, that would be you as you tried to use two passages that did not say what you claimed they said.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15107 Jan 1, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Orval Faubus had no intention of stopping black students from getting educated. He just didn't want that in his white schools.
not at all like it.she wasn't restricting them from her place of business. she did not want to go to or be associated with their event in any way.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15108 Jan 1, 2014
Part 1 of 2
barry wrote:
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.
On the contrary, I expect all citizens to abide by the constitution and established federal, state and local laws; unlike you, I've never once cited my personal religious beliefs as justification for my assertions.
barry wrote:
there is no religious freedom if it is confined to inside the walls of the church house.
Your beliefs aren't confined within the walls of houses of worship. However, you and you ilk mistakenly believe freedom of religion is absolute and can't be restricted; that's simply not true. And your incessant whining otherwise won't change that fact. SCOTUS has interpreted the constitution to limit both what government can do to promote particular religious beliefs and also has allowed general laws that incidentally impact religious actions as long as the law does not specifically target religion. Anti-dsicrimination laws are the latter.
barry wrote:
this country was founded originally by people seeking to live there freedom in their daily public lives.
Actually, several of the original colonies had state religions and were intolerant of dissenting beliefs. It's ironic that many who fled religious persecution in Europe became religious persecutors as colonists in America. Freedom of religion didn't become the law of the land until the constitution was ratified.

How unsurprising you're so ignorant of American history.
barry wrote:
you have yet as far as i can tell shown that "public accommodations" include general retail or sales businesses in the state of washington.
Then you're grossly negligent in reading my posts to you or you're just willfully lying. I've cited the specific Washington statue multiple times that defines "public accommodation" as it pertains to Washington anti-dscrimnation law and also posted the relevant excerpt from it post # 15003.

I can lead pigs like you to the trough but I can't force you to eat, barry.
barry wrote:
the freedom of conscience claus says that she can not be molested in person or property "on account of religion". religion not conscience.
She's not being "molested" in her person or property on account of her religion. She's being sued fro breaking the law.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15109 Jan 1, 2014
Part 2 of 2
barry wrote:
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.
Whether floral arrangement is art or craft is debatable. Regardless, a craftsman or artist who sells the result of their talents/skills to the general public is still a public accommodation and subject to anti-discriminiation laws. And being asked to create floral arrangements containing certain flowers or colors is not being asked to "have a part in the event" any more than the caterer that sets the table for dinner. Fi n artist/craftsperson wants control over who they seek their work to, then they are free to pursue the wholesale business model where they can pick and choose their distributors.
barry wrote:
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.
That some people are interested in who provides some of the primary services in a wedding/reception doesn't elevate the status of those vendors above the ones providing toilet paper or less glamorous products/services from a legal standpoint.
barry wrote:
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.
What I expect is for people running businesses to obey the law. If they don't want to sell goods or services to people they morally disapprove of, then I expect them to provide a legal reason for refusing to do so. Customers are not to be subjected to the religious pontification of self-righteous business owners.
barry wrote:
why would you even insist that she do it?
The only thing I insist upon is the business owner provide a legal reason for declining the business.
barry wrote:
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.
No, it's about disabusing *sswipes like you that think they're above the law because of their religious beliefs. If it were left to your and your ilk, racial segregation would still be the law in many states because many people cited their religious beliefs to justify those laws too.
barry wrote:
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.
Then there's no excuse for your ignorance and stupidity regarding the speed of civil legal proceedings.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15110 Jan 1, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Matthew 7:1 says you are not supposed to judge at all.
talk about "cherry picking"
Mathew 7:
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

seems like some judging is required in this life.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15111 Jan 1, 2014
barry wrote:
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".
People with majority characteristics are rarely discriminated against on the basis of their majority characteristic. It's minorities that are usually discriminated against by the majority who feel they're somehow superior. It doesn't change the fact that protected classes encompass all manifestations of the protected class. So straight people are just as protected as gays and bisexuals when anti-dsicrmination laws included sexual orientation as a protected class.
barry wrote:
Christians don't ask Jews or muslims to serve pork at their receptions.
That's because weddings receptions aren't businesses and therefore not public accommodations subject to anti-discrimination laws; they're private parties with a host(s) and invited guests. Such events are governed by social conventions and the rules of etiquette, not civil law.

That you think a guest at a private social event is remotely comparable to a customer of a business selling goods/services to the general public just demonstrates how stupid you are.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15112 Jan 1, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i do have short term memory problems however i also showed that whatever verses were cited did not have the word "obey" in them and that in fact the greek word used does not translate "obey" so i was hoping that perhaps you had some more information.
now as to "cherry picking" verses, that would be you as you tried to use two passages that did not say what you claimed they said.
They in fact did say what I claimed they said. You're now arguing over interpretation and translation which are entirely different matters.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15113 Jan 1, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, she did not want to service all of her patrons equally. She's a bigot, just like you Barry.
The even was a wedding, the participants are ss.
and she would equally decline any ss couple who wanted to take advantage of the new parameters of the term" married". that means that all her customers now and future are equally declined if they want her to service their ss wedding event.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15114 Jan 1, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No where in that article does it state they asked her, that is merely an assumption that you have made. It's a habit you tend to do quite a lot.
According to her own words, she offered her refusal first.
“He said he decided to get married, and BEFORE HE GOT THROUGH I grabbed his hand and said,‘I am sorry. I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’"
http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/Florist-refu...
<quoted text>
Her refusal was discriminatory, that isn't polite in any reality other than that of a bigot.
<quoted text>
No dear, as I expressed quite succinctly, I was not hurt, I was insulted. You trying to speak for me is insulting given how uneducated you are, and what a bigot you are. I don't need a bigot trying to speak for me. Did you understand it this time, or do I need to get out some crayons?
<quoted text>
No, those a fundie spins that YOU are trying to apply to the situation. Sorry Barry, but that's bullshyt. Her condonement was never requested or required, and she was NOT asked to be part of the event. She was going to be asked to make flowers.....you know....because she's a florist. Perhaps in your reality, couples go to a florist to look for condonements of their wedding, but in the real world, that doesn't happen.
<quoted text>
This ridiculous "argument" has already been debunked ad nauseum. Your inability to comprehend isn't our problem. She was being patronized, not employed you MORON. She was never going to given a W2 by the couple at the end of the year. NO Barry, patrons of a public business are NOT required to make accommodations for the religious convictions of the owners. The public business is required by law to treat all its customers the same. Your bigot florist didn't do that.
so she told him she couldn't do their wedding before she was asked to do their wedding? riiight.
making flowers for a wedding is having a part in the event. your stubborn refusal to acknowledge that is clearly seen by all. your agenda causes you to look ignorant.
as for the w-2 comment, you show your ignorance again. it would not be a w-2 but a "1099 misc"
and it is obvious that you aren't familiar with how weddings work nor how florists work.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15115 Jan 1, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
<quoted text>
Whether floral arrangement is art or craft is debatable. Regardless, a craftsman or artist who sells the result of their talents/skills to the general public is still a public accommodation and subject to anti-discriminiation laws. And being asked to create floral arrangements containing certain flowers or colors is not being asked to "have a part in the event" any more than the caterer that sets the table for dinner. Fi n artist/craftsperson wants control over who they seek their work to, then they are free to pursue the wholesale business model where they can pick and choose their distributors.
<quoted text>
That some people are interested in who provides some of the primary services in a wedding/reception doesn't elevate the status of those vendors above the ones providing toilet paper or less glamorous products/services from a legal standpoint.
<quoted text>
What I expect is for people running businesses to obey the law. If they don't want to sell goods or services to people they morally disapprove of, then I expect them to provide a legal reason for refusing to do so. Customers are not to be subjected to the religious pontification of self-righteous business owners.
<quoted text>
The only thing I insist upon is the business owner provide a legal reason for declining the business.
<quoted text>
No, it's about disabusing *sswipes like you that think they're above the law because of their religious beliefs. If it were left to your and your ilk, racial segregation would still be the law in many states because many people cited their religious beliefs to justify those laws too.
<quoted text>
Then there's no excuse for your ignorance and stupidity regarding the speed of civil legal proceedings.
washington state's "public accommodations" does not include her servicing a wedding.

"PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
• Public resorts;
• Places of accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;
• Public schools;
• Private institutions open to the public for an event or gathering;
• Places of patronage, including government offices, stores, shopping malls, theaters, libraries, hospitals, and transit facilities."

nowhere does it say that her services out side of her shop are a "public accommodation"
a "public accommodation" is a place not a service.

"UNDER RCW 49.60.215, A PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION CANNOT:
• Refuse or withold entrance;
• Charge a different rate or offer different terms and conditions of service;
• Prohibit entrance of a service animal.
• Make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment that is discriminatory."

none of these apply to her.
like i said, Washington state's legal definition of "public accommodations" does not apply to her going and servicing a wedding event.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15116 Jan 1, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Really Barry? It's been done before? Please do supply the moment in time when in the USA when all businesses in the USA said "no Christians allowed". What was the exact week Barry? Are there headlines you can share from when this occurrence took place? Are there some of the signs in the Smithsonian?
Oh Lawdy those Christians and all their persecution!!!! The "war on Christians" is just going on all around!!!!!!!
You freaks and your melodrama self created persecution are sickening.
you're right, it's never been done here in our country but it has and does happen in other countries. Christianity has survived and will survive.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15117 Jan 1, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
In many locations, yes.
like where?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15118 Jan 1, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
Goodness, I bet you thought you were all that and a bag of chips when you found whatever cut and paste site you thought would help you!! Honestly, do you just spend days going back over posts from months ago simply so you can waste everyone's time?

According to your Sky Santa Manual, the set I presented are the ONLY set referred to as "The Ten Commandments". Your little book doesn't mention different sets of Ten Commandments. It has different sets of commandments yes, but only one set referred to as the "Ten Commandments". The set that I presented, not the set you wish.

Where in your manual are these referred to as the "Ten Commandments"? Oh, that's right, they're not.

No, Deuteronomy refers to the "Ten Commandments", Deuteronomy does NOT verify that it is the version you wish it were.

Where are these referred to as the "Ten Commandments"? Oh, that's right, they aren't.
<quoted text>
No, Deuteronomy refers to the "Ten Commandments". Deuteronomy 10:4 does NOT verify its the set you wish it were.
<quoted text>
Um, nothing you presented negates the FACT, that the set I presented are the ONLY set referred to in your clumsily written Santa manual as the "Ten Commandments".
<quoted text>
Christians believe the set you like are the real set, because you want them to be, not because they are. Like most things in your little book, you people have to overlook factual context in order to have it reflect the agenda of your particular denomination.
FACT: The set I presented, according to your bible, are the set that were placed in the ark of the covenant. According to your bible, they are the ONLY set referred to as the "Ten Commandments".
Feel free to try another fundie spin at this one Barry!
i ignored it the first time but it was posted again as if there was some great discovery that you needed to let those "fundies" in on. so i responded.

and obviously you have not studied the Bible but are simply running with something that you read somewhere, assuming that it must be true.

i don't cut and paste. i study the Bible it is not too complicated when you have a tool called a concordance available and those concordances are on line. real easy.

the phrase "ten commandments" appears in the Bible three times. once in the passage that you used
Ex 34:28 "And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."
he, moses wrote these commandments on the tables of stone.
however;
Deut.4:13 says that God wrote down a set of ten commandments.
"And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."
and ;
Deuteronomy 10:4 says that there was a "first writing"
"And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord gave them unto me."
and Deuteronomy 5:22 lists those commandments refered to in chap 4:13 the same as Ex 20
" These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me."

which the Lord spoke to the people and the Lord wrote them in the tables of stone.

so you have two sets of ten commandments one that moses copied and one that the Lord spoke and wrote. both are called "ten commandments" but both are distinctly recorded.

Ex 32:15-16 says this about the traditional TC in Ex20
"15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.
16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables."
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15119 Jan 1, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
Goodness, I bet you thought you were all that and a bag of chips when you found whatever cut and paste site you thought would help you!! Honestly, do you just spend days going back over posts from months ago simply so you can waste everyone's time?
<quoted text>
According to your Sky Santa Manual, the set I presented are the ONLY set referred to as "The Ten Commandments". Your little book doesn't mention different sets of Ten Commandments. It has different sets of commandments yes, but only one set referred to as the "Ten Commandments". The set that I presented, not the set you wish.
<quoted text>
Where in your manual are these referred to as the "Ten Commandments"? Oh, that's right, they're not.
<quoted text>
No, Deuteronomy refers to the "Ten Commandments", Deuteronomy does NOT verify that it is the version you wish it were.
<quoted text>
Where are these referred to as the "Ten Commandments"? Oh, that's right, they aren't.
<quoted text>
No, Deuteronomy refers to the "Ten Commandments". Deuteronomy 10:4 does NOT verify its the set you wish it were.
<quoted text>
Um, nothing you presented negates the FACT, that the set I presented are the ONLY set referred to in your clumsily written Santa manual as the "Ten Commandments".
<quoted text>
Christians believe the set you like are the real set, because you want them to be, not because they are. Like most things in your little book, you people have to overlook factual context in order to have it reflect the agenda of your particular denomination.
FACT: The set I presented, according to your bible, are the set that were placed in the ark of the covenant. According to your bible, they are the ONLY set referred to as the "Ten Commandments".
Feel free to try another fundie spin at this one Barry!
so i am accused of "cherry picking" while it is you that takes one passage out of its context and claims some new truth. the Bible must be kept in context, words must be understood, differences in phrases must be noted and the meaning will be understood.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15120 Jan 1, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what I said? I simply stated that a Bisexual person can change and does choose who they want to be with.........they are still in a protected class simply because they are BISEXUAL and are part of the GLBTQI Community!!!
i love your answer. want to join just say so. wnat to be a girl today just claim you are a girl in a man's body. which brings me back to my original statement.
california has now made it legal for a guy to be a lesbian.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15121 Jan 1, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, give it up......the florist will MOST likely lose in Court just like the photographer from New Mexico and the baker in Colorado.........now, the photographer's case has been taken up by SCOTUS, so by or before NEXT summer......we should have an answer on who is right......my guess is that SCOTUS will NOT rule in the photographer's favor as it would OPEN up legal discrimination against a group of individuals for no other reason as because a business DOESN'T like them!!!
Good luck with your opinion.....because so far the Courts have disagreed with you!!!
well i wouldn't be so sure about the scotus.
sonia just blocked the birth control mandate.now i'll admit that was a surprise coming from her.
however the laws in colorado and new mexico are written differently than the washington state law.so it may not even need to go to the scotus.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#15122 Jan 1, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Goodness Barry, for someone that for months now has stated repeatedly that Bigot Stutzman didn't discriminate based on sexual orientation, how could you make that claim if you don't even know what sexual orientation is? Seems very odd you could make a claim about something you now admit you don't know a thing about.
Here you go hon, educate yourself:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...
"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."
so where is this definition written in the law?
the other APA [American Psychiatric Association] put out their book and said that
Pedophilia is a “sexual orientation,” but oops someone noticed and the public complained so they are changing it.
so really doesn't pedophilia fit your definition of an " enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes"?
would then polygamy or polyandry or group marriages like 2 guys with three girls would that not also fall into the definition that you put up?
you see a term is used but there really is no legal definition of the term. like your protected groups it probably can be whatever anyone wants it to be.

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 Parton on 2016ers: 'I think they're both nuts' 2 min Go Blue Forever 6
News Who is the real 'racist,' Clinton or Trump? Thi... 2 min Go Blue Forever 18
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min cathy1691823 1,419,025
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 5 min woodtick57 21,129
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 5 min Surgit Tempestas 7,761
News In presidential elections, size doesn't always ... 7 min positronium 5
News Trumpa s Doctor Took Only 5 Minutes to Write Ca... 8 min Actual Science 1
News News 14 Mins Ago Trump rebukes racism claims as... 14 min OccupyThis 56
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 40 min NotSoDivineMsM 239,452
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 hr Coffee Party 393,276
More from around the web