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

#9308 Sep 4, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Was macht das schon?
was just curious. you responded in german but it was not the translation. still curious.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9309 Sep 4, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the first amendment of the US constitution:
""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..."
from the Washington State Constitution:
"Article I Section 11 SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute
freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment,
belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual,
and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of
licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace
and safety of the state..."
religious freedom and the free exercise thereof is a constitutional right at both levels. the washington constitution is very clear that "no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion".
The florist is not being deprived of her freedom to profess the religious beliefs of her choice. However, her business is not a place of worship but rather a public accommodation subject to state regulation. Further, the constitutional language you cite explicitly states the right of religious freedom does not excuse acts or practices of religious adherents that are "inconsistent with the peace" of the state; breaking valid civil laws in fact violates the peace of the state.

Perhaps the florist would be better served by reading her Christian new testament more closely and adhere to its command to obey civil authorities and civil law. As it stands, she's just a religious hypocrite, of which Jesus had nothing good to say and in fact called such "whitewashed tombs".

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9310 Sep 4, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so actually, moral convictions are relevant.
Your previous comment regarding "moral convictions" was in the context of the Bill of Rights. I merely cited an excerpt from a SCOTUS ruling stating morality alone is not sufficient constitutional justification for infringing another's right to equal protection of the law.
barry wrote:
in the context of the florist we are not talking about moral disapproval of a group. the plaintiffs were already established customers of hers. apparently she has had homosexuals working for her. she may morally disapprove of their lifestyle choices and activities but she did not discriminate against them as a "group".
Constitutional equal protection law is not the issue here. The state of Washington legislated a civil right of freedom from discrimination and enumerated specific entities/circumstances subject to the law and specific classes on which discrimination was prohibited. The florist was subject to the law by the fact she operated a business as a public accommodation selling goods/services. She committed discrimination by refusing to sell goods to a couple because of their sexual orientation. The law does not grant exceptions for business owners to only serve protected classes when it doesn't violate their personal moral convictions or for reasons the business owner deems acceptable.

It doesn't matter whether she previously served a customer prior to the refusal to do so or whether she has ever employed members of the protected class. A single refusal to serve a customer because of their membership in a protected class triggers a violation of the law and is deemed a discriminatory act.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9311 Sep 4, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you can't show that she would do anyone else's ssw?
then you don't have a case for discrimination.
I don't have to demonstrate anything as I'm not a prosecutor trying the case.

From a discrimination law standpoint, it matters not whether a business person has ever served a person prior to refusing service or has served other member of the protected class in similar situations. Any refusal of service to a customer based on their membership in a protected class is deemed a discriminatory act.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9312 Sep 4, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>was just curious. you responded in german but it was not the translation. still curious.
Some curiosities remain unsatisfied.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9313 Sep 4, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
He continues to ignore that the incest restriction goes far beyond the genetic concerns with inbreeding.
The public health concerns include the well documented history of abuse which often accompanies incest. The inherently abusive nature of such relationships have led some states to specify the incest prohibition remains when one or both partners have been rendered sterile, through surgery, accident, or age.
You fail to acknowledge there are same sex siblings, who for all practical purposes are spouses to each other. Abuse does not automatically occur as you imply, and if it should occur, it can, and should be dealt with through the proper legal mechanism, cops and courts, for example. If you favor "marriage equality", how can you deny a man or woman from choosing a same sex sibling as "their person of choice"? Seems rather hypocritical.
If procreation was the only legitimate governmental interest in prohibiting incest, a sterilization operation would nullify that interest. Clearly, the abusive nature is an even more important interest for the government.
Please cite your source, that abuse between same sex siblings is a motivation for the government to ban ss sibling marriage.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9314 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to acknowledge there are same sex siblings, who for all practical purposes are spouses to each other. Abuse does not automatically occur as you imply, and if it should occur, it can, and should be dealt with through the proper legal mechanism, cops and courts, for example. If you favor "marriage equality", how can you deny a man or woman from choosing a same sex sibling as "their person of choice"? Seems rather hypocritical.
It's easy to maintain an exclusion of same-sex incestuous marriage regardless of the fact that they will never naturally procreate.

Because a ban on male-female incestuous marriages IS a compelling state interest that discriminatory ban is constitutional. If you then were to allow incestuous same-sex marriages, that would then run afoul of equal protection. Allowing only some siblings to marring while denying the right to others.

Of course, you would not allow any same-sex couples to marry so your argument is disingenuous. Still waiting for you to articulate a compelling state interest to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9315 Sep 4, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
"Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be “drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”
Concurring opinion of Justice O'Connor in Lawrence v. Texas.
Great.....legalize polygamy then.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9316 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Great.....legalize polygamy then.
Citizens aren't required to address all known grievances of all groups when petitioning the government to address their own grievances. If you feel the restriction of having only one spouse at a time is discriminatory, feel free to petition government to address your grievance. Don't expect others to do it for you if it's not a grievance to them.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9317 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Great.....legalize polygamy then.
just get all the laws changed so it is equal and done deal.

why do they need so many laws changed? SSM doesn't...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9318 Sep 4, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Citizens aren't required to address all known grievances of all groups when petitioning the government to address their own grievances. If you feel the restriction of having only one spouse at a time is discriminatory, feel free to petition government to address your grievance. Don't expect others to do it for you if it's not a grievance to them.
Why then do you advocate for "marriage equality", if you do not include all marriages?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9319 Sep 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>just get all the laws changed so it is equal and done deal.
why do they need so many laws changed? SSM doesn't...
Irrelevant for "marriage equality". That is a matter for the legislative, and judicial branches of government to address.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9320 Sep 4, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
It's easy to maintain an exclusion of same-sex incestuous marriage regardless of the fact that they will never naturally procreate.
Why? If same sex first cousins can marry, why can't same siblings? No risk of natural sexual procreation.
Because a ban on male-female incestuous marriages IS a compelling state interest that discriminatory ban is constitutional. If you then were to allow incestuous same-sex marriages, that would then run afoul of equal protection. Allowing only some siblings to marring while denying the right to others.
Not so. The basis for opposite sex siblings is the risk of sexual procreative genetic birth defects. Not a risk with same sex siblings.
Of course, you would not allow any same-sex couples to marry so your argument is disingenuous. Still waiting for you to articulate a compelling state interest to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
You fail to realize the foundation, the male female union, upon which the compelling state interest in marriage rests, is not present in a same sex relationship. Thus no need, nor obligation to designate a same sex emotional sexual relationship, "marriage".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9321 Sep 4, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice too, he has avoided addressing the basis for all other fundamental rights.
As you note, it is clear he has no valid argument on the merits, and is simply unwilling to admit he has no excuse for discrimination, so he keeps repeating the same worn out excuses.
We are discussing a specific fundamental right based on a specific relationship. Marriage exists as a fundamental right, because of the male female relationship, and the state's recognition of said relationship. All men and all women, regardless of self professed sexual orientation/attraction, have the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. All men are treated the same, in tis regard, as are all women.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9322 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant for "marriage equality". That is a matter for the legislative, and judicial branches of government to address.
hardly irrelevant at all. the laws , many laws would have to be changed to make polygamy equal. that is what we are talking about, marriage equality, right?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9323 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We are discussing a specific fundamental right based on a specific relationship. Marriage exists as a fundamental right, because of the male female relationship, and the state's recognition of said relationship. All men and all women, regardless of self professed sexual orientation/attraction, have the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. All men are treated the same, in tis regard, as are all women.
not any more. now it is a fundamental right not based on just a man and woman marriage.

the times, they are a changin'...as is our nations morality, for the better...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9324 Sep 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not any more. now it is a fundamental right not based on just a man and woman marriage.
the times, they are a changin'...as is our nations morality, for the better...
He doesn't get that fact.......and to continue to try and get him to grasp that point is redundant and a waste of time!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9325 Sep 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not any more. now it is a fundamental right not based on just a man and woman marriage.
the times, they are a changin'...as is our nations morality, for the better...
Please cite the Supreme Court case that clearly states same marriage is a "fundamental right".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9326 Sep 4, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn't get that fact.......and to continue to try and get him to grasp that point is redundant and a waste of time!!!
Please cite the Supreme Court case that clearly states same marriage is a "fundamental right".

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9327 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Please cite the Supreme Court case that clearly states same marriage is a "fundamental right".
SCOTUS has ruled that Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT......where did it ever SPECIFICALLY state that it had to ONLY be a man and a woman?

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Strange bedfellows: Jimmy Carter defends Trump 2 min Yidfellas v USA 218
News Trump, the 'America First' president, goes to t... 2 min CodeTalker 212
News Young immigrants shout down Democratic leader N... 3 min anonz 18
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 4 min Bongo 30,957
News The Latest: Trump targets North Korea in new ex... 4 min CodeTalker 1
News Trump to campaign with Luther Strange in U.S. S... 5 min sue 6
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min flack 1,600,935
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 min barry 9,818
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 15 min CodeTalker 289,303
More from around the web