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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14549 Dec 13, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>that was a sick comment. fortunately it makes no sense.
she has not broken the law the washington constitution [law] defends religious freedom and protects her from being forced to do anything that would be against her conscience. the fact that there are plenty of other florists that would service their "wedding" shows that they were in no way harmed beyond as they claim "their feelings were hurt". the latest developments in the case indicate that the cases will be dismissed.
Why did wedding need quotation marks for them? Bigot much?

The participants aren't required to seek another florist. They had a florist already. They just didn't know she was a bigot.

Please cite the source of these latest developments.
(Watch as Barry cowardly avoids this like always)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#14550 Dec 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The numbers of such children are few, and limited to primarily lesbians. Let's see if I can help you out.....don't go away....b right back.
.
The numbers may be few, but aren't they the ones we're talking about?

I think we can agree that it's not good for the child when a gay or lesbian ends an opposite sex marriage, just as it's not good for the children of heterosexual parents. But in all cases, the child would be better off with a step-parent in a stable, married household then one where the partners shack up.

How else do gay couples obtain children? Sometimes, they adopt children of family members who die, become sick, or are simply incapable of raising the children well.(I know many many cases of this.) Why would you want to deny such a family the benefits of marriage?

Sometimes, they seek surrogates, just like heterosexual couples. Given that you can't stop the couples from having the children in this matter, why would you want to deny the child the benefits of having married parents?

Sometimes, gay couples seek to adopt children. Sometimes they adopt in infancy, often because the child has health problems that no heterosexual couples are willing to take on. Sometimes they adopt older children. In most cases, the gay couple gets custody because heterosexual couples were not interested.

Why would you want to deny the family the benefits of marriage in any of these cases? Just to satisfy your personal animus toward gays? Shame on you. You claim that you have the interest of the children at heart. But that is a lie. And you fool only yourself.

If there be a Judge keeping track, He is not fooled.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14551 Dec 13, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
Yet you want my children to not have parents that are married. You advocate that my children have a different model. Hypocrite bigot.
No, he wants you married to their mother, that way they have the SAME model.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14552 Dec 13, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
a florists making and delivering flowers would have her name associated with the event. a gas station would not. another lame attempt.
Wrong. The florist would have her name associated with her arrangements, not with the event. No where would anyone other than a lying fundamentalist believe that the event was taking place because of the floral arrangements.

Feel free to try again.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
since the latest sc ruling no longer recognizes marriage as exclusively one man and one women it should also be noted that no legal ruling says that only homosexuals can enter into a same-sex partnership that a state can recognize as a marriage. therefore she discriminates against the event on moral grounds and not against the couple since any same sex couple can can "marry" for whatever purpose.
spin, spin, spin. "a same-sex partnership that a state can recognize as a marriage". Bigot much? It's a marriage. Period.

The event was the same. It was a wedding. She did not refuse the event, she refused the participants. Her exact words..." ‘I am sorry. I can't do YOUR wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ’" (Emphasis mine) Even your bigot florist didn't state "I am sorry. I can't do YOUR same-sex partnership that a state can recognize as marriage" You out bigot your florist Barry!

Refusing to make arrangements for the asinine pretend straight couple that you keep alluding to, would still be breaking the law, since her refusal would be based on the gender of one of the participants.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#14553 Dec 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot, the former governor of NJ, Jim McGreevey. Now there's a bad "homosexual".
I'm just curious why he is a "bad" homosexual. Because he divorced? Because he philandered? Do you want us to believe that, because of James McGreevey, we can make some sort of judgment about gays generally? Can we make a judgment about heterosexuals because of Newt Gingrich, David Vitters, etc? We can go on and on and on listing "bad" heterosexuals.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14554 Dec 13, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
When a person operates a business open to the general public they are in a different legal domain, you cannot discriminate due to race, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, etc. We also no longer allow 'Whites Only' signs in store and restaurant windows.
Barry knows this, he just believes that fundamentalist Christians should have privileges above and beyond the law. He loves to use propagandist phrasing to pretend that her right to religious freedom was somehow affected and that the bigot florist is somehow the "victim" in this scenario. You see, Barry is a bigot too.

Barry is on record as stating that some types of discrimination are justifiable. He's also on record as stating that some discrimination is beneficial for society. Understand what type of person you are dealing with now?!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14555 Dec 13, 2013
barry wrote:
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
the argument has been made here is that the couple in question wanted to hire her<quoted text>since there are court rulings that say that an employer must make accommodations for the moral and religious convictions of the employee then the couple involved should make accommodations for her as well since they sought to hire her.
Goodness. I sure hope Baronelle's representation is better than you!!! The happy couple that Baronelle shyt on were not her employers. They were her patrons. Patrons are not under obligation to inquire into a business owner's religious convictions. She operated a public business, so the patrons were under the impression that she would operate it according to the laws of the state.
barry wrote:
as for her not respecting their religious freedom or beliefs it begs the question of how is that. she made no attempt to stop them.
She refused her services. How stupid are you?
barry wrote:
she could have pulled up to the event with a sign on her vehicle saying that even though she is servicing the event and that personally she feels that what they are doing is morally wrong.
Yes, she could have. Which would have been further disrespect. How interesting, and yet not unexpected, that you even have such thoughts.
barry wrote:
she could have taken an add out in the local media proclaiming that God was against ss marriages and weddings. she did none of that. she politely and privately declined to service the event.
I see. You think refusing her services was polite. Got it. Just when I think you can't display any further lack of integrity, you prove me wrong.
barry wrote:
now as to your bs comment;
Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[39]
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
OOOSEC. 201.(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
OO)O(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
OOO)(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
Yawn. You've failed to demonstrate how your floral shop isn't a place of public accommodation.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14556 Dec 13, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
And you still have no evidence for your claim that biological parents are, even on average, better than other parents.
My claim is that children do best with there own married biological mother and father in a stable home. If you going to parrot my claim back to me, at least be accurate.
Even if you could produce such evidence, you haven't addressed the impossibility of assuring that every child grows up with biological parents in a stable, loving household.
I never said ensuring such is a possibility. Man oh man, you're on a take things out of context, misrepresent my words roll here.
Here's an idea that might work for you: Euthanize all children who aren't born into a stable home with two biological parents. Whether the father died overseas while the mother was carrying; the non-biological father was shooting blanks and the mother went to a sperm bank; the biological father raped the mother; the non-biological mother had a hysterectomy and so sought a surrogate; or the biological parents just didn't manage to form a stable home. According to you, the children are better off not existing than being placed into a loving home with non-biological parents.
Or we could go with your plan. Remove children out of stable homes they live in with their own married biological mother and father, and put them with strangers, just so your feelings won't be hurt.
Of course, to follow through, we must euthanize the children of divorcing of separating couples. We should probably also euthanize the children of couples who lose their homes because they aren't stable.
Of course, to follow through, we must nullify the marriages of the children's biological mother and father. We could also even prevent biological parents from marrying in the first place, level the playing field.
Or we could simply admit that children are blessings to parents who want to raise them well, and we should commend parents who provide loving stable homes.
Or we could acknowledge that children do best with their own married biological mother and father in a stable home, and commend other parents who provide loving homes when the the former situation is not possible.

We could do that, if our eyes weren't clouded by bigotry. Our eyes indeed!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14557 Dec 13, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i am not pretending anything. you are the one who wants to ignore the fact that adjectives still exist in the english language.
I don't ignore that adjectives exist, I simply point out that I know how they work and you don't.

Here, let me show you. You've stated that there is justifiable discrimination. Justifiable is an adjective. It is applied to discrimination. I've asked you repeatedly to provide examples of what types of discrimination are justifiable, yet you cowardly avoid providing a response. Why is that?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
you are trying to make this a gender issue because iot was two men.
No dear, YOU make it a gender issue when you try and spin Baronelle's refusal. YOU make it a gender issue when you disingenuously pretend her refusal wasn't based on them being gay.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i didn't know that if two women "married"
No need for the quotation marks bigot.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
that it would not be considered a ss wedding.
Well, now you do. It's considered a wedding of a ss couple. Oh no, wait, for YOU it would be a "wedding" of a ss couple.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you think she might provide flowers for two women? no gender discrimination here. you are grasping at straws.
No, I think she should provide flowers for all her customers equally. The only one grasping at straws is you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14558 Dec 13, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just curious why he is a "bad" homosexual. Because he divorced?
I was responding to Edmond, and using a sexual identity label.
Because he philandered?
Did you read the exchange between Edmond and myself. He violated his marriage vow.
Do you want us to believe that, because of James McGreevey, we can make some sort of judgment about gays generally?
No, nor can we make some sort of judgements about "straights" either.
Can we make a judgment about heterosexuals because of Newt Gingrich, David Vitters, etc? We can go on and on and on listing "bad" heterosexuals.
Ya know we can. They all, including the former governor, took a vow of fidelity to their respective wives. So they're all wrong. Sexual identity labels are irrelevant.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14559 Dec 13, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
As polygamy is practiced in the world today, the husband decides how many wives he will take on.
Why don't we stick to consensual polygamy as practiced in this country, and featured on "Sister Wives", "My Five Wives", etc.
Obviously, giving men the option of taking on more wives affects marriages that started out monogamous.
That only works if the wife is in agreement. Consent is the key. Ya know we could go "monogamish", to quote that great gay sex guru Dan Savage. After all it works for male couples, why not spread that philosophy around.

You really need to get a clue.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14560 Dec 13, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so she was asked to have a part in their wedding. she was asked to be associated with the event.
NO, she was not. She was not asked to be part of their wedding. She was not asked to be associated with it. She was going to be asked to make flower arrangements. period. But she refused before ever being asked because the couple was two men.

She was no more asked to "participate" and be "associated with" the wedding then the people who scrubbed the floor at the wedding sight, or the printers that printed the invitations. But of course, one must assume that every wedding that you're invited to Barry, you immediately see who it was that printed the invitation, rather than actually being concerned with the content of the invitation.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
now would it be ok with you if she went ahead and made the flowers but delivered them with a truck that had a big sign on it explaining that she felt that it was morally wrong for two men to be married.
As long as she had them delivered. This would of course be terribly rude, but if she's as big a bigot as you are Barry, I could see where she might do this.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
or perhaps it would be ok with you if she took out an add in the local media explaining that she felt that this event was an abomination in the eyes of God.
She's free to spend her money anyway she wants as long as it's legal.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
or would you also deny her her right to free speech.
Unlike you Barry, I'm not a bigot. I wouldn't deny her any of her rights.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i think that she handled the situation the best that she could.
I think the fact that she turned a normal event into a situation proves otherwise. Her best would have been thanking them for choosing her, and then making beautiful arrangements.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
the couple involved are the ones blowing this into a national incident.
Her refusal blew it into a national incident. Everything about this refusal is her own doing.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14561 Dec 13, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you were wrong to claim that muslims did not think it was a sin to handle pork. conservative ones apparently do. in fract it went to court and the courts ruled that they must be accommodated.
and beliefs can't be proven right or wrong? they are different from religion to religion and the freedom of religion simply states that we must accept that a person has a right to be wrong when it comes to moral and religious convictions. we have no right to force them to think otherwise but we do have a right discuss it with them. and we do have a right to not associate with their set of convictions.
She wasn't asked to think otherwise about anything. She was asked to make floral arrangements. PERIOD.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14562 Dec 13, 2013
barry wrote:
a Christian is not obligated to obey the government.
Really? Since when? When were Christians given privileges above the law? Where are these privileges established?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14563 Dec 13, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said "wedding loan". Don't rearrange someone else's words just to strenghten your arguments
Barry does that all the time. He's very deceitful.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14564 Dec 13, 2013
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

Abstract
In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion:“Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents”(p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address:(1) homogeneous sampling,(2) absence of comparison groups,(3) comparison group characteristics,(4) contradictory data,(5) the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied,(6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.

Highlights
&#9658; A 26 of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups. &#9658; In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the hetero comparison group. &#9658; No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size. &#9658; Definitive claims were not substantiated by the 59 published studies.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14565 Dec 13, 2013
http://www.familystructurestudies.com/summary

New Family Structures Research and the “No Differences” Claim
Ana Samuel

The widely circulated claim that same-sex families are “no different” from intact, heterosexual families is not settled science. New studies suggest that children do best when they are raised by their biological parents in a stable, intact marriage.

Intro
Two peer-reviewed research articles in the social sciences, released June 10, 2012, challenge the claim made by same-sex parenting researchers over the last decade that parents engaged in same-sex relationships do just as well as other parents at raising children. This claim, that there are “no differences” in outcomes between the two kinds of parenting, is undermined by new evidence that these papers present.

Article by Professor Loren Marks
The first article, published in Social Science Research, July 2012, can be found here, along with responses from peers, and a final reply by the author. In that manuscript,“Same-Sex Parenting and Children’s Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting,” Professor Loren Marks of Louisiana State University’s School of Human Ecology reviews the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 American Psychological Association brief that came to the conclusion that there are “no differences.” Marks concludes that “not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way.”1 Marks’s study casts significant doubt upon the older evidence on which the APA brief, and thus the “no differences” paradigm, rests.

Article and New Family Structures Study conducted by Professor Mark Regnerus
The second article, by sociologist Mark Regnerus of the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin, presents new and extensive empirical evidence that suggests that there are differences in outcomes between the children of a parent who had a same-sex relationship and children raised by their married, biological mothers and fathers. This new evidence is based on the data from the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) of the University of Texas, of which Regnerus was the lead investigator and which in 2011 surveyed 2,988 young adults for the specific purpose of collecting more reliable, nationally representative data about children from various family origins: intact biological families, late-divorced families, stepfamilies, single-parent families, adoptive families, families with a lesbian mother, families with a gay father, and other family types (such as families with a deceased parent or other combinations). The NFSS has already been acknowledged by critics to be “better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect differences between these groups in the population.”2

The remaining portion of this summary will focus on this new research as featured in Dr. Regnerus’s article, entitled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?”, which was published in Social Science Research, and can be found here. Dr. Regnerus’s article highlights the data comparing children from intact biological families to children who were raised with a parent who had same sex relationships.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14566 Dec 13, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said "wedding loan". Don't rearrange someone else's words just to strenghten your arguments
I said "a loan for a wedding". As in, yes, a PERSONAL loan, which the loanee intends to use toward a wedding. Can the banker refuse this PERSONAL LOAN, upon learning what it is intended for? On some ambiguous claim of "moral" grounds?
<quoted text>
Wouldn't a doctor have his name associated with the "event" of a birth? If it was a birth to a single mother, could his "morals" direct him to turn her away?
So a florist should be protected, according to you, but a gas station is SOL. Who else? Where is the line? Which businesses would you send packing if they came to you for the right to discriminate? What defines the freedom to discriminate?
Amazon.com sells and delivers flowers, too. Could Jeff Bezos post a new company policy, denying this service for same-sex weddings? Could a low-level box-packer at Amazon decide it was against his "morals" to ship my order, and therefore cancel it? Who may make these "moral" claims? Are CEO's entitled to moral outrage, while employees are not?
<quoted text>
Oh, sure, happens all the time. Men marry men daily, for purposes OTHER than love and building a life together, right? Rampant, no doubt. With all those same-sex marriages of OTHER purposes happening all over the place, how could anyone ever get the impression that she has anything against gay people?
And I'm sure she's remarkably diligent in discovering the purposes of every opposite-sex marriage that comes her way, right? I'm sure she'd be QUICK to refuse to serve a heterosexual couple who was only in it for the green card, right? I'm sure she's terribly concerned for the moral purposes of all the weddings she serves.
Or does she just have "cookie cutter" morals, which give a pass to all heterosexual weddings regardless of purpose, while condemning all homosexual ones regardless of purpose?
Suppose her "morals" called on her to oppose an interracial marriage. Must our laws accommodate that? What if she opposes a Buddhist wedding, or Shinto? Or any that isn't Christian in nature?
I can't understand this concept of "morals" that calls on someone to shun and villainize their fellow human beings, who have not caused them any harm. That is NOT what "morals" are. People like that are doing it wrong, and are behaving in a decidedly IMMORAL way.
These claims of "morality" are nothing of the sort. They are transparent attempts at discrimination and bigotry, dressed up with a fancy title to try to make them untouchable. "Oh, my poor morals!" is the cry of anyone who wants to appear innocent while running roughshod over the fair rights of others. One's morals are not an escape clause from participating in a cooperative society. There never was a proper moral system on Earth which called on humans to build division between themselves and others. These people misuse proper morals to that very end.
EXCELLENT post!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14567 Dec 13, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>. she did not personally assault or insult them.
Refusing her services was most certainly an insult. Only a bigot would think otherwise.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14568 Dec 13, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>yes, is that preference locked in for life or might it change?
What difference does it make?

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 min Frindly 14,885
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 4 min June VanDerMark 46,972
News Democrats silent on whether Trump should resign... 4 min RustyS 33
News Jose Canseco on being molested by women: - It w... 5 min Lawrence Wolf 22
News Forged documents falsely accuse Chuck Schumer o... 7 min inbred Genius 21
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Unmeltable Snowflake 1,658,527
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 8 min Into The Night 1,634
News Trump should resign amid sexual assault claims:... 47 min Lawrence Wolf 57
More from around the web