Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: CCTAU on January 26, 2015, 01:54:32 PM
-
You queers are all out getting a marriage license today.
I cannot believe nobody has posted a WOO-HOO over this already:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-judge-strikes-gay-marriage-ban-alabama-28442470 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-judge-strikes-gay-marriage-ban-alabama-28442470)
-
Why can't we just create a clear and concrete line between civil and spiritual unions? If this is truly a battle to win the same rights as married couples for tax and insurance purposes, who cares if the partnership is sanctioned by a church? Let them go to some other place, like a bar painted like the mouth of hell, to be unified.
It isn't and shouldn't be the government's right or jurisdiction to tell a church that it must perform gay marriages. That's an absolute violation of freedom of religion.
The nasty bastards are going to live together anyway. Who cares if they can get insurance?
We've entered an age where everything is okay and there are no consequences for any action. Don't dare have an opinion that disagrees with anything or you're branded a bigot, a hater or something worse. I think that's a very bad trend. It's going to lead us to a cultural revolution that won't be positive. At some point the degradation of basic values will destroy this country from within. Don't think I'll live long enough to see it, but it's coming. My kids probably will. Because we're so loathe to express our values, so afraid to speak up or act on things we find offensive, the baser aspects will win out. We will eventually be overrun by outside forces who aren't afraid (Muslims perhaps) and everything will be lost. All the freedoms we cherish will be eliminated because we weren't strong enough stewards to protect and maintain them in balance.
When I think about the world as it was when I was born and look at it today I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more dramatic cultural and technological change than the one my generation has undergone.
When I was born everybody didn't have a telephone at home. Many people were on party lines. TV, if you had one, was three stations and they went off at midnight. I've seen segregated restaurants and theaters. I've seen separate water fountains. I didn't really experience true integration until I was almost out of elementary school. Calculators? They were called paper and brains back then. Computers? Science fiction. Cars came with AM radios. FM was just a fad. Digital music, CDs... that was crazy talk.
We're on an accelerated path. Things are changing too fast for people to handle. It's going to blow up on us.
-
Why can't we just create a clear and concrete line between civil and spiritual unions? If this is truly a battle to win the same rights as married couples for tax and insurance purposes, who cares if the partnership is sanctioned by a church? Let them go to some other place, like a bar painted like the mouth of hell, to be unified.
I don't think their argument is that they should be married in a church. The issue is that they can't legally be recognized as a marital unit, and so they don't get the same tax breaks, insurance coverage, etc.
Heterosexuals who are welcomed by the church can still get married in the church and be legally recognized as a marital unit when they file their paperwork with the state. Unless I've missed some homo's speech on capitol hill (and I don't miss many), all they're asking is that they be able to file the same paperwork; where they have their gay ceremony is up to them and whoever is willing to conduct it.
-
I don't think their argument is that they should be married in a church. The issue is that they can't legally be recognized as a marital unit, and so they don't get the same tax breaks, insurance coverage, etc.
Heterosexuals who are welcomed by the church can still get married in the church and be legally recognized as a marital unit when they file their paperwork with the state. Unless I've missed some homo's speech on capitol hill (and I don't miss many), all they're asking is that they be able to file the same paperwork; where they have their gay ceremony is up to them and whoever is willing to conduct it.
That's BS. They want MARRIAGE so they can legitimize their lifestyle. You don't hear not one wanting to compromise for
legal reasons.
And they WILL try to force every church they can find to marry them. The left has given them a voice and now they will not stop till you agree that Jesus was gay too!
-
I'm not getting into this argument. I know that there are a bunch of homosapiens on here and you have a right to believe what you want.
But, I will just say it is your choice to be a homosapiens and you're a dumbass and ignorant if you don't think so.
And the first time one of you homos grabs my ass at an x gate, I will knock your teeth so far down your throat that you'll have to drop your pants to floss. Believe it.
-
I'm not getting into this argument. I know that there are a bunch of homosapiens on here and you have a right to believe what you want.
But, I will just say it is your choice to be a homosapiens and you're a dumbass and ignorant if you don't think so.
And the first time one of you homos grabs my ass at an x gate, I will knock your teeth so far down your throat that you'll have to drop your pants to floss. Believe it.
Lighten up, homo
-
It's time to finally admit that I am a homosapien.
-
It's time to finally admit that I am a homosapien.
Coming out can be so liberating.
-
It's time to finally admit that I am a homosapien.
No offense but I suspected this.
-
Why can't we just create a clear and concrete line between civil and spiritual unions? If this is truly a battle to win the same rights as married couples for tax and insurance purposes, who cares if the partnership is sanctioned by a church? Let them go to some other place, like a bar painted like the mouth of hell, to be unified.
As Vandy pointed out, they can get married outside of the church. No church has to perform the ceremony. An additional point here is that no church can tell non-church members what they can or cannot do.
We've entered an age where everything is okay and there are no consequences for any action. Don't dare have an opinion that disagrees with anything or you're branded a bigot, a hater or something worse. I think that's a very bad trend. It's going to lead us to a cultural revolution that won't be positive. At some point the degradation of basic values will destroy this country from within. Don't think I'll live long enough to see it, but it's coming. My kids probably will. Because we're so loathe to express our values, so afraid to speak up or act on things we find offensive, the baser aspects will win out. We will eventually be overrun by outside forces who aren't afraid (Muslims perhaps) and everything will be lost. All the freedoms we cherish will be eliminated because we weren't strong enough stewards to protect and maintain them in balance.
You've mentioned this before, and you usually point to the Romans. I'm still not sold on how and why this is what will transpire. How will a country that leaves people alone in the privacy of their own bedrooms and a country that gives people the freedom to choose their own identities outside of the rule of an authoritarian inevitably fall apart?
When I think about the world as it was when I was born and look at it today I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more dramatic cultural and technological change than the one my generation has undergone.
When I was born everybody didn't have a telephone at home. Many people were on party lines. TV, if you had one, was three stations and they went off at midnight. I've seen segregated restaurants and theaters. I've seen separate water fountains. I didn't really experience true integration until I was almost out of elementary school. Calculators? They were called paper and brains back then. Computers? Science fiction. Cars came with AM radios. FM was just a fad. Digital music, CDs... that was crazy talk.
We're on an accelerated path. Things are changing too fast for people to handle. It's going to blow up on us.
Back in my day, we didn't have busses coming around to take us to school. We walked two miles in the snow, uphill both ways!
Back in my day, we didn't have these fancy auto-carriages. We just had horse carriages, the way they're supposed to be. You actually had to work on those, clean up those. Wash em down. Treat the horse like family. Now you just get in your plastic box and go. Too easy.
Back in my day, kids were happy to be a house negro! Now they all wanna be house negroes!
Back in my day, we used telegrams to send messages. This whole phone system is just a toy. Who needs to sit around talking for hours on end? Just send your message, read someone else's message, and be on with your life.
Back in my day, we didn't use a radio for music. You had a band actually PLAY the music. This isn't music. It's just some kind of fancy electricity magic. Why would anyone want to listen to that?
-
If gay marriage becomes a "right" then won't churches that refuse to marry gay people be guilty of discrimination? You're crazy if you don't see a huge showdown coming between the LGBT agenda and religious freedom.
Today, on al.com:
Can churches be forced to perform gay marriages?
With the possibility looming that gay marriages will soon be legal in Alabama, many are wondering: Can churches be forced to perform gay marriages?
Eric Johnston, president of the Southeast Law Institute and one of the state's top legal advisers to churches, said gay marriage is inevitable and churches that oppose it may be in for legal challenges.
"I think it's going to be all over the country," Johnston said of gay marriage.
Johnston, also president of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition, has for decades offered legal advice to churches and crafted legislation for conservative state legislators to restrict abortion, and most recently, the so-called anti-Sharia law that was adopted as an amendment to the state constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in June that could strike down remaining state laws against same-sex unions.
"Everyone expects them to find that it's legal," Johnston said. "If the Supreme Court finds that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, what happens when you have a clash with religious freedom rights?"
There has already been a case in another state of a bakery being sued for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Even though churches have religious freedom protections that a private business does not, could they still be sued over not performing same-sex weddings?
"There will be a lot of lawsuits over whether ministers have to do it," Johnston said. "It will be a clash between fundamental rights under the constitution."
Johnston advises churches that haven't done so to clarify their stance on same-sex marriage. He has recommended a policy statement that churches adopt, stating that they will not perform same-sex weddings and that their facilities are not to be used for that purpose, based on their theological beliefs.
"Nobody ever thought about it before; it was something you took for granted," Johnston said. "Churches should adopt a clear policy that because of their spiritual beliefs, they don't do same-sex weddings."
Johnston said that since some liberal churches do weddings, there should be no reason to force churches opposed to it to perform them. "They can go somewhere else and get the same services," he said. "Some churches will do it."
Johnston believes churches should be protected from coercion on same-sex marriage, but it's all new territory. "You don't know what federal judges are going to do," Johnston said.
Once same-sex marriage is legal in every state, some states that oppose it may try to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses, Johnston said.
"There's no reason for the state to be in that business," Johnston said. "There's plenty of other people who can issue licenses. If you want a secular marriage, file a certificate. That's one alternative. If a state decided to stay in the marriage business, they may allow probate judges and clerks who have an objection to opt out."
The Alabama Marriage Protection Act, an amendment to the state constitution, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, passed by Alabama to prevent same-sex marriage, were both ruled unconstitutional on Friday by U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade in Mobile. She issued a stay on her order so that it is not immediately enforced, pending appeal. The stay will be lifted Feb. 9 if a higher court does not rule on an appeal.
Johnston said he does not understand why Granade ruled on the case when the issues are headed for the Supreme Court. "It creates confusion," Johnston said. "It was a very poorly written order. The case was about one lesbian who wanted to adopt the child of another lesbian. The judge never mentioned what they could do about the adoption. Can they adopt or not adopt? That's what the case was about."
The ruling put Alabama on notice that its efforts to prevent same-sex marriage are fragile, and the next battle may directly affect churches.
"I think there will be a lot of litigation regarding religious rights," Johnston said. "That's the kind of conflict that's going to come up, not just in Alabama but the whole country. If America and its justice system works, they will recognize the free exercise of religion prevents the government forcing people to do something they believe is a sin."
-
If gay marriage becomes a "right" then won't churches that refuse to marry gay people be guilty of discrimination? You're crazy if you don't see a huge showdown coming between the LGBT agenda and religious freedom.
Today, on al.com:
It won't surprise me when this happens. A baker has already been sued when he refused to decorate a gay couple's cake.
Government forces anti-discrimination on private business.
-
You are correct Ogre. Advocates are saying they just want the same rights, but their actions defy this thought. They have already sued people for not accepting their choice. It will only get worse.
If they were concerned about rights, their would be a pursuit if civil unions. But a civil union still says yiy are gay and not normal(in their eyes). They want acceptance and by being "married", they thing that will legitimize it.
And they will stop at nothing to tear down anyone who refuses to legitimize them!
-
As Vandy pointed out, they can get married outside of the church. No church has to perform the ceremony. An additional point here is that no church can tell non-church members what they can or cannot do.
You've mentioned this before, and you usually point to the Romans. I'm still not sold on how and why this is what will transpire. How will a country that leaves people alone in the privacy of their own bedrooms and a country that gives people the freedom to choose their own identities outside of the rule of an authoritarian inevitably fall apart?
Back in my day, we didn't have busses coming around to take us to school. We walked two miles in the snow, uphill both ways!
Back in my day, we didn't have these fancy auto-carriages. We just had horse carriages, the way they're supposed to be. You actually had to work on those, clean up those. Wash em down. Treat the horse like family. Now you just get in your plastic box and go. Too easy.
Back in my day, kids were happy to be a house negro! Now they all wanna be house negroes!
Back in my day, we used telegrams to send messages. This whole phone system is just a toy. Who needs to sit around talking for hours on end? Just send your message, read someone else's message, and be on with your life.
Back in my day, we didn't use a radio for music. You had a band actually PLAY the music. This isn't music. It's just some kind of fancy electricity magic. Why would anyone want to listen to that?
True about churches. But I've seen a few cases where a gay couple has gotten bent out of shape over a church not wanting to perform a service and seeked legal recourse (forget where I saw that) or attempted to give the church bad press in the media. Same with a baker not wanting to make a gay cake. I agree with your premise but it's not that simple. Both sides will always make it an issue.
-
If gay marriage becomes a "right" then won't churches that refuse to marry gay people be guilty of discrimination? You're crazy if you don't see a huge showdown coming between the LGBT agenda and religious freedom.
Today, on al.com:
Exactly my point.
-
As Vandy pointed out, they can get married outside of the church. No church has to perform the ceremony. An additional point here is that no church can tell non-church members what they can or cannot do.
You've mentioned this before, and you usually point to the Romans. I'm still not sold on how and why this is what will transpire. How will a country that leaves people alone in the privacy of their own bedrooms and a country that gives people the freedom to choose their own identities outside of the rule of an authoritarian inevitably fall apart?
Back in my day, we didn't have busses coming around to take us to school. We walked two miles in the snow, uphill both ways!
Back in my day, we didn't have these fancy auto-carriages. We just had horse carriages, the way they're supposed to be. You actually had to work on those, clean up those. Wash em down. Treat the horse like family. Now you just get in your plastic box and go. Too easy.
Back in my day, kids were happy to be a house negro! Now they all wanna be house negroes!
Back in my day, we used telegrams to send messages. This whole phone system is just a toy. Who needs to sit around talking for hours on end? Just send your message, read someone else's message, and be on with your life.
Back in my day, we didn't use a radio for music. You had a band actually PLAY the music. This isn't music. It's just some kind of fancy electricity magic. Why would anyone want to listen to that?
Whoosh!
The sound of ths missing the point.
Wasn't aiming for nostalgia. Just making the point that my generation has endured more societal and cultural change than any in the history of the world. It's fostered an "I want it NOW" mentality that brooks no real debate and no tolerance for a dissenting opinion. We can't discuss and decided because the shouters win out. It's a climate of fear where few people actually speak what they think and believe.
-
Gay cake. Mmmmmm....
Speaking of having gay cake and eating it too, I'd like to see the best of both worlds, but it ain't gonna' happen. Have no problem with gays becoming legally married and being afforded all the rights as heterosapiens. I've never seen what the big deal is or how that intrudes on anyone else's life. (Debate for another time) But, I have a huge problem with the coming showdown between Church and State. This gay marriage issue is about to be decided once and for all by the SCOTUS. And they'll most likely find that any State's ban is unconstitutional. Although I'm 100% certain they won't or better yet, can't address the Church issue since it's not up on appeal, I wish there was some way they could/would say, "And don't bring anything up here asking us to force a church to go against it's beliefs. We won't hear it."
If the SCOTUS says okay to gay, fine. But as long as there are 1,000 other options to get married somewhere other than a particular church that doesn't believe in it, then leave it alone.
-
Does anyone even get married in a church anymore? Normally the ONLY people who do are already members of said church.
Everyone else gets married in wedding chapels which are designed specifically for a wedding. Nothing else happens there.
Personally, if I ever get married again, it's gone be at Bryant-Denny!!
-
Does anyone even get married in a church anymore? Normally the ONLY people who do are already members of said church.
Everyone else gets married in wedding chapels which are designed specifically for a wedding. Nothing else happens there.
Personally, if I ever get married again, it's gone be at Bryant-Denny!!
Oh yeah right. Like you could pull off a dream wedding like that.
-
Personally, if I ever get married again, it's gone be at Bryant-Denny!!
Well at least that would be once that you had made it into the stadium.
-
Does anyone even get married in a church anymore? Normally the ONLY people who do are already members of said church.
Everyone else gets married in wedding chapels which are designed specifically for a wedding. Nothing else happens there.
Personally, if I ever get married again, it's gone be at Bryant-Denny!!
You really don't want RWS at your wedding do you?
-
Does anyone even get married in a church anymore? Normally the ONLY people who do are already members of said church.
Everyone else gets married in wedding chapels which are designed specifically for a wedding. Nothing else happens there.
Personally, if I ever get married again, it's gone be at Bryant-Denny!!
Not that it matters. I'm cool with it. But you do realize that this thread pertains to the gay weddings, right?
-
Not that it matters. I'm cool with it. But you do realize that this thread pertains to the gay weddings, right?
Yes, but the point is to not consider them gay weddings. They are just weddings. You prejudiced fuck.
-
Yes, but the point is to not consider them gay weddings. They are just weddings. You prejudiced fuck.
You should treat him like you do your prisoners.
-
Yes, but the point is to not consider them gay weddings. They are just weddings. You prejudiced fuck.
Just for that, I'm not coming to your gay wedding.
-
Just for that, I'm not coming to your gay wedding.
You should totally send a gift, though.
-
You should treat him like you do your prisoners.
While we are in the process of striking any and all offensive words from our vocabulary, I believe we should just accept that we shouldn't call people prisoners either. After all, we don't have prisons for them.
And in case anyone wants to really give a shit about what legislators are doing, Alabama legislators are going to try to backdoor a guideline that makes burglary 3rd a misdemeanor. That's right, if someone kicks your fucking door off it's hinges and steals your shit, it's a goddamn misdemeanor. So if we are going to get bent out of shape over bullshit laws being changed, let's focus on that. Because unless the guy who breaks into my house and takes my belongings that I worked and paid for IS gay, I don't give a diddly fuck where he wants to stick his penis. Or who he prefers to have on his BC/BS family plan.
-
I stuck my penis in the pickle slicer.
-
That's BS. They want MARRIAGE so they can legitimize their lifestyle. You don't hear not one wanting to compromise for legal reasons.
A quick Google search reveals a ton of fag blogs about the legal aspects of being recognized as a marital unit, so your "not one" argument holds water about as well as a gay man's ass holds shit.
And they WILL try to force every church they can find to marry them. The left has given them a voice and now they will not stop till you agree that Jesus was gay too!
Yes, they're trying their damndest to get married in places where they're not wanted. Makes perfect sense.
While there may be a few who may want to try to stick it to religious organizations, I seriously doubt they make up the majority.
-
If gay marriage becomes a "right" then won't churches that refuse to marry gay people be guilty of discrimination? You're crazy if you don't see a huge showdown coming between the LGBT agenda and religious freedom.
If you get married at a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license. If you get married anywhere else but a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license.
The point here is that when you are married at a church, you aren't suddenly recognized as a legal marital unit. Therefore, it's not the church who is conferring legal rights upon you. So no one has to force the church to do anything in order for legal rights to be conferred upon dem butt boys and mommy part catchers.
-
Alabama legislators are going to try to backdoor a guideline that makes burglary 3rd a misdemeanor.
So the Alabama legislators are gay, too?
-
If you get married at a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license. If you get married anywhere else but a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license.
The point here is that when you are married at a church, you aren't suddenly recognized as a legal marital unit. Therefore, it's not the church who is conferring legal rights upon you. So no one has to force the church to do anything in order for legal rights to be conferred upon dem butt boys and mommy part catchers.
Not yet. It's the dangerous precedent that could be looming is what some fear. I have seen a few rumblings of gay couples wanting a church wedding and the church refusing and there being a big stink about it. No pun intended.
-
A quick Google search reveals a ton of fag blogs about the legal aspects of being recognized as a marital unit, so your "not one" argument holds water about as well as a gay man's ass holds shit.
Yes, they're trying their damndest to get married in places where they're not wanted. Makes perfect sense.
While there may be a few who may want to try to stick it to religious organizations, I seriously doubt they make up the majority.
The civil union would do much to squash the debate if what you say is true. A lot of the problem that a lot of people have with gay marriage is not because of the legal aspects around insurance, bequeathing estates, etc. They are fine with that. They just don't want them to use the term marriage.
Marriage is more than a legal term to many. It's biblical.
I think they are saying you can stick it up a girls butt and be married but not a boys.
If what you say is so, them I would thing the gays would be o.k. with civil unions. That makes sense to me.
But, I doubt they will.
-
Not yet. It's the dangerous precedent that could be looming is what some fear. I have seen a few rumblings of gay couples wanting a church wedding and the church refusing and there being a big stink about it.
If they grant that right, then they're morons. Everyone will point to the bakery case, but that was based on Colorado law. I have no clue what weird ass laws Colorado may have in regard to discrimination, and I would assume that the case will likely be overturned on appeal, unless Colorado laws are truly retarded and federal law doesn't play a part at all.
Even if it's not overturned, you're talking about a public business versus a private religious organization of which people are members, not casual customers. So there would be an entirely different standard applied, and I would find it nigh impossible for anyone to legally force a church to marry them.
-
If you get married at a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license. If you get married anywhere else but a church, it doesn't mean poo poo legally until you file the marriage license.
The point here is that when you are married at a church, you aren't suddenly recognized as a legal marital unit. Therefore, it's not the church who is conferring legal rights upon you. So no one has to force the church to do anything in order for legal rights to be conferred upon dem butt boys and mommy part catchers.
I'm not talking about who is conferring legal rights. We all know that the legal rights that come with marriage are given at the point the marriage license is obtained. What I'm talking about is the scenario where two gay people decide they want to get married at the Church at Brook Hills because it's got a huge sanctuary. They go meet with the pastor and are told that the church doesn't perform gay wedding ceremonies. The couple then turns around and sues the church and pastor for discrimination. Who wins? Do we force religious people to go against their deeply held beliefs? Or do we uphold the constitutional right of religious freedom?
The fight is coming.
-
The civil union would do much to squash the debate if what you say is true. A lot of the problem that a lot of people have with gay marriage is not because of the legal aspects around insurance, bequeathing estates, etc. They are fine with that. They just don't want them to use the term marriage.
Marriage is more than a legal term to many. It's biblical.
I think they are saying you can stick it up a girls butt and be married but not a boys.
If what you say is so, them I would thing the gays would be o.k. with civil unions. That makes sense to me.
But, I doubt they will.
Although I'm sure many on here will argue that the terminology doesn't matter, the terminology is likely what upsets the sausage snackers and twat ticklers. If your ceremony is conducted at a church, you get a "marriage license." But you fuckers? You get a "civil union license." Separate but equal. Not to mention that the government is choosing to recognize a religious ceremony in a slightly different light than a non-religious ceremony.
If "marriage" is truly a religious term and any ceremony not performed by a church is not a "marriage," then the government shouldn't be issuing "marriage licenses." When you're married in a church and file for your gubment papers, it should be a civil union. The church can call it a marriage and even give you a nifty "marriage license" signed by eight pound baby Jesus himself if you want, but the government should classify everything the same and confer the same rights regardless of where the ceremony took place.
-
I'm not talking about who is conferring legal rights. We all know that the legal rights that come with marriage are given at the point the marriage license is obtained. What I'm talking about is the scenario where two gay people decide they want to get married at the Church at Brook Hills because it's got a huge sanctuary. They go meet with the pastor and are told that the church doesn't perform gay wedding ceremonies. The couple then turns around and sues the church and pastor for discrimination. Who wins? Do we force religious people to go against their deeply held beliefs? Or do we uphold the constitutional right of religious freedom?
The fight is coming.
Oh, it's already here. There is at least one case (actually, just noticed it was an internal complaint with the church, not a complaint for a lawsuit) I'm aware of where two gay church members are suing have complained to their church for refusing to perform the ceremony, but my understanding is that this is moreso based on somewhat of a breach of contract type claim, as the church had some internal guidelines that ban discrimination.
While there will certainly be lawsuits, I just don't see them forcing churches to have to marry gay people. If they do, then I think it's the wrong decision.
-
Getting married at a church does not get you a marriage license.
The "legally binding" part comes when the officiant has the legal authority to conduct a marriage ceremony. Most pastors are licensed to conduct marriages. But if a bride and groom (or two brides or two grooms, whatever) get married by a chimpanzee at the biggest church in Houston, they are still not legally married because the chimpanzee (probably) doesn't have the legal authority to marry them. It's not location location location.
The most compelling argument I have seen lately for calling it marriage versus civil union is for purposes of adopting children. Only a legally married couple can adopt in some states. So if two lesbos have a turkey baster baby, and raise it together, only the biological mom has parental rights over that child. The other "mom" can't make medical or financial decisions related to the child, and can't have visitation rights if they split up. Married people and biological parents have those protections under the law. Their argument is that the non-biological parent is just as much a parent as the biological one, and should have the ability to legally adopt the child and become an official parent in the eyes of the law.
I don't think you are going to have as much trouble with churches as you think. Many churches have rules about who is allowed to marry in their church. Mormons won't even let non-Mormons *in* their church. I couldn't get married in a Catholic church by a priest because I am not Catholic. So it seems to me that people can complain, but oh well. Churches get exemptions from laws that private folks don't:
Gonzales v. O Centro (2006): Unanimous SCOTUS ruling in favor of the União do Vegetal (literally, “Union of the Plantsâ€), who sought an exemption from federal drug laws so they could perform rituals involving the hallucinogen hoasca.
Native Americans can own and gather bald eagle feathers for use in religious ceremonies, possession of which for other people is a FELONY. You and I can't even pick up a dead bald eagle off the side of the road.
SCOTUS has also unanimously ruled that churches can hire and fire clergy and other staff members without regard to anti-discrimination laws. Old geezer preacher? Fired. Baptist guy who decides he wants to be a woman? Done.
SO if a Baptist church doesn't allow a gay couple to get married there, oh well.
-
If they grant that right, then they're morons. Everyone will point to the bakery case, but that was based on Colorado law. I have no clue what weird ass laws Colorado may have in regard to discrimination, and I would assume that the case will likely be overturned on appeal, unless Colorado laws are truly retarded and federal law doesn't play a part at all.
As long as I am going all Vandy Vol on this: I just finished reading a long article about this very issue on one of my favorite legal blogs: overlawyered.com The guy is a Cato Institute scholar, and a major libertarian. Some of the articles are hilarious, others are head shakingly ridiculous. Every now and again there will be a post that is too pedantic or "legal scholar" for me to follow, but most of them are very interesting.
The most recent bakery case there was a guy who plans to sue because a Colorado bakery wouldn't put an "anti-gay" slogan on a cake for him. But he has no case. linky (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/23/no-bakeries-dont-have-to-take-orders-for-cakes-that-say-god-hates-gays/)
Colorado law bans discrimination by a wide range of businesses, but only when the discrimination is based on “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.†This means that a store may not specifically refuse to sell cakes to gays, or sell them to (say) Baptists. It may well mean that it may not specifically refuse to sell cakes for use in same-sex marriages, or in Baptist events. It may even mean that it may not specifically refuse to inscribe messages that identify buyers as gay (e.g., “John and Bill’s marriageâ€), or as Baptist (e.g., “Baptist Church Picnicâ€).
But nothing in the law bans discrimination based on ideology more broadly. A store can refuse to sell to someone because he’s a Nazi, or a Communist, or pro-life, or pro-choice, or pro-gay-rights, or anti-gay-rights. A store can likewise refuse to inscribe cakes with Nazi, Communist, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, or anti-gay-rights messages, if it’s discriminating based on the ideology of the message, rather than the religiosity of the buyer.
-
As long as I am going all Vandy Vol on this
I'd go all Vandy Vol on you, but you don't have a penis.
-
I'm what you would call one of "them" and I don't even think we should be married in a church. Why would I want to be married by someone who doesn't actually want to do it? This was more about the right of being married than who actually would perform the ceremony. IMO
-
I'm what you would call one of "them" and I don't even think we should be married in a church. Why would I want to be married by someone who doesn't actually want to do it? This was more about the right of being married than who actually would perform the ceremony. IMO
Because of the hell thing?
(Too soon?)
-
Because of the hell thing?
(Too soon?)
Not too soon. That's point I was implying.
I'm just waiting for some dumb fucker to start a lawsuit against one now.
-
I'm what you would call one of "them" and I don't even think we should be married in a church. Why would I want to be married by someone who doesn't actually want to do it? This was more about the right of being married than who actually would perform the ceremony. IMO
Agreed. If it means that much to you, then getting married in your home church is important. But odds are good that if you are a member of a church already, they are cool with your lifestyle. You should get married where you feel most comfortable. Why stir up shit? Weddings are stressful enough.
The churches will get a pass on this stuff, but the attacks on private business under the public accommodation standard pisses me off. In this day and age, public shaming on Yelp/Google/Facebook etc. is more effective than a lawsuit. Don't force people to do things they don't want. If you disagree, bash them. Let the market decide.
-
Churches can accept whoever they want as members of their church. The church I attend for example apparently won't let me join because I wasn't baptized by submersion. I am a "member in waiting to be baptized". I explained that I grew up Methodist and that my grandfather was a Methodist minister that baptized me as a baby and then when I was confirmed in to the church. They didn't really give a shit. And neither do I really. That's their deal and that is fine. I don't have to be a member of the church to go and enjoy and get everything I can out of it.
They also wouldn't let me get married in the church because I am not a member. I don't really care about that either. Whatever. That's the rules of their church and I can accept them or go somewhere else. I accept them because I enjoy the church.
-
Churches can accept whoever they want as members of their church. The church I attend for example apparently won't let me join because I wasn't baptized by submersion. I am a "member in waiting to be baptized". I explained that I grew up Methodist and that my grandfather was a Methodist minister that baptized me as a baby and then when I was confirmed in to the church. They didn't really give a shit. And neither do I really. That's their deal and that is fine. I don't have to be a member of the church to go and enjoy and get everything I can out of it.
They also wouldn't let me get married in the church because I am not a member. I don't really care about that either. Whatever. That's the rules of their church and I can accept them or go somewhere else. I accept them because I enjoy the church.
But if you were gay, you could sue for discrimination...and win in today's depraved society.
I don't care how you "think" it will go. We have already seen the lawsuits being brought against institutions due to discrimination of folks who choose a lifestyle and claim it has civil rights.
In today's society, they will try and destroy any organization that does not legitimize their lifestyle.
-
But if you were gay, you could sue for discrimination...and win in today's depraved society.
I don't care how you "think" it will go. We have already seen the lawsuits being brought against institutions due to discrimination of folks who choose a lifestyle and claim it has civil rights.
In today's society, they will try and destroy any organization that does not legitimize their lifestyle.
All of this. Everybody needs to grow a pair, sorry snags, and realize the world doesn't kiss their ass.
-
All of this. Everybody needs to grow a pair, sorry snags, and realize the world doesn't kiss their ass.
You don't say much, frien. But when you do, it's to the point and I salute you for it.
-
I'm what you would call one of "them" and I don't even think we should be married in a church. Why would I want to be married by someone who doesn't actually want to do it? This was more about the right of being married than who actually would perform the ceremony. IMO
This sheds an entirely different light on your user name.
-
Don't think it can't or won't happen.
We've already seen private organizations -- groups that should have the right to choose their membership -- successfully sued because they didn't admit women, gays, blacks, Mexicans, transgenders, nerds or whatever.
That was wrong.
For all this talk of "rights" where are mine? If I don't want to rent my house to a Mexican family I'm a bigot. If I don't want to hire lesbi-butch I'm a homophobe (despite the fact that I know my clients would shun me if I send lesbi-butch to call on them). If I want to go to a men's only golf club where I can get away from the wife and "be a guy" for a little while, well I can't do that either.
All of that is just plain wrong.
We started down this path of the government deciding what's best for people with the whole integration thing. Forcing a society that wouldn't exist when left to its own devices is wrong. Social engineering is and was a horrible idea. So is everything else that's followed.
-
This sheds an entirely different light on your user name.
Now that's some skrate up Ginger hustlin'.
-
Don't think it can't or won't happen.
We've already seen private organizations -- groups that should have the right to choose their membership -- successfully sued because they didn't admit women, gays, blacks, Mexicans, transgenders, nerds or whatever.
That was wrong.
For all this talk of "rights" where are mine? If I don't want to rent my house to a Mexican family I'm a bigot. If I don't want to hire lesbi-butch I'm a homophobe (despite the fact that I know my clients would shun me if I send lesbi-butch to call on them). If I want to go to a men's only golf club where I can get away from the wife and "be a guy" for a little while, well I can't do that either.
All of that is just plain wrong.
We started down this path of the government deciding what's best for people with the whole integration thing. Forcing a society that wouldn't exist when left to its own devices is wrong. Social engineering is and was a horrible idea. So is everything else that's followed.
I'm with you on the government backed social engineering thing. My grandfather was an engineer for the Wiregrass RR for 46 years. But, I also think about how difficult it must have been for a black man in the 50's or 60's to drive from B'ham to Mobile while needing to shit, really bad.
At the same time, with the conditions of restrooms now-a-days, a spot in the woods is probably better than most restrooms anyway.
-
I'm with you on the government backed social engineering thing. My grandfather was an engineer for the Wiregrass RR for 46 years. But, I also think about how difficult it must have been for a black man in the 50's or 60's to drive from B'ham to Mobile while needing to shit, really bad.
At the same time, with the conditions of restrooms now-a-days, a spot in the woods is probably better than most restrooms anyway.
No doubt. You've got to learn the hovercraft maneuver at most public restrooms. But sometimes when you're prarie dog'n, a nice Toyota Truck bed is a safe haven in the wilderness.
-
No doubt. You've got to learn the hovercraft maneuver at most public restrooms. But sometimes when you're prarie dog'n, a nice Toyota Truck bed is a safe haven in the wilderness.
WT typically likes to form a big thick layer of toilet paper to rest his nice clean bum on, for comfort and disease protection.
But, there have been quite a few emergency instances in which WT has had to plop bare assed onto the seat where the gays, blacks and Mexicans have all conducted business. And prayed that no water splashed up. And, in those moments, WT wasn't too proud to not shit where the average people have shat.
-
No doubt. You've got to learn the hovercraft maneuver at most public restrooms. But sometimes when you're prarie dog'n, a nice Toyota Truck bed is a safe haven in the wilderness.
It having LSU stickers on it helps for a smooth movement.
-
We started down this path of the government deciding what's best for people with the whole integration thing. Forcing a society that wouldn't exist when left to its own devices is wrong. Social engineering is and was a horrible idea. So is everything else that's followed.
And its mildly humorous that in the end, society has pretty much segregated itself.
-
WT typically likes to form a big thick layer of toilet paper to rest his nice clean bum on, for comfort and disease protection.
But, there have been quite a few emergency instances in which WT has had to plop bare assed onto the seat where the gays, blacks and Mexicans have all conducted business. And prayed that no water splashed up. And, in those moments, WT wasn't too proud to not shit where the average people have shat.
"How the Other Half Shits" - written by WT
-
"How the Other Half Shits" - written by WT
You will never true bliss until you have taken a true "field shit"
-
You will never true bliss until you have taken a true "field shit" after a week of eating MRE's
FIXT
-
FIXT
Hence the term: Shitting a brick.
-
Does the 14th amendment give gays the right to marry. Or anyone for that matter?
Is marriage not a privilege? I mean if it is aright, why can't i marry my cousin and have reterded babies?
What liberal reinterpretation of the constitution is being used to state that gays have a right to marry(the same sex) the same as anyone else?
And is all of this just a sign of the times according to whatever judge decides it should be?
-
What's Gonna happen when the gays want to have more than 1 "married partner"?
Can't so no, that Gonna be discrimination against homosexuals. Should they be AA and homosexual you will be asked to leave the planet.
-
Does the 14th amendment give gays the right to marry. Or anyone for that matter?
Is marriage not a privilege? I mean if it is aright, why can't i marry my cousin and have reterded babies?
What liberal reinterpretation of the constitution is being used to state that gays have a right to marry(the same sex) the same as anyone else?
And is all of this just a sign of the times according to whatever judge decides it should be?
In Alabama, at least the way that I understand it, it mostly depends on what your cousin looks like and if she's reterded too. If you both are, (which if she is, then that would be yes) then no. But to answer your questions: no, yes, no, don't know and no.
-
States rights.
George C Wallace had it right.
-
States rights.
George C Wallace had it right.
THis is the correct answer.
A couple of you sound like dumb ass rednecks. If you are going to speak out against this, speak out for state's rights. Anything else is an opinion of morals.
-
THis is the correct answer.
A couple of you sound like dumb ass rednecks. If you are going to speak out against this, speak out for state's rights. Anything else is an opinion of morals.
Hey, I am not a redneck.
-
I'm sorry, but the anus was designed to excrete unwanted solids from the body and not made to receive the penith. And neither is the penith made to be inserted into the rectum. As for women having homosexual intercourse, I could live with that as long as I'm included.
-
I'm sorry, but the anus was designed to excrete unwanted solids from the body and not made to receive the penith. And neither is the penith made to be inserted into the rectum. As for women having homosexual intercourse, I could live with that as long as I'm included.
So you are saying you don't go ass to mouth?
-
I'm sorry, but the anus was designed to excrete unwanted solids from the body and not made to receive the penith. And neither is the penith made to be inserted into the rectum. As for women having homosexual intercourse, I could live with that as long as I'm included.
Not even a square rectum?
-
I'm sorry, but the anus was designed to excrete unwanted solids from the body and not made to receive the penith. And neither is the penith made to be inserted into the rectum. As for women having homosexual intercourse, I could live with that as long as I'm included.
Unless it feels good to the penith
-
Unless it feels good to the penith
Lou agrees.
-
They just want to get married. They are not going to force you to go against your beliefs....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-violation-_n_6604526.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-violation-_n_6604526.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592)
-
They just want to get married. They are not going to force you to go against your beliefs....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-violation-_n_6604526.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-violation-_n_6604526.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592)
This is such complete and total bullshit. Business owners should have the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.
I realize that urinates on the whole failed "civil rights" experiment of forcing people to do things that are unnatural, but I don't really care.
-
I'm fine with finding them "guilty" of discrimination if discrimination is written into the law books as something unlawful.
I am not fine with telling the business they have to pay the lesbian couple $150k. Why is the couple due $150k?
Sweet Cakes by Melissa should pay the couple's lawyer fees and bake them a cake.
-
I'm fine with finding them "guilty" of discrimination if discrimination is written into the law books as something unlawful.
I am not fine with telling the business they have to pay the lesbian couple $150k. Why is the couple due $150k?
Sweet Cakes by Melissa should pay the couple's lawyer fees and bake them a cake.
They prolly want a Taco Pie instead.
-
I'm fine with finding them "guilty" of discrimination if discrimination is written into the law books as something unlawful.
I am not fine with telling the business they have to pay the lesbian couple $150k. Why is the couple due $150k?
Sweet Cakes by Melissa should pay the couple's lawyer fees and bake them a cake.
Couldn't it be a pie instead?
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/1c/5e/5c/1c5e5c176f42f01f292babc2a43d0b39.jpg)
Seriously, how can you be "fine" with them being found guilty of anything.
What happens when somebody comes in and wants them to make a cake of a bleeding goat dick? Or a child being raped by an alien? Or a monitor lizard smoking a blunt?
A business owner should have the absolute and inviolable right to deny service to anyone for any reason. Period.
-
A bleeding goat dick? It's RWS' birthday?
-
I must admit that the bleeding goat dick cake sounds tasty. I mean, who hasn't had bleeding goat dick but in a cake? That's a novel idea you got right there.