This is why I H A T E partisan politics...
- Thread starter theclemsonkid
- Start date
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503752
Wrong. The majority of individuals who want same-sex marriages could care less if it was held in a church or overseen by some religious figure.
Tell that to the church that was sued for refusing to rent their site for a gay ceremony. Or the photographer who declined a job that would have required her to attend a gay ceremony and was sued. It's just another example of leftist nutjobs who seek to destroy American traditions and the right to independent thought.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503752
Wrong. The majority of individuals who want same-sex marriages could care less if it was held in a church or overseen by some religious figure.
Tell that to the church that was sued for refusing to rent their site for a gay ceremony. Or the photographer who declined a job that would have required her to attend a gay ceremony and was sued. It's just another example of leftist nutjobs who seek to destroy American traditions and the right to independent thought.
jerthunter
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/280#post_3503744
I agree with you. I support civil unions as a matter of fairness. But that isn't what the big push for gay marriage is about.
There are churches that support gay marriage and ones that don't. It would make sense to me that the ones that do should be allowed to marry gay people and the ones that don't shouldn't need to. Make it like baptism or communion. Get rid of any tax breaks or benefits for being married, get rid of marriage certificates, get rid of any references to martial status for anything besides religion and we wouldn't have this problem. Or vice vera, add a tax deduction for being baptised... I'd go for that one.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/280#post_3503744
I agree with you. I support civil unions as a matter of fairness. But that isn't what the big push for gay marriage is about.
There are churches that support gay marriage and ones that don't. It would make sense to me that the ones that do should be allowed to marry gay people and the ones that don't shouldn't need to. Make it like baptism or communion. Get rid of any tax breaks or benefits for being married, get rid of marriage certificates, get rid of any references to martial status for anything besides religion and we wouldn't have this problem. Or vice vera, add a tax deduction for being baptised... I'd go for that one.
jerthunter
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503755
Tell that to the church that was sued for refusing to rent their site for a gay ceremony. Or the photographer who declined a job that would have required her to attend a gay ceremony and was sued. It's just another example of leftist nutjobs who seek to destroy American traditions and the right to independent thought.
What were the results of those cases? Unfortunately anyone can sue anyone for pretty much anything, and that issue isn't isolated to any one political group.
I've heard of a judge getting in trouble for refusing to marry an interracial couple, said it was against his beliefs, I don't recall if he got voted out over it, or if he got punished since as a judge it fell under his duties to perform marriages, but I've never heard of a preacher getting sued (and losing) for refusing to marry two people. I guess it depends on the situation, if they advertise that the facility is for rent for anyone, then refuse to rent it based on the people, that could get them in trouble. However, plenty of places will only allow members to have ceremonies, and they can reject members based on stuff like that...
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503755
Tell that to the church that was sued for refusing to rent their site for a gay ceremony. Or the photographer who declined a job that would have required her to attend a gay ceremony and was sued. It's just another example of leftist nutjobs who seek to destroy American traditions and the right to independent thought.
What were the results of those cases? Unfortunately anyone can sue anyone for pretty much anything, and that issue isn't isolated to any one political group.
I've heard of a judge getting in trouble for refusing to marry an interracial couple, said it was against his beliefs, I don't recall if he got voted out over it, or if he got punished since as a judge it fell under his duties to perform marriages, but I've never heard of a preacher getting sued (and losing) for refusing to marry two people. I guess it depends on the situation, if they advertise that the facility is for rent for anyone, then refuse to rent it based on the people, that could get them in trouble. However, plenty of places will only allow members to have ceremonies, and they can reject members based on stuff like that...
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503757
What were the results of those cases? Unfortunately anyone can sue anyone for pretty much anything, and that issue isn't isolated to any one political group.
I've heard of a judge getting in trouble for refusing to marry an interracial couple, said it was against his beliefs, I don't recall if he got voted out over it, or if he got punished since as a judge it fell under his duties to perform marriages, but I've never heard of a preacher getting sued (and losing) for refusing to marry two people. I guess it depends on the situation, if they advertise that the facility is for rent for anyone, then refuse to rent it based on the people, that could get them in trouble. However, plenty of places will only allow members to have ceremonies, and they can reject members based on stuff like that...
New Mexico human rights commission fined the photographer and she is appealing it in court now. Nothing like having to hire lawyers to protect our most basic constitutional right. The other case is also being appealed as well.
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503757
What were the results of those cases? Unfortunately anyone can sue anyone for pretty much anything, and that issue isn't isolated to any one political group.
I've heard of a judge getting in trouble for refusing to marry an interracial couple, said it was against his beliefs, I don't recall if he got voted out over it, or if he got punished since as a judge it fell under his duties to perform marriages, but I've never heard of a preacher getting sued (and losing) for refusing to marry two people. I guess it depends on the situation, if they advertise that the facility is for rent for anyone, then refuse to rent it based on the people, that could get them in trouble. However, plenty of places will only allow members to have ceremonies, and they can reject members based on stuff like that...
New Mexico human rights commission fined the photographer and she is appealing it in court now. Nothing like having to hire lawyers to protect our most basic constitutional right. The other case is also being appealed as well.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503755
Tell that to the church that was sued for refusing to rent their site for a gay ceremony. Or the photographer who declined a job that would have required her to attend a gay ceremony and was sued. It's just another example of leftist nutjobs who seek to destroy American traditions and the right to independent thought.
Please. Two incidents that occurred years ago. Go look at the hundreds of marriages that have occurred in all these states that have made it legal. "American traditions" need to be updated sometimes. Guess you miss those old American traditions like keeping slaves, or not allowing Blacks to use the same bathroom as Whites. The ignorance and myopic views of redneck Conservatives...
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503755
Tell that to the church that was sued for refusing to rent their site for a gay ceremony. Or the photographer who declined a job that would have required her to attend a gay ceremony and was sued. It's just another example of leftist nutjobs who seek to destroy American traditions and the right to independent thought.
Please. Two incidents that occurred years ago. Go look at the hundreds of marriages that have occurred in all these states that have made it legal. "American traditions" need to be updated sometimes. Guess you miss those old American traditions like keeping slaves, or not allowing Blacks to use the same bathroom as Whites. The ignorance and myopic views of redneck Conservatives...
uneverno
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/280#post_3503711
there is nothing common sense about calling killing babies a woman's right to choose. hell at least the jews could fight back when hitler rounded them up...
Wow.
That might just be the most asinine thing I've ever heard anyone say.
Tell the children who survived Bergen-Belsen that their parents should've fought just a little harder.
Thanks though. At least I have a clear understanding of where you stand now.
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/280#post_3503711
there is nothing common sense about calling killing babies a woman's right to choose. hell at least the jews could fight back when hitler rounded them up...
Wow.
That might just be the most asinine thing I've ever heard anyone say.
Tell the children who survived Bergen-Belsen that their parents should've fought just a little harder.
Thanks though. At least I have a clear understanding of where you stand now.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503763
New Mexico human rights commission fined the photographer and she is appealing it in court now. Nothing like having to hire lawyers to protect our most basic constitutional right. The other case is also being appealed as well.
Didn't know the right of refusal was written in the Constitution.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503763
New Mexico human rights commission fined the photographer and she is appealing it in court now. Nothing like having to hire lawyers to protect our most basic constitutional right. The other case is also being appealed as well.
Didn't know the right of refusal was written in the Constitution.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503767
Didn't know the right of refusal was written in the Constitution
Has nothing to do with that. The government cannot compel a person to violate their religious faith.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503767
Didn't know the right of refusal was written in the Constitution
Has nothing to do with that. The government cannot compel a person to violate their religious faith.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503764
Please. Two incidents that occurred years ago. Go look at the hundreds of marriages that have occurred in all these states that have made it legal. "American traditions" need to be updated sometimes. Guess you miss those old American traditions like keeping slaves, or not allowing Blacks to use the same bathroom as Whites. The ignorance and myopic views of redneck Conservatives...
Both are still pending court cases. I like how when you libs get into a discussion you are not intellectually capable of defending your position on you resort to name calling and making stupid statements.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503764
Please. Two incidents that occurred years ago. Go look at the hundreds of marriages that have occurred in all these states that have made it legal. "American traditions" need to be updated sometimes. Guess you miss those old American traditions like keeping slaves, or not allowing Blacks to use the same bathroom as Whites. The ignorance and myopic views of redneck Conservatives...
Both are still pending court cases. I like how when you libs get into a discussion you are not intellectually capable of defending your position on you resort to name calling and making stupid statements.
stdreb27
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503765
Wow.
That might just be the most asinine thing I've ever heard anyone say.
Tell the children who survived Bergen-Belsen that their parents should've fought just a little harder.
Thanks though. At least I have a clear understanding of where you stand now.
Why? You can mock it all you want, but why?
I'm simply pointing out that we've made it legal to kill millions upon millions of kids, who couldn't do a dang thing to stop it... Roe vs wade has ended more people's lives than hitler ever did...
I'm just pointing out the obvious... Lets call it what it is. Am I a kook for Advocating for a baby who can't speak for himself?
How do you quantify atrocities? number of deaths? The Heinousness of the action? Taking advantage of the helpless?
You've yet to back up anything you've said. More than a couple thing arguments about guilt by association, Then just mockery. You've not defending your opionions on Ryan. Just called him a pathological liar, but won't say how.
You've claimed Walker was a puppet but won't support it.
you've tried to tie all republicans to a person they kicked out of the party, for all intents and purposes.
Back up what your claim...
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503765
Wow.
That might just be the most asinine thing I've ever heard anyone say.
Tell the children who survived Bergen-Belsen that their parents should've fought just a little harder.
Thanks though. At least I have a clear understanding of where you stand now.
Why? You can mock it all you want, but why?
I'm simply pointing out that we've made it legal to kill millions upon millions of kids, who couldn't do a dang thing to stop it... Roe vs wade has ended more people's lives than hitler ever did...
I'm just pointing out the obvious... Lets call it what it is. Am I a kook for Advocating for a baby who can't speak for himself?
How do you quantify atrocities? number of deaths? The Heinousness of the action? Taking advantage of the helpless?
You've yet to back up anything you've said. More than a couple thing arguments about guilt by association, Then just mockery. You've not defending your opionions on Ryan. Just called him a pathological liar, but won't say how.
You've claimed Walker was a puppet but won't support it.
you've tried to tie all republicans to a person they kicked out of the party, for all intents and purposes.
Back up what your claim...
jerthunter
Active Member
New Mexico human rights commission fined the photographer and she is appealing it in court now. Nothing like having to hire lawyers to protect our most basic constitutional right. The other case is also being appealed as well.
This isn't an issue of marriage rights. People can sue for anything, so if you want to fix that issue, focus on the legal system and fixing that, but don't try to fix a leaky toilet by tearing out a sink. But, if you want to fix this problem? Then get rid of any government involvement in marriage at all, leave it to the church. Just like every church can decide who can be baptised, so they can decide whom they will marry.
jerthunter
Active Member
Has nothing to do with that. The government cannot compel a person to violate their religious faith.
What if someone's religous belief is that they shouldn't pay taxes (many people have tried this, hasn't really worked) or someone's religious belief is that they cannot wear clothes? Maybe someone's religious belief is that they shouldn't have to pay for anything?
So the government has the authority to inforce certain rules, and if there is a law against discriminating against someone and you choose to violate it, then don't cry when you get punished. Part of doing business is understanding the constraints and working with them.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503785
What if someone's religous belief is that they shouldn't pay taxes (many people have tried this, hasn't really worked) or someone's religious belief is that they cannot wear clothes? Maybe someone's religious belief is that they shouldn't have to pay for anything?
So the government has the authority to inforce certain rules, and if there is a law against discriminating against someone and you choose to violate it, then don't cry when you get punished. Part of doing business is understanding the constraints and working with them.
Paying taxes is a different animal. You have to pay for what you receive unless of course you are an 0bamite LOL!
If there were a religion with a tradition of not wearing clothes they could win in court. An Indian tribe was granted the right to use Payote (SP?) because it was part of their religious traditions.
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503785
What if someone's religous belief is that they shouldn't pay taxes (many people have tried this, hasn't really worked) or someone's religious belief is that they cannot wear clothes? Maybe someone's religious belief is that they shouldn't have to pay for anything?
So the government has the authority to inforce certain rules, and if there is a law against discriminating against someone and you choose to violate it, then don't cry when you get punished. Part of doing business is understanding the constraints and working with them.
Paying taxes is a different animal. You have to pay for what you receive unless of course you are an 0bamite LOL!
If there were a religion with a tradition of not wearing clothes they could win in court. An Indian tribe was granted the right to use Payote (SP?) because it was part of their religious traditions.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503784
This isn't an issue of marriage rights. People can sue for anything, so if you want to fix that issue, focus on the legal system and fixing that, but don't try to fix a leaky toilet by tearing out a sink. But, if you want to fix this problem? Then get rid of any government involvement in marriage at all, leave it to the church. Just like every church can decide who can be baptised, so they can decide whom they will marry.
That is the way it should be. I think any two people gay or straight should be able to sign a kinship contract and get the exact same right we give married couples now. I've known a few older widowed folk who had no interest in ever getting remarried who have moved in with old friends in the same situation. Don't they deserve the same rights and protections "married" couples gay or straight get?
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503784
This isn't an issue of marriage rights. People can sue for anything, so if you want to fix that issue, focus on the legal system and fixing that, but don't try to fix a leaky toilet by tearing out a sink. But, if you want to fix this problem? Then get rid of any government involvement in marriage at all, leave it to the church. Just like every church can decide who can be baptised, so they can decide whom they will marry.
That is the way it should be. I think any two people gay or straight should be able to sign a kinship contract and get the exact same right we give married couples now. I've known a few older widowed folk who had no interest in ever getting remarried who have moved in with old friends in the same situation. Don't they deserve the same rights and protections "married" couples gay or straight get?
jerthunter
Active Member
That is the way it should be. I think any two people gay or straight should be able to sign a kinship contract and get the exact same right we give married couples now. I've known a few older widowed folk who had no interest in ever getting remarried who have moved in with old friends in the same situation. Don't they deserve the same rights and protections "married" couples gay or straight get?
My personal opinion is that marriage should be totally seperate from the government, but if they are going to give benefits, anyone should be able to get those benefits.
But why would it need to be called something other then marriage? If another group wishes to allow gay marriage, why should we classify it differently then any other marriage.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503798
My personal opinion is that marriage should be totally seperate from the government, but if they are going to give benefits, anyone should be able to get those benefits.
But why would it need to be called something other then marriage? If another group wishes to allow gay marriage, why should we classify it differently then any other marriage.
If the government recognizes gay marriage it will open the door to lawsuits against churches who refuse to perform the ceremonies. There are plenty of people out there, even gays, who are more interested in pushing an agenda than anything else. Take the New Mexico case. The photographer declined a job that would have required her to attend a service she opposed on religious grounds. It isn't like she refused to seat them at her cafe or wouldn't sell them a roll of film because they were gay. They were in no way damaged yet they filed a complaint.
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/300#post_3503798
My personal opinion is that marriage should be totally seperate from the government, but if they are going to give benefits, anyone should be able to get those benefits.
But why would it need to be called something other then marriage? If another group wishes to allow gay marriage, why should we classify it differently then any other marriage.
If the government recognizes gay marriage it will open the door to lawsuits against churches who refuse to perform the ceremonies. There are plenty of people out there, even gays, who are more interested in pushing an agenda than anything else. Take the New Mexico case. The photographer declined a job that would have required her to attend a service she opposed on religious grounds. It isn't like she refused to seat them at her cafe or wouldn't sell them a roll of film because they were gay. They were in no way damaged yet they filed a complaint.
I think it becomes problematic when religion enters into the equation. Should a conservative church be required by the government to marry a gay couple when they feel such is a violation of God's law? Should that same church be open to law suits when they refuse to marry gay people? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all prohibit homosexuality. Marriage historically has always been between opposite sex. Hard to change an institution set in stone for thousands of years to include something else.
So you see the grand scale of the problem.
So you see the grand scale of the problem.
jerthunter
Active Member
If the government recognizes gay marriage it will open the door to lawsuits against churches who refuse to perform the ceremonies. There are plenty of people out there, even gays, who are more interested in pushing an agenda than anything else. Take the New Mexico case. The photographer declined a job that would have required her to attend a service she opposed on religious grounds. It isn't like she refused to seat them at her cafe or wouldn't sell them a roll of film because they were gay. They were in no way damaged yet they filed a complaint.
Plenty of churches refuse to marry heterosexual couples for many reasons. If you logic was true these churches would be already exposed to lawsuits. Simple fix, don't reqire or prevent any private institution from performing whatever religious rites they choose and if the government decides to acknowledge one rite from one group, then acknowledge them all.