Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't answer that. What are my religious beliefs? Not every homosexual agrees that marriage should be redefined and that gays are entitled to special privileges under the law. I'm not sure that if your definition of marriage with the law of the land, that I would even exist, since the likelihood of extinction is pretty much 100% if people were only sexually attracted to the same gender.
Nonsense. If people were forced to marry the same gender, most would be engaging in adultery. Kind of like what happens now when gay people feel they must try to conform to societal values and marry a person of the opposite gender.
You're the one that said I have the right to marry anyone I choose. Why are you deflecting with another question. It's a yes or no answer based on your own premise.
No, you are setting up a bunch of ridiculous scenarios in an because you think you can trap me by a false argument.
No one is calling homosexuals "princes or princesses" or anything else. They are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT under the existing laws. It is not discrimination to invoke your Constitutional right to religious freedom, when the action sought directly violates your religious faith.
Are you obtuse? No one discriminated against the gay customer. She served him for over nearly a decade. She declined to proved her services in support of an EVENT that celebrated the ACT of homosexuality.
How do you discriminate against an EVENT or an ACT?
Oh look, you're resorting to calling others obtuse once again. I love irony.
There is no need to "trap" you, dear. The world moves right along with or without your approval.
You're the one that said I have the right to marry anyone I choose. Why are you deflecting with another question. It's a yes or no answer based on your own premise.
There is a certain brand of Christianity which is adamant that the mark placed on Cain in Genesis was black skin. This certain brand are very bigoted and believe strongly that those with black skin are inferior and not to be treated as equal human beings.
So, you are arguing that because a certain sect of Christianity INTERPRETS the bible in a certain way, that this florist should somehow be denied the constitutionally guaranteed right to her belief that God ordained (through his ordinance) that homosexuality is an abomination?
This is NOT some interpretation of a specific sect of a specific religion.
It is a universally held religious belief that homosexually it is a sin according to God. And the reason is that all recognized religions uphold the validity of the Old Testament (the Torah) and the foundational document from which the word of God first came to man, and the Torah does not leave any room for interpretation when defining what sexual proclivities God deems perverse or an abomination.
So, you are arguing that because a certain sect of Christianity INTERPRETS the bible in a certain way, that this florist should somehow be denied the constitutionally guaranteed right to her belief that God ordained (through his ordinance) that homosexuality is an abomination?
This is NOT some interpretation of a specific sect of a specific religion.
It is a universally held religious belief that homosexually it is a sin according to God. And the reason is that all recognized religions uphold the validity of the Old Testament (the Torah) and the foundational document from which the word of God first came to man, and the Torah does not leave any room for interpretation when defining what sexual proclivities God deems perverse or an abomination.
And up until not so long ago people also had deeply held religious beliefs that races should not mix, that slavery was okay, that schools should be segregated.
These are extreme examples I know... but these ARE examples of the use of religion by majorities at the time to further their agenda. The logic here in those examples is the SAME logic we are using to justify any action by a person who invokes religion despite secular law.
We cannot allow religious rights to trump secular law no matter how small. This is a slippery slope and it is a problem.
Our nations laws are from the Constitution not the Old Testament. This lady broke the law and she will have to pay the price, and there's nothing you can do about it. Your side lost, it looks like you have a bad case of the sour grapes.
Nonsense. If people were forced to marry the same gender, most would be engaging in adultery. Kind of like what happens now when gay people feel they must try to conform to societal values and marry a person of the opposite gender.
Who said anything about FORCING any one to marry any other person? Are you saying that homosexuals tend towards promiscuous sex, so if marriage was defined as the marriage of two people of the same gender, that homosexuals would be out committing adultery with the opposite gender?
My understanding of the definition of marriage is that it is a union of one man and one woman and that it is entered into voluntarily by the two people.
Are you saying that the current definition FORCES people to marry other people? If a homosexual marries someone of the opposite gender, that issue is on the homosexual. He/She doesn't get to blame society for his/her choices and play the victim card. People are not forced to marry in this country and there have been gays living together for decades and celibate heterosexuals and celibate homosexuals that remain unmarried for life (i.e. "confirmed bachelors" or "old maids").
Our nations laws are from the Constitution not the Old Testament. This lady broke the law and she will have to pay the price, and there's nothing you can do about it. Your side lost, it looks like you had a bad case of the sour grapes.
And the Constitution guarantees the right of every citizen to the free exercise of their religious beliefs by prohibiting the legislating of any laws that infringe upon that right.
Your "na-na-na-na-na-naaa" response looks like you have a bad case of cooties...
And the Constitution guarantees the right of every citizen to the free exercise of their religious beliefs by prohibiting the legislating of any laws that infringe upon that right.
Your "na-na-na-na-na-naaa" response looks like you have a bad case of cooties...
Unless that practice infringes on another's rights or violates secular law. You always seem to forget that part!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
