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.
Would you support a public employee that believed their religious beliefs required them to issue marriage licenses to gay couples even if a law or constitutional amendment made that illegal?
That is an illogical question. Please point to any religion that requires adherents to "issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
Quote:
Or does this so-called religious freedom only work when it is being used to discriminate against gays?
There is nothing "so-called" with regard to religious freedom. It is clearly and specifically identified in the FIRST AMENDMENT as a RIGHT to be PROTECTED.
Quote:
Where do you draw the line on this special exemption from laws for religious freedom purposes?
I do not draw the line with regard to the 1st Amendment. There is not a "special exemption." There is an overriding Constitutional protection that makes a law that infringes upon a persons religious freedom unconstitutional.
Quote:
Can I kill a gay person like the Bible instructs and claim my religious freedom is being infringed if I am charged with a crime?
No, the right to life is unalienable, therefore holds a superior position to religious freedom that involves murder. Stupid question.
Quote:
Does a Muslim have the right to blow stuff up because they believe that is what Allah wants them to do?
See above. Stupid question.
Quote:
You believe that a person should be able to refuse to provide goods and services to gay people, even if they are public employees.
I do not believe public employees have the right to refuse to provide services or goods to gay people. Stop interpreting INCORRECTLY, my beliefs.
Quote:
Should an ER doctor be allowed to refuse to treat a gay couple injured in a car accident on the way to their wedding?
No. Stupid question.
Quote:
Why do you think that merely being a Christian grants you special rights to ignore laws that you don't agree with?
Again, stop interpreting my beliefs through your narrow prism. I believe that the 1st Amendment protects all AMERICAN CITIZENS, regardless of their religion the right to freely exercise those religious beliefs. Since I am not a Christian, I don't focus on a specific religion - just as the 1st Amendment does not focus on a single religion, but on all religions. AND even provides protection to those who do not practice ANY RELIGION.
Nothing I have discussed relates to gays. It relates to religious freedom. You are not capable of getting out of your own narrow mind set to see that the issue is bigger than being gay.
You are incorrect. The first legislative attempt at repeal was Rep. Patrick Murphy's (D-PA) proposed amendment, which was voted on by the House in May 2010. In order for it to be voted on in May the proposal had to have been submitted prior to that month.
Wrong, that was a vote for National Defense Act which was an amendment..
You dont vote on separate segments of a bill, its an all or nothing vote.
Democrats play you guys for stupid all the time.. point provided by you.
Description:
H.Amdt. 672 — 111th Congress (2009-2010)
Amendment repeals "Don't Ask Don't Tell" only after: (1) receipt of the recommendations of the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group on how to implement a repeal of DADT (due December 1, 2010) and (2) a certification by the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and President that repeal is first, consistent with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion & recruiting, and second, that the DoD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal. The amendment also includes a 60 day period after certification before the repeal takes effect.
Purpose:
An amendment numbered 79 printed in House Report 111-498 to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell only after: (1) receipt of the recommendations of the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group on how to implement a repeal of DADT (due December 1, 2010) and (2) a certification by the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and President that repeal is first, consistent with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion & recruiting, and second, that the DoD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement its repeal. It would also include a 60 day period after certification before the repeal took effect.
Amends Bill: H.R.5136 — National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
Sponsor: Rep. Murphy, Patrick J. [D-PA-8] (Offered 05/27/2010)
Latest Action: 05/27/2010 On agreeing to the Murphy, Patrick amendment (A019) Agreed to by recorded vote: 234 - 194 (Roll no. 317).
Hmmm, sounds familiar... Now where have we heard this before?
"I saved you, " cried that woman
"And you've bit me even, why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
"Oh shut up, silly woman, " said the reptile with a grin
"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in."
Why is gayness still even an issue? They have all the same legal rights as straights now. The vast majority of Americans don't give a damn if someone is gay.
Both the gays and Republicans need to realize the gays won and move on.
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.
Log cabin Republicans shocked at the extreme anti LGBT GOP platform
