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.
Wrong! When you establish that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality must be a hateful, intolerant bigot,as many of us on this forum have been labeled, then what happened in canada is just the next logical move! Throw in a couple of activist 9th circuit court judges and you get the same thing in frisco!
Did I say that? Rhetorical question--I didn't. All I said was that you were baiting. If you weren't, then you would've indicated in the title that it was a thread about free speech, not about "homosexual intolerance."
Did I say that? Rhetorical question--I didn't. All I said was that you were baiting. If you weren't, then you would've indicated in the title that it was a thread about free speech, not about "homosexual intolerance."
And I said WRONG! I am not baiting and it is not about free speech it is about the homosexual (Agenda), to silence anyone that is not down with their cause! No pun intended!
And I said WRONG! I am not baiting and it is not about free speech it is about the homosexual (Agenda), to silence anyone that is not down with their cause! No pun intended!
Canada sheech laws are VERY different. And I believe stirring up the gays was the agenda on the original post.
Sad really. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Mind you it does not classify it any worse than other sins. Its part of a 2000 year old set of beliefs. Whoever brought this suit should be the one to shut the **** up. It is very easy to NOT go to church and not be offended. Church is optional.
If you had bothered to read about teh case, the pastor in question was not sued over what he said in church but over what he had published in a local newspaper.
That said, I'm not a fan of how restrictive Canada is with speech and press.
Then the church should lose any tax advantages it may have.
Not just that church building and parish/congregation, but all of that denomination.
Pretty simple, isn't it.
Should a church lose tax-exemption for preaching against drunkenness? After all, some believe alcoholism is a genetic trait. How about gluttony? Some people are genetically obese. You have the right to not go to church but we have freedom of religion and speech in this country. Gay people are offended by Christians way too easily. If you really thought it was not a sin, or if you really just don't care what the Bible says, why make such a big deal that somebody out there might believe what the Bible says and therefore not think your lifestyle is the wonderful, beautiful thing you think it is?
Should a church lose tax-exemption for preaching against drunkenness? After all, some believe alcoholism is a genetic trait. How about gluttony? Some people are genetically obese. You have the right to not go to church but we have freedom of religion and speech in this country. Gay people are offended by Christians way too easily. If you really thought it was not a sin, or if you really just don't care what the Bible says, why make such a big deal that somebody out there might believe what the Bible says and therefore not think your lifestyle is the wonderful, beautiful thing you think it is?
Because Christians are the ones denying them their fundamental rights as citizens of this country. They are denying them the right to marry their loved ones. When the church becomes a center for intolerance and political bigotry, maybe they should lose their tax exemption. Not every church is like this but many many are. You would be angry too if you experienced the second class citizen treatment that they do.
Because Christians are the ones denying them their fundamental rights as citizens of this country. They are denying them the right to marry their loved ones. When the church becomes a center for intolerance and political bigotry, maybe they should lose their tax exemption. Not every church is like this but many many are. You would be angry too if you experienced the second class citizen treatment that they do.
Well the same can be said about alcohol. There are many "dry counties" in the South where its illegal to buy or sell alcoholic beverages. Do I agree with these laws? No. I don't drink myself but I think people should have the right to if they please. I do, however, respect the votes of the citizens of those counties who happen to have a different conviction. People who live there who oppose those laws either deal with it or move somewhere where they won't have that problem. You can't blame people with religious convictions for voting based on the morals they hold dear. America as a whole, outside of a few states, isn't ready for gay marriage. If all homosexuals cared about was equal rights, they would accept civil unions equivalent to marriage which people are much more open to. The main homosexual agenda however is not equal rights, its to force total acceptance of their sexual behavior and be thought police against anybody who might think homosexuality is anything other than a wonderful, beautiful experience.
Because Christians are the ones denying them their fundamental rights as citizens of this country. They are denying them the right to marry their loved ones. When the church becomes a center for intolerance and political bigotry, maybe they should lose their tax exemption. Not every church is like this but many many are. You would be angry too if you experienced the second class citizen treatment that they do.
Yaaaaaawn..... nonsense! Christians arent denying them anything, homosexuals, want to change the law regarding the definition of marriage. That is a legal issue not a church issue! Lets not go down this tired boring road.
Well the same can be said about alcohol. There are many "dry counties" in the South where its illegal to buy or sell alcoholic beverages. Do I agree with these laws? No. I don't drink myself but I think people should have the right to if they please. I do, however, respect the votes of the citizens of those counties who happen to have a different conviction. People who live there who oppose those laws either deal with it or move somewhere where they won't have that problem. You can't blame people with religious convictions for voting based on the morals they hold dear.
So by that logic would it be ok to still have laws in certain states where African Americans only count for 3/5ths of a human being? Certain laws are unconstitutional because they infringe upon citizens rights. You can ban alcohol, you can ban medical marajuana, but you cannot deny a human being the right to marry, even if the majority of a city or county disagree with it.
So by that logic would it be ok to still have laws in certain states where African Americans only count for 3/5ths of a human being? Certain laws are unconstitutional because they infringe upon citizens rights. You can ban alcohol, you can ban medical marajuana, but you cannot deny a human being the right to marry, even if the majority of a city or county disagree with it.
You have the right to marry. You can marry a woman just like everybody else.
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.
