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.
momonkey ever heard the phrase if you don't want to get burned don't play with fire? These so called Christians did exercise their right to free speech however what was their purpose other than to antagonize gay people? I agree on First Amendment rights but be prepared to deal with the consequences also. You would be amazed what a little common sense would do.
"if you don't want to get burned don't play with fire?" Too bad you weren't around to warn MLK because he got shot. You could have informed him that taking on those who didn't recognize his rights under the Constitution could possibly have serious consequences and that he should just stay home. He might have been amazed at "what a little common sense would do".
"These so called Christians" The necessary qualifications for being a Christian according to you are?
"what was their purpose other than to antagonize gay people?" Using your logic, What was the purpose of boycotting busses, holding sit-ins and organized marches in the South except to antagonize segregationist?
I don't buy the line that they shouldn't have been there in the first place. You'll remember the gentleman from the video making his point, that you repeated in so many words, that these Christians didn't belong in the Castro.
"They were seeking more than what they ordered — sodas, coffee, doughnuts. They were attacking the social order of the time. The unwritten rules of society required black people to stay out of white-owned restaurants, to use only designated drinking fountains and restrooms, to sit in the rear of Greensboro city buses, in a separate balcony at the Center Theatre and in segregated bleachers during sports events at War Memorial Stadium."
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Using religious freedom, in the name of christ, to harm, target, or rob anyone of their rights that should have been guaranteed by the constitution you cite is an abuse of both religion and the law. Christine Cloud wanted her 15 minutes of fame by provoking people robbed of their rights with glib demeanor. This is state of christianity. How shameful.
You're pretty scary yourself being this oblivious to the meaning of the constitution you swore an oath to defend.
Using religious freedom, in the name of christ, to harm, target, or rob anyone of their rights that should have been guaranteed by the constitution you cite is an abuse of both religion and the law. Christine Cloud wanted her 15 minutes of fame by provoking people robbed of their rights with glib demeanor. This is state of christianity. How shameful.
You're pretty scary yourself being this oblivious to the meaning of the constitution you swore an oath to defend.
"to harm, target, or rob anyone of their rights that should have been guaranteed by the constitution you cite is an abuse of both religion and the law."
What?
Nice logic. Next time my Ford truck breaks down I'll have it towed to the nearest Ford dealer and explain to the service manger that it isn't under warranty any longer, but I want it fixed for free because I feel it should be.
"oblivious to the meaning of the constitution"
Do tell.
Are you able to back-up any of the accusations you've thrown around with proof of some sort?
momonkey, I certainly agree that it is wrong for anyone to attack someone for voting a certain way, or for donating to a cause they believe in, but I hope you'll agree that this is wrong too:
Supporters of Prop 8 are threatening a recall effort against any CA Supreme Court judge who does not vote on their side.
Gay marriage: Conservative court faces pressure from all sides of Proposition 8 issue - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-prop8-supreme-court19-2008nov19,0,5168221.story - broken link)
OK, let me see if I am understanding you. Six months ago the CA supreme court made some new law allowing gay marriage. The people of CA rejected this action of the court by passing prop 8. Now the court is contemplating overturning the new law because it feels the court can do as it pleases regardless of the intent of prop 8. If they do thwart the will of the people, they may very well be tossed out by recall elections. Why would this not be an example of democracy in action?
What they dont get is this country was not founded upon the freedom to sodomize, it was founded upon freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Actually, it was founded on the freedom FROM religion - hence the separation of church and state. So when the religious right tries to interject their religious beliefs into the constitution, THEY are the ones violating those freedoms... and what about non-Christians who have different religious beliefs? My religion has nothing against gay marriage, so you are impeding my freedom of religion by banning it. Oh, but I guess Christians think they are the only religion in this country, huh?
P.S. Lesbians don't normally practice sodomy, many gay men don't, and plenty of straight people do - so that has no connection to gay rights, and I'm not sure why some people are obsessed with that detail.
Are you going to base all straight people and Christians on the tons of discrimination, physical and mental damage, and deaths they have inflicted on the gay community? No you shouldn't as you shouldn't judge all gay people on a few militant individuals who don't represent the whole.
Never did.
This is what I posted.
Needless to say, I was shocked at the treatment of Christine Cloud and her fellow Christians by gays in the Castro District of San Fransisco. It seems that once again we have another example of those who most benefit by the protections provided in the Constitution denying those same protections to others. Certainly these young believers were well within their Constitutional rights to exercise their faith as they saw fit and in the location they chose, to speak to passers by about their beliefs and to assemble peacefully as they did. The behavior of the gays who formed a mob to attack them, on the other hand, was out and out repugnant and one of the most anti-American criminal actions I've ever witnessed in the US. Christine Cloud showed her true Christian character by not having her cowardly male attacker arrested for his mindless, brutal assault on her. In fact, she forgave him.
In another recent incident, a church in Michigan was invaded by gay activists during a normal Sunday service. They clearly acted to deny the legitimate worshipers their Constitutionally guaranteed right to freely exercise their religion by entering the building and demonstrating in a non-peaceful manner.
Due to time restraints, I didn't go into the elderly woman who we all saw have the cross knocked out of her hands and get roughed-up by gay protesters. Here's the video.
Actually, it was founded on the freedom FROM religion - hence the separation of church and state. So when the religious right tries to interject their religious beliefs into the constitution, THEY are the ones violating those freedoms... and what about non-Christians who have different religious beliefs? My religion has nothing against gay marriage, so you are impeding my freedom of religion by banning it. Oh, but I guess Christians think they are the only religion in this country, huh?
P.S. Lesbians don't normally practice sodomy, many gay men don't, and plenty of straight people do - so that has no connection to gay rights, and I'm not sure why some people are obsessed with that detail.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I love how the founders kept things simple. I think they knew we would screw things up if they didn't.
While we're on the subject of the Constitution, Would you show me the separation of church and state part please?
Hey, while you're at it, would you show me the right to privacy part too?
It works both ways though. The physical attacks on gays, even when they are silent, does not constitute. Matthew Shephard for example and others like the couple in Ontario who were viciously attacked dismiss the freedom of choice! You can't say ALL when it is only a FEW. Back in my military days, the thumpers were everywhere, including the airports, selling their bibles for 6 dollars a piece. San Fancisco was always thought of as the gay capital of California, some even thought of it as the gay capital of the US (for those who didn't go any further than their own backyard). But....since there should be or at least they say there is, a seperation of Church & State, you still have the religious right interfereing in laws by their beliefs. How would we solve the issue on both sides of the fence? If homo's (no offense, just shortening the word) are considered second class citizens, then they shouldn't be held to the first class accountabilities. If the church is interfereing in the political arena, then they shouldn't be receiving funds from the Gov. It has to be a give and take on both sides of church and state.
"You can't say ALL", and I didn't.
"the thumpers were everywhere" What is a "thumper"?
"you still have the religious right interfereing in laws by their beliefs." No individual or group is prohibited by the Constitution from engaging in peaceful protest.
"then they shouldn't be receiving funds from the Gov." What funds would those be?
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Churches organize an effort to deprive tens of millions of Americans of their rights and the most that comes of it is people disrupting a church service and some scuffles on the street?
That's a pretty muted reaction, considering.
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.
