Law US Supreme Court OKs gay marriage in all 50 states

grimballer said:
You mean like that gay couple that didn't get a cake of their choice n now are 130k $ richer?

Poor souls!

Life must be so hard...

Get outta here
Click to expand...


Don't forget the church that wouldn't let the gay couple use it's gazebo in NJ
 
Dochter said:
No, I wouldn't. My argument would remain the one that it is now about the case for SSM. Specifically that given the existence of marriage as a legal construct, failure to recognize SSM violates the 14th.

What I've posted is that your assertion that there was no precedent for the ruling nor a legal basis in the equal protection / due process clause is incorrect. I have not posted some silliness to the effect that the courts are always right.
Click to expand...

There is just as much precedent against.
 
Last edited:
PainIsLIfe said:
Don't forget the church that wouldn't let the gay couple use it's gazebo in NJ
Click to expand...

I didn't think that was a church. It was a vacation rental property (owned by a church, but used for profit as a revenue generator for the church that accommodated the general public).

Or so I remember it as. My memory could be foggy.
 
PainIsLIfe said:
Don't forget the church that wouldn't let the gay couple use it's gazebo in NJ
Click to expand...

Apparently real life examples are no match vs gay supporter opinion

I know few ppl who were forced to wear rainbow pins in support of gay rights at work n were told "it's company policy, so they better do it"

This is perfectly fine in the eyes of some of the humanitarians in here, but if someone wants to express different view they all get hysterical n aggressive.

That's why this thread lasted this long all these homosexuals n their supporters trolling, making all sports of personal attacks n derailing the conversation

Truly pathetic
 
afrdzak said:
I didn't think that was a church. It was a vacation rental property (owned by a church, but used for profit as a revenue generator for the church that accommodated the general public).

Or so I remember it as. My memory could be foggy.
Click to expand...


NOt exactly. The Church owns the Gazebo and they do "rent" it - a cleaning/maintenance fee - to the public. But when approached by the couple the church explained that it was used as a sunday school class in the summer and thus consecrated. Since Church doctrine was against homosexuality (btw- the state didn't allow ssm or civil unions at the time) that they would be allowed to use it.

The church did however tell the couple that they could use the boardwalk free of charge - the highly offended couple thought that the evil church should be sued.
 
ILLogic said:
I'm sure it's in their employee handbook that they have to dress up like my little pony on "gay days".
Click to expand...
Well that too. However, I was referring to him likely being a shut in with little contact with other people.
 
I can't speak for him, but my example is real - no one was fired or threatened, but I had several people tell me that they felt intimidated by HR
 
Sorry, didn't read the whole article - I had already read the verdict linked from another site.
 
PainIsLIfe said:
I really don't care about ssm - I care more about the potential for anti-bigotry laws that may follow and how they may or may not impact religious institutions.
Click to expand...

Top lolz. The arrogance of people like you. Oh no other people having equal rights might impose on me somehow. Better deny others common civil rights because I MIGHT be inconvenienced some day. GTFO with that .


Let me help you out with that. You'll be able to practice the beliefs from your little book of fairy tales in churches, the same as always. You'll be able to turn away gays or minorities or whoever else in your churches, finding whatever quote you need to cherry pick from your little book to justify your bigotry.


Businesses open to the public will no longer be able to discriminate. For right now in 20 states, soon everywhere in the nation.



You can thank progress for that. Meanwhile people are finally starting to get it. So your cult will gradually lose power and influence, pushed further and further into your cave. Which is exactly where your outdated bronze age beliefs belong.


Hope that clears things up for you.
 
Mike90 said:
Top lolz. The arrogance of people like you. Oh no other people having equal rights might impose on me somehow. Better deny others common civil rights because I MIGHT be inconvenienced some day. GTFO with that .


Let me help you out with that. You'll be able to practice the beliefs from your little book of fairy tales in churches, the same as always. You'll be able to turn away gays or minorities or whoever else in your churches, finding whatever quote you need to cherry pick from your little book to justify your bigotry.


Businesses open to the public will no longer be able to discriminate. For right now in 20 states, soon everywhere in the nation.



You can thank progress for that. Meanwhile people are finally starting to get it. So your cult will gradually lose power and influence, pushed further and further into your cave. Which is exactly where your outdated bronze age beliefs belong.


Hope that clears things up for you.
Click to expand...


That
 
If it's open to the public, then it's open to all of the public. That's not my fault, it's the law. If you've been against ssm then yes, you're bigots. Denying civil rights to others based on your fairy tales absolutely makes you bigots. By that I mean being against ssm in general, it's fine to me (and the law) if you don't want to marry them in churches. Drivel is thinking your 2000 year old book gives you the right to control others in the present day.
 
Mike90 said:
If it's open to the public, then it's open to all of the public. That's not my fault, it's the law. If you've been against ssm then yes, you're bigots. Denying civil rights to others based on your fairy tales absolutely makes you bigots. By that I mean being against ssm in general, it's fine to me (and the law) if you don't want to marry them in churches. Drivel is thinking your 2000 year old book gives you the right to control others in the present day.
Click to expand...

Please explain how a gay couple approaching a church to use its facilities falls under "controlling others".

I don't really care what you think of our beliefs - much like I don't care what gays do. The whole point of the suits is to force people to embrace it - it won't happen. The churches will simply quite letting non-members use the facilities.
 
PainIsLIfe said:
Please explain how a gay couple approaching a church to use its facilities falls under "controlling others".

I don't really care what you think of our beliefs - much like I don't care what gays do. The whole point of the suits is to force people to embrace it - it won't happen. The churches will simply quite letting non-members use the facilities.
Click to expand...


If it's outside the actual church and they are renting the space out, then it's probably going to be considered a business open to the public, and not a church function.


Tbh they should have been able to see this issue coming since they were charging for the space. Not sure where the indignation is coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LeonardoBjj
Opinion Guns rights and domestic violence protections collide at US Supreme Court
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
Sinister
Sinister
LeonardoBjj
International LGBTQ-inclusive church in Cuba welcomes all in a country that once sent gay people to labor camps
Replies
8
Views
319
ringking1982
ringking1982

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,459
Messages
55,420,799
Members
174,766
Latest member
durbanik916

Share this page

Back
Top