So it Begins: This State Forces LGBT “Accommodation” Rules on its Churches

Good. I am glad we agree there is no compelling interest in denying marriage to gays

 

There never was any marriage law that denied marriage to gays. Most of the gay men I know in their 40s and 50s, used to be married to women.

 

It wasn't a Facebook post, it was an investigation by the advocate followed up by two msm pieces then futher collaborated by the arresting office via their official Facebook and twitter- I get pissy when people blatantly lie and manipulate to justify their motive but it is to be expected with your ilk.

I never said everyone in the gay community is in danger, that is your strawman, and in most places they are no longer targeted. You said something does not happen - it does - there are numerous states where consentual sex is still illegal even though the statues are unconstitutional.

You cannot even keep up with your own discussion.

 

Facebook and twitter are not reliable sources , sorry I will not accept them as such. My point is you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill, which is the concept of your ilk. You wish to throw anything you like that goes along with your agenda and expect everyone to accept it as fact.

Why dont you take a lesson from JOMV and learn how to debate and actually back up your claims.

So so far we have 2 real claims of this happening. Now should the laws be stricken from the books? of course a long with a ton of other insane laws that are still there but never enforced. But it is you who is trying to say these laws are some big woopy and acting like it is enforced in bulk lol.

I just want proof of it is all.

 

And now they can be married to each other

 

I never said they were enforced in bulk, it was the most recent example and you are purposely ignoring the investigation and subsequent admission by the police department. I was respond to your remark looking for a single example and now you are dancing all over the place regurgitating strawman. Must have taken a few lessons from sec and dixon

 

I think we can all agree that Jesus is an arse for, in 2000 years (that's a long time!) and counting, not speaking up ONCE, NOT ONCE, for gay rights - which of course is the underlying reason for the hatred of gays by Christians. Even though the Bible in MULTIPLE places says to kill gays (yes, kill them), and that they are such scum that they don't get into the magic invisible elitist country club in the sky (the exclusive, bigoted, Jew-free gated community known as "heaven".) Obviously not a good moral teacher like he claimed to be.

PS NOT ONCE.

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman - so the hatred towards gays starts with Jesus.

PS Jesus, if I'm wrong about this, then use your all-powerful magic to come down today and educate us that you are right and I'm wrong. You can do it, Jesus. Put me in my place.

 

We have a story from a off the wall news source, again we can find idiot articles claiming tons from siteslike the Onion. If this was a big issue the liberal media would have already sank it's teeth it, but all we have is an off the wall site.

I dont trust that much media, much less a random story nobody else has even covered.

 

Did the ancient Mesopotamians also define marriage between a man and a woman out of hatred for gays?

 

The reason for does not matter....what matters if you have a reason to continue to deny a right. And you dont

 

The barbarians in ancient times hated gays, period. So obviously no sane person would look to people who lived thousands of years ago for moral advice, today. Jesus? No. Mohammad? No. Moses? Obviously not - that psycho had 3000 people killed because the voices in his head (the voice of his "god") told him to. Jesus didn't even understand right from wrong (he was ok with discrimination against gays, obviously, or the Bible would not say that to this very day, uh, obviously.)

 

When onion pieces start being verified by the party violating others civil liberties let me know.
It failed to gain traction because the victims did not want to be identified publicly and the advocate honored their wishes. If y'all required as much verification for story's that promoted your own agenda you wouldn't back fraudulent motives as often.

The story was picked up by:
USA Today
The NY Times
MSNBC
International Business Times
Two Local News Stations
The ACLU
...These were just off the first page of google...
Then verified by the arresting department

Yeh that's similar to an onion post

 

Actually, as we have seen in the gay marriage cases, it is determinative. Marriage limited to men and women because only men and women make babies is perfectly constitutional while marriage limited to men and women to "disparage and injure" homosexuals is unconstitutional.

 

Not looking for advice. Just maintaining a grasp upon reality when it comes to ascribing motives to people thousands of years ago. And even the concept of gays didn't exist in ancient times. Pre Christian Roman society celebrated homosexual activity, but they still limited marriage to men and women.

 

Then show me those links , why show me some off the wall junk? Show me the big boys that got on this. It's that simple.

 

That is a false statement.

 

How so? Do you have an example of a lesbian lover of a birth mother automatically being held responsible for the child? Or a gay lover of a biological father held responsible?

 

I already posted one that has links to the USA Today and msnbc articles which you ignored. It's odd that you "demand links from msm" while ranting against them. Talking out of both sides of your mouth

 

Show me the straight story. I'm on my phone most of the time so I don't read off the wall links.

Anyways as I have already denounced such laws, you win by showing they happened. But just one place tells me that they are not at furious as you tried to claim them to be. 2 people from 98 and what looks like a couple from 3 years ago.

My point is not only does (*)(*)(*)(*) need to be done away with, but at the same time lets not make this bigger than what it really is. And if it is used again I would be in full support of the victims of such stupid laws to sue for so much 4 generations of family members don't have to work.

 

Because, it's irrelevant, and dishonest as usual.

 

Their existence is fine. Accomodating their delusions in public settings is not.
Let them leave the CosPlay at home.

 

Anything with a Penis is not a Female, and vice versa. I know thats going to come as a shock for the Phrenology guy...

 

One is born with a deformity that needs to be addressed. Much like someone born with any other deformity. To give them the best shot at life, you fix them best you can.

Far different from someone who is perfectly fine, but just feels they arent what they are. They need mental help, not costume time and play along from the public. I dont endorse fantasy as if it was fact.

Thats what sets me apart from liberals. When your parents told you you could be anything you wanted to be, they hoped you'd realize the natural boundaries....

 

Because we live in a fact based society. Who are you and yours to think you can just put non facts in there and think everyone has to be ok with it? Sorry no. Men do not belong in the ladies room, and there is no reason to humor these delusions at all.

If the policies and perversions of the left have now left people in some wierd middle ground where they cant even use bathrooms they anatomically match without making people uncomfortable...well thats on you and them. Should have listened to fact before you started dabbling in fantasy, now you've made some people stuck in the middle.

 

Let's start with the subject of this thread, where Massachusetts churches are saying they shouldn't have to follow the “public accommodation” restrictions against “discrimination” on the basis of gender identity.