Chic-fil-a is kicking some butt!

[budlover13]

Gay marriage= threat to the constitution

i don't see how unless the gov says that THEY have the right over marriage.

 

[UncleBuck]

Are you too fucking stupid to figure out why I'm against gays calling it marriage?

yes, apparently i am. so step right on out and say it.

why do you so vehemently object to gays getting the same title for their loving marriage as the rest of us do?

 

[budlover13]

Church = the only way to get married

Ever hear of a "justice of the peace"?

 

[beenthere]

Gay marriage= threat to the constitution

Refusal of gay marriage by church=Lawsuit

 

[cannabineer]

Then you are clearly the bigot here, you and people like you are the reason gays do not yet have equal protection rights for civil unions. Look up the word bigot, you are the dead in definition of it.

This confused me since I thought i was making the freer choice. Then I realized, upon re-reading your premise post, that I'd omitted one of the nested "nots". To clarify, I thought I was opting for "no lawsuits". I don't begrudge churches their right to marry whom they choose. I would begrudge them the right to dictate to those outside their congregation. What can I say; I've had summat smoky.
That said, why would a separate Federal law be of advantage? As UB pointed out, churches are already protected by the Constitution afaik. cn

 

[Wordz]

i don't see how unless the gov says that THEY have the right over marriage.

beenqueer says that gays getting married will have all the gays suing church's unless a new law is put in place that says specifically that gays can't sue the church's. The gays will supersede the constitution without a law in place

 

[budlover13]

Refusal of gay marriage by church=Lawsuit

"Lawsuit" doesn't = payday though.

 

[UncleBuck]

Nope, I could care less about the sanctity of the church, I just don't think it's right to subject church's to lawsuits for protecting they're own religious beliefs and rights afforded to them in the 1st amendment.

#1 - why the fuck did you put an apostrophe in "churches"?

#2 - why the fuck did you use "they're" instead of "their"?

#3 - no one would win a lawsuit against a church that refused to marry a gay couple, it's called the first amendment. you're right on par with the morons passing laws disallowing sharia law. redundant and unnecessary, but an excellent way to spot the bigots.

#4 - there are plenty of churches that will marry gays.

#5 - you don't need a church to marry you, i am an ordained dudist and have the powers to marry people.

#6 - stop dodging and answer the question already. getting bigots to admit their bigotry is worse than herding cats.

 

[Wordz]

Ever hear of a "justice of the peace"?

hey be a good mod and read the thread maybe you will know what is going on.

 

[budlover13]

beenqueer says that gays getting married will have all the gays suing church's unless a new law is put in place that says specifically that gays can't sue the church's. The gays will supersede the constitution without a law in place

Again, they are free to sue. They are also free to pay the churches expenses of defending such a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[budlover13]

hey be a good mod and read the thread maybe you will know what is going on.

Ummmm, i have? Lol.

 

[beenthere]

Does a gay's right to get married in a church that does not recognize that right, trump the church's right of exercising their first amendment?

 

[Wordz]

Does a gay's right to get married in a church that does not recognize that right, trump the church's right of exercising their first amendment?

what right to get married in a church are you talking about? you're making shit up.

 

[beenthere]

Again, they are free to sue. They are also free to pay the churches expenses of defending such a frivolous lawsuit.

I don't believe that works for civil rights lawsuits.

 

[Wordz]

Church's also shouldn't have to marry those interracials cuz the bible says so.

 

[budlover13]

Does a gay's right to get married in a church that does not recognize that right, trump the church's right of exercising their first amendment?

What right do they have to get married there? If the churches stance is anti-gay and they are members, that's THEIR bad, not the churches.

 

[cannabineer]

Does a gay's right to get married in a church that does not recognize that right, trump the church's right of exercising their first amendment?

Now you're just being cheeky. Granting gays the right to call their marriage what it is does not give them the right to compel any church of their choice to perform the ceremony. What is your goal here? cn

<edit> Budlover said it first.

 

[budlover13]

Church's also shouldn't have to marry those interracials cuz the bible says so.

They shouldn't HAVE to marry ANYONE. Because it's their right to do so or not.

 

[UncleBuck]

Does a gay's right to get married in a church that does not recognize that right, trump the church's right of exercising their first amendment?

jesus fuck you are bad at deflecting.

no one is saying that churches have to marry gays, all we want to know is why YOU insist that gays' loving marriages can't be called "marriage" and why they must be given a different title.

 

[budlover13]

jesus fuck you are bad at deflecting.

no one is saying that churches have to marry gays, all we want to know is why YOU insist that gays' loving marriages can't be called "marriage" and why they must be given a different title.

Because of tax code. /discussion.