Dodging the question? LOLwho gives a shit what some bigoted, backwards church does. as long as the state hands out the marriage license. there are plenty of churches that will marry them.
Dodging the question? LOLwho gives a shit what some bigoted, backwards church does. as long as the state hands out the marriage license. there are plenty of churches that will marry them.
he answered it. it was a yes/ wouldn't matterDodging the question? LOL
Same goes to Wordz and cannabineer or any other person on here.If gays and lesbians were allowed to call it marriage, would you agree to a federal law that would protect religious institutions from being sued for not marrying them.
Dude, I can read, he said who gives a shit, not yes I would support the federal law.he answered it. it was a yes/ wouldn't matter
i answered your question. and there already is a law that protects the bigoted, backwards churches (not from being sued, but from losing the lawsuit), it's called the first amendment.Same goes to Wordz and cannabineer or any other person on here.
i indulged your deflection, now go ahead and tell us why you assert that gays and lesbians don't deserve the title of marriage.Dude, I can read, he said who gives a shit, not yes I would support the federal law.
OK I'll bite. I would not seek or approve of such legislation. I don't care for evangelism in either direction. cnSame goes to Wordz and cannabineer or any other person on here.
Are you too fucking stupid to figure out why I'm against gays calling it marriage?i answered your question. and there already is a law that protects the bigoted, backwards churches (not from being sued, but from losing the lawsuit), it's called the first amendment.
now go ahead and stop dodging the question.
Is it because you want to save the sanctity of church? those poor churches are always being tread on.Are you too fucking stupid to figure out why I'm against gays calling it marriage?
So would you support a federal law protecting any church from being sued for not marrying them?
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.OK I'll bite. I would not seek or approve of such legislation. I don't care for evangelism in either direction. cn
Yes. If they don't agree with the churches stance on marriage, why would they want them to marry them anyway?Are you too fucking stupid to figure out why I'm against gays calling it marriage?
So would you support a federal law protecting any church from being sued for not marrying them?
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.Is it because you want to save the sanctity of church? those poor churches are always being tread on.
Oh yeah, to make the "news".Yes. If they don't agree with the churches stance on marriage, why would they want them to marry them anyway?
so why shouldn't gays be allowed to be married?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.
Most of them won't want to get married in a church that does not honor their marriage, but you and I both know there will be some that will slap a civil rights lawsuit the first chance they get.Yes. If they don't agree with the churches stance on marriage, why would they want them to marry them anyway?
And they are free to do so. i still say that they should lose. Not because i disagree with them but because i support the freedom to stand for what you believe in.Most of them won't want to get married in a church that does not honor their marriage, but you and I both know there will be some that will slap a civil rights lawsuit the first chance they get.