Pastor Protection Act

Not needed.  The protection is already in place.  This is just pandering to the religious wackos in their constituency. 

____

You are correct.  The belt is more than adequate; no suspenders are needed:

 

"The nonpartisan Pew Research Center notes that "virtually everyone agrees that the First Amendment ... protects clergy from being required to officiate at marriages for same-sex couples and churches from being forced to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in their sanctuaries." Even the anti-gay Family Research Council notes that "churches and ministers have solid protection ... [T]here is no appreciable risk that clergy would be compelled by a court to host or perform a same-sex ceremony."

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/U...e-Court-ruling-video

____

They won't be.  The proposed act should be entitled the "Posturing and Pandering Act."

Yes, don't force the bigots to do something against their precious beliefs. I still don't understand why a gay couple would want such a person to marry them anyway. There are plenty of other civil-minded people that can do it.

Well I don't think that disagreeing with gay marriage makes one a bigot.
This is the kind of harsh "intolerance" that Christians face. If we have a different opinion, we get slammed with "bigot". #notright

And you use the word "precious". You're right- beliefs to some people ARE precious. So much in fact that they would die for them.
This is what bothers me about all these debates- it's acceptable for you (David) to mock people for Christian beliefs, but good golly we better go and agree with YOU or else we are labelled bigots.

And the ones disagreeing with you are labeled, "harsh".

It was a harsh response. Do you dispute that? Come on....

What was harsh about it? As harsh as a poster telling another they should be killed in public, yet YOU don't seem to think anything of that, and inquire 'nice nice', sweet sweet, butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, after the poster that made the statement. Yes, I agree, they are bigoted, bigoted hypocrites, and anyone trying to force them to perform the ceremony are trouble makers and hypocrites. So what? Preachers marry the scum of the earth every day and no one makes a peep. Everyone in the world is bigoted, everyone in the world is racist to some extent. Everyone in the world wants the freedom to do what they want, yet they want to deny others the same freedom. There's no answer. Get over it. Marriage is not holy or sacred. It's a contract.

As far as your rant about killing someone in public I have no earthly idea what you're talking about......stay on topic.

And yes, to me, it is holy and sacred.
My opinion being no less valid than yours. And I'm far from being alone in my opinion

And I am not alone in mine. There is nothing that makes it holy. Again, the scum of the earth are married by preachers, I guess that makes them all 'holy'. Child molesters, drug addicts, sexual addicts and people into all sorts of 'debauchery' are married by preachers and it's OK and 'holy' as long as they are separate sex couples. Plueeezeeeeeeeeeee. Hypocrites.

==============

I am on topic. The subject is bigots and hypocrites. I pointed out your hypocrisy since you seem to think people are treating you with 'intolerance.' Hypocrite. You know exactly what I am referring to and who.

 

Nope sorry I was long gone when all that drama unfolded.

Nope, sorry, you were here. This was long before your 2 month hiatus. You haven't been 'long gone' at all. You were here when bill was banned. Two months is what you call 'long gone'? Whatever, carry on your bizarre forum life.

Been gone way longer than 2 months, dear. And no, was not here when Bill was banned. In fact just learned about it this month when I came back.
Whatever, is right. I'm tired of the bickery nonsense.

---

David's response is exactly why more protections are needed.

Then something is very wrong. You were shown as being here in Feb., bill got himself banned in Jan. As stated, carry on with whatever game you're playing.

=================

Protection against what?

________________

Protection from what, exactly?

Protection from this double standard. That if we disagree with you, we are bigoted. By the way, 40% of the country disagrees with you.

===================

So I guess that means 60% disagrees with you. What double standard? That if we disagree with you we are bigoted? I thought we covered that earlier.

This one looked like fun, and officer McHottie didn't hurt things either!!!!!

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidm...ks-finest#.sw87dkVDV

 

Repost, for David. BTW, 'me too', if you get my drift.

You are certainly more intelligent than that. Supporting gay marriage makes you a "champion for the oppressed and for equality". Eyc
But if I am in favor of traditional marriage, my opinion makes me a bigot.
Double.standard.
Those who cry for tolerance have tolerance only for those who agree with them. Not with MY Christian beliefs

No tolerance, and crying for tolerance sounds like your posts.  Bigoted and calling others bigots, your posts.

You are certainly more intelligent than that. Supporting gay marriage makes you a "champion for the oppressed and for equality". Eyc
But if I am in favor of traditional marriage, my opinion makes me a bigot.
Double.standard.

================

Supporting gay marriages only makes me a person that can't understand why you or anyone else opposes two consenting, of age, mentally capable of consenting humans entering into a contract with each other. What do you think you are by opposing it?  Upright and righteous? Yet you let all sorts of other crap go by because the couple is straight? You don't get bent out of shape over any other contracts. What is 'traditional' marriage? Again, read the definition and then get back to me. Even 'straight' people don't get married in the traditional way. Or is having a passel of kids out of wedlock traditional? Is sleeping and living together for years before getting married traditional? Is walking down the aisle two short days or weeks of giving birth traditional? That traditional BS is just that, BS.

Did I say I believed in having kids out of wedlock? No. So what that has to do with anything I have no idea.
Look at things from a sociological perspective. Society is built on the family unit as the basic structure. We have watched the demise of the family unit over the last decade or so (divorce, single parent etc). This is just one more assault on the family. Nothing more nothing less.
Good day, now. Gotta go to work.

You don't seem to have any idea about anything. You yap about traditional marriage so I asked you if living together, kids out of wedlock, other things 'straight people do, is considered traditional. If you don't think it is, why do you stay quiet about it but choose to speak up when it's gay marriage, and invoke the 'it's not traditional' argument? Families being torn apart have nothing to do with gay people getting married/entering into contracts. Can you remember how to get to work? Your memory seems 'off' lately.

Why do I stay quiet about divorce, kids out of wedlock etc!? Because they are not hot topic issues being ruled on by the supremes at the moment. Duh...

____

That explanation will not impress Best, because it calls into question her irremediable compulsion to play the "So's yer old man" game!

No, it's the 'you're a hypocrite claim' and it's not a game. Duh.

Oh I know. Nothing will satisfy her because she belongs to the "whatever I say is right" club and if you disagree you must be a bigot...
But c'est la vie. Some people just thrive on arguing. I'm glad that's not me - I think it would be a quite miserable existence

=============================

No, you stay quiet because as long as it is straight people you don't give a flip. Hypocrite. What would it matter if it was being ruled on? Either it bothers you or it doesn't. Same sex marriage contracts don't bother me. Why don't you hypocrites pray on it? Pfttttttttttttttttttttttt

___

What it actually is is the "I don't have any real argument of substance to direct at the actual issue, so I will blurt out some peripheral and irrelevant  stuff instead."

============

I think being an old hypocritical 'church lady' would be the most miserable existence, always getting upset because people want to live with the person they love and enter into a contract, and your gawd, the one that overlooks everything else nasty that people do, won't like it. Trying to please that gawd has to be the miserable existence. What are you saying vplee, if not "whatever I say is right" and if you disagree you are 'intolerant' and picking on christians? And I'M arguing but you're doing what??? Hypocrite.

Just stating my opinion. Not arguing. You have no idea about me and what "causes" I get upset about. Stop trying to be the "winner" of an argument and try to see someone else's point of view.

 What do you consider me trying to win? You posted your opinion and I replied with my opinion and you call it 'arguing' and trying to win. So that's how it works with you eh? You post and everyone else just goes on because you have "spoken" and if they don't go on and reply, they just like to argue. Strange way to look at it. See your point of view and do what? Change their minds to suit you? Why? I see your point of view, I just don't agree with it.

No, you come out with the name calling and irrelevant side arguments, belittling my beliefs (ie your "gawd")  and then act indignant and surprised  when it ****es me off.
Bye.