Skip to main content

 

 

"Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines.

 

The dictate comes on the heels of a legal battle with Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in the city, but who oppose gay marriage, The Daily Caller reported."

 

The above is from the rankly conservative Washington Times.

 

 http://www.washingtontimes.com...gays-/#ixzz3GgtUqbIy

 

 

An attorney's opinion piece in the Washington Post puts the matter in better focus.  The attorney, writing in a newspaper generally regarded as left of center, explains why he believes the city's ordinance is unconstitutional: 

 

"Friday, the Knapps moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the antidiscrimination ordinance to them would be unconstitutional and would also violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think that has to be right: compelling them to speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion. Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can’t require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)"

 

Full article at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...gays-/#ixzz3GgtUqbIy 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...t-same-sex-weddings/

I yam what I yam and that's all I yam--but it is enough!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Where do people who oppose same sex marriages draw the line? If it is based on thinking it's wrong, or an 'abomination', or all the other things you hear about gay people, why only oppose them on a few things? Shouldn't you be refusing to treat them medically? Refusing to educate them? Shouldn't you be refusing to rent/sell homes to them? Shouldn't you be refusing to hire them? Shouldn't you be refusing to sell food to them, etc? Or is the problem with that is that it's against the law to refuse those things? Contendah, is your opinion/feelings based on religious reasons, or do you simply not like homosexuals? I know the contempt you have for them, and I remember one of your posts about 'brucesie"(? sp). So, where is the line?

Who they do business with, on the basis of their beliefs or preferences.  If a business owner does  not want to do business with a homosexual, black or mexican, that should be their choice.  They can either sink or swim with their choices.  It ain't the governments job to make us get along. If you disagree with their stance don't go there. It is that simple.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Where do people who oppose same sex marriages draw the line? If it is based on thinking it's wrong, or an 'abomination', or all the other things you hear about gay people, why only oppose them on a few things? Shouldn't you be refusing to treat them medically? Refusing to educate them? Shouldn't you be refusing to rent/sell homes to them? Shouldn't you be refusing to hire them? Shouldn't you be refusing to sell food to them, etc? Or is the problem with that is that it's against the law to refuse those things? Contendah, is your opinion/feelings based on religious reasons, or do you simply not like homosexuals? I know the contempt you have for them, and I remember one of your posts about 'brucesie"(? sp). So, where is the line?

----

Apples and oranges, Best.  Red herring also. You say:

 

"Where do people who oppose same sex marriages draw the line? If it is based on thinking it's wrong, or an 'abomination', or all the other things you hear about gay people, why only oppose them on a few things? Shouldn't you be refusing to treat them medically? Refusing to educate them? Shouldn't you be refusing to rent/sell homes to them? Shouldn't you be refusing to hire them? Shouldn't you be refusing to sell food to them, etc?"

 

You need to understand the differences here, Best. Let's just look at one of your examples, medical treatment for homosexuals.  The providing of  such treatment does not entail the conscription of a second party for services that involve or that imply approval or disapproval , on religious or other grounds, of the sexual preferences of the person receiving treatment .    By contrast, a same-sex wedding ceremony conducted by a minister of religion is a service that is inherently religious in nature.  By performing such a service for a same-sex couple, the minister clearly implies that his action is in accordance with his religious convictions concerning marriage, an institution that he regards as one ordained by God.  He must set aside his sincerely held religious convictions to perform that ceremony. No such demand obtains in the case of a health care professional who provides medical services to a homosexual person. Similarly, no endorsement of homosexuality is implied in providing education to homosexuals or in selling or serving food to them.

 

The law in Idaho provides appropriate  exceptions in such cases as this one.  Here is the text from the Idaho Religious Freedom Restoration Act to which the attorney writing in the Washington Post referred:

 

TITLE 73
GENERAL CODE PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 4
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED
 73-402. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED. (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
(2)  Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(3)  Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(a)  Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
(b)  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(4)  A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this chapter against a government shall recover attorney's fees and costs.
(5)  In this section, the term "substantially burden" is intended solely to ensure that this chapter is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.

History:
[73-402, added 2000, ch. 133, sec. 2, p. 353.]
 
Note (Section (4) above) that if the ministers prevail in their suit, the City of Coeur d'Alene will be required to pay the ministers' legal fees.  No such requirement is imposed upon the plaintiffs (the Knapps) should the city prevail.
 
I suspect that the city will have to pay through its municipal nose.

 

My opinion is indeed based on religious grounds.  As to religious aspects of marriage, I would suggest that the Knapps, should they fail to prevail in court, might substantially discourage requests for same-sex wedding ceremonies by routinely incorporating into their services this wording from Romans 1:

 

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

If the engaged same-sex couple does not like this aspect of the services offered by the Knapps, they can seek assistance elsewhere.

Last edited by Contendah

Who's to say there aren't and wouldn't be doctors, nurses, teachers, food service people, people like you that have a religious objection to it, that would love to refuse to do any sort of business with a homosexual? And too, don't you think, if you base your feelings on the bible, that others are entitled to do the same on other issues?

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Who's to say there aren't and wouldn't be doctors, nurses, teachers, food service people, people like you that have a religious objection to it, that would love to refuse to do any sort of business with a homosexual? And too, don't you think, if you base your feelings on the bible, that others are entitled to do the same on other issues?

________________________________________________

Point by point for the rationality-impaired:

 

"Who's to say there aren't and wouldn't be doctors, nurses, teachers, food service people, people like you that have a religious objection to it, that would love to refuse to do any sort of business with a homosexual?"

 

The LAW, which I cited to you, makes an explicit provision for an exception based on religious exercise. It does not prescribe exceptions for other reasons.  Serving food, providing medical care, etc. are not religious exercises.  Performance of a wedding ceremony by a minister of religion is a religious exercise.

 

"And too, don't you think, if you base your feelings on the bible, that others are entitled to do the same on other issues?"

 

"Others" are entitled to base their concurrences in or objections to various laws on whatever they wish.  Someone who is a bigot and prefers not to provide ordinary secular services to persons of another race can object all they wish, but they remain bound by requirements of law governing such things as access to public accommodations. Basing one's "feelings" upon something, as a general principle, does not give one the right to deny rights to others.  A racist, for example, who operates a restaurant, can not legally refuse to serve persons on the basis of their ethnicity. But the federal government (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) and the state of Idaho (in its own legislation, based closely on the federal act) both recognize an exemption, based on the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, for certain objections grounded upon religious convictions. Neither  state nor federal law are absolute in granting the exemption  To claim it, the contending party must meet this test:

 

(3)  Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(a)  Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
(b)  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
 
At to the Coeur d"Alene issue, the courts will determine whether  the ministers' claim of exemption meets the standard of (3)(a) and (b), above.
 
 

 

 

 

 

Last edited by Contendah

The LAW, which I cited to you, makes an explicit provision for an exception based on religious exercise. It does not prescribe exceptions for other reasons.  Serving food, providing medical care, etc. are not religious exercises.  Performance of a wedding ceremony by a minister of religion is a religious exercise.

 

Once more for those that can't comprehend. They can CLAIM doing ANY service for homosexuals goes against their religion, BECAUSE they think their bible says homosexuality is an abomination and/or sin. A wedding is NOT a religious exercise, neither is baking a freaking cake a religious or sacred, holy exercise, and tossing in the word god does not make it so. Marriage/a wedding is entering into a contract/making a promise to another person, and there is nothing at all holy or sacred about it, no matter who does the service.

 

 

Last edited by Bestworking

After all is said and done, I don't know why a gay couple would even push the issue. Jerks are jerks, and forcing a jerk to do something, imo, helps no one or their cause. If there was no other way to get married unless a preacher or other so called religious leader muttered some words it would be different. I guess all the people who didn't get married in a church by a preacher aren't really married in the eyes of their gawd.

I think you can justify anything by using the bible. Let's say I wanted to discriminate against other races and believed what was in the bible. I could easily justify that discrimination. Many men could, and many do, place women on a lower level by using the bible. And on it goes.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

The LAW, which I cited to you, makes an explicit provision for an exception based on religious exercise. It does not prescribe exceptions for other reasons.  Serving food, providing medical care, etc. are not religious exercises.  Performance of a wedding ceremony by a minister of religion is a religious exercise.

 

Once more for those that can't comprehend. They can CLAIM doing ANY service for homosexuals goes against their religion, BECAUSE they think their bible says homosexuality is an abomination and/or sin. A wedding is NOT a religious exercise, neither is baking a freaking cake a religious or sacred, holy exercise, and tossing in the word god does not make it so. Marriage/a wedding is entering into a contract/making a promise to another person, and there is nothing at all holy or sacred about it, no matter who does the service.

 

 

Bull a wedding in a Church or Chapel is most certainly a Religious exercise.  Nothing stopping anyone from going to the Court House or some other venue to get married.  Using your logic any doctor should be compelled to perform abortions regardless of their personal convictions.

Last edited by HIFLYER2

Using your logic any doctor should be compelled to perform abortions regardless of their personal convictions.

------------------------------

Using your logic anyone should be able to withhold any kind of service because of their personal/religious convictions. A cat can have kittens in the oven but it doesn't make them biscuits. Holding a wedding in a church doesn't make it a religious ceremony. Are funerals held in churches religious ceremonies and the ones held in funeral homes non-religious?

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

After all is said and done, I don't know why a gay couple would even push the issue. Jerks are jerks, and forcing a jerk to do something, imo, helps no one or their cause. If there was no other way to get married unless a preacher or other so called religious leader muttered some words it would be different. I guess all the people who didn't get married in a church by a preacher aren't really married in the eyes of their gawd.

I think you can justify anything by using the bible. Let's say I wanted to discriminate against other races and believed what was in the bible. I could easily justify that discrimination. Many men could, and many do, place women on a lower level by using the bible. And on it goes.

____

And here we go again:

 

After all is said and done, I don't know why a gay couple would even push the issue. Jerks are jerks, and forcing a jerk to do something, imo, helps no one or their cause.

 

Call them jerks if you wish because you disagree with their sincerely-held religious convictions.  The Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, both state and federal, do not regard them as jerks, but instead make reasonable provisions, subject to well-thought-out criteria, to exempt them from being compelled to perform acts that go against their religious beliefs.  You need to remind yourself that there is a Free Exercise Clause in First Amendment of the Constitution and is meant to be given force in law, as the State of Idaho and the federal government have done in this case.

 

 If there was no other way to get married unless a preacher or other so called religious leader muttered some words it would be different. I guess all the people who didn't get married in a church by a preacher aren't really married in the eyes of their gawd.

 

A gross over-generalization, Best.  Very few churches deny the validity of secularly-performed wedding ceremonies ("civil ceremonies"), the Roman Catholic Church being chiefest among them.  I personally, and virtually everyone I know, agree that marriage vows exchanged in a non-religious

wedding ceremony are every bit as valid as those exchanged in a religious venue. 

 

I think you can justify anything by using the bible. Let's say I wanted to discriminate against other races and believed what was in the bible. I could easily justify that discrimination. Many men could, and many do, place women on a lower level by using the bible. And on it goes.

 

Others have misused the Bible as a basis for imposing racist bigotry.  Those who do will run afoul of the law if they use it as a basis for denying civil rights. As to "plac[ing] women on a lower level<" the Bible decidedly does NOT do that."  The Biblical definition of the roles of men and women places women and men in different statuses, but neither status is inferior to the other.

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

The LAW, which I cited to you, makes an explicit provision for an exception based on religious exercise. It does not prescribe exceptions for other reasons.  Serving food, providing medical care, etc. are not religious exercises.  Performance of a wedding ceremony by a minister of religion is a religious exercise.

 

Once more for those that can't comprehend. They can CLAIM doing ANY service for homosexuals goes against their religion, BECAUSE they think their bible says homosexuality is an abomination and/or sin. A wedding is NOT a religious exercise, neither is baking a freaking cake a religious or sacred, holy exercise, and tossing in the word god does not make it so. Marriage/a wedding is entering into a contract/making a promise to another person, and there is nothing at all holy or sacred about it, no matter who does the service.

 

 

Bull a wedding in a Church or Chapel is most certainly a Religious exercise.  Nothing stopping anyone from going to the Court House or some other venue to get married.  Using your logic any doctor should be compelled to perform abortions regardless of their personal convictions.

===========

I agree. Marriage is a legal matter, which preachers are allowed to perform. If someone wants to marry in a church, they should be willing to yield to the wishes of the church. Otherwise, go get married by a JP, or ships captain or someone else for that matter.
As to the matter of the bakery on the other hand, they are open to business to the public, and have no religious standing to refuse service to a gay couple any more than a restaurant manager can refuse to serve them.

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
So a priest should have to allow a satanic wedding in a Church.
-----------------------------------

Don't satanists have their own churches? I do know of a case where a girl, coc, wanted music at her wedding so she 'borrowed' a Baptist church. Her coc preacher conducted the ceremony in that Baptist church. That seemed strange to me, and a whole lot hypocritical.

Last edited by Bestworking

Meet the couple who will whip the City of Coeur d'Alene into submission.

 

---------------------------------

LOL! Oh the drama. Meet the men/women, democrats, you know, the party that claims to be for the rights of people, that opposes same sex marriage on the grounds that their gawd says it's wrong, yet has no problem attacking others that think that same god doesn't like something the dems agree with, and no problem calling them right wing religious nuts/extremists. It's true, you can't make up this stuff. Marriage is a contract. That's it, nothing at all sacred about marriage. Yes indeed, the couple that will "whip the City of Coeur d'Alene into submission", have no problem persecuting others, then cry like little bi***** and claim they're being persecuted for being christians, and they can't spout their beliefs in public places.

The question that one has to ask is Why would anyone want someone who does not believe that "the marriage they are presiding over" is justified, presiding over their marriage ceremony?  In most states the marriage certificate has to be signed by the person performing the ceremony.  How can a person legally "certify" a marriage they do not acknowledge?  Why not just go to a minister or clergy who believes in such things and have them do it?  Why force someone to oversee a ceremony in which they do not want to be a part of?  The lack of logic here boggles the mind.

 

Originally Posted by teyates:

The question that one has to ask is Why would anyone want someone who does not believe that "the marriage they are presiding over" is justified, presiding over their marriage ceremony?  In most states the marriage certificate has to be signed by the person performing the ceremony.  How can a person legally "certify" a marriage they do not acknowledge?  Why not just go to a minister or clergy who believes in such things and have them do it?  Why force someone to oversee a ceremony in which they do not want to be a part of?  The lack of logic here boggles the mind.

 

______

Teyates,

 

The "logic" is an element of the allegedly "non-existent" gay agenda, which does exist and is alive and active in many areas of this nation.   Controlling and subduing those who hold a different viewpoint on homosexuality is an inherent part of that agenda.  Much of the negative criticism of homosexuality comes from the conservative religious sector, so it is a "natural" target for those who wish to advance the interests of their unnatural life styles.

 

Originally Posted by teyates:

The question that one has to ask is Why would anyone want someone who does not believe that "the marriage they are presiding over" is justified, presiding over their marriage ceremony?  In most states the marriage certificate has to be signed by the person performing the ceremony.  How can a person legally "certify" a marriage they do not acknowledge?  Why not just go to a minister or clergy who believes in such things and have them do it?  Why force someone to oversee a ceremony in which they do not want to be a part of?  The lack of logic here boggles the mind.

 ---------------------------

I guess the same reason people want to force others to rent to them, or do other things for them when that person is opposed to them for some reason. Who would want to live in a house or neighborhood that didn't want them? Plenty do, and dare people to say anything or act on their feelings. Why can't homeowners discriminate if business owners can? Again, forcing a jerk to do something changes nothing, the person is still a jerk and instead of changing their minds, being forced to do something against their will only reinforces their hurt/hateful feelings and makes all the like minded people toss them a pity party. The ones pushing the issue gets their pity party too, and a lot of times money for being 'slighted'. Most times I don't think they care about the slight IF it means a pay day for them, and too many actively seek situations to exploit. If people are not doing things the correct way, anyone should be able to tell them to hit the bricks without fear of reprisals. On the other hand, I don't see the reasoning behind the need to hate and deny people things based ONLY on their sexual preference or race. If people are not doing things the correct way you should be able to tell them to hit the bricks without fear of reprisals. It's a messed up world and not getting any better.

 

Teyates,

 

The "logic" is an element of the allegedly "non-existent" gay agenda, which does exist and is alive and active in many areas of this nation.   Controlling and subduing those who hold a different viewpoint on homosexuality is an inherent part of that agenda.  Much of the negative criticism of homosexuality comes from the conservative religious sector, so it is a "natural" target for those who wish to advance the interests of their unnatural life styles.

------------------------------------------------------

 

LOL! Just what I've been saying. Here's a classic example of a democrat using religion WHILE claiming it is the religious right that does it!!! Twister has to be their favorite game!!

Last edited by Bestworking

Well that is pretty much my point.  I did not see these people (ministers, clergy, bakers, etc) advertising that they would not marry gays or lesbians, or refuse to bake them a cake.  Instead, when these people quietly told them "no", a big fit was thrown, and now the "offended" are trying to see to it that they are publically forced to comply.  It makes no sense. This does more to hurt the gay agenda than help it, but they probably never heard that you can catch more flies with sugar than you can with salt.

 

But, on the other hand, it makes no sense to me to refuse to bake a cake. Cakes aren't religious or holy, baking a cake doesn't mean an agreement with the person, seeing as how there is NO way to know things about people unless they tell you. Would they refuse to bake a cake for other people? How about refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple? How about refusing to bake a cake for an older man/young girl, older woman/young boy?

 

 

 

Last edited by Bestworking

Well I am sure the bridal party asked for a wedding cake, and then probably specified they wanted two men on it.  I can see where the baker could have been offended.  Again, do you not support the right of a business to refuse service or to comply with an action that goes against their beliefs or moral values? It is a slippery slope.

 

 Again, do you not support the right of a business to refuse service or to comply with an action that goes against their beliefs or moral values?

 

-------------------------------

Honestly? I think it's all BS. You can come up with all sorts of questions. It's BS to open a business knowing you will be asked to do things you might not agree with and are determined not to follow the law/laws. I think it's BS to go into a business and start BS. Order the freaking cake and go to ANY cake decorating store and buy a topper of two men, OR advertise that you are looking for a 'gay friendly' baker. Can I tell the baker I don't agree with their stance and refuse to do business with them? If not, why not?

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Meet the couple who will whip the City of Coeur d'Alene into submission.

 

---------------------------------

LOL! Oh the drama. Meet the men/women, democrats, you know, the party that claims to be for the rights of people, that opposes same sex marriage on the grounds that their gawd says it's wrong, yet has no problem attacking others that think that same god doesn't like something the dems agree with, and no problem calling them right wing religious nuts/extremists. It's true, you can't make up this stuff. Marriage is a contract. That's it, nothing at all sacred about marriage. Yes indeed, the couple that will "whip the City of Coeur d'Alene into submission", have no problem persecuting others, then cry like little bi***** and claim they're being persecuted for being christians, and they can't spout their beliefs in public places.

____

It is YOU who are the dramatist, Best.  The Knapps are persecuting NO ONE.   Based upon sincerely-held religious beliefs, they have politely and respectfully declined to perform same-sex marriages.  Numerous nearby venues exist that will readily accommodate same-sex couples who wish to marry.  The city's ordinance expressly provides a religious exemption that will, in litigation, be held applicable to the Knapps, irrespective of the terse and invalid interpretation placed on that ordinance by city officialdom. Those who crafted and approved  the religious exemption in the ordinance certainly did not entertain any notion that its application in factual circumstances would constitute persecution. 

 

Read the complaint I posted.  It is powerful stuff; the Knapps will prevail.  The drama you fabricate is downright silly, since all a gay couple has to do to get "married" in Coeur d'Alene is simply to go to another nearby venue that will be happy to accommodate them. It is pretty wussy for anyone to complain of "persecution" under those circumstances. 

Read the complaint I posted.  It is powerful stuff; the Knapps will prevail.  The drama you fabricate is downright silly, since all a gay couple has to do to get "married" in Coeur d'Alene is simply to go to another nearby venue that will be happy to accommodate them. It is pretty wussy for anyone to complain of "persecution" under those circumstances. 

 

-----------------------

Being 'wussy' has never stopped the religious types from claiming persecution. MY point, if you can claim persecution, the people you are opposing can do the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Teyates,

 

The "logic" is an element of the allegedly "non-existent" gay agenda, which does exist and is alive and active in many areas of this nation.   Controlling and subduing those who hold a different viewpoint on homosexuality is an inherent part of that agenda.  Much of the negative criticism of homosexuality comes from the conservative religious sector, so it is a "natural" target for those who wish to advance the interests of their unnatural life styles.

------------------------------------------------------

 

LOL! Just what I've been saying. Here's a classic example of a democrat using religion WHILE claiming it is the religious right that does it!!! Twister has to be their favorite game!!

___

If you wish to complain about someone "using religion", then consider the city of Coeur d'Alene's ordinance, which provides this carefully-crafted conditional exemption for religious activity:

 

(3)  Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(a)  Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
(b)  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(4)  A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this chapter against a government shall recover attorney's fees and costs.
 
All the Knapps are asking is that they be granted this exemption, to which the courts will find that they are entitled.  It is not "using religion" to seek such an exemption, which is available in law.
 
Sure, I cited  the fact that religious conservatives often negatively criticize homosexuality. They do so on the basis of sincerely-held religious views, backed up by scripture (See Romans 1:18-26).  In no way does this constitute "using religion" any more than preaching against murder, adultery, lying,
stealing, child abuse etc. constitutes "using religion."  In no way does my pointing out this fact constitute "using religion" on my part. Your silly spin on this is downright laughable. 
 
Sure, I cited  the fact that religious conservatives often negatively criticize homosexuality. They do so on the basis of sincerely-held religious views, backed up by scripture (See Romans 1:18-26).  In no way does this constitute "using religion" any more than preaching against murder, adultery, lying,
stealing, child abuse etc. constitutes "using religion."  In no way does my pointing out this fact constitute "using religion" on my part. Your silly spin on this is downright laughable.
------------------------
 How was it spun? Youare using religion, you do claim the right does it more. I have always maintained the left uses it every bit as much or more. What's laughable about the truth?
Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

MY point, if you can claim persecution, the people you are opposing can do the same.

 

____________________

 

Your point is worthless.  The inanity of your over-generalization is truly remarkable. Tell the survivors of Auschwitz that their claims of persecution justify the same claim on the part of some old surviving **** concentration camp guard who helped abuse them.

 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Sure, I cited  the fact that religious conservatives often negatively criticize homosexuality. They do so on the basis of sincerely-held religious views, backed up by scripture (See Romans 1:18-26).  In no way does this constitute "using religion" any more than preaching against murder, adultery, lying,
stealing, child abuse etc. constitutes "using religion."  In no way does my pointing out this fact constitute "using religion" on my part. Your silly spin on this is downright laughable.
------------------------
 How was it spun? Youare using religion, you do claim the right does it more. I have always maintained the left uses it every bit as much or more. What's laughable about the truth?

____

Ridiculous.  About the most nonsensical thing you have ever posted.  SHOW ME how I am "using religion."  Citing religious beliefs that are an inherent part of this controversy and relating those beliefs to applicable elements of law is in no way "using religion." And that is what I have done.

 

By your distorted reckoning, the introduction of virtually any religious content into discussion of this topic--which is loaded with religious implications--would constitute "using religion."  

 

As to the right wing's "use" of religion, sure, there might well be more religious content online and elsewhere from the right  If so (and I make no pretense at having conducted any scientific survey on this matter) it is most probably  because they are more religious as a group than are liberals, there being exceptions on both parts.  When I object to the right's use of religion, it is when I find myself in disagreement with some particular application of religious doctrines or principles, as with certain right wing insistence on theocratic encroachments into civil government. No  inconsistency there, Best--just independent thinking.  You should try it some time.

Last edited by Contendah

Your point is worthless.  The inanity of your over-generalization is truly remarkable. Tell the survivors of Auschwitz that their claims of persecution justify the same claim on the part of some old surviving **** concentration camp guard who helped abuse them.

 

------------------------------------

How idiotic and shameless you are. You should know very well I was NOT and would not compare the two. If you want to go there, then I will point out it's people like the knapps, you ,and the bill gray types that should be ashamed to cry persecution. It's a HUGE difference in being beaten, starved, watching your family tortured, tormented, robbed of all your possessions, and put in a freaking oven, and being told you have to perform a same sex marriage or be fined. For you to insinuate I'd ever compare the two, in order for you to avoid my real point, doing the bill gray shuffle there, shows just how small minded you really are. I guess gays are lucky, you only want to deny them rights, the ****'s killed them.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Your point is worthless.  The inanity of your over-generalization is truly remarkable. Tell the survivors of Auschwitz that their claims of persecution justify the same claim on the part of some old surviving **** concentration camp guard who helped abuse them.

 

------------------------------------

How idiotic and shameless you are. You should know very well I was NOT and would not compare the two. If you want to go there, then I will point out it's people like the knapps, you ,and the bill gray types that should be ashamed to cry persecution. It's a HUGE difference in being beaten, starved, watching your family tortured, tormented, robbed of all your possessions, and put in a freaking oven, and being told you have to perform a same sex marriage or be fined. For you to insinuate I'd ever compare the two, in order for you to avoid my real point, doing the bill gray shuffle there, shows just how small minded you really are. I guess gays are lucky, you only want to deny them rights, the ****'s killed them.

___

Hey , you poor thing you, YOU are the one who submitted this all-subsuming, overly-generalized statement:

 

"MY point, if you can claim persecution, the people you are opposing can do the same."

 

Now you rise up in high dudgeon to condemn me when I show you the absurd extreme to which such an unqualified statement leads .

 

Grow up and learn to express yourself sensibly.

 

I have fully dealt with your "real point', showing how absurd you are in accusing me of "using religion."  My post directly above addresses that "real point." Now hit your keyboard and see if you can come up with some substantive and objective response to THAT.

 

Now you rise up in high dudgeon to condemn me when I show you the absurd extreme to which such an unqualified statement leads .

 I 'rise up' against your ridiculous attempt to deflect.

 

Grow up and learn to express yourself sensibly.

 Take your own advice and stop doing the fundy shuffle you claim to hate so much.

 

I have fully dealt with your "real point', showing how absurd you are in accusing me of "using religion."  My post directly above addresses that "real point." Now hit your keyboard and see if you can come up with some substantive and objective response to THAT.

 

You have dealt with NOTHING. All you did was pull a 'bill gray' and go off in a direction that has no bearing whatsoever on the subject of this thread, the one you started btw, and then tried to claim some sort of victory. You absolutely are using religion and you know it.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

 

Now you rise up in high dudgeon to condemn me when I show you the absurd extreme to which such an unqualified statement leads .

 I 'rise up' against your ridiculous attempt to deflect.

 

Grow up and learn to express yourself sensibly.

 Take your own advice and stop doing the fundy shuffle you claim to hate so much.

 

I have fully dealt with your "real point', showing how absurd you are in accusing me of "using religion."  My post directly above addresses that "real point." Now hit your keyboard and see if you can come up with some substantive and objective response to THAT.

 

You have dealt with NOTHING. All you did was pull a 'bill gray' and go off in a direction that has no bearing whatsoever on the subject of this thread, the one you started btw, and then tried to claim some sort of victory. You absolutely are using religion and you know it.

___

I dealt with your assertions about "using religion" HERE, and you have offered nothing of any substance whatsoever in rebuttal.  Here it is again; try harder--much harder:

 

By your distorted reckoning, the introduction of virtually any religious content into discussion of this topic--which is loaded with religious implications--would constitute "using religion."  

 

As to the right wing's "use" of religion, sure, there might well be more religious content online and elsewhere from the right  If so (and I make no pretense at having conducted any scientific survey on this matter) it is most probably  because they are more religious as a group than are liberals, there being exceptions on both parts. When I object to the right's use of religion, it is when I find myself in disagreement with some particular application of religious doctrines or principles, as with certain right wing insistence on theocratic encroachments into civil government. No inconsistency there, Best--just independent thinking.  You should try it some time.

 

Contrary to your assertion, the above has MUCH to do with the topic of this thread.

Are you not including the Knapps and their supporters among those you accuse of "using religion"? The topic is 'Same Sex Marriage--The Wild West".  The Knapps are central figures within this topic. My comments above are very germane to the topic, most especially my first paragraph.  The Knapps are not "using religion".  They are availing themselves of the opportunity to claim an exemption provided in the law and they are proceeding to do that in a manner in accordance with law, specifically they have filed a lawsuit for that purpose, which they have every right to do.

 

It is only your generalized disdain for religion that compels you to the indefensible conclusion that these sincerely religious people are "using religion."  Tell me this: If they prevail in their suit, will you still contend that they are "using religion."  Your answer will tell us much about where you really stand on this controversy.  

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×