Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

You mean that the unconstitutional laws have been rightly thrown out by the Federal Appeals Courts. Because there was no valid argument for the bans. When you don't even know which courts are involved you can hardly claim to be informed about the actual cases.And of course, characterising the courts as "sick" and "evil" simply for coming to a decision you don't like is just the demonisation of opponents.I guess that will be the justification you use for the re-education camps.
(Well, how else are you going to convince us that we're Nazis ?)

How about the 1994 fire-bombing of the Kalispell clinic ? And we know who did that. He admitted it in court. more

quote:

---

Any court that denies the rights of the people who object to gay marriage is sick, evil and unconstitutional

---

They have no right to institute laws discriminating against gays. Gays DO have the right to equal treatment, and that argues for legalisation of gay marriage for reasons already given.

quote:

---

I don't care which court it is, why should I? It all ends up at the Supreme Court ultimately.

---

So you think it's all right to call people "sick" and "evil" for something that they haven't done.

quote:

---

Of course the Supreme Court will eventually get the chance to strike down the sanity with their insanity. I wonder what the chances are that they might actually obey the Constitution? I'll be praying.

---

You'll be praying that they DON'T obey the Constitution.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

That is the same clinic jar evidenced

---

Of course it is. The quote came from Jar's link. I was pointing out something in it that you had overlooked. Of course it is only one of the 8 clinics he fire-bombed.

quote:

---

And your example, which may or may not be a different case I don't know, is of ONE man's criminal behavior

---

I never said that it was anything else.

quote:

---

you like to smear the thousands of peaceful protestors with that one unrepresentative person

---

I do ? Please tell me where I attempted to do that. It seems to me that that better describes your behaviour.

quote:

---

Oh gosh, just pull out the PC terms "discriminate" and "equal treatment" and you can make a case for legitimizing anything you want

---

Obviously not, as your failure to make a case against gay marriage shows.

quote:

---

Gay marriage is a travesty, but of course it is being crammed down the throats of the majority of the people with all that false PC verbiage trailing off it and eventually you will triumph over all reason and be a very happy man.

---

Just more empty rhetoric. Which just shows that you claims about the Constitution are also empty.

quote:

---

Please tell you where you attempted to do that? I'd say you must be joking but obviously you are just blind.

---

No Faith. I can see that what you said is not true.

quote:

---

You did it in that very example, as I already pointed out. You smeared the decades of the thousands of peaceful protests with that one criminal person.

---

And how did I do that ? I didn't say anything about the peaceful protesters. I simply pointed out that you had missed the best piece of evidence that Jar had provided.You will note that I haven't supported any of his other links at all. I think that all his other links are rather poor, to be honest, not demonstrating anything worse than harassment of patients (which is bad, but not on a par with death threats).

quote:

---

Really it comes down to the fact that you all regard homosexuals as a legitimate minority group protected by the First Amendment and I don't.

---

In fact it doesn't, but thank you for admitting that you think that you can decide who does and who does not have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It's implicit in what you've said but now you've made it plain. Even though you obviously have no idea what the First Amendment says.

quote:

---

You also don't seem to care that Christians were originally the concern of the First Amendment, THE group that had been oppressed and persecuted in Europe and founded the nation on the concept of liberty and fought for that liberty in the Revolutionary War and wanted that liberty guaranteed in the Constitution of the new nation. You'll happily trash our rights for those of this other group you want to see protected.

---

We don't believe the lies, of course. In reality the First Amendment was meant to apply to all religions. Although protecting Christians from other Christians was part of it. The Puritans oppression of the Catholics in Maryland is a case in point.But it is also a lie that we seek to deny your Constitutional rights. Now certainly you deny the segregationists - as Christian as you - the same rights that you claim. We, however dispute your claim - and we have arguments which you need to answer. You neither answer our arguments nor offer any reason why the segregationists can be denied their "rights" but not you.

quote:

---

Be that as it may, in order for me to persuade you that gay marriage should not be supported I'd first have to prove that America was founded on Biblical principles, which I believe but couldn't possibly prove to any of you after a century of propaganda that claims otherwise.

---

Funny how truths you want suppressed are always "propaganda"

quote:

---

Just out of curiosity, what should be done with those of us who will go on saying that homosexuality is a sin that will be punished by God if the person doesn't repent and turn to Christ, and that gay marriage is a violation of God's laws that can only bring His judgment against a nation? According to your way of construing all this will we continue to have that right or be punished for it?

---

So long as you don't go off into territory that does break the law, or agreements you've made of course you're free to say that in the US, and I wouldn't want that to change. But passing a law against gay marriage on that basis is also against the U.S. Constitution, so you cannot expect that, nor fairly rail against the courts for denying it.

We'll see you for what you are. And you'll complain bitterly about that, too.

Just as you aren't free to declare your businesses "whites only". It's the same law.

Doesn't change the fact that you have no problems when it's other people's religious beliefs getting the same treatment.

quote:

---

What same treatment? Being lied about?

---

Facing prosecution for discriminating against people, when their religion says that they should. Under the exact same laws.

quote:

---

ABE: That's what you did.

---

I did? Is this another case of you telling a truth you don't like a lie?

quote:

---

You lied by comparing Christian businesses who won't service a gay wedding but will service anything else homosexuals want, with racism. Yes that was a lie.

---

How is it a lie? You don't mention anything untrue about it. And The businesses I have in mind ARE "Christian" on both sides of the comparison.

quote:

---

I have NO idea what you are talking about.

---

Then how can you know that it is untrue?Really Faith, I don't see how you can be confused about this after the number of times it comes up. The segregationists believed that the Bible requires that the races should be separate. A segregationist who tries to stop different races mixing on his premises or who refuses to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple breaks the anti-discrimination laws. The same laws with the same penalties that your "Christian" bakers broke.And you haven,t spoken up up once for the segregationists.

quote:

---

I utterly reject the segregationist position

---

And I am not in any way suggesting otherwise.

quote:

---

and you are lying again even to make a comparison of that with what we are talking about here. You are also apparently fudging the facts to make it seem like they are the same. You are lying lying lying.

---

And yet you cannot point out anything that is factually incorrect. Telling truths you don't like is not lying, Faith.

quote:

---

You are bringing up a totally different situation as a distraction, just to serve your need to have something to accuse me of.

---

Now that is untrue. The situation is sufficiently similar to be relevant. Again you are throwing accusations but providing no support for them whatsoever. And THAT seems to be a clear diversionary tactic.The facts are clear, the similarities are there. if you won't address the issue honestly then you are implicitly accusing yourself.