Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

a reply to: mOjOm

I guess it must be hard to accept that a couple of Ministers and a Team of Lawyers with a mission are actually at fault here

I have to agree with the other poster that they were proactively updating their website. Is that not within the scope of their rights? People here are really reaching to suggest that anything was inherently shady from changing the website. Businesses have to constantly make sure they are in compliance with some kind of law or regulation, and it's usually not because of some hissy fit someone had, it's more often something very economically technical. Look at the changes people are having to make for Obamacare.

a reply to: Bone75

Hate to chime in here, but marriage has not historically been a requirement for LGBT folks to "seal the deal" as it was illegitimately forbidden to us second-class citizens.

Just a fact. Sorry for the intrusion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So you have evidence about the complete text transcription of of every wedding performed at Hitching Post? You're certain based on your review of that information that every wedding has the exact same text?

Give me a break dude. Its common practice. You're the one who needs to prove otherwise.

originally posted by: macman
This is all very simple to avoid.

Business just need to stop giving reasons for denying service to people they don't agree with.

There is no law demanding a reason be given...just that the reason stated can't be discriminatory.

That's exactly what I was saying back when we were having this same conversation about the cake, or maybe it was the wedding photos, I don't remember.

But you see, you have a rational mind and logic leads you to that option which makes total sense. These Zealots however don't like that option. They don't want to keep their bias to themselves and "live and let live" kind of thing. No, they want to be public and outspoken about their discrimination. They don't want to behave in civil ways. They want to openly discriminate and be a-holes publicly and be accepted for it. Even seen as some kind of heroes because of it. That's why they won't choose to do that.

a reply to: Bone75

Ah. you're out of supercilious "examples" then.

You made the claim, back it up or we know that you're just blowing hot air.

Dude.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

Just for reference, some states do require it in order for the marriage to be valid. Others don't. Still, others it is grounds for annullment if the marriage is not consummated.

The Knapps aren't concerned over whether or not a consummation will happen, that seals the marriage. They're concerned about the orifices in which it happens.

So is science. Homosexuals cannot consummate their union. Sexual intercourse is not possible. Sexual acts are, but not sexual intercourse.

WRONG! Hope this isn't too graphic for the T&Cs. (MODS: edit if you must)

Sexual intercourse, or coitus or copulation, is chiefly the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis, usually when erect, into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction; also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex. Other forms of penetrative sexual intercourse include penetration of the anus by the penis (anal sex), penetration of the mouth by the penis or oral penetration of the vulva or vagina (oral sex), sexual penetration by the fingers (fingering), and penetration by use of a strap-on dildo. These activities involve physical intimacy between two or more individuals and are usually used among humans solely for physical or emotional pleasure and commonly contribute to human bonding.

merriam websters defines sexual intercourse as:
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis.

Not sure where you got your definition. But they're obviously trying to be more inclusive to be nice to those deviants out there.

Oh! You like intellectual dishonesty, do you?

Full Definition of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

1
: heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2
: intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

www.merriam-webster.com...

Sorry, that didn't pull up on iword. Thank you for the correction.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Assisting people to commit a sin (perform gay marriage) is different from offering a service TO sinners (everyone).

Wait! I thought that sex outside of the marriage bed was a sin! Isn't denying a gay couple a wedding, assisting the couple to commit fornication? Which is worse?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
The only blind man here us you and those of you who claim there is hypocrisy despite the total lack of evidence supporting that claim.

LOL......

Total lack of evidence??? What about what I just showed you??? Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean it's not there.

Like I said before, it's your choice to deny what's right in front of you. There is nothing I can do about you choosing to believe a lie. This is exactly why they are able to get away with this kind of BS scan to begin with.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

Assisting people to commit a sin (perform gay marriage) is different from offering a service TO sinners (everyone).

Wait! I thought that sex outside of the marriage bed was a sin! Isn't denying a gay couple a wedding, assisting the couple to commit fornication? Which is worse?

You aren't assisting them in sin by not marrying them, they're either already committing that sin (fornication) or they're not. either way you're not really culpable.

a reply to: Phage

In particular about how it's ok to discriminate against someone you don't even know and know nothing about, except that they are gay.

For the record, I have never prevented a gay marriage, I've had gay dance instructors and dance coaches personally, have had acquaintances who run dance studios, and more than one gay hair dresser by choice and respect their abilities, and invited gay friends to funerals. Does it mean I have to agree with their lifestyle? Frankly I don't care, but when they get government to force people into acceptance or use the schoolhouses to indoctrinate people into acceptance, I have a hard time with that. If you tell me no that is not what they are doing I'd have to say you were wrong.

a reply to: beezzer

I am bisexual. I am for gay marriage. I am also for religious freedom. This is an outrageous infringement upon that religious freedom.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Dfairlite
The only blind man here us you and those of you who claim there is hypocrisy despite the total lack of evidence supporting that claim.

LOL......

Total lack of evidence??? What about what I just showed you??? Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean it's not there.

Like I said before, it's your choice to deny what's right in front of you. There is nothing I can do about you choosing to believe a lie. This is exactly why they are able to get away with this kind of BS scan to begin with.

Your evidence is that they changed the packages offered to adjust to what may soon become a law. That is not hypocritical. It would only be hypocritical if they would marry gays before it became legal and refused to do so afterwards. Is it really that hard to understand?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I have to agree with the other poster that they were proactively updating their website. Is that not within the scope of their rights? People here are really reaching to suggest that anything was inherently shady from changing the website. Businesses have to constantly make sure they are in compliance with some kind of law or regulation, and it's usually not because of some hissy fit someone had, it's more often something very economically technical. Look at the changes people are having to make for Obamacare.

Ok, so agree with them if you want, that's your choice after all.

But don't try and sell me the, "well it's just regular updating of the website." Just look at the timing of when they changed it and how. Why all of a sudden use the "Deeply held Beliefs" slogan??? Why try and play it off as if they've always operated under those conditions when they obviously haven't??? It just so happened that all in one day, they find out about this policy, an alleged gay person calls about a wedding there, the ADF joins the fight and they change their website, completely remaking their image into this current strictly christian wedding BS???

Come on, it doesn't get more obvious than this......

It is impossible to force or indoctrinate people into acceptance of anything. And no one want's to do so.

That's a really tired argument that has no basis in fact.

It is possible to change the laws to insure that all Americans are treated equally under the law and with due process ...
and that is happening on an amazing nationwide scale, despite the best efforts of the religious and political right to stop it and continue to deprive Americans of their Constitutional, civil and human rights.

a reply to: Dfairlite

You aren't assisting them in sin by not marrying them, they're either already committing that sin (fornication) or they're not. either way you're not really culpable.

WOW! Such hypocrisy! I should expect no less.

But, they are culpable for their married sex? How is that different?

originally posted by: mOjOm
BUSTED!!

Once again, it's all a big f*cking con. As if we couldn't tell already. Check this out. Deeply held beliefs my ass. The ADL and Heritage Foundation are LYING and MANIPULATING not just the public at large but even carelessly toying with the lives of the people they allegedly represent.

You got to check this out:
Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case

I believe the distinction they were making between a "traditional ceremony" and a "civil ceremony" was that they offered Christian themed weddings as well as non-Christian themed weddings. I hope you're not confusing "civil ceremony" with "civil union".

Wow that is crazy. I do not worship any imaginary beings or choose to participate in any such things. But this country is supposed to have freedom of religion. As long as that religion is not forcing itself on others and it does not harm anyone one it is ok with me. These cults should be able to exclude anyone from the group if they choose. It's their cult and their rules. Join another cult if you don't like their rules, government has no right to dictate how they run their cult if no harm is being done to anyone. Exclusion is not harming anyone. Get married in a courthouse if you want government rules.

a reply to: mOjOm

But don't try and sell me the, "well it's just regular updating of the website." Just look at the timing of when they changed it and how

I think their changing their website is a straw man argument. Sorry. You see it as some kind of wrong doing. Last time I checked people were allowed to change their sites to reflect new laws.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I have to agree with the other poster that they were proactively updating their website. Is that not within the scope of their rights? People here are really reaching to suggest that anything was inherently shady from changing the website. Businesses have to constantly make sure they are in compliance with some kind of law or regulation, and it's usually not because of some hissy fit someone had, it's more often something very economically technical. Look at the changes people are having to make for Obamacare.

Why all of a sudden use the "Deeply held Beliefs" slogan??? .

It's not all of the sudden, they've been unwilling to perform gay marriages the entire time. They're simply covering themselves to prevent the government from forcing them to violate those beliefs. They changed it because the law was changing. It's super simple, you're a smart person, think about it for a minute.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, Christians should lie in order to freely exercise their Christian faith?

It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

And "protecting their beliefs", my ass! These people are bigots. They USE their religion as the "reason" to deny equal rights to gay people, because they're afraid of being called bigots. The religious right did the SAME thing with interracial marriage. Take their "religious beliefs reason" away, and they only have their bigotry as the real reason they don't want gays to marry. No argument against gay marriage makes any sense (marriage is only for reproduction, same-sex marriage will affect my marriage, etc.) So the only reason left is their bigotry.

And, we can see, they will argue their illogical positions forever. LOL