Og, you intolerant hater!!
There is NO WAY that peace loving, tolerant gay people could EVER do anything to destroy the rights of Christians! That’s just CRAZY!!!! You’re stupid and CRAZY, og! YOUR FAITH IS WRONG BECAUSE I FIND RELIGION RISIBLE! I KNOW ALL AND YOU ARE JUST STUPID! YOU CONSIDER INTERNAL CONSTANCY TO BE EQUIVALENT TO MAKING OBJECTIVE SENSE! THIS NEVER HAPPENED AND BESIDES YOU’RE STILL A POOPY HEAD!!
Other poopy heads who hate gays and want them to die: Chris Muir. Fox news. And many others.
of course Chris and Fox are not gay haters, that’s just as ludicrous as saying that I am, I am demonstrably not. All I want is to have the freedom to worship as I see fit, to have my faith remain unmolested, and this sort of thing gives the Government the power to damage people of faith in an unrestricted manner. And of course I’m not the only person to see it. The people who see it most clearly are the people who have an anti-faith agenda. But I see them too. And they will not win, as long as I draw breath. So long as I can report this when it happens, I will.
Sophists employing casuists. The object of the former is to use the latter to create social strife.
In each community (BTW, the sophistic aim of multi-culti is to create ever more of such divisions) there are those who are upset by the true believers, but are forced into silence by the more radical until group think takes hold, at which point the number not radicalized gets smaller. It is the pattern we see in muslim nations, all who were put to the sword over history to force conversion as the easiest way, but to speak out against it is quite dangerous, hence the return of radicalism where there had been some reformations over the centuries. Most people, no matter what, are willing to more or less live and let live. It’s the trouble-makers who intend not to like it. Governments for instance, can’t gain power where people for the most part don’t bang up each other.
Enough of that rant. I am pretty sure you, Og, understand my view. Each person is gonna need to develop blocs of trust in order to defend against what those biggest bastards are fomenting.
On the subject of how the Gay’s got militarized with their H8 campaign, there is the following revelation reviewed over at Breitbart. The Mathew Sheppard issue was a mountain of lies used to generate true believers who were then exploited by the sophists (as usual). http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/14/The-Matthew-Shepard-Story-is-a-Lie
The investigative (gay) journalist discovered that Shepard was murdered by a gay lover, not a “homophobe.”
On fb, a friend posted an article about some Christian bakers forced out of business by militant gays. I commented how the anti-bully crowd were a bunch of bullies.
I cannot see this ordinance standing.
But that it got this far is damning.
But, but but, don’t you know that ALL gays are fabulously handsome, talented, stylish, intelligent, with perfect physiques, and everyone they know loves loves loves their pseudo-marriages! Anyone who disagrees is fat and ugly and shouldn’t exist. And it’s so wholesome, we’ll get the children involved so they know how wonderful it is, and how dull and square being straight is, and they’ll be ostracized if they disagree, and nothing kids dread more than being left out and marginalized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4HpWQmEXrM
I don’t think HD will miss my money, since I’ll never shop there again.
I live in the town with the shunned baker. The baker-couple simply ran their business by their belief system, which clashes with the State belief system.
Yes, the State has unconstitutionally established a belief system.
The bakers should have established their business as a church, and they would have avoided all this sturm und drang.
The State doesn’t have any excuse for avoiding the Establishment Clause.
As you know, I am an opinionated asshole… um… I mean… I’m a very staunch supporter of gay marriage.
But for what it’s worth Og, I agree with you on this one. Churches should NOT be forced to host wedding ceremonies in their facilities where they believe the marriage to be an immoral one.
This issue lies at the intersect between the church’s rights to be free from governmental intrusion, and people’s rights to marry whomever they wish.
When boiled down, the scales on this one easily tip in the church’s favor. To be forced by law/ordinance/statute to host what they see as an immoral marriage steps heavily on the very core of the church’s right to be free from governmental intrusion.
On the other side of the equation, it is really a rather small imposition on the right to marry. Sure, the proverbial “Adam and Steve” may be forced to find another venue for their nuptials, but there are plenty of places where they wouldn’t be turned away (when I married my second wife, for instance, we had the ceremony in a public park). Even if every single the church in the area refused, still the rights balance would be the same. The right should be to marriage, not to a storybook wedding in a beautiful church with a flower girl and pink rose petals strewn in the bride’s (or groom part deaux’s) path, and a fatherly old priest who performs the ceremony in a quaint Irish brogue.
s
Stuart: Do try and keep up. I have no issue with gays getting married, never have. I have acquired a diploma from the Universal Life Church specifically so I could wed a cousin and her partner- unfortunately my cousin died before this became possible. I am and always have been all about having my rights left alone.
Yep. I like my rights too. The biggest thing that gets me is if I drool over a 14 year old girl I am impaled on a post in the village square. If a gay does the same, they get a pass. (I know a teacher in Florida got nailed on this, but it is rare)
That bugs me.
Paul, the teacher in Florida had the gay rights people all in line to support her, same as those 400 or so entertainers who signed that petition for the US government to leave Roman Polanski alone if he returned to the US because like Whoopie Goldberg said, it wasn’t rape-rape, though doping up a 13 year old so she passes out only to awaken to a guy sodomizing her passes for rape-rape in my book, whether she’s 13 or 33.
Senator Packwood got driven from Congress for being a kissing bandit (he was a feminist himself more than most Democrats, but he wore the R tag, so to hell with him), but Clinton got all sort of support from feminists and all even though he was worse. Gays seem to have taken up Oscar Wilde as a patron saint of theirs, but when you see the Marquis of Queensbury’s case that sent him to Reading Jail, it doesn’t read much differently than Jerry Sandusky’s. I knew someone who was a Rimbaud devotee, and when I looked the guy up and learned when he was 15 he ran off to Paris and took up with an older man, it just increased Rimbaud’s appeal to him – the more decadent, the better. But the mayor of San Diego is a louse for hitting on women as hard as Wild Bill used to do.
There is no rhyme nor reason to whom the left lionizes or demonizes. It’s all dadaism.
Apparently the mayor and council like the idea of spending lots of taxpayer dollars to lose the lawsuits; that way they can claim they’re ‘martyrs to the Cause’ or something.