Previous 11 - 20 Next
1. The freedom of religion is not limited to "while in church" - it is an individual right which covers all aspects of daily life. 2. The state has no authority to enforce "non-discrimination" laws with regards to private individuals. Even attempting to do so is a violation of EVERY right listed in the US Constitution. 3. This couple is a sole proprietorship, so forcing their business to perform "wedding ceremonies" is the same thing as forcing them, personally to provide a service against their will, ignoring the right to refuse service, the right to private property and the freedom of association. Those are monumental issues, but you probably can't see them because you are wearing blinders. Ditch the ideology and try again.
Private individuals cannot be forced to execute a contract. That is a service, something which businesses reserve the right to refuse.
They should be free to do so. Are you in favor of enslaving private business owners and forcing them to against their will? Of course you are, because you are a vile pervert who has no respect for the rights of others!
Really? What religion do you belong to, willie boi? Apparently it's not the religion these ministers belong to. It's not the religion I belong to. Are you some sort of extreme orthodox Jew? Or are you just a blithering, imbecilic, homosodomite who can no longer distinguish your perverse fantasies and psychoses from the real world?
"NO LIBERTARIAN wants to force ministers to do ANYTHING against their religion. Libertarians do not want to use government force to take away our freedoms." Considering that many, well-known libertarians are avowed atheists who tend to despise other religions, and frequently subjugate the freedom of religion to all our other Constitutional rights, I must disagree with you. Also, libertarians want to force societal changes (which they believe promote "freedom"), against the general will of society, that "necessitate" the use of government force and take away our freedoms. They never stop to consider the consequences, but only screech "freedom." They are libertines. Perhaps you ought to study the behaviors of your apparent bedfellows, before you decry the rest of us for our observations?
Not really. They are just as willing to sacrifice their own children for their cause (or just because they don't want them).
Discussing the issue of abortion doesn't cost us elections. The problem is that it's a very complicated issue with far-reaching consequences (the denial of the fundamental right to life and undermining the American ideal that "all men are created equal"), but the questions are always posed as "gotchas," and the answers are never fully / honestly reported. Of course, any answer (which does not outright support abortion) is immediately going to be proclaimed a "war on women," by the leftist media. So, if you want to blame anything for costing us elections, blame the propaganda branch of the democrat party and the low-information voters who actually buy into the media's trash.
I wrote that because YOU said, and I quote: "So in other words, DSM mike, Anonimus, James_TX , wayne and Howard have no proof she was lying but still believe she was lying." Idjit. The fact she tweeted that statement, at all, proves that she approves of this illegal action. That tells me that she probably did know, and was entirely responsible for it. You can argue all you like to the contrary, or on behalf of nothing, tinpot, but it still amounts to nothing more than the clanging of an empty can - nothin' but noise.
In response to:

CBS Drives Away 'Anti-Gay' Catholics

Anominus Wrote: Oct 17, 2014 2:53 PM
Homosexuals are evidently "threatened" by anyone who disagrees with them to ANY degree. If that's not the case, then please explain the vengeful and often violent tone the "tolerant" homosexuals take against people who choose to actually live their faith? If you recall the "pedophile priest" scare of the last decade, just remember that it coincides quite well with a large number of homosexuals being permitted to join the seminary. Clearly, their "repentance" was less of a concern once they entered a target rich environment. Cozzens is a self-described "moderate," but in reality, he is a radical heretic who has preached in favor of legitimizing homosexuality, ending celibacy and all manner of other idiocy (much of which coincides with the typical leftist nonsense), which proves his rejection of Catholic doctrine. Putting stock in his biased "estimates" is beyond foolish.
And yet, you persist in arguing and whining for our "belief" that the mayor is lying in this matter... Why? Is it just so you can continue to spout your drivel? Is it because you like being contrary? Is it just an act of persistent stupidity? I said she is a liar. You are the one who said what we "believe," numbnuts. Clearly, you are the one lacking reading comprehension and, apparently, short term memory.
Even if you are a self-described "christian," you are not a Christian by behavior.
Previous 11 - 20 Next