Traditional marriage supporters must write J.U.D.E.N. on their window

[Sqrl]

ManusJustus said:

halogamer1989 said:

Sqrl said:

As far as most reasonable folks go and under normal circumstances...this is true.  But as soon as someone whose entire family has been married in a specific church comes along and asks the ACLU to sue the church to force them to allow the ceremony there.  Or any number of circumstances that could arise to create a lawsuit like this. 

I realize you're saying that you would be argue against that case (I think that is what you're saying here), but that is the type of situation that Halogamer is concerned about (if I read him correctly).

Just my take on it.

More or less Sqrl.  That case would be like the second coming of Roe v. Wade.  Talk about your controversy being ramped up in an already partisan America.

Thats a ridiculous notion.  Churches and pastors are private entities that are free to do what they want.  A preacher does not have to marry someone in his church, regardless of his reasons.  A preacher in Arizona recently asked his congregation to pray that harm come to president Obama, and there is nothing legally wrong with that, he is within his rights.  A private church can allow the KKK to use their church as a meeting place and refuse to let a children's charity use their church, they are a private entity with such rights.

Equally ridiculous is that you are afraid that the rights of a pastor 'could' be violated while you care less that the rights of gays 'are' being violated.  Instead of acting like you care about the rights of individuals, you would do yourself a favor to realize that you dislike gays.

The line between public and private is blurred a little more everyday.  I mean we own car companies now.  Aside from that there already exist laws that tell private entities what they must and must not do..even in areas that don't actually violate the rights of others but merely when others are inconvenienced.  Quite frankly, it is far more ridiculous not to see how someone could be concerned about this then it is to actually be concerned about it (Note: I personally don't care much about it, but I understand why some do).

As for the last bit, there is no right to be married that is violated (ie nothing explicit).  Meanwhile the free exercise of religion is an explicit constitutional right, and is literally the very first right given in the Bill of Rights. The order of it being first is absolutely no coincidence either.

I do agree however that the vast majority of gay couples have no desire to get married in a church they aren't wanted in...but there are some who will force the issue...simply to force the issue.

The entire debate is moot however if we simply adopt the civil union strategy we've pretty much all agreed is acceptable...which BTW halo said he was fine with so I'm not sure how that fits into your view of him as some gayhating bigot...but I get the impression that he dissaproves of the lifestyle for religious reasons and not because he dislikes the people.  The distinction can be made, and it is the same idea behind how a strict conservative and a strict liberal can get along and be friends...they agree to disagree and so long as nobody forces their views on someone else all is well.

Of course if I'm wrong halo can just say he wants to force his views on others...but i doubt it.....