Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 09:27:20 PM
If Churches wish to retain their tax exempt status and all of the other luxuries that come with abiding by certain federal legislation, then yes, they should be made to allow gays to marry.  If they're going to discriminate against the LBGT community, they should be stripped of their status and be forced to adjust accordingly.

Lol! No.

The goverment shouldn't force churches to perform ceremonies contrary to their religion. Your assertion would be just as ridiculous as saying churches better allow animal sacrifices if someone wants to or they'll lose their tax-exempt status. Or maybe have Jewish temples allow Muslims to pray to Allah during their ceremonies. Otherwise it's "discrimination", right? If atheist lefties hate the principles this country was founded on, why not move to China or North Korea rather than continuing to try to destroy the US from the inside?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2014, 10:11:28 PM
When did marriage become a right?

When did singing in the shower become a right?  Does that mean the government has the right to barge into my home and put me in handcuffs for my embarrassing vocal performance?  The burden of proof is on the government to say that you cannot do something, and gay marriage causes no objective harm or detriment to society.  Your religious freedom does not give you the right to dictate what other people cannot do.

Quote from: Dr. Meh on August 12, 2014, 04:29:25 PM
Lol! No.

The goverment shouldn't force churches to perform ceremonies contrary to their religion.

Precisely.  But as long as the churches receive special treatment from the government, they are dependent on it and do need to follow its principles.  If the church wishes to play the no-regulation card, it needs to forfeit its tax exempt status and all the other benefits that come with being a religious denomination; you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Quote
Your assertion would be just as ridiculous as saying churches better allow animal sacrifices if someone wants to or they'll lose their tax-exempt status.

Does not-allowing animal sacrifices discriminate against a protected group?  Does not-allowing animal sacrifices not have an obvious utilitarian justification that not-allowing gay marriages does not?  This is an awful analogy.

Quote
Or maybe have Jewish temples allow Muslims to pray to Allah during their ceremonies. Otherwise it's "discrimination", right? If atheist lefties hate the principles this country was founded on, why not move to China or North Korea rather than continuing to try to destroy the US from the inside?

You think discriminating against people's sexual lives violates our western secular principles?  And that I should move to China and North Korea, which are notorious for being far more hateful towards homosexuals than we are?  Might I flip this question on you: if you wish to live in a theocratic society, where human rights are dictated by the clergy, feel free to move to Saudi Arabia.  I heard they're not too fond of gays, women, infidels, or science either.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 13, 2014, 06:45:06 PM
When did singing in the shower become a right?  Does that mean the government has the right to barge into my home and put me in handcuffs for my embarrassing vocal performance?  The burden of proof is on the government to say that you cannot do something, and gay marriage causes no objective harm or detriment to society.  Your religious freedom does not give you the right to dictate what other people cannot do.






Precisely.  But as long as the churches receive special treatment from the government, they are dependent on it and do need to follow its principles.  If the church wishes to play the no-regulation card, it needs to forfeit its tax exempt status and all the other benefits that come with being a religious denomination; you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Does not-allowing animal sacrifices discriminate against a protected group?  Does not-allowing animal sacrifices not have an obvious utilitarian justification that not-allowing gay marriages does not?  This is an awful analogy.

You think discriminating against people's sexual lives violates our western secular principles?  And that I should move to China and North Korea, which are notorious for being far more hateful towards homosexuals than we are?  Might I flip this question on you: if you wish to live in a theocratic society, where human rights are dictated by the clergy, feel free to move to Saudi Arabia.  I heard they're not too fond of gays, women, infidels, or science either.

Contrary to what you lefties wish, religious freedom is a protected constitutional right. Imposing your liberal social agenda is grossly against the constitution.

I've never seen quadruple negatives before. I'm certain your intent was to confuse and you succeeded. Please try to state your position clearer if you wish to have a meaningful discussion.

To the last attempted point, I do live in a country founded by religious principles that are constantly under attack by closed-minded hateful bigots, such as yourself, who are more concerned with bastardizing this country and its constitution than living by its founded values and principles. Saudi Arabia would be tempting if it weren't Muslim. But since I currently live in a country founded on Christian principles, I'm still content. But if you can suggest a stronger Christian nation that you and your ilk have yet to infiltrate and destroy, let me know and I'll consider moving there.