Texas Attorney General Asks State Supreme Court to Void Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ License

PaxtonAUSTIN, Texas — Texas’ attorney general has asked the state Supreme Court to void a same-sex “marriage” license that was issued to two lesbian women last week as the state does not recognize the union of two women as a marriage.

On Thursday, District Judge David Wahlberg ordered that Travis County clerk to issue a license to Sarah Goodbried and Suzanne Bryant as one of the women is fighting cancer. He also waived the three-day waiting period required between obtaining a license and the ceremony.

The women consequently obtained the license and said their vows before the county clerk in the presence of a Jewish rabbi.

But recently-elected Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an emergency appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, requesting a stay so that other counties did not follow suit. The court obliged.

On Friday, Paxton took the matter a step further in asking the court to void Goodbried and Bryant’s license, asserting that Wahlberg had issued an “improper order” in violation of Texas law.

In 2005, 75 percent of Texans approved a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

“Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman,” it reads. “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“The rogue actions of Travis County judges do not withstand the scrutiny of law,” Paxton wrote in a statement. “The same-sex marriage license issued yesterday is not valid because it conflicts with the Texas Constitution and state law—the license is therefore void ab initio.”

Paxton, who reportedly attends the non-denominational Stonebriar Community Church in Friar, said that Wahlberg acted improperly since the matter of same-sex nuptials are still before the State Supreme Court, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. He also contended that the ruling may cause confusion across the state and imply to other county clerks that they are free to begin issuing licenses to those of the same sex.

“These problems are real, not theoretical,” his appeal stated. “As this case proves, a single court’s erroneous ruling on Texas marriage law may be relied upon by other courts, counsel, and litigants seeking invalid marriage licenses.”

Both Paxton and Gov. Greg Abbott, a Roman Catholic, have vowed to defend the state’s marriage amendment.

“As attorney general, I will continue to defend the will of the people of Texas, who have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, against any judicial activism or overreach,” Paxton said on Thursday.

As previously reported, a similar matter is playing out in Alabama as state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has called upon probate judges in the state to reject a federal court opinion calling Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Gov. Robert Bentley has made statements in recent weeks that while he personally disagrees with the ruling, he feels that he must obey it. His pastor, however, has counseled him to stand with Moore in obeying God rather than men.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Peter Leh

    just a formality to the inevitable….

  • MattFCharlestonSC

    Go ahead and fight the inevitable. It’s going to happen anyway.

    • Gary

      There are many things that are inevitable. Some of them you are going to really hate.

  • Paul Hiett

    What a great man, going to such lengths to prevent two people from being happy. I bet his mom’s so proud of him!!!!

    “OMG those two women aren’t hurting anyone and just want to be happy…by God I won’t stand for that!!!”

    • Pererin

      Well that’s the difference between a Christian and a Humanist. A Christian want to please God and follow His laws. A humanist pleases himself and want to follow his own laws. So what do you expect? You are practicing the same intolerance and bigotry you see in Christians.

      • Badkey

        Christians feel morality is an external concept you must learn.

        You’re dangerous.

      • Paul Hiett

        So allowing two people to marry is somehow oppressing Christians? That’s your stance?

        • Pererin

          No it’s not oppression, it’s against God’s law and therefore bad for humanity.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ah yes, as long as it’s inline with your version of your choice of religions, then it’s good.

            Sad that you don’t see the problem with this.

          • Pererin

            But Paul, don’t you see that this is exactly what you are doing? You expect me and everyone else to change my views to accommodate your humanist beliefs.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Segregation today. Segregation tomorrow. Segregation forever!!!!!!

    • Oboehner

      Perversion today. Perversion tomorrow. Perversion forever!!!!!!

      • Badkey

        You forgot yesterday, sweetie.

        What you call “perversion” has always been with us.

        • Oboehner

          It’s your dream…

          • Badkey

            It’s historical fact.

          • Oboehner

            Even if perversion has been around for a long time, what’s your point – if any?
            Speaking of historical facts, gay used to be on the list of mental abnormalities and was taken off that list not by any scientific discovery, but by militant deviants pressuring to do so.

          • Badkey

            That your religion, and what it calls “perversion” is meaningless in a secular republic.

            Yeah, I know your APA propaganda… how’s spreading it around helping? Winning any battles for ya?

          • Oboehner

            Claiming “born that way” is meaningless anywhere, it flies in the face of evolution or Creation.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, actually, it doesn’t. Sexual orientation has never nor ever will be a “choice”.

            You are attracted to whatever you are attracted to, and that’s not a choice we have.

            Unless, of course, you’re saying that you find men attractive as well as women, and are just choosing women? If not, then you admit sexual orientation is not a choice.

            So, which is it?

          • TheBBP

            What a person chooses to love does not warrant them the right to marry it. Thank God for that because there are many perversions (bestiality and pedophilia just to name a couple) that also deserve not to be married by law.

          • Badkey

            Comparing law-abiding, consensual citizens to those that would harm children or aninmals marks you as a very, very stupid person.

            The slippery slope started with “traditional marriage”… blame yourselves.

          • Paul Hiett

            He’s not the brightest bulb in the chandelier…

          • Pererin

            First of all, the choice/born that way issue is far from being settled. There is no scientific evidence supporting the ‘born that way’ point.
            Secondly, paedophiles were ‘born that way’ psychopaths where ‘born that way’. The whole ‘it’s natural’ argument is a very poor one. These changes in the law are humanist changes. Humanism is a very dangerous concept as history has shown. We are going down a very dark path.

          • Badkey

            We KNOW that following a mythology is ALWAYS a choice.

            Pedophiles harm children… you destroy your own argument with that. The comparison is invalid. This is exactly why your kind lose in court.

          • Pererin

            Of course they do, I’m not arguing that they don’t. I’m saying that as a humanism/atheist, you have not right to have a problem with that. Where do you get your morals? Do you at least see that a great deal of them come from the bible?

          • Paul Hiett

            No, they don’t. Those “morals” have been implemented in every society around the world long before the Bible ever came about.

            Or, do you think that the ancient Roman laws were actually derived from the Bible long before the Bible was written?

          • Pererin

            Yes morals have spread across the world. Noah’s family spread across the world and their morals will have spread with them. Unfortunately, over time, they were corrupted, just as we see today. But as I said, Western Civilization took it’s laws from the bible, some of these laws, (less and less, year by year) are what we are left with today.

          • Badkey

            Do I need an external resource to tell me what morals are?

            I see that the buybull contains many topics of man’s views of morality, just like all other religions. I see no more than that.

          • Paul Hiett

            Simple question…are you attracted, at all, to other men?

          • Pererin

            No, but who knows what’s possible under various environmental/cultural settings.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “There is no scientific evidence supporting the ‘born that way’ point.”

            There is significant evidence which supports the innateness of sexuality. What there is ZERO evidence for is that sexuality is a choice.

            “Secondly, paedophiles were ‘born that way’ psychopaths where ‘born that way’.”

            Where is your scientific evidence for that?

            “The whole ‘it’s natural’ argument is a very poor one.”

            Agreed. Rights in this nation are not based upon whether a trait is innate or not. They are based solely on citizenship.

          • Pererin

            There is plenty of research on the causes of homosexuality but there is still no evidence at all in favour of it being innate. The ‘born with it’ stance is purely a fashionable, popularity driven stance.
            There is also plenty of research being done on mental issues such as paedophilia and psychopathic behaviour.
            So what makes a good citizen? Please explain what you mean by ‘good’ and why you believe your version of ‘good’ is the correct one.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “there is still no evidence at all in favour of it being innate.”

            While their is no definitive proof as to the basis for sexuality, you are wrong when you say there no evidence. There is substantial evidence that sexuality is innate.

            “Please explain what you mean by ‘good’ and why you believe your version of ‘good’ is the correct one.”

            I didn’t make a reference to “good”.

          • Pererin

            If there is no proof, there is no evidence. What we have is research that is currently being interpreted. So we can at least agree that science does not state that homosexuality is innate?
            If you want to do this the long way then, what do you mean by citizenship?
            The article is not about taking away a gay person’s citizenship for being gay.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “If there is no proof, there is no evidence.”

            Where in world did you come up with that thesis? How would proof of something ever be found if we didn’t first have evidence?

            “So we can at least agree that science does not state that homosexuality is innate?”

            We can agree that science has not definitively identified the basis for sexuality – here homo or hetero.

            “what do you mean by citizenship?”

            Uhhh……that people are citizens.

            “The article is not about taking away a gay person’s citizenship for being gay.”

            Agreed. The article is about attempting to restrict the rights on citizens based upon religious belief of those in power.

          • Pererin

            Exactly, there is no evidence that you claimed existed. Therefore there is no proof.

          • thoughtsfromflorida
          • Pererin

            Plenty more, I hope so!
            This is the first sentence from the conclusion of the first link
            “In this article, I have shown that the science of human sexuality is in its infancy and that there is currently little conclusive evidence that sexuality is genetically or hormonally induced.”
            As I said earlier, there is plenty of research, but there is nothing to persuade anybody of the ‘born that way’ argument. Yet it’s being pushed down everyone’s throats. Funny that!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So of the four links I provided, the ONLY thing you can find that you felt provided any support for your position was “there is currently little conclusive evidence that sexuality is genetically or hormonally induced.”

            Which, of course, completely blows your “no evidence” claim out of the water, as he clearly states that there is evidence, just not proof.

            So, please, provide me with quotes from the other links that you feel indicate that there is no evidence for sexuality being innate.

            “Yet it’s being pushed down everyone’s throats.”

            Please, spare me the hyperbole. Nothing of the sort is happening. You are free to believe as you like. Nothing is being “pushed down everyone’s throat”. Geez, What a whiner.

          • Pererin

            This is a very typical humanist response. Twist the evidence and claim science is on their side. The research says ‘little conclusive evidence’, you claimed ‘significant evidence’, I claim none. Yet somehow you are a able twist the research to support yourselves.
            Science doesn’t belong to atheism or humanism, it doesn’t take sides, you don’t own science, science speaks for itself. The problem comes at the interpretation stage, this where humanists spring into action, twisting and claiming to fit their agenda. I’m not buying it.

            Of course it’s being pushed down our throats. If you oppose homosexuality, you are a bigot. Do that sound free to you? Of course not. You really need to pull out of your humanist brainwashed life and see what going on!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith”

            And that would be bad, because?

            “Twist the evidence”

            What evidence did I “twist” and in what way?

            “‘little conclusive evidence'”

            That was one quote from one of the four links I sent you and cites research over 20 years old. The other links provide more current research.

            We have agreed that there is no conclusive evidence as to the exact basis for sexuality. Why you continue to bring this up is beyond me. Apparently you have nothing else to offer.

            “I claim none”

            You claimed there was no evidence. That statement is false.

            “science speaks for itself.”

            Agreed. It’s unfortunate you aren’t listening.

            “If you oppose homosexuality, you are a bigot.”

            Again, spare me the hyperbole. Opposing homosexuality does not make one a bigot. Like your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “evidence” you obviously also have a misunderstanding of the word “bigot”. Please educate yourself.

            “You really need to pull out of your humanist brainwashed life and see what going on!”

            Oh yeah. I should pull out of preferring “critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith”. That makes complete sense. Then I can be hyperbolic and come to nonsensical and irrational conclusions just like you!

            No thank you.

          • Maria Wilson

            Homosexuality is a choice stop fooling yourself

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            What is the basis for your believe that homosexuality is a choice?

          • MisterPine

            Did you choose your heterosexuality Maria?

          • Badkey

            Same applies to your choice to follow a mythology.

            You weren’t “born that way”.

            Hypocrite.

          • Paul Hiett

            I wonder if he’s intelligent enough to know that he was actually born an atheist…

          • Badkey

            Highly unlikely.

          • Pererin

            More humanist mythology I’m afraid. Look into your own religion, it really is quite scary.

          • Paul Hiett

            By all means, tell me what religious beliefs we are born with?

          • Pererin

            The bible says that God knows us before we are born, so He knows who will be saved and who will not be, He is God after all, He knows everything. So, some people belong to God, while others will reject God. You are either with Him or against Him.

          • Paul Hiett

            Please answer the question.

          • Pererin

            Sorry Paul, I’m answering a lot of questions here, can you repeat your question please?

          • Badkey

            What religious beliefs are you born with?

            (it’s easy to follow the thread up, you know)

          • Badkey

            So… we’re born with mythology cuz mythology says we’re born with mythology.

            Oh… well that changes everything! (/sarcasm)

          • Pererin

            So what is your argument? We all have a belief, presupposition, faith, whatever you want to call it. In an attempt annoy, bait or ridicule me you call it mythology, but we all have one, I’m going to hold onto mine because I know it’s right. I know you won’t like that, but that’s the way it is. At least think about the notion that that you are every bit as reliant on faith as I am.

          • Badkey

            You are TAUGHT what to believe… what to have faith in.

            You’re not born following any specific mythology.

            It is nothing more than a choice.

          • Pererin

            Well that is debatable as a Christian believes that the Holy Spirit is the one who gives us this knowledge of God.
            Anyway, it’s been great taking with you, I’m sure you’ll appreciate I can’t post here all night. It’s getting late here in the UK. Have a great day. God bless you.

          • Badkey

            Yes, you were taught to believe that… there’s nothing to debate.

          • Paul Hiett

            Homosexuality has been a natural part of this world long before mankind even stepped into the picture. Currently, there are over 1500 species of animals, man included, that actively engage in homosexuality.

            This proves that it’s not a “perversion” as you like to call it, but merely a natural part of the order of the world. Sorry you don’t like it, but facts are facts.

          • Pererin

            If you replace the word ‘homosexuality’ in your post with ‘rape’ or ‘murder’, which are both equally ‘natural’ in the animal kingdom, would you embrace them as eagerly into society today? Of course not. This is why we make this stand. The ‘natural’ argument is a poor one. At the end of the day, we Christians follow Christian laws. This is our right. Like it or not, you still follow Christian laws as Western civilization was built on them, this is why murder and rape are so abhorrent to you. Soon however, as the years pass, this will change. Slowly every Christian law will be taken away. It will not be a pretty picture.

          • Badkey

            Comparing law-abiding, consensual citizens to those that would rape or murder marks you as a very, very stupid person.

          • Pererin

            Care to explain why? It’s all natural, animals have been doing it for thousands of years. That’s the humanist argument. The only reason you are even able to use the ‘law-abiding, consensual citizens’ argument is because it is a Christian argument. You want an atheist, humanist existence, you can’t pick the cherries from one set of laws and then discard the rest as out-of-date mythological rubbish. You choose humanism at your peril. Seriously, look into what humanism actually means for society, it is horrific.

          • Paul Hiett

            So what you’re saying is that you follow all of the laws defined in Leviticus?

          • Pererin

            No that would be Jewish law. Jesus changed things, just read the New Testament, it’s all there.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so the OT is no longer a part of Christianity?

          • Pererin

            Of course it is, but as I said, when Jesus came to save us all, the law was fulfilled and Jesus explained how and why it was different.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so he abolished the law. I forgot he said that. Can you refresh my memory and tell me the verse in which he said he abolished the law?

          • Pererin

            No I did not say He abolished the law, I said He fulfilled the law, there is a difference.
            Matthew chapter 5 would be helpful for you regarding this. But ready the whole thing, that would be most helpful. It was for me.

          • Paul Hiett

            He didn’t abolish the law, the law still stands. The 10 commandments are still valid, and they’re from the OT as well.

            Either the law is gone, or it’s not, and I see nothing in the NT that says the law was abolished.

          • Pererin

            Then I can’t help you, all I can say is, read it with an open mind.
            Anyway, it’s been great taking with you, I’m sure you can appreciate that I can talk on here all night. Here in the UK it’s getting late. I hope you have a great day and God bless you.

          • Badkey

            Your ignorance of law is astounding.

            Do you even know what consent means?

          • Pererin

            Of course I do. But I think we are not taking about the same ‘law’.
            You are talking about the law of the land, I’m talking about God’s law, how God’s law is being taken out of that, while humanist laws are being put in.

          • Badkey

            Your god’s law is not our civil law. It is nothing more than a choice you’ve made.

          • Pererin

            Of course, but as I said, God’s law was once embedded in civil law, however today that is being replaced with humanist law/beliefs. That is why Christians and humanists/atheists clash on this subject.

          • Paul Hiett

            We clash because you think your religion should be used to rule. We believe that no religion should be special.

            Religion is your belief, and your opinion, and is nothing more than a choice you made.

            Race, gender, sexual orientation…these are not choices people make.

          • Badkey

            Our constution has ALWAYS allowed me to trounce all over one of your ” Big 10″. If we were using the christian mythology as the basis of all law, why would they allow that?

          • Pererin

            Really? Do you trounce over thou shalt not kill?
            The constitution is a document that set up a country, not on how to live your life.

          • Badkey

            That one would be a crime in the US. See that’s how civil law works.

            However… the first amendment allows me ANY religion and sky daddy I choose to follow, crushing one of your biggest commandments.

            If we were the christian law bound nation you claim, we wouldn’t have that.

          • Pererin

            Exactly, you see how Christianity is integrated into civil law.
            Of course, that is why America is a democracy, people are free to do as they wish, as long as they follow civil laws, which are/where based on biblical laws/beliefs.

          • Badkey

            The christian myth is integrated into our civil law just like islam is.

            We’re not a democracy… we’re a republic.

          • Paul Hiett

            But the commandments of the Bible merely reflect many existing “laws” that societies around the world held as well. It is therefor a fact that Christianity, nor Judaism, created these laws.

          • Paul Hiett

            When you can demonstrate that Christianity is the only true religion, then you can implement it as law. In other words, prove it.

            If you can’t prove Christianity, then you must accept that no religion can be used to rule others.

          • Pererin

            I assume you hold the same standards to your own faith, humanism.
            Why are these laws being implemented without knowledge of them being ‘true’?

          • Paul Hiett

            Humans exist, and I can prove that…obviously. Your religion, just a choice you made btw, can’t be proven. Our laws are implemented with the hope that it best serves our citizens, without putting one group of people over another.

            We make mistakes along the way, but our system allows us to adjust as we go along. Yours, most certainly, does not.

            I know you think your religion is the one true one, but living in your bubble you can’t seem to see that your religion is not the only one in the world, nor are you the only one who believes their religion is true. If no religion can present itself and prove itself as being true, then no religion can be used to rule us.

          • Pererin

            An neither can yours? Saying humans exist to prove humanism is like me saying Christian exist so Christianity is truth and I doubt you would accept that.
            Have you seen the misery that humanism promotes? Please look into this, it is one destructive downward spiral.

          • Paul Hiett

            Humanism merely puts our own needs and desires above that of the supernatural. In other words, we decided how to rule ourselves, since no deities have chosen to come down and rule.

          • MisterPine

            Do you not understand that rape and murder are evil because it is one person forcing their will on another? Homosexuality harms no one and is consensual. That is the difference.

          • Pererin

            I was simply showing that the ‘it’s natural’ argument is a poor argument because rape and murder are both ‘natural’ in the animal kingdom.
            They are not evil because of the reasons you state, they are evil because God says they are evil, that goes for homosexuality too.

          • MisterPine

            No, they are evil for the reasons I stated. Harm no one, do unto others as they do unto you, etc. God did not say that homosexuality was evil. Some Christians believe the Bible says this, but the Bible was written by human beings, not God.

          • Pererin

            The bible was written by men, inspired by God. The bible is the word of God. You cannot change history for the sake of your humanistic dogma.

          • MisterPine

            So is that all it takes to get a bunch of people to blindly and unwaveringly follow a set of arbitrary rules, just say that God inspired their writings? Did God also inspire the holy books of other faiths, or just the Bible?

          • Paul Hiett

            Bwahahhahaahahhahahaha…just…wow.

          • Pererin

            Hmm, nice come back, your intellect is blinding me!

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re ignorance knows no bounds. You have no right to follow only Christian law. You are bound, as a citizen of the United States, to follow the laws of man first, and then your religion, assuming they don’t conflict.

            On earth, your god’s laws mean nothing.

          • Pererin

            I would love to see Obama or a politician seeking office to make that quote. They would never be elected. ‘Vote for me, your God’s laws mean nothing’. Of course I must follow man’s laws, in fact Jesus encourages this, however when they conflict, it’s completely different.

          • Paul Hiett

            Only because, for the time being, Christianity is the predominant religion. But that only means that the majority think they can rule the minorities, regardless of ethics or morality. This is why the USSC often has to jump in to right the ship. Christians dropped the ball when it came to womens rights, slavery, racial equality, and now LGBT rights. You’re losing this one too, btw…not that I expect you to see the parallels.

          • Pererin

            Not all those ‘dropped balls’ were Christian I’m afraid, slavery and racial equally are both humanist problems. Human evolution is a humanist idea which contributed to both sinful issues. I wouldn’t count LGBT rights as a dropped ball either. Is it coincidence that you blame all these on Christianity?

          • Paul Hiett

            Where, in the Bible is slavery banned?

          • Maria Wilson

            Really who told you that ?the father of all lies?animals don’t do that ,what you are saying is just your fantasy ,homosexuals likes to exaggerate things just to proof their sick point

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah…I’m guessing you don’t get out much, or read anything that isn’t 100% “Christian” approved.

            You can choose not to believe the facts, or, you can hit up Google and learn for yourself.

          • Maria Wilson

            By the way I have plenty animal around the house and never seen anyone doing what you said ,sick people.

          • MisterPine

            “Perversion” is a completely objective word the way you are using it. As such, it is useless. What I consider perverted would be tightassed Christian supremacists trying to legislate their own morality to dictate to non-Christian supremacists what they can and cannot do. So good luck trying to make this brand of hate fly.

          • Oboehner

            That label would more readily apply to gay supremacists who have clearly been ramming their morality down the throats of the other 97% through fraud and coercion.

          • MisterPine

            “Please don’t use your Stone Age beliefs to torture and murder us” seems to me like an entirely reasonable moral position to take.

            By the way, there are gay people, but no gay supremacists. You don’t see gay people making unreasonable demands of how Christians live their lives.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Who has been forced to change their views on morality?

          • Oboehner

            How about business owners? Get out from mommy’s basement at all?

          • Oshtur

            Business owners have know how their business needed to run for decades – they knew that every customer has a right to their own morality, that the only common morality is that which we citizens pass into law.

          • Oboehner

            Right, forget the Constitution, it’s mob rule.

          • Oshtur

            Hmmm the federal and state constitutions completely support the civil rights laws.

          • Oboehner

            Like the freedom to practice one’s religion, but I fail to see the provision for ones sexual activity.

          • Oshtur

            No sexual activity going on in any wedding I’ve seen, do you go to porn weddings?

          • Oboehner

            I don’t do gay weddings.

          • Oshtur

            So you have no idea what you’re talking about. I am not shocked.

          • Oboehner

            Neither do you apparently, I wasn’t talking about merely weddings, the whole gay thing is about sexual activity which is not covered in the Constitution as something to trump religious freedom.

          • Lemmy Caution

            “the whole gay thing is about sexual activity”

            Wow. You really are dumber than a bag of hammers, aren’t you?

          • Oboehner

            Nope, just cutting through the crap.

          • Oshtur

            Weddings are often religious, gay or straight. Religious freedom is what’s protecting the customer. If the business will only sell the product to those of certain beliefs they shouldn’t be offering it as a public accommodation at all

          • Guest

            Homosexuality is not a religion, Scottie.

          • Oshtur

            neither is heterosexuality, your point?

          • Guest

            But – but – Scottie boy, you claimed that this was a religious thing. You likened homosexuality to religion. Stay on course, Scottie. Use some reason. But then again, what kind of reason can we find from someone who weeps at the “Boy Meets World” finale, huh, Scottie?

            It’s hilarious that you tried to make yourself out to be some legal expert, acting like you’re going to school Christians here about the law, when you’re just a 22-23 year old punk who has to wait until Mommy and Daddy go out to throw a party.

          • Oshtur

            Ad hominems aside you need to work on you’re reading comprehension. I said a wedding is a wedding, gay or straight.. I said sexuality was irrelevant, you’re the one trying to make it seem as if it could be.

            Again, gay or straight, what’s that got to do with the wedding?

          • Guest

            Scottie, Scottie, you can’t read well, you certainly can’t spell well, and you can’t cover up your identity well. You can make all your accounts private, but you foolishly placed enough information about yourself on the internet that your identity is obviously known. Until you learn how to wipe your nose, don’t try to school other people, particularly when it comes to faith, the Bible, and logic. You possess knowledge of none of those three.

          • Oshtur

            Can’t answer the question again I see. And your own ignorance doesn’t stop you from talking why should it anyone else?

            Let’s see you’ve thought I was a woman, a witch, a homophobe, now someone ⅓ my age with living parents of Scottish ancestry? You might figure it out someday by eliminating everyone else in the world

          • Guest

            Scottie, dude, to which question are you referring? You’ve been mixing me up with other posters, not answering MY questions, and replying to ME about posts I never made. Tsk tsk, Scottie. Gotta do better than that. And sorry for thinking you were a middle aged, menopausal woman. You just look like one.

          • Oshtur

            Can’t recognize a question? They have those curvy things at the end.

          • Guest

            Oh come on, Scottie, you can do better than that. You’re confused, you’re flustered. Which reminds me, there’s treatment for that rosacea from which you suffer. I’d also recommend a better haircut.

          • Oshtur

            Of course I can but with you as the target who would bother? You’re a poor man’s bully, troll, liar who probably doesn’t even remember what the truth is, very far out of your depth.

          • Guest

            Now this is just sad, Scottie. You got exposed, and now we know (we refers to the collective forum, in case you were wondering) that you lied. Hope you’re happy impersonating a Christian on the web. It seems it’s the only joy you’ve got in your sad little life.

          • Oshtur

            ‘We’? The liar here is you using the Disqus eqivalent of ‘anonymous’ to black hole any discussion you don’t like but can’t rebut using reason or facts so killing it is your only option. Normally I wouldn’t indulge you but this thread is long dead, has no moderation and watching you twist is amusing. A guilty pleasure I guess.

            May God bless even a poor wretch like you.

          • Guest

            It’s not lying to use the name “Guest”, Scottie. It’s a valid name, and in fact, it’s the most popular registered moniker at Disqus. If one has a strong argument (with logic, reason, and facts), the post itself draws attention, not the name.

            Speaking of names, why are you using a name of a female cartoon character? Rather bizarre for a professing “Christian”, wouldn’t you say, Scottie? Which again reminds me – why don’t you know any Bible verses?

          • Oshtur

            And how would you know what registered names Disqus has? And since your arguments have never focused on reason or facts it’s just sad.

            I’ve used the name of the 3 Vishanti as computer handles since the days of ARPANET & PLATO long before any genders were associated with any of them, even before we knew the three names were the Vishanti.

            But then I’m very old. And again with the childish red herrings and slanders. Why would you care Hiw many verses I know, you aren’t a Christian anyway

          • Guest

            Scott, I’ve been very kind and patient with you. I feel sorry for you, but you’ve used nothing but lies and insults to push your gay agenda. You have treated Christians with disrespect, and you’ve misrepresented legal facts, case facts, and disparaged a sweet, innocent, older woman, all to push your propaganda.

            You remind me of this verse:

            “These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.”

            That verse is from Psalm 50:21. May God grant you repentance.

          • Oshtur

            He already has. And if you think your slander, misrepresentations and hypocrisy is somehow holy then I think you should be seeking repentance too.

            But then there is no truth in you. I have spoken the truth and you had spoken lies, I have backed up everything I’ve said and all you do is slander, Rush towards evil and other things god hates.

            If you can ever act like a Christian come on back.

            There is no right to religious discrimination in a public offer. That’s what this business owner did. The business owner is a criminal. The truth is never disparaging.

          • Guest

            Scott, you’ve chosen a pagan goddess with blasphemous overtones as your handle, you have a gay agenda, and you have disrespected Christians, written bigoted things against the Jewish and African American population, and have advocated for a Kristallnacht against an elderly Jewish business owner, and you expect us to believe you’re a Christian?

            Try again, Scott. Before it’s too late. Christ really will be coming soon, and how will He find you?

          • Guest

            Wow. You’re going crazy editing all your posts. Why is that?

          • Oshtur

            Editing? I deleted a duplicate but misrepresenting it as ‘editing’ is just another sin for a Christian, but that never stopped you for obvious reasons.

          • Guest

            You have completely edited posts. You do know they are mailed to people who you reply to, don’t you?

          • Oshtur

            Yes and that’s why I know you are lying. At most I correct spelling errors when I see it printed out (iPhone screen is tiny and hard to proof before sending) and I replied to one twice because it appeared Disqus had eaten the first but it later appeared do I deleted the second. The ‘C one.

            But again you generally accuse others of what you yourself do do is this your standard practice? I rarely visit the actual forums to see how you alter them. Do you remove the slander, lies, and gossip after I’ve replued? I’ve run into trolls who that is their practice, taking delight in sin.

          • Guest

            Again, you are lying. You should go to the other site where a mod confirmed what I’ve said about you. There’s good reason your posts are being removed on other sites, Scott.

          • Oshtur

            Other site? Christianist boards often remove messages they don’t like, just means they are like you in many ways.

            But what information do you think they have a reader doesn’t? The know the handle and can moderate it, that’s it.

            My name isn’t Scott, and every time you present to others you are gossiping or lying – doesn’t matter which, each is a sin more real than doing flowers for a wedding ever was.

            Again you aren’t a Christian so what is your concern?

          • Guest

            Again, you don’t know how Disqus operates. You are extremely naive, and you are the last person who could identify a Christian. You lie, and you’ve been caught. Really, your obsession with this woman borders on mental illness.

          • Oshtur

            Actually I am very familiar with Disqus from the monitor side.

            And I am a Christian you are not with your ad hominems, slander and lies. Again my name isn’t Scott my last initial not S, anyone staying that as fact is sinning, simple as that.

            And talking about a legal case and bringing the facts out isn’t obsession by any useful meaning of the term. This is a case about religious discrimination by a business operating as s public accommodation. It did do solely by the instruction of its owner causing it to make fraudulent offers to the public opening the owner to personal liability for the crimes the corporation did as a result. The owner has been offered generous opportunities to operate the business legally which is possible and in keeping with the owners opinion but they have refused to do so making the excuses for the crime extremely questionable.

            That’s the story in a nutshell. All I’ve done is correct those who don’t understand the issues, the law, or that the owner isn’t being forced to do anything that any other business making offers to the public must do – obey the law or don’t offer things they feel they can’t sell as the law requires.

            Again any Christian would try to both obey the secular law and their conscience, she has had two opportunities to do do and refused.

            Oh well her choice, right?

          • Guest

            You don”t know how Disqus works. You don’t know how Twitter works. You don’t know how life works. You’ve stalked a little old lady and lied about her. You have misrepresented yourself for a sick agenda, and you’ve been called out. Scott.

          • Oshtur

            “Stalked a little old lady”??? I’ve never been in the same town with the owner of Arlene’s Flowers LLC or any indication she has any presence in these forums as far as I know.

            Is that why you are so stalker hysterical about this, you are really Stutzman?

            Please start taking meds for your psychiatric issues, you can be helped.

          • Guest

            Don’t tell me you now need a definition of “stalking”? Look, I understand: you have no friends, you have no life outside of the internet, and you hate Christians. You particularly hate sweet, pure, bold Christians like this little old lady. I get it. But that’s no excuse for your disgusting behavior and your lies. You seriously need help. I hope you seek it.

          • Guest

            Oh, and btw, Scottie boy, the Oshtur Marvel comic character was created in 1964, and was always identified as a woman.

          • Oshtur

            No not at all, for over a decade it was merely a name that rhymed in Stan Lee’s writing. That retcon that Agamotto, Hoggoth and Oshtur were the Vishanti came much later.

            Wikipedia isn’t that useful for things like this.

          • Guest

            Here you go, Scott:

            Oshtur is a fictional character published in Marvel Comics. The character is depicted as an Elder Goddess born from the Demiurge
            sometime billions of years ago. Unlike her siblings, Oshtur had a
            fascination with the realms beyond Earth. She took to the heavens before
            the fall of the Elder Gods and their degeneration into malevolent
            demons. It is unknown for how long Oshtur left earth, but it is presumed
            to be millions of years. While exploring the universe and other planes
            of existence, she met a companion in the mysterious but immensely
            powerful mystical entity Hoggoth, one of the founders of the later Vishanti.
            Again, it is unclear when or where Oshtur and Hoggoth discovered each
            other, though it has been confirmed that Oshtur asexually spawned
            Agamotto from one of her tears.

            Oshtur is credited as the creator of the Book of the Vishanti, a tome of untold power comparable to the Darkhold, but based in white magic.[volume & issue needed]

            In Mystic Arcana,
            Ian McNee has a vision of Oshtur in which he is assigned to find the
            Four Cornerstones of Creation. In the final book he learns that this was
            a deception by Chthon, and the real Oshtur intercedes. In Book I, McNee claims Ma’at and Ishtar as names Oshtur is known by. Additionally, in Marvel Tarot, Oshtur is hinted to be some kind of angelic being set as an opposite to the evil of the demonic Chthon, and has also been implied to have some undefined connection with the Judeo-Christian God and the Virgin Mary, along with many other ancient human mythologies and pantheons.

            First appearance
            Strange Tales #120 (1964)

            This is from the wiki source you prize so much.

          • Oshtur

            Ah you’d have to have a mind to be Re minded’. You are just a stalker who knows nothing about the blog post or Christianity.

            Oh I’ve been using the same computer handles for almost 40 years, better than ‘anonymous’ or the equivalent. But then I can see why you wouldn’t want to own your comments – that would be embarrassing.

          • Guest

            Again, Scott, you’re lying. You, too, are using a Disqus handle. However, if you really want to “own” your comments, why don’t you post under your full name, Scott S.?

          • Oshtur

            Scott S. Well you have two letters of my name correct, that’s a start.

            The sad thing for you is I have no interest in your name at all – someone who’d pick a handle that says ‘I’m not important enough to have a name’ I’ll take as being just that.

            Thanks for playing, your consolation prize of a case of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco treat, can be picked up at the stage door.

          • Guest

            Why are you frantically editing your posts?

            You got caught lying about who you are. You’ve been called out. Why not own who you are? Why pretend to be a born again Christian when you persecute them? Why not own up to your agenda?

          • Oshtur

            Frantic?
            You are certifiable.

            Lying? You lied and gossiped about who you think I am (never right once) for days. Each one as grevious a sin as any other, which makes this whole discussion hilarious. I haven’t lied about who I am once, but I suspect this is a case of you seeing in others what they know is in their own hearts, those darn logs in your eyes are making you see forests.

            I have not persecuted a single Christian. Speaking the truth is not persecution.

            Again you aren’t a Christian by any observable metric, you are devoid of the fruits of the spirt and sin in your messages with wild abandon. You have no respect for the truth and revel in it.

            You are an amusing troll, nothing more. I’d never even play with you if the thread aren’t already dead and you’re being focused on me keeps you off some poor person less able to see through you.

          • Guest

            You haven’t spoken the truth about the florist in question, you haven’t spoken the truth about the law, and you haven’t spoken the truth about the Bible.

            Have fun with your trolling, Scott. I believe it may be the only thing in your life now that Boy Meets World has had its finale.

          • Oshtur

            See everything I have said is true as demonstrated by your inability to even address them, ad hominems, lies, gossip and slander are all you have.

            Case in point my name isn’t Scott, calling me that is either gossip or a lie but a sin just as bad as any regardless.

            You haven’t a clue what a Christian would do, why would I care about such a deceptive and uninformed opinion as yours?

          • Guest

            You’re extremely immature for a 23 year old, Scott. I hope you grow up soon and realize lying isn’t the way to push your agenda. In fact, I hope you will lose the agenda and search for Truth.

          • Oshtur

            And more gossip lies and slander again you aren’t a Christian in deed hope you’re better on the inside.

          • Guest

            Keep lying. You are not a Christian.

          • Oshtur

            Yes I am, you on the other hand lie in virtually ever note.

          • Guest

            Dude, I’m not going back and forth with you. A mod on another site did a nice little search on you and verified what we thought. You are a poseur, and not a very good one at that.

          • Oshtur

            Yeah “a mod on another site”. In case that isn’t pure lie or psychosis please go attach a Disqus comment to a blog and see what limited things the moderators see, or go to the Disqus moderator help pages where they explain it.

            If it really happened you are repeating the lies of a liar – still a sin -and being manipulated but that doesn’t absolve you anymore than it does Stutzman who is being advised by the ADF to satisfy their agenda, not what’s best for her.

            Again not Scott, never used Scott as a handle anytime. But then you’ve slandered me by saying I was many things I’m not.

            Think about it – how could a moderator link totally different Disqus accounts when they only have access to their own entries?

          • Guest

            Go read about it on one of the other sites you frequent. I posted the links for a mod and he said he was able to verify it on his own. It hasn’t been deleted. Go read it. You lie, and you are quick to accuse others of what you are doing – just like Satan, I might add. He’s the father of lies, and you fall in right with him.

          • Oshtur

            Right I’m going to go search for your lies. Simply put, my name isn’t Scott never has been. I’m not a witch, I’m not a female, I’m not middle aged, I’m not any of the lies you have told.

            But it again punctuates the point – you probably think you are a Christian and yet you lie with wild abandon. If you ran a business and rejected a customer because you said they were a sinner it would be Pharisee level of hypocrisy.

            Both sexes marry spouses of either šęx, it’s just a fact of life. You don’t want to marry s particular šęx that’s fine but that has nothing to do with the rights of others.

          • Guest

            You can’t keep your lies straight. Look up the information YOU revealed about YOUR own self, Scottie boy.

            And back to the topic at hand – this dear Christian lady did not refuse to service a gay wedding because she does not serve gays or sinners or whatever YOU decide to label them. She has served those very particular customers in the past, and would gladly serve them again. She merely does not provide service for gay weddings, and that is her right.

            Now you can go back to pretending you are someone with stunning credentials, but the fact is that a.) you are ignorant of the law, b.) you are ignorant of the Scriptures, c.) you are not a Christian, d.) you have lied about your mediocre credentials, and e.) you are a liar.

            Keep spinning. No one believes you anyway.

          • Oshtur

            then she shouldn’t have advertised wedding floral services and she did.

            As to your lies you seem to think merely denying them will some how make a difference to God, we’ve been told the opposite.

            Credentials? Put up or shut up – when have I ever mentioned credentials at all? You lie and slander other people so often you can’t even keep them straight.

          • Guest

            Again, you are lying. Lying Scottie. Because that’s what you do.

            First of all, about this story: this woman is a Christian. Christians do not provide services for gay weddings, just like Muslims don’t provide services for gay weddings, and just like Orthodox Jews don’t provide services for gay weddings. Are you going to target them next? Come on, you know you love Kristallnacht. Is that your aim? To throw stones at this sweet little old woman and shut down her business?

            And yes, Scottie boy, you said you had stalwart credentials, but you don’t. You lied about that, too. You attacked Christian posters and told them they were stupid, when in reality, they were RIGHT and you were WRONG. Again, you LIED because that’s what lying liars who lie do, and that is your kind.

            Have a nice night sobbing at your computer screen.

          • Oshtur

            Actually most Christian owned business ‘do’ gay weddings, just as Muslim ones do, atheist ones do, and Jewish ones. It is the rare outliers that try to refuse business because of the customer’s beliefs which is illegal.

            And I have never posted any credentials and only speculated I as to why someone would run their business illegally as being too stupid to know they were is one of the possibilities, right? Along with deliberately criminal, too lazy to bother, and too greedy to risk lost revenue. I don’t know which one it is but if some one is disobeying the law that pretty much covers the range of possibilities, right?

            Again put up or shut up – my credential claim or just continue lying before This assembly and God.

          • Guest

            Actually, NO, Christian businesses do NOT do gay weddings. That’s why they’re being targeted by the gay mafia in this latest Kristallnacht. You’d know all about that, wouldn’t you?

            As far as your “credentials” go, you lied. You attacked other posters and feigned superiority to them. You have no credentials. You are a liar and you are exposed.

          • Oshtur

            Actually Christians do, any Christian that erroneously thought they couldn’t wouldn’t be offering wedding services at all. If they did by mistake they’d pay the fine for refusing to obey the law and find a way to not disobey in the future, in this case just continue not offering wedding services to anyone.

            And expecting a business to obey the law isn’t anything like illegally vandalizing a business or assaulting the people in them.

            I’ve never made any credential claims as so your lying continues again all that’s been exposed is you pathological lying with absolutely nothing to back it up. Disqus allows direct links to individual responses, put up or confirm you are lying.

          • Guest

            Christians obey the Word of God. The Word of God says homosexuality is a sin, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, Christians do not take part in gay weddings. You are not a Christian, nor do you know the Word of God. You are a liar, and you continue to lie.

            If you want to see what you wrote, go look in your Disqus history. When you were mocking Christians, you lied about your credentials. You have none. You’ve been exposed, and it’s driving you crazy.

          • Oshtur

            Please. Lying and slander and false accusations are sins and you do it in this very thread with wild abandon. You have no idea what a Christian even is it seems.

            Let me explain it to you. Everyone sins – everyone. We are all as filthy rags compared to the standards God has for us. No one will enter heaven but by the undeserved gift of God’s Grace. A Christian can sell to those of this world, their sins are between them and God and no greater than the sellers own.

            A Christian would sell the product they offered according to the law and if they felt they couldn’t they wouldn’t sell it at all. If they thought they had broken the law by mistake they would pay the required fine and not break the law in the future.

            The business owner in Washington hasn’t acted like a Christian would. They either willful or inadvertently broke the law, they have had two generous offers to put the crime behind them and go forward with the simple promise to not discriminate in the future, easily done as their conscience demands by merely continuing to not offer wedding services to anyone as they are now, and they have refused. They are breaking the laws of man willfully and unnecessarily and therefore breaking the laws of God, a sinner holding up their sin as righteousness.

            And if course totally off topic on this thread.

            And again you bear false witness and miss the point – you are the one acting crazy – stalking lying, sinning, hysterical rants. Again either present your proof of these credential claims – I mean it’s just one of your lies I’m asking you to verify – or stand even more revealed for what you, not acting like a Christian by any standard. There is no Spirit within you.

          • Guest

            Again, you’re rambling false accusations, and lies.

            This florist has no problem making flowers for sinners. She has no problems making flowers for gay clients. She has done so in the past, and will do so again. What she doesn’t do is provide gay wedding service. That is her right. As a business owner, she has every right to decide which services she will offer. Again, she is not deciding which PEOPLE she will serve, but what type of SERVICES she will offer.

            As far as knowing what a Christian would and would not do, you wouldn’t know about that. You don’t know what the Bible says, and you certainly are not a born again Christian.

            You have been called out on stalking this little old lady, and now you are trying to turn the tables by accusing her defenders of stalking you. No one is stalking you. You are merely being called out for misrepresenting yourself, the facts of this case, and the Christian faith.

            I’m not the only one calling you out, and I’m sure I won’t be the last. You are a liar and deserve to be labeled as such.

          • Oshtur

            And if she doesn’t want to offer wedding services to people of all beliefs she doesn’t have to, just don’t offer wedding services to the public.

            If she did so accidentally, then pay the fine and don’t offer them illegally in the future – violating secular law if there is no violation of ‘religious conscience’ is in itself a sin – if a Christian can do both then its a sin not to do so.

            The excuse that she doesn’t do the ‘event’ has been settled by the Supreme Court long ago, events are tied to people and closely tied events to protected classes are protected class and weddings are closely association with sexual orientation. The florist can no more refuse to sell to a ‘gay’ wedding than they could a ‘black’ wedding. Their beliefs won’t let them sell legally than don’t sell the offending product at all to the public. Set up a private club or non-profit, there are legal options this owner is either too ignorant, lazy, or greedy to do. It has nothing to do with ‘religious conscience’ at this stage with all the missed opportunities to satisfy it AND operate legally being passed by.

            And, of course, I have never sought out this ‘old lady’ business owner in the flesh and as far as I know she has zero personal internet presence of her own, merely advocates and people with gross misunderstanding about this case like you.

            You are the only one stalking, I had to turn on Disqus privacy to prevent you from coming and ranting where ever I was, not about the topic being discussed, but your delusions about me. That’s kinda the definition of stalking, cyberbullying, etc.

            Again, its obvious you aren’t Christian what with the lying with wild abandon, fall witness, slander, and such but I’m not sure exactly what you expect to accomplish by this. The more you rant the more you are obviously irrational and too emotional to be taken seriously by anyone.

          • Guest

            You keep saying the same thing, but that doesn’t make it so. This woman does not offer gay wedding services. She will gladly serve – and has served – gay customers in the past. She just doesn’t do gay weddings.

            Why don’t you go to Muslim florists and harass them for the same thing? We already know you abhor Jewish people. We already know, by your past comments, that you support Kristallnacht, and that you have family members who took part with Hitler’s regime.

            As far as stalking goes, I have merely commented on articles pertaining to topics I am interested in. This happens to be one of them. YOU began commenting to ME, and you have admitted on other sites that you like to frequent Christian sites to mock them. You have misrepresented who you are and what you do, and that hasn’t been revealed from your Disqus profile, but from other sources, as verified by a moderator on another Christian site you frequent.

            If you are having problems being taken seriously, that is YOUR fault, not the fault of what anyone has said to you.

          • Oshtur

            A muslim florist would ask you how many you want, where do you want them delivered. That’s the sad part, its the people calling themselves Christians who aren’t acting like Christians that are making the news.

            And your slander and lies continue. You realize your lie about be abhorring Jewish people, all your lies about me, even your posting my twitter account info is against Disqus policy and if it continues it may get your account deleted.

            And saying you are repeating lies from a liar really doesn’t save you with Disqus or God.

          • Guest

            Don’t pretend you know what Christians would or wouldn’t do since you’re not one.

            I haven’t slandered you (look up the meaning of slander). YOU posted from YOUR twitter account, not I. YOU are blaming people for what YOU are doing. Typical behavior from a hypocrite.

            You have slurred the African American people and Jewish people on other sites. People can search your Disqus name and see what you’ve written. Making your profile private doesn’t remove your posting record, but you’re too stupid to realize that, just like you’re too stupid to realize that your pagan name gives away your fake Christian persona (not to mention your lack of Bible knowledge and the way of salvation).

          • Oshtur

            Please,. You said I abhorred Jews, supported Kristalnacht, you said I had relatives supporting the Nazi’s.

            false statements said to damage someone’s reputation – the definition of slander. My relatives on one side of the family have been in America since 1650 other had shirttail relatives fighting with the Dutch resistance in World War II.

            I mean who do you think I am today? Alessandra/Martin/Heather/Scottie? Your slander’s know no end.

            And most likely you found my twitter account because I use an identifiable handle through out the internet rather than just hiding behind ‘guest’ or ‘anonymous’.

            And that you don’t know what a Christian would do is what’s sad. To not obey secular law is a sin and there are many ways this business owner could indulge their mistaken notion about what a Christian should do about this and obey the secular law making it clear this isn’t really about religious conscience at all.

          • Guest

            Yes, I say you abhor Jews and I still say it. You made fun of Judaism and you have supported Kristallnacht. Again, look up the word “slander”. You clearly do NOT know what it means. You also don’t know how Disqus works, nor how the internet works. You’ve been called out, and exposed, by myself and by a moderator on another forum. The posts are public. Anyone can read them. My posts and the moderators stand. Yours have been deleted.

          • Oshtur

            Two liars ≠ truth. And an agenda driven deletion says more about the deleter. I would assume you are that the site that posts all the stuff from that hate commentators and deletes those that disagree with their venomous tongues and leaves those that are themselves poison? It’s not a shock they support your lies and slander, its their click bait stock and trade.

            Again, it is for me to state the Truth, and trying to hide from it by deleting it just marks the deleter not me. The messages stay there long enough, by the time the minions get around to deleting them the audience is long gone like here. This exchange might as well be through email as few people are reading it now.

            And again, lies – I have never supported Kristalnacht, and I have never made fun of Judaism. Again, I quoted the definition of slander, you fit the definition of a ‘slanderer’ to a T.

            Who do you think I am now? Alessandra/Martin/Heather/Scottie? How many lies can you tell in a single day?

            Again, a Christian would be following God’s and secular law by now, you follow neither.

          • Guest

            So now you’re calling a moderator, who verified these things about you (you really don’t know how the internet works, do you?), and myself, liars, when we’ve only told the truth? Unbelievable!

            No wonder you’re harassing this little old lady – you’re evil. You get a kick out of falsely accusing people.

            Look up slander. Again, you are misusing the word. You don’t know what it means, just like you don’t know what the legal terms and accusations you’re throwing around mean.

          • Oshtur

            Very believable – that site is without honor why would its moderators be any different? Any point they can’t refute they delete. Again, you have proof of your slander then show it. But you can’t for the obvious reason – its a lie.

            And again, I’ve never even met this ‘little old lady’ and as far as I know she has zero internet presence, she isn’t being harassed. She sought out the spotlight and that people are looking at the issue she chose is not harassing. She is running her business legally and according to her conscience right now – that she is still in the spotlight is 100% her personal choice.

            “Ready for my closeup Mister Demille”

          • Guest

            Ha ha! You said my posts would be deleted because you flagged them, and instead YOUR posts were deleted. Psalm 9: 15: “The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken.”

            You do know when you set up profiles on Google, youtube, twitter, Facebook, etc., and publicly post from them, that they are PUBLIC information, don’t you? You do know that when you post on a forum, mods can see where you’re posting from, don’t you?

            You have harassed a little old lady because you don’t like her faith. It’s what the gay mafia does. Perhaps you should ask your partner to give you some attention, and then you won’t feel the need to seek it on the internet by harassing Christians.

          • Oshtur

            Yes, and that information is considered private by Disqus. Just because someone has a profile somewhere else posting it in a Disqus note is posting private information according to their policy. Posting emails is illegal, addresses, etc. If I haven’t posted the information in a Disqus forum its against the rules for you to post it.

            But then honor and integrity aren’t your long suites

            As to flagging, stat’s a test of the boards integrity – you insult, trash=talk, lie, slander – if their policy says that isn’t allowed and they don’t allow you that just reveals them for what they are – liars themselves. Again, if you were a Christian you would know this but the obligation is tell the Truth, God is the one that gets someone to accept it, not the presenter.

            Again, I flag your bile, and if it doesn’t do what the forum has said it will do then it shows the forum is just a fount of bitter water and in need of the sweet Truth of God all the more.

            But taking delight in the triumph of evil is something you do regularly. I expect nothing else from you at this point.

            And I don’t even know the lady, I can’t harass her. But the difference between me and you is I don’t try and harass her, while you search continually for me.

            what am I today? Am I back to being a ‘witch’ or has some other slanderous delusion caught your attention?

          • Guest

            Posting a link to a public site is not considered private by Disqus. I did not post your personal information, although I could have, and neither did the mod.

            You flag posts of anyone with whom you disagree, and you were deleted for flagging, harassing, stalking, and lying. You’re just not very good at it.

            For the record: You are not a Christian, you are into magic spells/witchcraft/the occult, and you are fixated on the gay agenda. You dislike Jews, Christians, and African Americans, as witnessed by your posts that were later deleted (but which Disqus has on record).

            You can run back and edit your posts all you like, but your original posts are still accessible.

          • Oshtur

            No, I flagged ones where you calling me a witch, names that weren’t mine other personal attacks and ad hominems. That they weren’t deleted is a testament to the basic dishonesty of the moderator and their stated policies. Obviously not Christian

            And it is amusing that you accuse others of the things you do and are accused of. A childish red herring that fools no one, except you it seems.

          • Guest

            Again, you are lying. No surprise you fabricate stories about Christians. it’s hilarious that you, through your own trap, were exposed. But then again, bigots are never the brightest.

          • Oshtur

            Trap? Again, a contentless ad hominem laden comment like yours should be deleted by a moderator if flagged, they read it, and they were honorable. But as you gloated, they didn’t. What’s sad is that you think that is a victory for anyone’s soul.

          • Guest

            Quit trying to use words to which you don’t know the meaning. Looked up “slander” yet?

            Your posts were deleted because you attacked posters, name-called, made up lies about this beautiful Christian woman, and made up lies about other posters. You lied about who you were, pretended to be a believer even though you admit elsewhere it’s a tactic you use to further “your side”, as you call it, and used slurs, lies, and personal attacks in your posts. You bragged that you could get anyone’s posts deleted, and when you couldn’t, you cried. Take it like an adult. You played, got caught, and called out. Own it.

          • Oshtur

            And so we get another contentless note filled with lies. I of course didn’t attack any other posted, have said noting untrue about the business owner, haven’t said who I was (thought you said I was a witch) and more dangerous to you have denied the Spirit within me.

            And I said I would flag the comments you left assuming the best of the moderator and they were honorable. as a Christian does. Looking far back on my notice I don’t see any string of removals other than one from a board with a couple known wicked moderators that don’t follow God’s laws or the forums policies.

            Oh well, its not like they act in a way that actually changes anything.

          • Oshtur

            Ah an edited message after the fact, I go back often. So now I slurred African American’s too? Your lies just grow with the telling…

            If only they were the simple, childlike slanders of the past:

            “Oshtur is a gay rights activist wiccan who trolls the internet looking for Christian subjects to troll. She harasses posters. I have stopped engaging her because she gets off on that kind of thing. She has multiple accounts and personas, including 2 blogs that brag about how she trolls Christian topics.”

            What next? I’m a Martian? Cthulhu? What dark little fantasy will you come up with next?

            Pagan name? Its a comic book character!!!! Yes I admit it, I read Marvel comics in the 70’s

            Seriously this from the person who is too cowardly to own their remarks in a searchable fashion:

            “Thanks. I am posting from a registered Disqus account. I chose to use the “Guest” moniker as my official sign in simply for the anonymity it gives.”

            You are a piece of work, and not a Christian one.

          • Guest

            I’ve already cited the racist remarks you have made, ad nauseum. Trying to force me to repeat what YOU have said isn’t a very bright diversionary tactic, but then tactics are all you have.

            If you think that using a moniker on the internet is a crime, then step up to the plate. Be an adult. Own your comments. Post them under your FULL LEGAL NAME.

          • Oshtur

            “I’ve already cited the racist remarks you have made, ad nauseum. Trying to force me to repeat what YOU have said isn’t a very bright diversionary tactic, but then tactics are all you have.

            If you think that using a moniker on the internet is a crime, then step up to the plate. Be an adult. Own your comments. Post them under your FULL LEGAL NAME.”

            That’s called a red herring – you use a handle the equivalent of ‘anonymous’ admitting publicly you do so you can’t be held responsible for what you say and then try and distract by asking someone who has been using the same easily identified handle for years to up their game. Typical deceit on your part.

            As to citing, no you haven’t. I’ve said nothing against African Americans or Jews as a group, but then lying is your first nature. Put up or shut up.

            Oh yes, now looking back on just the messages today I see you extensively edit and alter them after they have been replied to so from now on I will post what I’m actually replying to in the message itself so that bit of troll trickery won’t work for you any more.

          • Guest

            That’s not what a red herring is. You truly don’t know what the terms you use mean.

            I also haven’t edited any posts today. You seriously need to stop making things up. Your lies are easily proved to be false.

          • Oshtur

            “That’s not what a red herring is. You truly don’t know what the terms you use mean.

            I also haven’t edited any posts today. You seriously need to stop making things up. Your lies are easily proved to be false.”

            Yeah, you don’t know what slander, red herrings, straw man, lying – you are pretty uninformed.

            And no you won’t be able to radically change your posts anymore – a simple cut and paste stops that bit of deceit of yours.

            Your one trick pony is getting old – maybe you have to start again and change your name to something even more cowardly – oh wait, there isn’t one on Discus. You’ve hit the bottom of the barrel, but look at the bright side – there’s no way to go but up.

          • Guest

            I haven’t changed my posts. You do know that people subscribe and to these threads, which mean they have the posts emailed to them as soon as they are posted. Readers know I haven’t altered a thing, and they know that you are lying. And again, you don’t know what slander means, you don’t know what red herring means, and seeing you misuse the terms is hilarious, particularly after you called Christian posters “dumb”. You make this entirely too easy.

          • Oshtur

            “I haven’t changed my posts. You do know that people subscribe and to these threads, which mean they have the posts emailed to them as soon as they are posted. Readers know I haven’t altered a thing, and they know that you are lying. And again, you don’t know what slander means, you don’t know what red herring means, and seeing you misuse the terms is hilarious, particularly after you called Christian posters “dumb”. You make this entirely too easy.”

            Actually the readers who bother to have every post mailed to them know that’s not true. And that you don’t know what ‘slander’, ‘red herring’, ‘straw man’, ‘lying’ or ‘Christian’ means has been very evident to everyone for some time.

            And again, I called poster’s “dumb”? Are you confusing me with your wiccan witch fantasy again? Or maybe your friend ‘Scotty”? Or “Martin”? Or called me a middle aged woman? A 23 year old man? Again, you lie so often do you really think anything you say has any validity to anyone on the planet?

            Done with you now – all your tricks are spent and when all your bile is expelled you’re just an empty husk.

          • Guest

            Okay, this is just pathetic. Again, anyone can look up those terms and words (slander, red herring) and see that you have misused them repeatedly. I won’t even begin to mention other misuses and serious spelling and grammatical errors. You are not all that.

            And again, you can falsely label me a liar, but others know that to also be untrue. You’re just squirming in embarrassment because you’ve been exposed on multiple sites where you’ve abused and stalked Christian posters.

            And lastly, as far as your multiple identities go, it’s been proven you use them, and pathetically so. Good luck with life. You’re going to need it.

          • Guest

            Muslim florists do not do gay weddings. I suggest you try to order some. Hypocrite.

          • Oshtur

            Yes they do, why wouldn’t they? Local Muslim caterer loves doing weddings, gay or straight, as do real Christians florists and caterers. just about every honest American business owner that respects their customer’s inalienable right to NOT share the beliefs of anyone at the business and still do business with them. if a moral business owner can’t see something in compliance with the law they just don’t sell that something.

          • Guest

            You are making things up. There are reasons why the gay mafia aren’t targeting Muslim businesses. They’re only going after Christians because they know Christians are peace loving and turn the other cheek. This sweet little old lady was targeted because they thought she’d roll over and die. Well they were wrong.

          • Oshtur

            That’s a total lie, but that that’s what you do. The reason you don’t hear about Muslim businesses violating the civil rights laws is because they don’t violate the civil rights laws.

            Going after Christians? I do like it when anyone following this case knows you have just lied a very public lie – its common knowledge that the customer came to this business because this is where they have done their floral business for years.

            Lying that this was some sort of ‘gotcha’ purchase is a lie – you want to see people clumsily trying to make that happen look at your side of this issue.

            Again, this lady would be ‘sweet’ if she was even making a half-hearted attempt to act like a Christian, this is just a business owner choosing to run their business illegally when they could be running it legally and not sell a single thing she doesn’t think she shouldn’t.

            Again, willfully violating secular law with no religious issue is a sin for Christians making her whole case hypocritical and sad. She dishonors Jesus in His own name.

          • Guest

            Again, you are LYING. You can’t stop lying.

            It’s why your posts have been deleted on other forums.

            There are ways of verifying who someone is on the internet. You don’t know how that works, but moderators have a responsibility to keep the board clean. Your posts were deleted because you violated the rules. My stayed because they did not.

            This dear woman you are lying about serves gay customers. The customer in question has been served there for years. She does not discriminate against gay customers or any customers. She simply just does not service gay WEDDINGS.

            You keep repeating your illogical and hysterical claims, but they are not true.

            Lies are all you have.

          • Oshtur

            Right, a recent deletion was when someone said they thought the business owner should have a crowdfunding effort and I replied that she did and told them where to go to donate.

            But that’s a horrific lie, right?

            You forget I can see the messages that are removed. At the board you are probably thinking of it is actually by blog entry not board wide, and what happens is the moderator just goes through and deletes everything – one line responses, point by point replies. Its the Truth some of those moderators can’t stand and like a petulant child they delete them, but by always far too late to really stop anyone from reading, its just an exercise in pride and hubris on their part. I bet you and they get along really well.

            And of course I never said she didn’t serve gay customers. Most diners served black customers too, just not equally and civil rights laws require full access to all services, just like the law of God any infraction of that ‘full’ and ‘all’ is a as much a violation as not complying at all.

            And the business either offers wedding services to the members of the public regardless of the their status by race, creed, color, national origin, séx, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability or the weddings they might have related to these rights, or they don’t. This is long established law, things closely associated with a class are also protected and weddings are protected. The business can no more refuse a customer’s weeding because of its sexual orientation than it could because the customer was a military veteran.

            I do find it humorous that you accuse me of the things you do – a bit of introspection would go a long way – consider it.

          • Guest

            You’re lying again. You flagged Bible verses, and Christians talking amongst themselves about spiritual issues. It had nothing to do with you, but because you have an agenda, you frequent Christian sites posing as one, and then try to create as much chaos as you can.

            You got caught, and you got deleted. Take it like an adult.

            You can ramble on and on accusing this dear woman of all sorts of crimes, but the fact is, she didn’t commit any, and she will be victorious. You will not.

          • Oshtur

            I flagged bible verses? How do you do that? Oh you mean I flagged a comment that had ad hominems, personal attacks AND a bible verse? What a terrible thing for me to do.

            Chaos? I just speak the Truth about this case, and then people like you that actually know very little about it try to win an argument by crying and insulting. Wont’ work here, doesn’t work in a court of law. If you would actually discuss the issues rather than accusing people of being witches there would be no ‘chaos’ at all. The hysterics are all yours, those like you and your friend the moderator that doesn’t enforce their own policies.

            The business owner has already had her violation of the law confirmed, saying she didn’t commit a crime is silly – appeals are about changing a verdict that already exists – she causes her business to operate in an illegal manner.

            And considering the precedence and the state constitution and laws, the chances of this ruling changing are very low.

            I was ‘caught’ on a board moderated by someone with a vile tongue and a Pharisee’s demeanor, we all make sacrifices for the Lord. Considering those that other Christians make I most assuredly will take this one for the team.

            The post blogs titled by lies, I will correct them, they will need to take that like an adult.

          • Guest
          • Oshtur

            So you prove I’ve been consistent since 2008 and not lying and so you were? Interesting.

          • Guest

            I’ve not lied. And you are no Christian.

          • Oshtur

            Honey, every time you call me Scott you are lying. I’m not, never used a handle like that. God knows you’ve lied denying it is just another lie.

          • Guest

            Okay, Scott. Whatever you say, Scott. You’ve been exposed, Scott.

          • Oshtur

            I guess talking to you is leading you further into sin. But you seen to enjoy lying do much

          • Guest

            Cat got your tongue, Scottie?

          • Oboehner

            Why not? I’m sure there are plenty of fellow deviants to patronize, it’s not like something someone is born with or can’t change is being discriminated against.

          • Oshtur

            Not how the civil right to be free of discrimination in a publi offer works.

            If the business does sell a service to the public do so legally or don’t sell to the public it at all if they can’t. Those driven to discriminate can do so as a private club or non-profit.

            Legal solutions that allows anyone to follow their conscience no matter how dark and shriveled it might be.

          • Oboehner

            I as of yet haven’t seen anything in the Constitution that protects an activity choice over the First Amendment.

          • Oshtur

            You’re right, the customer’s have s right to have a wedding in keeping with their beliefs and a business has no right to offer services to the public and then apply a religious test the customer must pass to buy them, their right to free exercise protects them for such invidious discrimination.

            If the business couldn’t sell to people of all beliefs they wouldn’t have offered that product to the general public at all. That’s the business’s choice – either offer the service legally or don’t offer it at all to the public.

          • Oboehner

            Still haven’t seen it.

          • Oshtur

            Really? Maybe it’s because you are missing all have equal rights. The business wouldn’t have even offered something to the general public it couldn’t do so AND respect the customer’s Constitutional right to NOT share the limitations of the beliefs of anyone at the business. They would have offered it as s private club or not at all.

          • Oboehner

            Still haven’t seen it.

          • Oshtur

            Yeah we’ve all seen that affliction before.

          • Oboehner

            Yeah, being afflicted with people claiming things that don’t exist.

          • Guest

            You have no qualifications nor impressive education, Scottie, so stop talking down to posters who know more than you do.

          • Guest

            You probably don’t go to any weddings. You don’t have any friends, do you, Scott?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            That’s what happened when laws were passed banning two citizens of the same gender from accessing aright offered by the state.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Please cite one business owner who has been forced to change his/her views on what is moral.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Please name one business owner that has been forced to change their views on morality.

          • MisterPine

            There’s no such thing as a gay supremacist, and it is quite right and correct to “ram down someone’s throat” that they have the right to live and love and be loved without being oppressed by religious freaks.

          • Oboehner

            There’s no such thing as a religious supremacist, and it is quite sad and incorrect to “ram down someone’s throat” as they have the constitutional right to their rightly-held beliefs without being targeted by sick, mentally deranged, perverted, deviant freaks.

          • MisterPine

            “There’s no such thing as a religious supremacist.” Hm, interesting. Guess you’ve never heard of ISIS. Or the KKK.

            What a shame your “rightly held beliefs” are trying so hard to impact people who elect not to follow your twisted, poisonous, hateful religion. Then it might not be necessary to continue to give you the smackdown you’ve been getting in the courts.

          • Oboehner

            The radical homosexual anarchist group known as “Bash Back! planned for over a month the assault on the Mt. Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan. A band of about 30 homosexuals stormed the church during services shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. They distributed fliers to passersby, threw condoms at parishioners and set off the fire alarms. Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded, “This is urban fascism come to America’s heartland.”
            Mass Resistance has compiled a list of militant gay actions in the wake of California’s successful Proposition 8 campaign.
            More than 200 protesters screamed and chanted in front of the Catholic Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles during Sunday services, intimidating families.
            Street preacher gets physically assaulted at a gay pride event in Seattle.
            In Palm Springs, an enraged crowd of homosexual activists attacked an elderly woman carrying a cross.
            Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church was targeted, a swastika constructed. Same situation occurred targeting parishioners at a Catholic church in Riverside, Ca.
            A disgusting anti-Mormon TV ad was broadcast across California, portraying LDS missionaries invading a home of lesbians.
            Several thousand homosexual activists rioted at a Mormon temple in the Los Angeles
            Lesbians parked a van with a big sign “Bigots” in front of a Mormon family’s house (parents and five kids) near San Francisco.
            A Mormon church near Sacramento was spray-painted with “No on 8” .
            A Sacramento theater director was forced to resign from his job after it was revealed that he had given a $1000 donation to the Yes on Prop 8 committee.
            There were instances of cars vandalized with Hate 8 engraved with a knife.
            Gay activists have disrupted and viciously vandalized churches nationwide for their stances against gay “marriage.”
            Just some of the work of gay supremacists.

          • MisterPine

            A cut and paste from Conservapedia? Are you for real?

          • Oboehner

            I thought you liked those whateverpedia cut and paste, you’ve done that more than once.

          • MisterPine

            If you’re seriously going to compare Wikipedia with Conservapedia, I’m not surprised your rather myopic worldview is what it is.

          • Oboehner

            So just what is the major difference? Is one more credible than the other? Since you looked it up you would see that all of the examples given were documented.

          • MisterPine

            The major difference? One is authored by the world, and the other is authored by a bunch of right wing crackpots. One also has considerably more respect than the other, being impartial.

          • Oboehner

            Can you back that up? Didn’t think so.

          • MisterPine

            Two minutes on both sides will show why that isn’t necessary.

          • Oboehner

            I’m still waiting for that hard evidence you keep avoiding and dancing around, religious boy.

          • MisterPine

            No amount of the mountain of evidence out there will ever reach your brain, fundie boy.

          • Oboehner

            So all you have is faith then, evolutionism boy? Not one cold hard fact, just excuses as to why you can’t post any.

          • MisterPine

            You are a Christian Fundamentalist, which means you are impervious to facts and science. You twist, lie, deflect, mock, sneer, and all the while show that your knowledge of evolution is based in strawman theories, Ray Comfort, Jack Chick, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and every other snake oil salesman out there. You are hopeless.

          • Oboehner

            Now more ad hominem attacks. That is even more pathetic that you can’t come up with one irrefutable scientific fact, not one. You just keep proving my point.

          • MisterPine

            No, you want to believe and others to believe that I’m proving your point. I’m exposing you. Those are not ad hominems. That is exactly what’s going on. And you want to play this ridiculous game over and over where you take the greatest scientific minds of this age and claim to know better than they do.

          • Oboehner

            The only thing you’re exposing is your inability to produce facts, you only dance around and hurl accusation, appeal to authority arguments and ad hominem attacks. I don’t expect others to believe what they can plainly see.

          • MisterPine

            Stop playing games, all right?
            You are told the difference between religion and faith, yet continue to call evolution a “religion”. Practically working into every sentence you write, presumably to “rub it in”. And you play this little game every time you’re presented with an inconvenient fact. I present a dictionary definition and you accuse me of an “appeal to authority”. Well, guess what? When the “authority” is a group of scientists at Berkeley university who lay out their findings and prove what they know, that’s not an “appeal to authority”, that IS authority. And you don’t like it! Well too bad! Stop buying the wares peddled to you by fundie snake oil artists and listen to the people who’ve studied it!

          • Oboehner

            “that’s not an “appeal to authority”, that IS authority.” It still boils down to “because ____ said so” which holds zero proof of anything, flat earth blood-letting boy. And if you don’t like it! Well too bad! Stop buying the wares peddled to you by “evolving”, Piltdown, Nebraska Man, Lucy, gill slit, snake oil artists and listen to the people who aren’t religiously invested in it.

          • MisterPine

            Do you not do exactly the same thing, hypocrite? Are you not going through life saying “God said so” and pointing at your KJV Bible? God can “say so” all he likes, but if God hasn’t spent decades studying, testing hypotheses and theories, and working directly with the matter at hand, then it seems to me God doesn’t know how we arrive at logical conclusions. And PROOF. And FACTS. “But I have this book” and “God said so” are FAITH. And I haven’t got a clue why you’re calling ME the flat earth guy when it’s practically your entire playbook, complete with fiery Jack Chick cartoons of the hell you want to send everyone to.

          • Oboehner

            So when exactly did I say “God said so” or are you just making more crap up? God has nothing to do with your religion, you know the one you keep whining “science” about?
            Why I’m calling you flat earth blood-letting boy isn’t the only thing you’re clueless about. Flat earth and blood-letting used to be widely accepted by the majority of “scientists” – the popular opinion you’re so hyped up on.

            “fiery Jack Chick cartoons of the hell you want to send everyone to.” More asinine fabrications, I see you don’t limit that to just unsubstantiated “scientific fact” claims.

          • MisterPine

            “Therefore God” is PRECISELY how you are looking at it. You’re looking to take shots and poke holes in established science and facts Because Jesus. That’s what this is about. Forget all our worldly knowledge, that means nothing. Goddidit.

            You’re strawmanning me again if you think I suppose blood letting and a flat earth. There was a time when that was all the science they had. But guess what? it got better. It improved, methodology got a lot better, and that’s why we can now confidently say that evolution occurs. We don’t think it. We know it. And it’s very much substantiated, despite your fundie blinders.

          • Oboehner

            Yup, your making crap up. I don’t have to poke holes in anything, there is no established science or facts, just your religion riddled with speculation, faith, and stories made to fit the biased fairytale.

            “You’re strawmanning me..” Nope, just pointing out how you precious popular opinion works (or more appropriately, fails)
            “But guess what? it got better. It improved, methodology got a lot better,” So it is the best it’s going to get right now or could it get better and toss your religion just like flat earth and blood-letting?
            ” We don’t think it. We know it.” – FAITH
            So where is that missing link anyway? Oh that’s right it doesn’t exist.

          • MisterPine

            No, you are making crap up. You are being WILLFULLY IGNORANT about science – not about scientific guesses or hypotheses, but things that have already passed those tests. And you’re doing it with flawed reasoning and cowardice.

            Did they test flat earth? Yes. It failed. They were wrong. They started again. Did they test blood letting? Same thing. That’s how we learn. But apparently it’s not how YOU learn. Continue to beat the hell out of your strawman, science looks on bemused.

          • Oboehner

            You keep claiming “science” when there is none.
            Did they test “billions of years”? No they can’t
            Did they test speciation? No, they can’t
            Just more flat earth blood-letting which conveniently can’t be tested, observed, or duplicated. Guess you just have to take it on faith – religion.

          • MisterPine

            All these things are tested and proven. You lose.
            It really isn’t possible to continue, we are deadlocked because you distrust what has already been proven. You are the stupidest person on the face of the earth, and it’s made worse because you have chosen to be that way.

          • Oboehner

            “All these things are tested and proven.” BS. Unsubstantiated claims don’t prove your religion. Ad hominem attacks also don’t prove your religion, it only demonstrates your total lack of substance.

          • MisterPine

            All these things are tested and proven. You lose. Science 1, Oboehner 0.

          • Oboehner

            Again, because you say so? Don’t make me laugh, you couldn’t even post one single shred of proof. Reality 1, MisterPine 0.

          • MisterPine

            It’s got nothing to do with what I say. It’s what science says, which is what you keep ignoring despite the mountains of evidence against you. You lose, but I wonder if you will ever acknowledge that you lose.

          • Oboehner

            More like mountains of BS, if science says, why can’t you repeat? Post a little evidence, I still dare you. Don’t hand me some link, don’t be lazy – post it yourself

          • MisterPine

            You’ve shown over and over the little games you like to play with the scientific data you are presented with. You’re a liar.

          • Oboehner

            Still have nothing, huh? Sad. Data based on assumptions, speculation, and faith, is not scientific.

          • MisterPine

            Still got everything. You still have faith.

          • Oboehner

            You don’t have science.

          • MisterPine

            It is ALL I have.

          • Oboehner

            LOL, you changed you stance on evolutionism then?

          • MisterPine

            Not for a second. Evolution is science, not religion.

          • Oboehner

            Instead of boring me with absurd unsubstantiated claims, post some – or just scurry along and try to evolve or something.

          • MisterPine

            How about you join the real world where we use the dictionary for definitions of things and we know the difference between faith and scientific facts. And when presented with proof we say “thank you” and not “that isn’t proof of anything”.

          • Oboehner

            The present me with proof or quit yammering on about your religion being science.

          • MisterPine

            What, you mean present you with MORE mountains of evidence that you do not comprehend and so therefore deflect? I’ve seen how you play your little game. You still lose.

          • Oboehner

            More mountains of speculation and assumptions with no proof, sorry I don’t have the faith in your religion that you do.

          • MisterPine

            Mountains of proof sir. Do you really want to look like an ignoramus by calling a proven scientific thing a “religion”?

          • Oboehner

            Like I said mountains of assumptions and speculation upon which ALL of your so-called “proof” is based.

          • Oboehner

            More ad hominem attacks, seems that’s all you have besides faith in your religion which never has been nor ever will be proven.

          • MisterPine

            I see you trying to make that work elsewhere on this forum and going just as badly for you over there. You have religion, I have science.

          • Oboehner

            Claiming science over and over doesn’t make it true, you have nothing but blind faith.

          • Oshtur

            “Street preacher gets physically assaulted at a gay pride event in Seattle”

            Always love this one. Guy on a megaphone starts calling bystanders at the Seattle Center foul names and a drunk guy there with his wife and kid and a long history of misdemeanor assault charges yells “what did you call me?!!!” and went after him. Yes, Jason Queerly was pissed but the incident didn’t happen because of the pride celebration other than it attracted a foul-mouth preacher without a bit of Spirit or its fruits and he shot his mouth off to the wrong guy.

            Point of fact people from the parade helped the preacher after all was done to retrieve his stuff.

          • Oboehner

            That excuses the rest I suppose.

          • Oshtur

            Yeah playing wack-a-mole isn’t productive. Considering all the people who have disrupted Pride marches and festivals I condider it a wash. But that one the true story is so the opposite of what’s presented it just needed to be said.

          • Oboehner

            Two wrongs make right then.

          • Oshtur

            If you say so, I think of it more we are all sinners and sin accountants isn’t what any Christian is supposed to be.

          • Oboehner

            Nor should they be a sin enabler or supporter.

          • Oshtur

            Actually for a Christian the sins of those of this world are between them and God and none of their concern.

          • Oboehner

            Then the sodomites should keep their deviance between them and God and leave Christian business owners out of it.

          • Oshtur

            The business owner should’ve kept themselves out of it by not making offers to the general public that can’t be purchased by people of all beliefs.

          • Oboehner

            Right because of their religious beliefs, they don’t belong owning a business – some pervert might get their feelings hurt.

          • Oshtur

            Don’t be silly, there are many many many many many many businesses someone with a burning need to religiously discriminate can operate, many many many many many things they can sell, and – because of their own personal choice- there may be some they don’t feel they can.

            Again, this need to religiously discriminate is a personal choice, it is up to them to be true to their feelings and obey the law at the same time and many many many many ways to do this to anyone of even low cleverness. And in this case since there are ways to obey conscience and the law any Christian who doesn’t is sinning anyway.

            This always comes back to the hypocrisy of the business owner.

          • Oboehner

            How can one’s activity choice be discriminated against? You apparently are arguing based on the fallacy the deviants are born that way, they are not and because they choose to do something, that choice is not protected anywhere in the Constitution (the law) – but religious beliefs are.
            There is no hypocrisy on the part of the business owner. Even if such a law held up to the Constitution, Christians are to obey God rather than man.

          • Oshtur

            What activity do you think is going on at weddings? And yes the choice to have a wedding ceremony, gay or straight, is protected under the universal right to religious freedom and exercise. It is the first amendment that is protecting the customer – the business wouldn’t have offered something they couldn’t legally sell for sale at all.

          • Oboehner

            What religion is sodomy?

          • Oshtur

            What sodomy is happening at a wedding?

          • Oboehner

            It was a celebration of sodomy that was the issue. What religion is sodomy?

          • Oshtur

            It was a wedding, no sodomy involved. What religions is S&M? Your question makes no sense.

          • Oboehner

            It was a celebration of sodomy that was the issue.

            “And yes the choice to have a wedding ceremony, gay or straight, is protected under the universal right to religious freedom and exercise.”
            Again, what religion is sodomy?

          • Oshtur

            Are you awkwardly trying to ask what religion is straight or gay? Christianity says marriages are blessed regardless of the ‘male or female’ of the couple. I don’t know of any particular séx act that is a religion in and of itself though.

          • Oshtur

            No religion is sidomy just like no religion is blue. Your question makes no sense.

            If you are trying to ask what religion allows the šęx acts called ‘sodomy’ between married couples Christisnity, the marriage bed is undefiled – anything goes.

          • Oboehner

            If sodomy and celebration of same are not a religion, then the First Amendment does not apply, and deviant šęx is not protected.

            If you were referring to Christianity and sodomy by stating “Christisnity” and “sidomy” You are wrong, anything does not go.

          • Oshtur

            And the obvious error in your hypothesis is what weddings are for. A wedding is a celebration of religious rite of marriage, it isn’t the celebration of šęx unless you go to really kinky weddings.

            Again if some one’s religion can be against the sexes of the couple someone else’s can be for it. And unless the couple is having šęx at the wedding it’s irrelevant.

  • Badkey

    Yeah… void it now, and they can wait til June like everybody else!!!

  • Gary

    Impeach the judge for violating the Texas Constitution. Do it now.

    • Badkey

      Nah… he’s just ahead of the gun.

      In June it will cease to be an issue.

      • Lemmy Caution

        I. Can’t. Wait.

        Bitter tears of Texans taste like smooth cold lone star beer.

      • Opus35

        Yes then all 50 states and DC we will have marriage equality. Woo!!! 😎

        • MattFCharlestonSC

          59? I hope this is because the 9 is next to the 0, or you pretend to be on their side from now on ;-).

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      On what grounds?

      • Gary

        He violated the Texas Constitution by ordering the issuing of the ssm license.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          A judge ruling on the constitutionality of a law is not an impeachable offense.

        • Malcolm Swall

          Even state judges swear to defend the US Constitution.

  • TheBBP

    The law is the law, right folks? If the marriage is not legal, it MUST be voided. If the judge wishes to continue to disobey the law, then he cannot be trusted to be impartial in his duties and should recuse himself from the bench immediately or face being impeached.

    • rwsafari

      If the law is unconstitutional, as many courts have now held, then the judge is merely ruling based on case law. That’s what a judge does.

  • Reason2012

    This assumes there’s such a thing as “same – gender marriage to begin with”, which there is not.

    The issue is does the state have the right to re-define religious institutions and pass laws to establish this new religious institution, which would in effect be passing laws to establish a new state religion (violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment), which in turn would criminalize Christian belief about marriage (another violation of the First Amendment).

    And on both counts, states do not have any right to do any such thing – we’re protected from such judicial religious tyranny by the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Not to mention that every single man already has the same right as every other man: to marry one woman. And every single woman already has the same right as every single woman: to marry one man. So the claim anyone’s being denied “equal rights” is a lie.

    Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:

    Matthew 19:4-6 “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Jesus even points out that for the cause of making them male and female, this is why male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

    Mark 10:5-7 “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;”

    Jesus said God made them male and female – not male and male – not female and female.

    Jesus said man shall leave father and mother, not father and father, not mother and mother.

    Jesus said man shall cleave to his wife, not to his husband, not to her wife.

    Not to mention Jesus is God, so the entire Word of God is the Words of Christ. As Jesus is The Word.

    John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

    John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

    The Lord rebukes us for our attempts to destroy what He defined as one man and one woman.

    As if that’s not enough,

    (1) Marriage is a religious institution that has existed since the beginning of time.

    (2) The government is violating the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America by REDEFINING religious institutions then passing laws to establish this new state religion where anyone who does not adhere to this new state religion is condemned as a criminal: sued and fined thousands of dollars.

    (3) Marriage is for the possibility of procreation for the continuance of society. A same-gender marriage is, by design, never capable of such a thing.

    (4) Any pro-creation should be within a marriage – same-gender ‘marriages’ are forced to go outside the ‘marriage” 100% of the time by design.

    (5) Kids have the right to be raised by their biological mother and father – same-gender marriages deny them this right 100% of the time, by design.

    (6) Kids have the right to be raised by a mother and a father, not forced into setups that are dysfunctional 100% of the time: two or more fathers and no mother, or two or more mothers and no father.

    (7) Every single person alive has one biological mother and one biological father. Nature alone re-iterates what marriage is – that this is what a family is.

    (8) A black man who has no problem baking cakes for white people cannot be forced to bake cakes for the ACT of a “whites are supreme” meeting and so on. LIkewise a Christian who has no problem baking cakes for those who currently profess homosexuality cannot be forced to bake a cake for the ACT of a same-gender wedding.

    • Reason2012

      Even children who grew up forced to be in homosexual “households” condemn it and expose it for the depravity is truly inflicts on children.

      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

      Christian beliefs criminalized: fined many thousands of dollars and sued if you get out of line with this new State Religion

      A sampling of how criminalizing Christian beliefs on marriage because it now violates this new State Religion and how all of this is a violation of the Constitution of the United States on many levels:

      Mayor calls own city’s churches “criminals”.

      http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/mayor-calls-own-citys-churches-criminals/

      Bakery fined $150,000

      http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/02/02/ruling-gresham-bakery-discriminated-against-same-sex-couple/22760387/

      Christian fired by Ford for expressiong his disagreement over them promoting homosexuality in newsletters.

      http://christiannews.net/2015/02/08/ford-contractor-says-he-was-fired-for-speaking-against-companys-support-of-homosexuality/

      It was Ekstrom who said last month that Stutzman personally was liable for the claims against her, placing both her business assets and her home and personal savings at risk.

      The judge ordered that the state and the homosexual plaintiffs, each of whom filed lawsuits, could collect damages and attorneys’ fees from Stutzman.

      “The message of these rulings is unmistakable: The government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don’t help celebrate same-sex marriage,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner.

      http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/judge-authorizes-personal-ruin-for-florist/

      http://christiannews.net/2015/02/19/christian-florist-found-guilty-of-discrimination-for-declining-gay-wedding-could-lose-home-life-savings/

      “I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.”
      http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/

      • Paul Hiett

        No one has ever been fined for a belief. You can be fined for breaking the law, but not for believing something.

        I challenge you to prove that anyone has ever been “fined” for simply having a belief.

        • Reason2012

          Mayor calls own city’s churches “criminals”.
          Bakery fined $150,000
          Christian fired by Ford for expressiong his disagreement over them promoting homosexuality in newsletters.
          It was Ekstrom who said last month that Stutzman personally was liable for the claims against her, placing both her business assets and her home and personal savings at risk.

          The judge ordered that the state and the homosexual plaintiffs, each of whom filed lawsuits, could collect damages and attorneys’ fees from Stutzman.
          “The message of these rulings is unmistakable: The government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don’t help celebrate same-sex marriage,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner.

          Facts prove otherwise.

          • Badkey

            Oh noes! Christians finding that the law protects other citizens just like it does them! Oh noes!!! Those who lose the lawsuit pay! Just like our law has been for how long? How DARE they treat christians like ordinary citizens!!!

            Oh, how horrible! Christians aren’t “special” anymore!

          • Reason2012

            And a moment ago “no one’s been fined” – now that it’s been shown people are fined, you can’t even admit you guys are wrong. Instead it’s now “oh no!”, ignoring that it’s a fact Christians who do not instead get on board with the new state religion are treated as criminals and fined so far as much as $150,000.

            A black person is not discriminating when he has no problem baking cakes for white people but refuses to bake a cake for certain ACTS, for example the ACT of a “whites are superior” meeting. But activists like you would criminalize them as well if you had your way and claim “how DARE you not treat white people like ordinary citizens” or “oh no! black people aren’t special anymore!” or “Black people finding out the law protects white people!” – and of course it’s quite obvious that the racism would be coming from the white people who sue the black people for not supporting such acts and dishonestly trying to claim it’s discrimination.

            But keep it up – it helps wake up a sleeping giant in America. 🙂

          • Paul Hiett

            And again, I’ve proven that no one has been fined for a belief.

          • Reason2012

            You’ve proven they weren’t fined $150,000 for NOT going against their beliefs? Where? Last time I heard the fine was $150,000.

            Last I heard someone was fired from Ford because they dared disagree with homosexual marriage that was being promoted in a newsletter that’s supposed to be about their business. So he didn’t get fired? Please prove that he didn’t get fired after all.

          • Paul Hiett

            They were not fined for what they believed. They were fined when they willingly turned that belief into an action.

            Do you really not understand the difference?

          • Gary

            Belief without action is not freedom of religion. The government is prohibited by the Constitution from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

          • Reason2012

            They were fined for NOT violating their beliefs. $150,000. You can say “no they weren’t” all you wish – it’s other posters that will see the truth.
            Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “They were fined for NOT violating their beliefs. $150,000.”

            They were fined (not $150,000, by the way) because they chose to act on their beliefs in a way which violated the law. A law they knew existed yet they still chose to operate a business and still chose to offer a product that they knew would have to offered without prejudice.

            You seem to be suggesting that people should not be held accountable to the law or that Christians are above the law.

          • Reason2012

            I thought you said they weren’t fined. Now they were fined? Which is it? You seem to change your mind with every post.

            Do you suggest black people should be forced to bake cakes for “whites are superior” meetings or “blacks are inferior” meetings? Of course not. End of story.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I thought you said they weren’t fined. Now they were fined? Which is it? You seem to change your mind with every post.”

            Please cite where I said they were not fined.

            “Do you suggest black people should be forced to bake cakes for “whites are superior” meetings or “blacks are inferior” meetings?”

            Owners are not allowed to turn away customers based upon race. End of story.

          • Reason2012

            A black man is not turning away people demanding he bake a cake for a “blacks are inferior” meeting – he’s turning them away b/c they’re trying to get him to violate his conscience. Huge difference.

            So you agree they’re being fined and treated like criminals. Better talk to Paul, he thinks you’re wrong.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Last time I heard the fine was $150,000.”

            Please cite the basis for that statement. I am unaware of any state which has, in their anti-discrimination laws, a fine of that magnitude.

            “Last I heard someone was fired from Ford because they dared disagree with homosexual marriage that was being promoted in a newsletter that’s supposed to be about their business.”

            You heard wrong. He was not fired for mere disagreement. He was fired for incendiary comments regarding homosexuals. Do you believe that a business should NOT be able to determine appropriate workplace speech?

          • Reason2012

            Scroll up – the links are there. No, he said it was wrong to have articles about promoting homosexuality in a company newsletter that’s supposed to be about the business and he was promptly fired.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Regarding the bakery, here is what the article says:

            “The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery will have to pay the couple up to $150,000, BOLI spokesman Charlie Burr said. The exact amount will be determined at a hearing on March 10.”

            What is it about “up to” and “a hearing on March 10th” that you don’t understand. No amount has been awarded. Further, the fine portion is not $150,000. That amount would include attorney fees. NO state has a fine of $150,000 for violating anti-discrimination laws.

            Regarding the employee “from Ford”. First, he did not work for Ford, He was a contractor. Second, he did not merely say that he disagreed with their policy. Included in his comments was: ““Heterosexual behavior creates life — homosexual behavior leads to death,”

            He was terminated because his comments “violated the company’s anti-harassment policy.”

            Just because you have certain views does not mean you have the right to publicly share them in the workplace. If a person things that blacks are inferior and should all be shipped back to Africa, should a company allow the employee to share those views publicly at the company? Are you suggesting that employees should be able to say whatever they care to in the workplace and that a company has no say in what it deems appropriate in the workplace?

            “in a company newsletter that’s supposed to be about the business”

            An aspect of a business is programs it utilizes to support its employees and its policies. As stated by Ford: “Ford’s anti-harassment policy was created to foster a respectful, inclusive work environment for all, and we expect employees and agency personnel to act in accordance with this policy.” The article in question included a mention of an employee resource group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees.

          • Reason2012

            Ah so if it’s only $140,000 that’s ok? And to be fined $1000 would still be treated like a criminal.

            If they are allowed to express their views of sexual behavior in a newsletter that’s supposed to be about their business not about_sexual perversions 2% of the population is into, then others have that right as well. To get FIRED over it? Treated like a criminal: par for the course.

            It’s not supporting policies to talk about sexual_perversions 2% of the population is currently into. It’s perversion and indoctrination.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Ah so if it’s only $140,000 that’s ok? ”

            Again, the state provisions do not allow for a fine of $140,000. Nor has any such fine been levied.

            “And to be fined $1000 would still be treated like a criminal.”

            He broke the law. That is the definition of a criminal.

            “If they are allowed to express their views of sexual behavior in a newsletter that’s supposed to be about their business”

            Ford is free to decide what they want in their newsletter. It’s “supposed” to be about whatever Ford decides they want it to be. Further, an article which highlights support for employees most certain is about business.

            ” then others have that right as well.”

            You have a vastly incorrect understanding of workplace rules and rights.

            “To get FIRED over it? Treated like a criminal”

            The comments violated Ford’s anti-harassment policy.

            If Ford’s newsletter included an article about how they celebrate black heritage month, and employee that blacks are inferior and should all be shipped back to Africa, should a company be required to allow the employee to share those views publicly at the company?

            “Treated like a criminal”

            In what way was he treated like a criminal? So when anyone is fired from a job does that amount to their being “treated like a criminal”. Please spare me the hyperbole.

            It’s not supporting policies to talk about sexual_perversions 2% of the population is currently into. It’s perversion and indoctrination.

            While you are certainly free to view it however you care to, Ford is certainly allowed to do as they please as well. Including setting policy about public speech at work.

          • Reason2012

            They are going to fine him up to $150,000. They just have to decide how much. So where is this law that says “they do not allow for a fine of $140,000”?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Check out the laws in Oregon reading violating anti-discrimination laws. Oregon does not provide for fines up to $150,000. The court may impose a fine and also award attorney fees which, combined, may total $150,000. But the fine itself cannot be that high.

            I’ll ask again:

            If Ford’s newsletter included an article about how they celebrate black heritage month, and employee that blacks are inferior and should all be shipped back to Africa, should a company be required to allow the employee to share those views publicly at the company?

            In what way was he treated like a criminal?

          • Reason2012

            I’ll ask him again, where is this law that says “they do not allow for a fine of $140,000”?

          • thoughtsfromflorida
          • Reason2012

            $140,000 is not in there. So again, where do “they not allow for a fine of $140,000” ? I didn’t expect an answer as it was clear you just made it up. Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “$140,000 is not in there.”

            Correct. Thanks for proving my point.

          • Reason2012

            The point being you lied when you said “they do not allow for a fine of $140,000” (or was that a typo and you edited your post to change it back to $150,000) … yet the fact is they will fine them up to $150,000, and are now trying to figure out how high they will go. You better write to all the journalists to tell them they all got it wrong and that you have the truth. Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The point being you lied when you said “they do not allow for a fine of $140,000″ ”

            No, I did not. If you read through the link I provided there is a section which lists the fines. You will clearly see that they do not go up to that amount or anywhere close. They may AWARD them up to $150,000 because they are allowed to assess attorney fees, but the actual fine for violating the law is not $150,000.

            You were the one who originally threw out the $140,000 number.

          • Reason2012

            So now it’s “they will AWARD them?” you do realize that the “AWARD” comes from a criminal “FINE” to someone else? Or do you think the taxpayers are funding it?
            Again, they are treating Christians as criminals for not violating their Christian beliefs and as we can see now seeking to ruin their entire lives from these hateful lawsuits.

            Thank you for showing how blatantly dishonest you will be by acting like “it’s not a criminal fine – it’s a award!”.

            Better start suing black bakers that have no problem baking cakes for white people but refuse to bake cakes for certain ACTS like “blacks are inferior” meetings or “whites are superior” meetings as well – except then it’s too obvious the real hate is from those suing the bakers. And so is the hate from homosexual activists seeking to make criminals out of Christians by suing them for not violating their beliefs – seeking them out to begin with to make targets out of them and making a request to support n ACT they knew they probably would not support, ready to follow up with a lawsuit. America is waking up to these bigoted acts and know it all stems from this new state religion.

            And no, I didn’t just make up the $140,000 number -it was response to your original response that said they cannot sue them “$140,000” – to which I replied “oh so $140,000 is ok then?!” And I had no idea why you were trying to say they cannot fine them $140,000 or where you got that number from.

            If you’re going to edit your post after I responded to something in it so that this specific detail responded to is no longer in it, at least be honest enough to admit it.

            Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The “fine” for an infraction is set by the state. The judiciary, in addition to the fine, can award monetary damages to include legal fees, pain and suffering, etc. The award does not change what the fine is. You would find it worthwhile to get a better understanding of these two terms.

            “Better start suing black bakers that have no problem baking cakes for white people but refuse to bake cakes for certain ACTS like “blacks are inferior” meetings or “whites are superior” meetings as well”

            Unless I was the person who was turned away, I would not be able to sue. Only an injured party may sue.

            “seeking to make criminals out of Christians by suing them for not violating their beliefs”

            They were sued because they violated the law. If you have an issue with the law, then you should work to get it changed.

            “seeking them out to begin with to make targets out of them”

            Proof?

            “If you’re going to edit your post after I responded to something in it”

            I made no such edit.

            “at least be honest enough to admit it.”

            Given the number of times you have lied about what I said, that advice is something you should consider following.

          • Badkey

            You lied. Why did you lie?

            The giant is awake and the result is you ain’t special no more.

          • Paul Hiett

            The facts prove that the baker and the florist broke the law. Sorry you don’t understand simple law, but you should educate yourself on it.

            Stutzman was not sued for her religious beliefs, but because she willingly chose to break the law and discriminate against a protected status…in this case, sexual orientation.

            In this country, anyone and everyone can hold whatever beliefs they want. They can even stand on a corner and shout to the world what they think, and no one can stop them.

            However, once those beliefs turn into actions, then the individuals are subject to the laws of this country. It’s pretty simple.

            So again, show me where anyone has been fined/sued/arrested by the courts for simply having a belief?

          • Reason2012

            It’s breaking the law for a black baker who has no problem baking cakes for white people to not want to bake a cake for the ACT of a “whites are superior” meeting? How so?

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes it is illegal. The baker could offer to bake the cake, and provide them materials to write whatever they want on the cake, but yes, the baker cannot refuse to bake the cake based on race.

            Now you’re educating yourself!!!!

          • Reason2012

            No, that would not be illegal. I highly doubt you’d insist a black baker get sued for not baking a cake for a “whites are superior” meeting.

          • Paul Hiett

            And once again, you’re wrong. Like it or not, that baker is discriminating on race. You clearly don’t know the law.

          • Reason2012

            No, like it or not, the baker cannot be forced to support ACTS that go against him. You clearly only want to call it racism when it suits you. You cannot force a black person to support hateful acts AGAINST him.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Political beliefs are not a covered category. If he turned them away because they were caucasian, then yes, it would be an issue. If, on the other hand, he turned them away simply because of the message, he would not have an issue.

          • Reason2012

            He turned them away not because they are white, but because the ACT they are asking him to bake a cake for. And a christian does likewise: no problem baking a cake for those who profess homosexuality, but baking a cake to promote a sinful ACT, the message being supporting that sinful act, he or she cannot be forced to do so.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “He turned them away not because they are white”

            Your situation is a hypothetical, therefore you cannot say why he turned them away. Saying “whites are superior” is not a “sinful” act.

            “he or she cannot be forced to do so.”

            Correct. The owner is free to no longer offer wedding cakes as one of the services of the bakery.

            If the baker has a big sign in the window that says: “We don’t support same-gender marriage”, baking a cake for a wedding reception would not result in a “message being supporting that sinful act”

            This idea that providing a product for something translates into personal support or endorsement is simply without merit.

          • Reason2012

            And no, I never said they will no longer offer wedding cakes, period – I said they do not have to offer wedding cakes when supporting such an ACT would force them to violate their own religious beliefs.

            Should a black baker be forced to bake a cake for an ACT of a “blacks are inferior” meeting?

            You know the answer to that: it’s no. And it’s no different forcing Christians to bake cakes that would force them to violate their beliefs either.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “And no, I never said they will no longer offer wedding cakes, period”

            Nor did I say you did. Why do you have to lie about what I said?

            “I said they do not have to offer wedding cakes when supporting such an ACT would force them to violate their own religious beliefs.”

            The courts disagree. If you believe they should be, then I would suggest that rather than posting on here, you put your time and effort into getting the anti-discrimination laws changed where the bakery is located.

            “And it’s no different forcing Christians to bake cakes that would force them to violate their beliefs either.”

            They aren’t forced. They are free to not operate a business and they are free to not offer wedding cakes as a part of their service offerings.

          • Reason2012

            “Nor did I say you did”.

            Really?

            “Correct. The owner is free to no longer offer wedding cakes as one of the services of the bakery.”

            I never said that – you imply I said by starting with “correct: ”

            Since you’re going to just start lying, take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            i never said you did. I said that you were correct in your statement: “he or she cannot be forced to do so.” and I provided an example of a way in which that could happen. I did not lie, unlike you who lies about what I say, about what you said.

          • Reason2012

            If you’re making a comment like “correct..” following by a statement, you’re implying the other person said it.

            For example “Correct. Marriage is one man and one woman” – that statement is acting like the person you’re responding to also just said “marriage is one man and one woman” and you’re agreeing by saying ‘correct’ and restating it.

            It would seem you’re in full on trolling mode, spending hours daily following me around. For that I thank you as it shows the hate activists typically have, and helps wake more people up to it.

            It also shows I’m onto something as you wouldn’t waste hours daily if I wasn’t.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “If you’re making a comment like “correct..” following by a statement, you’re implying the other person said it.”

            You would benefit from a better understanding of English.

            “It would seem you’re in full on trolling mode, spending hours daily following me around.”

            I am responding to your posts to me.

            “It also shows I’m onto something as you wouldn’t waste hours daily if I wasn’t.”

            It’s adorable you believe that, particularly after I have shredded each of your arguments.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            ““The message of these rulings is unmistakable: The government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don’t help celebrate same-sex marriage,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner.”

            Kristen is engaging in hyperbole. Any business if free to not offer products that would require that they violate their religious beliefs. So, no, no business owner is required to “help celebrate same-sex marriage”.

            Further, the issue with the above is anti-discrimination laws. They are not tied to the legality of same-gender marriage. A good example is Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, same-gender marriage is legal. There are not, however, any anti-discrimination laws which include sexual orientation. Therefore, a baker would completely within his/her legal rights to refuse to bake a cake for a same-gender wedding celebration.

          • Reason2012

            Sorry, a black person who happily bakes cakes for white people cannot be forced to bake cakes for the ACT of a “whites are superior” or “blacks are inferior” meeting. That you guys try to claim they’d have to only shows how dishonest you are intent on being on the subject and how you’d even promote racism just to promote your agenda.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Sorry, a black person who happily bakes cakes for white people cannot be forced to bake cakes for the ACT of a “whites are superior” or “blacks are inferior” meeting.”

            Correct.

            “That you guys try to claim they’d have to only shows how dishonest you are intent on being on the subject and how you’d even promote racism just to promote your agenda.”

            There is nothing “dishonest” about explaining how anti-discrimination laws work. They are what they are. My explaining how the law works does not translate into a statement that I “promote racism just to promote your agenda.”. Your statement is disingenuous.

          • Reason2012

            It’s not discrimination for a black person to refuse to bake a cake for a “whites are superior” meeting. Nor is it discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for the ACT of a male on male wedding. More so when they make it clear they have no problem baking cakes for professing homosexuals.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Nor is it discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for the ACT of a male on male wedding. ”

            While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, the courts disagree. The SCOTUS has made clear that religious beliefs are not a valid reason for protecting people from violations of anti-discrimination laws.

          • Reason2012

            While you are entitled to your opinion, the courts do not agree with the bigotry of forcing black bakers to bake cakes for “whites are supreme” or “blacks are inferior” meetings. Please cite where the courts disagree with me.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “the courts do not agree with the bigotry of forcing black bakers to bake cakes for “whites are supreme” or “blacks are inferior” meetings. Please cite where the courts disagree with me.”

            I never said they did. I specifically cited a male on male wedding.

            How do you reconcile lying with your supposed faith in Christianity?

          • Reason2012

            Then if you agree the courts cannot make bakers bake cakes to support acts then you just admitted they are overstepping their bounds to do so.

            Calling others liars only shows you lost the argument.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Then if you agree the courts cannot make bakers bake cakes to support acts ”

            No, I do not agree.

            “Calling others liars only shows you lost the argument.”

            I didn’t call “others” liars – I called you a liar because you lied, which typically means that you are unable to present a cogent argument, so you are reduced to lying about what others said in order to make a point.

      • Badkey

        I can find you just as many children raised in religious homes like you find ideal that feel the same way.

        You’re losing.

        You’re not special cuz you got mythology.

        Ain’t it wonderful?

        • Reason2012

          No, they point out things that will only EVER happen in “2 dad” or “3 mom” households. Why LEGALLY deny kids the right to be raised by both a mother and father? Why LEGALLY deny kids the right to be raised by their own biological parents?

          • Badkey

            I can find them all day long… stories of adults who tremble when approached by religious people because of their upbringing… the web is full of them.

            Deny both parents? Blame wars in Iraq. Blame cars. Blame divorce. Blame a foster care system where parents can abandon their children at will. Blame lots and lots of things and quit focusing hypocritically on one.

            Good grief.

          • Badkey

            Oh… he’s replying! I’m shaking with anticipation!!!

          • Reason2012

            You’re missing the point. Find kids that complain in regular households of being legally denied the right to be raised by their parents, that their rights were violated, or legally being denied the right to be raised by parents at all, or pointing out they were not even around anyone who had a mother and father but instead only ever 2 dads or 2 moms. Or took to meetings where they are exposed to_sodomy and_pornography or_sadomasochism. You only find that in these dysfunctional state-religion created “marriages”.

          • Badkey

            You’re missing the point.

            Kids to better in households with higher incomes. You don’t scream about that.
            Kids to better with adequate exercise. You don’t squawk about forcing that on everyone for the betterment of kids.

            You’re cherry picking because you don’t like gay people.

            NOTHING more.

          • Reason2012

            Again: Find kids that complain in regular households of being legally denied the right to be raised by their parents, that their rights were violated, or legally being denied the right to be raised by parents at all, or pointing out they were not even around anyone who had a mother and father but instead only ever 2 dads or 2 moms. Or took to meetings where they are exposed to_sodomy and_pornography or_sadomasochism. You only find that in these dysfunctional state-religion created “marriages”.

            That you ignore this fact proves my point. 🙂

          • Paul Hiett

            No children have been legally denied this right. Any claim to the contrary is a lie, and nothing more.

            Further, if anyone, straight or gay, exposes minors to such activities, as you claim, then they are guilty of a crime. I don’t expect you to understand the law on this though.

          • Reason2012

            Up until now, you’re right. But by design kids are now being denied many rights just so they can be used as trophies:

            – The right to be raised by their biological parents. Now denied 100% of the time by design

            – The right to be raised by a mother and father pair at all. Now denied 100% of the time by design.

            – The right to have siblings from what’s being called “parents” that are raising them – denied 100% of the time by design: new parents have to come in play that are not in the marriage.

            Dysfunctional, by design, stomping on kids rights, by design, 100% of the time.

          • Paul Hiett

            Who has been denied the right to be raised by biological parents? The kids of parents who paid a surrogate?

            Oh yeah, you’re right, that kid was denied their rights, and now being raised by another couple that paid the biological mother. I don’t see you screaming for the rights of that kid.

            Would you rather have a kid raised with one parent when there are couples willing to raise them together? I guess you’d deny a child that right because…you know…don’t want to offend your “god”.

            No child is being denied the right to have siblings…and where did you ever get the idea that that’s a “right”???? That’s about the worst argument anyone on here has every used, and that’s saying something.

            No, your religion tramples all over childrens rights every day. You force them into this world to parents who don’t want them, orphanages where they suffer, foster homes where they’re abused (by good, white Christians, no less). Don’t you dare get on your soapbox and start tossing rocks in your glass house.

          • Reason2012

            I’m not talking about cases where a person cannot get pregnant – i’m talking about legally denying all kids that right 100% by design in the dysfunctional setup of two dads or two moms. The difference is

            – the LEGAL denying of that right
            – 100% of the time
            – by design

            Huge difference.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Unrelated to the issue of allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage.

          • Reason2012

            100% related: in such situations kids are being legally denied their rights, 100% of the time, by design. it’s why it’s dysfunctional.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Please cite one law regarding that ability of citizens to raise children that has been modified based upon making it legal for two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage.

            If you cannot, then they are, in fact, unrelated.

          • Reason2012

            Same gender marriage being legalized: it’s now denying kids the right in that version of marriage 100% of the time to be raised by their biological parents. It’s now denying kids the right in that version of marriage 100% of the time to be raised by both a mother and a father.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Same gender marriage being legalized: it’s now denying kids the right in that version of marriage 100% of the time to be raised by their biological parents.”

            As much as you want to tie the two issues together, they are not. As evidenced by the fact that you have been unable to cite any law regarding who is allowed to raise children that has been changed in a state where same-gender marriage is legal.

            You are a liar and a deceiver. How do you reconcile that with your supposed Christian faith?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “- the LEGAL denying of that right ”

            There was no right to begin with. So no right can be denied.

            The legalization of same-gender marriage does not change the laws regarding who is allowed to raise children.

          • Paul Hiett

            Blame your “traditional marriage” high divorce rate for that crap.

            Speaking of divorce, why aren’t you lobbying for a law that declares divorce illegal?

          • Reason2012

            No one’s being legally denied being raised by their parents when we start out in “traditional marriage” households.

            No one’s legally forcing people to get married.

            So again, why LEGALLY deny kids the right to be raised by both a mother and father? Why LEGALLY deny kids the right to be raised by their own biological parents?

          • Paul Hiett

            Who has legally denied any child the right to be raised by parents? What kind of nonsense are you spewing?

          • Reason2012

            “same gender marriage”: “sorry kids: you will no longer be allowed to be raised by your biological parents – and you will also not be allowed to be raised by both a mother and father. Legally denied, 100% of the time, by design”

          • Paul Hiett

            Divorce: Sorry kids you will no longer be allowed to be raised by your biological parents.

            See how easy this is?

            Where is your outrage at the legality of divorce?

          • Reason2012

            Divorce: not legally forcing people to get divorced by design. Huge difference. Same-gender state religion setup: kids being denied the right to be raised by their biological parents 100% of the time, designing dysfunctional households where they are forced to find other means, 100% of the time, by design.

            No one’s legally forcing everyone to get divorced. Huge difference. Yet they’re legally forcing ALL kids in these new dysfunctional state-religion families to be denied their biological parents 100% of the time by design.

          • Paul Hiett

            No one is forcing anyone to marry someone they don’t want to!!!!

          • Reason2012

            They’re legally forcing kids to not be allowed to be raised by their biological parents 100% of the time by design. Legally forcing kids to not be raised by both a mother and a father, 100% of the time, by design.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are attempting to tie the legality of same-gender marriage to the issue of who is allowed to raise children. They are not tied together as allowing same-gender marriage will not change who is allowed to raise children.

          • Reason2012

            They are tied together when such dysfunctional marriages will now legally deny kids these rights 100% of the time, by design.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Two citizens of the same gender are already legally able to raise children. Legalizing same-gender marriage does not change the laws regarding who is allowed to raise children. Your statement otherwise is simply false.

          • Reason2012

            Not without homosexual marriage they’re not – “they” were given no such right. Please cite where two men are legally set up to be allowed to raise children as if they are married.

            If you’re talking about a homosexual man living with other_sex partners while raising his own kid, that just proves my point.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Not without homosexual marriage they’re not – “they” were given no such right.”

            Yes, they were.

            “Please cite where two men are legally set up to be allowed to raise children as if they are married.”

            Here’s a list:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States

          • Reason2012

            They weren’t allowed this until marriage was redefined, so you just proved my point.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “”sorry kids: you will no longer be allowed to be raised by your biological parents – and you will also not be allowed to be raised by both a mother and father. Legally denied, 100% of the time, by design””

            Same gender marriage will not change who is legally allowed to raise children. Attempting to tie the two together is without merit.

          • Reason2012

            Sure it does. Same gender marriage: 100% of the time kids are legally denied the right to be raised by their biological parents, and 100% of the time they are legally denied the right to be raised by both a mother and a father.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Again, Same gender marriage will not change who is legally allowed to raise children. Gay couples are already legally allowed to raise children. Allowing them to enter into marriage does not change that. Attempting to tie the two together is without merit.

          • Reason2012

            Sure it does. Please show what law says two mean can adopt a child where two men are not recognized as a marriage to begin with.

          • thoughtsfromflorida
          • Reason2012

            They weren’t allowed this until marriage was redefined. You just proved my point and prove you were wrong that they always were allowed to do so before marriage got redefined.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “they weren’t allowed this until marriage was redefined”.

            There are only 12 states which prohibit it, but 13 states where same-gender marriage is not allowed. If you had actually reviewed the link you would see that the laws regarding adoption were put into place long before same-gender marriage was allowed.

            Your statement is false.

          • Reason2012

            Again, you still have not shown where two men could legally adopt a child before same gender unions or same gender marriage was in place first.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Well, given that only 12 states deny it, and there are 13 states where same-gender marriage is illegal, that should be sufficient right there. However, if you need further examples:

            Florida – 2010

            Idaho – 2013

            Kansas – 2013

            Michigan – 2012

            Oklahoma – 2007

            “Again, you still have not shown where two men could legally adopt a child before same gender unions or same gender marriage was in place first.”

            Again, the information is in the link I sent you.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, 34 states had it forced upon them by one homosexual activist judge. Other states they just kept having re-votes over and over again until people got tired of voting on it and enough activists crossed state lines to add to the vote. But no worries – activists are waking up a sleeping giant. Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            ” Other states they just kept having re-votes over and over again until people got tired of voting on it and enough activists crossed state lines to add to the vote.”

            Proof?

            “But no worries – activists are waking up a sleeping giant.”

            What “sleeping giant” is that and what is it you believe this “sleeping giant” will do when it wakes up?

    • Paul Hiett

      It’s not a new religious institution! It has nothing to do with religion!!!!!

      This is about marriage equality, NOT about which religion is true or false. We don’t care what your religious text says about marriage. Your religious text is not the law!

      • Badkey

        Get ready… this one is a special brand of dumb that repeatedly told me the Civil Rights Act contained no public accommodations protections for religious people, but refused to read the text of the Act.

        He’s a special one….

        Wonder if he still wears his little white helmet on the short bus?

        • Paul Hiett

          Good grief!!!!!

          • Badkey

            He’s going to assert, over and over and over, that religion is religious, and that the government is establishing religion by giving protections and benefits with marriage licenses.

            It’s a hoot.

          • Paul Hiett

            I am seeing that…

      • Reason2012

        Hello. The government never defined marriage to begin with. So the moment they start passing laws to redefine religious institutions they never defined to begin with, that’s creating a new state religion. The moment they then also criminalize God’s original definition of marriage (those that still stick with that) which they’ve merely used up until now, that’s establishing a state religion.

        We already have marriage equality: every single person is already allowed to marry one person of the opposite gender. Who is being denied this right?

        Religion has not been the law – they just made legal contracts to offer legal aspects of it after the fact. Now they’re redefining what they never defined to begin with and making THEIR religion the “law”, which according to you they should not do.

        • Badkey

          in 37 states, and soon 50, you can marry someone of the same gender.

          Won’t that be wonderful?

        • Paul Hiett

          Marriage equality has nothing to do with religion. It is the religious amongst us that are using religion to try and assert their dominance. It doesn’t work that way.

          Defining marriage, or granting marriage equality is NOT creating a new religion. As I said, it has nothing to do with religion. It’s a clear case of religion trying to establish itself as the law.

          Fortunately, this country does not implement law based on religious belief, as evident by the 37 states that now allow gay marriage. By June, it’ll be a civil right, and there’s nothing any religion can do about it.

          • Reason2012

            You keep avoiding the question: every single person is already allowed to marry one person of the opposite gender. Who is being denied this right?

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re right, but that’s not the issue is it? You only want men and women to marry because it is in line with your religious beliefs. In other words, you only support laws that are Christian laws.

            That’s intolerance and discrimination on your part. Not everyone believes what you believe.

          • Reason2012

            You say It’s not the issue that “everyone already has the same right”?! Sure it is since that’s the issue you use as your reason for demanding “equal rights”.

            So why the false claim that it’s about equal rights when you admit everyone already has the same right and no one’s being denied that right?

            It’s special rights that are being demanded under the lie that you’re being discriminated against and want “equal rights”.

            And again, people are waking up to these dishonest tactics.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It’s special rights that are being demanded”

            Special rights are what exist now in 13 states. ONLY two citizens of opposite gender are allowed to enter into marriage. In the other 37 states, there are equal rights to marriage.

          • Reason2012

            No, for as long as marriage has existed, every person has that right. You’re demanding special rights under the false claim of “equal rights”.

            What 13 states are denying you the “right” to marry one person of the opposite gender?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The right to marry, as the SCOTUS has made clear, includes the ability to choose one’s partner. In 13 states that is restricted to two people of opposite gender, granting them a right that others do not have. That makes it a “special right”.

            The other states allow two citizens to enter into marriage without regard to gender. That is equal rights.

          • Reason2012

            No, it’s not a “special right” just because you do not want that right. It’s a right every single person has. You don’t want that right? Fine. Trying to pretend you’re being denied the right to marry one person of the opposite gender is dishonest.

            You want a special right NO one has: to marry a person of the same gender. Others want a right NO one has: to marry 3 people at once. Others want a right NO one has: to marry their adult son/daughter. And so it goes.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “No, it’s not a “special right” just because you do not want that right. ”

            Agreed. My not wanting it doesn’t make it special. What makes it special is that it is only offered to two citizens of opposite gender.

            “Trying to pretend you’re being denied the right to marry one person of the opposite gender is dishonest.”

            I never said that I was denied the right to marry on person of the opposite gender. Your saying that I am pretending that I am is a lie. How do you reconcile lying with your supposed Christian faith?

            “You want a special right NO one has”

            No, I want the same right that two people of opposite gender have. The right to enter into marriage with the consenting, non-closely-related adult of my choice. That is not a “special right”, That is an existing right that is being unconstitutionally restricted based upon gender by some states.

            In states where same-gender marriage is legal, every person has the right to marry someone of the same gender. The right is not special. It is available to everyone.

          • Reason2012

            No, it’s offered to every single person the “right” to marry one person of opposite gender.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Yes, that right is offered to every citizen. Just as was the right to marry one person of the same race was offered to every single person. That did not mean there was legal equality, as Loving v Virginia clearly showed.

          • Reason2012

            Every single person has the “right” to marry one person of the opposite gender. Who is being denied this right?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Why do you repeat the same questions? Apparently you have nothing else to offer. As i clearly noted above, the right to marry one person of the opposite gender is afforded to everyone. But that is not the issue, anymore than it was the issue in Loving v Virginia.

            The issue is the right to marry the consenting person of choice. A right that the SCOTUS has deemed fundamental.

          • Reason2012

            Because that one question that you avoid like the plague refutes your entire case that it’s about “equal rights”. You’ve admitted we all have that same right to marry one person of the opposite gender, which proves we already have equal rights and it’s not about equal rights.

            Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “which proves we already have equal rights and it’s not about equal rights.”

            Then, when the laws said that everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race, because every one had that right, there was equality, correct? If that is true, then please explain the ruling in Loving v Virginia which disagrees with your logic.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “You’re demanding special rights under the false claim of “equal rights”.”

            Since everyone has the right to marry someone of the same gender, the right is not “special”.

            “What 13 states are denying you the “right” to marry one person of the opposite gender?”

            None. That, however is not the issue. The issue is the right to marry the consenting, non-closely-related adult of one’s choosing. A right that the SCOTUS has upheld as being fundamental.

          • Reason2012

            “What 13 states are denying you the ‘right’ to marry one person of the opposite gender”.

            Your response: “none”.

            Case closed. You want a special right and just admitted you are not being denied equal rights; not being denied the same right everyone else has.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “You want a special right”

            With same gender marriage legal, what right would I have that other citizens would not?

            “just admitted you are not being denied equal rights”

            Please cite where I admitted that.

            It’s really unfortunate that you cannot seem to grasp the issue. The issue is the right to marry the consenting, non-closely-related adult of one’s choosing – a right that the SCOTUS has declared to be fundamental.

            If that state is going to restrict that right, it must provide rational, compelling, and legally valid reasons for doing so. To date, the state has been unsuccessful in doing so. As are you.

          • Reason2012

            “What 13 states are denying you the ‘right’ to marry one person of the opposite gender”.

            Your response: “none”.

            You just admitted no one’s being denied the right to marry one person of opposite gender. Now you try to pretend you never admitted that.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Please cite where I stated that people are being denied the right to marry a person of opposite gender.

            Why do you continue to lie about what i said?

          • Reason2012

            So you admit we all have the same right. The entire point. Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So you can’t cite where I stated that people are being denied the right to marry a person of the opposite gender, thus admitting that you lied about what I said.

            “The entire point.”

            It is no more than “entire point” then it was the entire point in Loving v Virginia. The point is the right to marry the consenting adult person of one’s choosing.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            If some citizens have the right to enter into marriage with the consenting, non-closely-related adult of their choice, and other citizens do not, that is not equal rights. That is special rights for the citizens who want to enter into marriage with someone of the opposite gender.

            Your argument is similar in nature to the one presented in Loving v Virginia. It didn’t fly then – it doesn’t fly now.

          • Reason2012

            No, every single person is already allowed to marry one person of the opposite gender. Who is being denied this right? If you don’t WANT someone of the opposite gender, doesn’t mean it’s being DENIED by someone else.

            SO you want a special right NO one has, which is the point. It’s not about equality as there’s already 100% equality – it’s about demanding special rights that NO one has under the false claim of “equal” rights.

          • Oshtur

            Nothing special about it, some people can have a husband, others a wife, marriage equality is about everyone being able to have either.

            Equal rights, not two sets of special rights.

          • Guest

            Marriage is about a man and a woman getting married. Once it changes to include others who don’t fit that definition, it is no longer equal rights, it’s special rights.

            So are you going to defend incestuous marriage? Pedophilia marriage? How about marrying your pet?

          • Oshtur

            Yeah your spouse is just like a bet. The moral bankruptcy would be upsetting if you hadn’t made it clear you were insane already.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Once it changes to include others who don’t fit that definition, it is no longer equal rights, it’s special rights.”

            You have it completely backward. The state offers marriage as a right that citizens have access to. By limiting that right to two people of opposite gender to, they have created a special right.

            Allowing same-gender marriage means that every person has the right to marry the consenting, non-closely-related adult of one’s choice. That is equality.

          • Guest

            That’s not equality because it seeks to redefine marriage to suit an agenda. The day will come (and to some extent, has come) when marriage will be defined as being between a child and an adult, a man and a beast, and three people, or four, or five. That’s not equality, that’s chaos.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            If everyone is treated the same under the law, that is equality.

            Since marriage was redefined via Loving v Virginia, then you are saying that ruling did not result in greater equality, correct?

            “to suit an agenda”

            Yes, the agenda is to be treated equally under the law. How is the “agenda” related to the whether or not something is “equality”. Blacks sought to change laws had an agenda in their fight for civil rights. Using your logic, their fight was not about equality.

            ” The day will come (and to some extent, has come) when marriage will be defined as being between a child and an adult, a man and a beast, and three people, or four, or five.”

            Those types of marriage are unrelated to allowing two consenting, non-closely-related adults to marry. To suggest that they are related, or that the legality of same-gender marriage opens the door for other types of marriage, is a straw man argument.

          • Guest

            But what right does anyone have to redefine marriage? And what right does anyone have to tell others what they must or must not find morally acceptable?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Every citizen has the right to challenge laws in court, or do you believe that citizens should not have that right?

            “And what right does anyone have to tell others what they must or must not find morally acceptable?”

            No one does and no one can. People are free to choose what they find morally acceptable and conduct their personal lives in accordance with those beliefs.

          • Guest

            Since God is the One who designed and instituted marriage, He is the only One who can change that institution, which He has not done.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The legal status of marriage was created by man. It is separate from the religious rite of marriage as well as the rules surrounding the religious rite of marriage, which each religion is free to determine.

          • Guest

            It was not created by man. It was created by God and has existed since the beginning.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Like it or not, the legal state of civil marriage was created by man and is governed by man’s laws.

          • Reason2012

            Marriage is not “have either”. Marriage is every single person can marry one person of the opposite gender, and every single person has that right. These activists are demanding a special right that NO one has.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Marriage laws used to be “every single person can marry one person of the same race”, and every single person had that right.

            Therefore, based upon your logic, the Lovings were “demanding a special right that NO one has”.

          • Reason2012

            Marriage was never “you must be race xyz” so faulty comparison. But just like that was rejected and one man can marry one woman is the REAL definition, so is “two men is a marriage” rejected because a marriage is ALSO not two men.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Your knowledge is lacking:

            “Anti-miscegenation laws were a part of American law since before the United States was established and remained so until ruled unconstitutional in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. In addition, the state of Oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage “between a person of African descent” and “any person not of African descent”; Louisiana in 1920 banned marriage between Native Americans and African Americans (and from 1920–1942, concubinage as well); and Maryland in 1935 banned marriages between blacks and Filipinos or Malays.”

            Therefore, again, based upon your logic, the Lovings were “demanding a special right that NO one has”.

          • Reason2012

            You’re ignoring the point: marriage is one man and one woman, not one man one woman of certain races .. so the attempt you mention to LEGALLY restrict is was a farce.

            Yet here you are demanding we LEGALLY make marriage something it’s not yet again.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The issue is restrictions on the choice of who to marry. There were race-based restrictions (contrary to what you stated) on the choice of who to marry. the Lovings demanded “we LEGALLY make marriage something” it was not. Were they wrong?

          • Oshtur

            No, everyone being able to register with a husband or wife is equal rights. Some citizens can with a husband, others a wife is two sets of special rights.

            The word ‘opposit’ has never appeared in my state’s marriage licensing restrictions – ever.

          • Reason2012

            No, everyone being able to register with one person of the opposite gender is the right EVERYONE has. Not wanting that right is not the same as it being denied to you. Demanding a special right is also not “equal rights” – it’s demanding special rights that no one has.

          • Oshtur

            Again my state never used the word opposit in its licensing language, men and women are not opposites.

            Again marriage equality is about all citizens being able to do what others can already do, license with a spouse, husband or wife.

          • Guest

            Marriage is about union between a man and a woman, as so defined by the One who created it. Stop making things up, Scottie.

          • Reason2012

            Doesn’t matter. Again you ignore the fact that every .. single .. person has the right to marry one person of the opposite gender. Everyone. So there already IS equal rights.

            Don’t want that right? Fine. Pretend that right is being denied you is the lie. You want a special right NO one’s ever had.

            But of course using this truth it’s harder to push the government state religion through under “special rights” that it truly is, so they lie and pretend it’s about equal rights.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “These activists are demanding a special right that NO one has.”

            The right to marry exists. No one is demanding a “special right”. People are demanding access to a right that is already in place. The issue is the right to marry. Do not confuse the right to marry with restrictions on the right to marry. Attempting to remove restrictions does not create a “special right”. It changes access to an existing right.

          • Reason2012

            They have access: go marry one person of the opposite gender.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Why would they do that? Someone of the opposite gender would not be the consenting, non-closely-related adult of their choosing.

            “They have access”

            Agreed, in 37, soon to be 50, states.

          • Reason2012

            If they don’t want it, then it’s false that they’re being denied it, since they’re just denying themselves that right and instead demanding a special right NO one has.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are being disingenuous. The issue is not the legal ability to marry someone of the opposite gender. The issue is the legality of laws which restrict the right of two citizens of the same gender to marry.

            The Lovings were “demanding a special right NO one had”. Were they wrong to do so?

          • Reason2012

            And again you re-iterate the point: all this time it was dishonestly framed as “equal rights” when you admit they always had equal rights but are demanding special rights NO one had. Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “And again you re-iterate the point: all this time it was dishonestly framed as “equal rights” when you admit they always had equal rights but are demanding special rights NO one had. ”

            Please cite where I reiterated that. Why must you continue to lie about what I said? Is your argument so specious that the only way you can make an argument is to lie about others?

            I’ll ask again:

            The Lovings were “demanding a special right NO one had”. Were they wrong to do so?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “No, every single person is already allowed to marry one person of the opposite gender.”

            Just as prior to Loving, every single person was allowed to marry someone of the same race, but restricted from marrying someone of a different race. That was deemed by the SCOTUS as being unconstitutional.

            “SO you want a special right NO one has”

            You seem to be confusing “special right” with access to an existing right. In order to a right to be a “special right” it must be available only to certain citizens – like marriage is now in 13 states. In the other states, each citizen is free to marry someone of the opposite gender or someone of the same gender. That is equality.

          • Reason2012

            Marriage has nothing to do with race: it’s simply one man and one woman. And as such every single person has the right to marry one person of the opposite gender.

            Who’s being denied the right to marry one person of the opposite gender? Please cite where this right is being denied since you claim it’s about equal rights as if someone does not have this right.

            No, it’s not “equality” to demand a special right that no one has – it’s dishonest to call it that.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Marriage has nothing to do with race”

            It doesn’t now, but at one time it did.

            “Who’s being denied the right to marry one person of the opposite gender?”

            No one. Nor is that the right in question. The right in question is the right to marry the consenting, non-closely-related adult of one’s choosing. Something the SCOTUS has determined is a fundamental right.

            “No, it’s not “equality” to demand a special right that no one has”

            No such demand is being made. Two people of opposite gender have the right to enter into marriage. Two citizens of the same gender do not. The right in question is the right to enter into marriage. That is a right that two people of opposite gender have. The right already exists.

            Based upon your logic, the Lovings were demanding a “special right”, since no one had the right to marry someone of a different race, and that the striking down of laws preventing that did not result in greater equality. Is that what you believe?

          • Reason2012

            Marriage is not “marry whatever you want” – marriage is “marry one person of opposite gender”.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Marriage is not “marry whatever you want”

            Agreed.

            “marriage is “marry one person of opposite gender”.

            Yes it is. In addition, it is also marry one person of the same gender in 37, and soon to be 50, states.

          • Reason2012

            No, it’s marry one person of the opposite gender, not “also marry this” and “also marry that” until it becomes pointless as you’re eventually at “marry whatever you want”.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “not “also marry this” and “also marry that””

            You really need to catch up. In 37 states, citizens are legally allowed to marry someone of the same gender or the opposite gender. That will soon be all 50 states.

            “it becomes pointless as you’re eventually at “marry whatever you want”.

            The slippery slope argument is a straw man argument.

          • Reason2012

            All 50 states everyone had the same right. Yes, they are now forcing by homosexual activist judges against the will of the people in 35 states this new special right – but at least it’s cleared up that it was never about equal rights, but instead a new special right.

            And it will be addressed how it was forced against the will of the people this new special right under the lie of “equal rights”

            Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “against the will of the people in 35 states this new special right”

            It is not a special right, as everyone has access to it. It was not “against the will of the people in 35 states” as 3 states voted in favor of it.

            “but at least it’s cleared up that it was never about equal rights, but instead a new special right.”

            While I realize that you want very badly to make that argument, it is false.

            “And it will be addressed how it was forced against the will of the people this new special right under the lie of “equal rights””

            How will that be addressed?

          • Reason2012

            Oh it’s only 34 states that one person forced it upon them? I stand corrected. It IS about equal rights? You keep changing your story. So who was denied the right to marry one person of the opposite gender? That’s right, NO one was. So they already had equal rights.

            You continue just repeat your claims and ignore the refutation of it. Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “You keep changing your story.”

            Please cite how I have changed my “story”. I have said from the beginning that the issue about two people of the same gender having the same right to marry as two people of opposite gender. I have no wavered from that position.

            “So they already had equal rights.”

            If some people have the ability to enter into marriage with the consenting adult of their choice, and other people do not, that is not equal rights. Just as it was not in Loving v Virginia.

            “You continue just repeat your claims and ignore the refutation of it.”

            You haven’t refuted any of my claims. Rather, you ignore how your claims have been refuted and simply continue to repeat them.

            I’ll ask again:

            How will that be addressed?

          • Oshtur

            Citizens having access to a civil contract regardless of their šęx is equal rights. You can license it with a cosigner so can everyone else.

          • Reason2012

            All citizens already had access to the same contract: one man one woman. Don’t want that right? Fine. Was dishonest to claim that means they were being denied that right. Thank you for posting.

          • Oshtur

            Access to the same contract isn’t equal rights. You just showed that some citizens can only register with a man, and others with a woman. Two sets of special rights based on a citizens šęx, might as well been based on race.

          • Reason2012

            False. Access to the SAME contract IS equal rights. But of course activists have to pervert and twist basic logic to pretend every single person having access to the same contract is not equal rights. Nothing but blatant dishonesty to promote their agenda.

            Take care.

          • Oshtur

            No not if it isn’t under the same conditions, one citizen can only enter it with a man, another a woman. The citizens who have equal rights are being treated differently. Tow sets of special rights.

          • Reason2012

            It’s under the exact same conditions: every single person: marry one person of opposite gender.

          • Oshtur

            Thank you for confirming all citizens aren’t treated the same, some can marry men, others women. Two sets of special rights.

          • Reason2012

            You mean there are some who are denied the right to marry one person of the opposite gender? Please cite who is denied this right.

            If you can’t, then you admit every single person has the same right to marry one person of the opposite gender.

            Don’t want that right? You’re the only one denying yourself that right.

            Want a new right NO one has? Thank you for proving it’s about special rights that no one has.

          • Oshtur

            Again the word ‘opposite’ never appeared in any states licensing restrictions. Until all citizens can register with a husband, until all citizens can register with the wife that is two sets of special rights. Marriage equality is about all citizens being able to do what other citizens can already do.

          • Reason2012

            So you admit everyone has the same right to marry one person of the opposite gender. End of story. Good luck with your special, new right NO one has, but just debunking the lie it’s about equal rights. Take care.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Who is being denied this right?”

            No one.

            The right in question is the right to enter into marriage with the consenting, non-closely-related adult of one’s choosing, not the right to do so with someone of the opposite gender.

            Since everyone has the right to enter into marriage with someone of the same gender in states where that is legal, the right to do so is not “special”.

            Were the Lovings seeking a “special right” that no one had?

          • Reason2012

            I ask “Who is being denied this right?”

            Your response: No one.

            Case closed. Equal rights from the start.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Equal rights from the start.”

            You are either being disingenuous or you simply don’t understand the legal issue.

            I’ll say again: The right in question is the right to enter into marriage with the consenting, non-closely-related adult of one’s choosing

            Allowing a citizen who wants to enter into marriage with someone of the opposite gender to do so, while not allowing a citizens who wants to enter into marriage with someone of the same gender, is not equality.

            “Case closed.”

            Apparently not.

          • Reason2012

            And yet I ask “Who is being denied this right?”

            Your response: No one.

            Case closed. Equal rights from the start.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            See above for the reasons your statement is incorrect.

          • Reason2012

            See above to see the refutation of your claim that my statement is incorrect.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            There is nothing above which refutes my claim. If you believe otherwise, please cite it.

          • MisterPine

            I can’t believe you just said this.

            So you would encourage homosexuals to get married to people of the opposite gender whom they have absolutely no attraction to? Why would you, or anyone else, want that?

          • Reason2012

            You have it backwards: Homosexuality is not genetic and adults continue to permanently turn away from it even after decades of believing the false claim such people are “born this way”, so why would anyone encourage them to make a life decision based upon something that is not permanent?

            And again: marriage is about one man and one woman and every single person has access to that right.

          • MisterPine

            What planet have you been living on? Exodus International was the largest “ex-gay” organization in the world, and they recently shut their doors and admitted they were fraudulent. I have no idea if gay people were born that way or if it develops in early life. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that there are homosexuals in this world and they have the right to be treated fairly.

          • Reason2012

            I’m not talking about organization. Adults continue on their own to permanently turn away from homosexuality. Google ex gay and be flooded with personal testimonies.

            And yes it DOES matter if it’s temporary: no permanent decisions should be centered around something that’s clearly NOT permanent.

            They ARE treated fairly: they have the same right as everyone else: marry one person of opposite gender. If they do not want that right, that does not mean anyone else is denying them this right.

          • MisterPine

            They are lying, and/or deluded. There is no such thing as ex-gay. The most that ever happens is people become celibate, but they haven’t altered their sexuality.

            And again, why would you marry “one person of the opposite gender” if you’re not attracted to the opposite gender? What happened to people marrying because they were in love and were attracted to one another?

          • Reason2012

            Google ex-gay and be flooded by personal testimonies. Either they are all lying, or you are.

            Doesn’t matter “WHY would you marry one person of the opposite gender..” the FACT is you CAN and hence have the same right as everyone else. Don’t want that right? Fine. But to pretend you’re being denied that right when it’s a special right NO one has you’re demanding only shows how dishonest activists are on the topic.

          • MisterPine

            They are lying. It’s not possible to change. That’s not me talking but medical science.

            You are being disingenuous. The whole point here is that homosexuals want the right to marry the ones they love, just as straight people have the right to do. You are saying that they have the right to do what none of them have the desire to do which suggests to me that you do not understand what homosexuality is. You can’t reduce it to barebones legal terms this way.

          • Reason2012

            Sorry I’ll believe the growing number of personal testimonies of those who have permanently on their own turned away from homosexuality than your claim “they are ALL LIARS!”.

          • MisterPine

            It isn’t my claim. If you have an issue with it then your issue is with science. Sexuality is not chosen, homosexuality is not an illness and as such requires no cure.

          • Reason2012

            Please cite proof every one of them is a liar. If it was a fact they would not be able to turn away from it.

            Please cite the scientific, peer-reviewed proof they found a “homosexual” gene.

          • MisterPine
          • Reason2012

            I didn’t ask for something written by homosexual activists that implies it’s genetic. So you cannot back up your claim. I rest my case.

          • MisterPine

            What are you talking about, “homosexual activists”? That link is from the American Psychological Association!

          • Reason2012

            And it’s just opinion – where’s the peer reviewed scientific proof there’s a “gay” gene. Non-existent. Saying “its’ genetic (b/c I said so)” doesn’t make it so.

            But here’s what IS observable, repeatable, scientific fact: adults, on their own, have permanently turned away from homosexuality. Google ex-gay for the growing list of cases.

            Saying “every single one of them are liars” is anti-science.

          • MisterPine

            So I am to completely discount the words of the foremost authority on human sexuality there is, a respected body of science, and instead Google “ex-gay” for testimonies which are in no way falsified?

            Why am I even talking to you?

          • Reason2012

            So we’re to take the word of an activist without a shred of peer-reviewed scientific research to back up his claim? We’re to ignore the observable repeatable fact that adults continue, on their own, to permanently turn away from homosexuality and hence prove it’s not genetic? YOu wouldn’t listen to them when they rightly pointed out it’s a mental disorder, brought about by confusion, indoctrination, mental instability and/or abuse (which matches what we observe). Why suddenly now do you pretend his opinion which now CONTRADICTS observable, repeatable, scientific fact is suddenly so noteworthy?

          • MisterPine

            1) Why are you calling the American Psychological Association an “activist”? They aren’t “an activist”, they are a body of science who study things like this extensively and have widespread respect.
            2) If the “observable repeatable’ adults turn from homosexuality, it means they were not homosexual to begin with. Maybe they were bisexual, you DO know that it’s a scale, right? Maybe it was a brief phase of experimentation. But one thing they didn’t do was alter their sexuality because that cannot happen.
            3) It wasn’t “rightly” pointed out that it was a mental disorder because it WASN’T a mental disorder, or are you also prepared to say it is a “mental disorder” for all the times it occurs in the animal kingdom as well? Do those animals ALSO require “ex-gay” therapy? What do you make of all the gay teens who were not confused, indoctrinated, unstable or abused, which is the vast majority I should add?
            4) When you say “his opinion” who are you talking about? Because the APA isn’t a “he” and it’s not an “activist”, it is a BODY of science and mental health.

          • Reason2012

            1) No, it’s not “they” – it’s the guy who wrote a pamplet. Don’t see any science in there, just opinions.

            2) So you want to claim someonw who lived the homosexual lifestle for decades “was not homosexual”? What happened to “they’re all liars” as if they’re still homosexual? You seem to make up whatever claim you feel like as you go along. So which is it? Are they all liars and still homosexual? Or are they all liars and pretended to be homosexual for decades?

            3) So when they used to point out it was a mental disorder, now you claim they were wrong. But when they are now shifting w/ the political correctness winds and saying it is, now you claim they know what they’re talking about? So when you were claiming they were wrong, why are you calling the American Psychological Association wrong? Bingo. You do the very thing you now claim no one else can – more hypocrisy.

            4) When YOU were saying they were wrong, who are you talking about? Same difference.

            It’s observable, repeatable, scientific FACT adults on their own continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, they need to prove they’re all liars, either faking being homosexual for decades, or lying and are still homosexual, rather than publishing a pamplet that says otherwise and not being able to back up a word of it

            Thanks for posting.

          • MisterPine

            1) The entire article is presented by the staff of the APA, otherwise why would it be on their website? It’s not like some lone guy with a blog.These are not just a bunch of opinions, they are facts.

            2) What planet have you been living on? In the real world,. the OPPOSITE happens – men or women who have been living a lie for several decades finally cannot do it anymore and come out of the closet as gay. In my line of social work I see this CONSTANTLY.

            3) When they claimed it was a mental disorder it was because they had old data and old methods of data measurement. New studies and better information sources lead them to new understandings. That’s the beautiful thing about science, when it’s wrong, it admits it and updates itself.

            4) I realize now, which I didn’t before, that you actually think this article is the opinion of one person. Now at least I hope you realize it’s not, but the findings of a team of respected science professionals.

            I have backed up all my FACTS just fine, thanks.

          • Reason2012

            1) The APA used to point out it’s a mental disorder. Why then is it ok that they are wrong?

            2) You continue to ignore the FACT that adults continue on their own to permanently turn away from homosexuality. We see this constantly.

            3) No, it’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact it’s brought about by indoctrination (the younger, the better), confusion, mental instability and/or abuse. Growing citation of cases where the people who turned away from this make it quite clear.

            4) There’s no science in that pamplet. Still waiting for you to cite peer-reviewed, scientific research that proves there’s some sort of “gay” gene. And why were you against these team of respected science professionals when they DID match observable, repeatable, scientific fact and pointed out homosexuality is brought about by indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse?

            You haven’t presented any facts to back up a word you’ve said – just an opinion printed in a pamphlet.

          • MisterPine

            I didn’t post a link to an opinion printed in a pamphlet. Anyone who wants to can go see for themselves, It’s a link to an articles on the American Psychological Association website about human sexuality full of facts, not opinions.

            It isn’t just the APA who considered homosexuality a mental disorder, everyone did. Then they found evidence to show they were wrong. Just like how we thought the earth was flat at one time but know better now. Why do you want to turn back the clock and reject all the new information, is it because it conflicts with your bigotry?

            No one turns from homosexuality. The most they can do is suppress it which I guess for you you are taking as a victory. I wouldn’t call people living loveless and sexless lives anything positive for them.

            As for your point 3 above, I know it’s nonsense, but if you insist otherwise, please post your proof. It is archaic thinking that homosexuality was caused by abuse or indoctrination.

            Guess what, #4 was peer reviewed and most mental health organizations, if not all of them, are in agreement. The only one who continues to fight them is you and a few like you, and all you have to fight with is a Bible.

          • Reason2012

            According to you it used to be only an opinion, and a wrong one according to you, when they pointed out what DID match observable, repeatable, scientific fact: that it’s brought about by indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse. So you used to do exactly what I’m doing now: pointing out you think they’re wrong.

            Where was your “it’s on the American Psychological Association website about human sexuality and facts” logic then? Again, you only say whatever’s convenient and not notice how you contradict yourself.

            Except one huge difference: then it DID match observable, repeatable, scientific fact: that adults, on their own, continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, PROVING it’s not genetic.

            Where’s this “evidence” that proves it’s genetic that you refer to? Because I give you observable, REPEATABLE facts that prove it’s not. Saying “you’re a bigot” only proves you lost the argument.

            So until you back up your claim, which you never do, the facts clearly show otherwise.

            Where’s your fact that homosexuality is genetic? Where is this “evidence”?

            You never can present it, just claim it’s out there, somewhere.

            I rest my case. If you can’t present this “evidence”, conversation over – call everyone who disagrees with you a bigot, but everyone will know the real truth, not to mention where the real hate is coming from.

          • MisterPine

            You really need to stop saying “I rest my case” when people are destroying your “case” right in front of your eyes.

            There was a time when there were hypotheses, guesses, etc. as to the cause of homosexuality. They ranged from things like sexual abuse from a relative to a controlling mother and a passive father. They were guesses. They were theories. They weren’t “observable, repeatable, scientific OR facts.

            Where was “my” APA at that time? They were there. They were studying. They had ideas, but nothing concrete. Those, to you, were the “good old days” where you could freely hate on them and judge them and beat them up with your Bible. Now we know differently, we have better data, better source information. We don’t know everything, such as a definite cause, but we know that it’s not chosen, can’t be changed, isn’t a disease, and requires no cure. Sorry that spoils your fun, but that part of it isn’t up for dispute anymore. And if the APA’s website isn’t good enough, would you like me to provide about 12 more just like it?

            Curious where I have “contradicted” myself.

            I have asked you before to provide your proof of YOUR claim that it “DID match observable, repeatable, scientific fact: that it’s brought about by indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse” but you ignored me and instead challenged me to show the facts which show otherwise. Firstly you need to learn what burden of proof is – you made the claim, therefore it’s on you to prove it. As it happens, I DID prove otherwise with a perfectly good, sound, clear link to the APA’s home page which you claim was simply one man’s opinion – which neatly overlooks the fact that it’s a landmark paper on the subject of homosexuality on the website of a titan of mental health sites.

            Would you also like me to provide links to show the ex-gay thing is a farce? The “cured” gay men caught going into gay bath houses, all the things your church triumphant fails to show you?

            When will you stop accusing me of failing to back up my claim when I keep presenting factual links to reputable websites? The APA is not a “homosexual activist” as you initially (and rather bizarrely) claimed. Just because they get new and better information doesn’t mean they are not capable of making up their minds. If they discover tomorrow that evolution is false and that Noah’s Flood really happened, they will say so if they get proof of it.

            Finally, I never claimed that homosexuality was genetic. Stop accusing me of making statements I never made.

          • Reason2012

            Notice MisterPine yet AGAIN has not provided this “evidence” that he said existed proving homosexuality is genetic. This is the sort of deception they use, folks, to force anti-science, anti-moral, anti-God agenda on America. 34 states it was FORCED on the people by one judge every time. Get active – your Christian nation is under legal attack by those who hate God. Time to start being a witness of the truth.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “And again: marriage is about one man and one woman and every single person has access to that right.”

            No. Civil marriage about two consenting, non-closely-related adults who desire to enter into the legal status of marriage.

          • Reason2012

            They cannot enter into a legal status no government ever defined to begin with.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The government did define the legal status of marriage. It is governed by laws that were created by man.

            However, if you believe that government never defined marriage, then it would be impossible for the government to redefine marriage, so you should have no issues.

          • Reason2012

            The government never defined marriage to begin with – so they can’t start getting into religion now. Violation of the Constitution on various levels, including a new state religion and forcing that on society by force of law.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The government never defined marriage to begin with”

            Well, then, all your arguments about government redefining marriage are moot, as you state they never defined it to begin with.

            “so they can’t start getting into religion now.”

            Nor are they. Each religion is free to define marriage within their faith in any way they care to. The legal contract of marriage is unrelated to the religious rite of marriage.

            Your whole “new state religion” argument is specious.

          • Reason2012

            No, if they never defined religious institutions to begin with, they cannot start REDEFINING it now. Glad we agree.

            Take care.

    • Badkey

      Hey sweetie!

      Civil law is still not dependent on your mythology!!!

      Alabama, sweetheart.. how’re they doing?

      • Reason2012

        Hello. They’re passing laws to redefine religious institutions, which is them creating a state religion and criminalizing Christian beliefs on marriage.

        • Badkey

          Awww… how cute!

          Again I ask you… why hasn’t one lawyer or judge for your side brought any of that insanity into a court room?

          • Reason2012

            Give it time – the correct arguments are not always brought to bear, and secondly only a couple states voted to allow same-gender marriage – the rest were forced by judicial tyranny. Give it time. 🙂

          • Paul Hiett

            Ah yes, the same “judicial tyranny” that rid our country of the Jim Crow laws…laws voted into place by Christians, btw.

          • Reason2012

            Comparing abnormal sexual lusts to race doesn’t work anymore.

          • Badkey

            Your angst pleases me so much.

            You ain’t special no more. Cry me a river.

          • Badkey

            If the argument were valid, it would already have been presented.

        • Paul Hiett

          Not a single person, not one, has been criminalized for having a Christian belief.

          • Reason2012

            Tell that to those fined $150,000 for holding to the belief marriage is one man and one woman and hence not wanting to be FORCED to bake cakes to support ACTS that say otherwise. Tell that to those who are FIRED for expecting news about the company in their newsletter, not news about how we must support homosexual marriage. Facts betray your claims.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, I point out that no one was fined for having a belief. She decided, of her own accord, to turn that belief into action, knowing full well her actions were breaking the law.

            Believe whatever you want to believe, but if you break the law, your beliefs have no bearing on your actions in the eyes of the law. Those laws hold true for EVERYONE, btw…you are just as protected as gays are.

          • Reason2012

            Again I point out you are fined $150,000 for not going AGAINST your belief and instead getting in line with the STATE RELIGION’s belief that marriage is far more than one man and one woman. People have gotten fired for daring even DISAGREE with it. People get sued for not violating their own belief and going along with a contrary belief. Facts betray your claims.

          • Gary

            “Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. You can’t criminalize the expression of religion.

          • Badkey

            If it is discriminatory, yes… You can.

          • Gary

            No, you can’t. You are violating the Constitution.

          • Badkey

            135 years… That’s how long SCOTUS has separated behavior based on following a mythology vs. having a belief in that mythology. This is nothing new.

          • Gary

            Then the first amendment has been nullified by the SC for 135 years. The government has nothing to say about belief. They cannot regulate it, require it, or prohibit it in any way. The only thing the government can do is regulate religious behavior, which the constitution prohibits them from doing.

          • Badkey

            poor Gary.

          • Badkey

            She should follow the law like everybody else, hypocrite.

          • Reason2012

            You mean a black man who has no problem baking a cake for white people must follow the law and bake a cake for a “black people are inferior” meeting? How is that breaking the law?

          • Gary

            You would be right if beliefs are not manifested in behavior. Expressions of Christianity have been criminalized. The florist in Wash. is an example.

          • Badkey

            Poor Gary… He ain’t special no more.

          • Gary

            I’m still special.

          • Badkey

            Not in the eyes of civil law… Only in your mind.

    • Badkey

      What are you going to do when gay marriage is legal in all states?

      • Reason2012

        What are we going to do when we face God?

        • Badkey

          Ah, spooky mythology again.

          So sweet.

        • Gary

          He is going to cower in fear when he meets God.

  • Badkey

    So much outrage that other citizens are treated with the same protections she gets… How sad.

  • Maria Wilson

    God bless you attorney general ,the judge needs to be impeached for violating Texas law and the constitution

    • rwsafari

      Or lauded for following the current case law, which supersedes Texas’s laws. You are also blessing an AG that wants to deny a woman with cancer the right to be wed her long term partner. How despicable, self-centered, and petty.

      • Gary

        No woman, with cancer or without cancer, has the right to marry a woman. Marriage is only heterosexual. You are evil.

        • Badkey

          You are wrong.

          You can’t even show how any marriage between a man and woman is harmed… or changed in any way.

          You just like to hate.

          What happened in your life to make you this way?

          • Gary

            No, I’m right. You are wrong.

  • robyn Hefferan

    I just don’t know why there must be a change of definition, and law, and societal views to accommodate couples who already live as married couples, and do not care what the law, God’s or man’s, says. Then there will be a loud wailing if there is criticism of the law, and a loud demand that the law be followed, and a loud criticism that those opposed to the law should shut up. Because now, it suits their beliefs. When the law suited mine, it was ok to denigrate, argue with and fight to change the law. And its obvious from some comments that the argument is not about high and lofty principles, simply a schoolyard type ha ha, we won you lost battle.

  • Gary

    ssm is perversion. It is an insult to God. Christians will not support ssm, or support homosexuals. We will not recognize perversion as being legitimate, even if the government makes it “legal”.

    • Paul Hiett

      Aren’t you glad you live in a country where you are free to hate as many people as you want?

      • Gary

        I wish I were free from government interference to choose my own associations.

        • Paul Hiett

          Last I checked, you were still free to do that. You can associate with whomever you want. Any claim to the contrary is a lie, or simple ignorance of the law.

          Which is it? Are you stupid or lying?

          • Gary

            I am only free to choose my friends. I am not free to choose my own associations in business. But I should be.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ah, so you’re upset that the laws protect everyone from discrimination, gotcha.

          • Gary

            But they don’t protect everyone from discrimination. They only protect those the government wants protected.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ah yes, those pesky people who fall under the protected statuses of race, gender, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation.

            The funny thing is, of those three, only 1 is a choice people make.

            Sorry you don’t like having such protections…maybe you could move to Iran and feel more protected as a Christian?

          • Gary

            The government has no authority to tell anyone who they must associate with. The government can no more legitimately tell me who I must do business with than where I must go to church, or who my friends must be.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, actually, they can…and they do. You, as an individual, are free to hate whomever you want.

            A business owner can hate whomever they want too. But, a business owner must also abide by the laws governing commerce, and those laws prohibit discrimination. I know you’re all up in arms over having to suffer the indignation of having gays protected just like the religious folks, but it’s a horrible price to pay in this country for running a business.

            There’s nothing forcing you to remain in such a godless, chaotic country, ya know…

          • Gary

            To Hell with the laws. To Hell with the government. To Hell with you. I will only do business with those of my choosing. I will find a way around the laws.

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s something fundamentally wrong with you. You must have had some hateful parents growing up to have turned into such a hateful person yourself.

            Good luck in your quest to emulate Hitler and exterminate a group of people you hate.

          • Gary

            Any government that elevates perversion to protected status has forfeited its right to respect.

          • Paul Hiett

            Any government that doesn’t elevate Christians higher than everyone else has forfeited its right to make laws, you mean.

            At least be honest.

          • Gary

            The government MUST choose whether the laws it makes are moral, or not. And many times it makes the wrong choice.

          • Paul Hiett

            And by “moral”, you mean does it fall in line with Christianity and ONLY Christianity.

            At least be honest.

          • Gary

            That is right. ONLY the God of the Bible, the Creator of everything, has the authority to define right and wrong.

          • Badkey

            Any government that elevates bloody religions to protected status has forfeited its right to respect.

          • Badkey

            To hell with those who need the crutch of mythology to get through the day. Why do they think they’re special?

          • Gary

            You would have been better off if you had never been born. And everyone else would have also been better off if you had never been born.

          • Paul Hiett

            And yet, oddly enough Gary, none of your other Christians friends ever come to your defense.

            I wonder why that is…

          • Gary

            I have gotten a lot of agreement from other Christians on many of my posts.

          • Badkey

            Like those who choose to follow mythology.

        • Badkey

          So do I but the whiney christians get special rights in the Civil Rights Act.

          • Gary

            I’m for repealing the Civil Rights Act. Are you?

          • Paul Hiett

            You want us to go back to black and white water fountains eh? Yeah, your true colors are shining through.

          • Gary

            Repealing the civil rights act does not have to mean going back to separate water fountains for blacks and whites. Just let private citizens associate with who they want instead of trying to force people together.

          • Paul Hiett

            Wow, you really do have no clue what would happen if civil rights were repealed here.

          • Gary

            You want to tell me?

          • Paul Hiett

            Do the words “separate but equal” mean anything to you?

          • Gary

            You really think the government would go back to that? I don’t think they would.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, they won’t, nor will they be repealing gay marriage laws either.

            YOU, on the other hand, have already said that that’s what you’d like to go back to. Repeal civil rights. I don’t think you you have a firm grasp of what that means.

          • Gary

            I don’t believe there is a right to ssm, or to homosexual behavior. And I am willing to fight about it. I don’t believe the government has the authority to tell anyone who they have to associate with in their private of business affairs. I see you and the government as trying to trample my rights and force me and other Christians into accepting your perversion. I won’t do it.

          • Badkey

            You don’t have to believe it.

            You’re going to see it happen in all states.

            It will not affect your marriage.
            It will not harm your marriage.

            You live in NC… there are no public accommodations protections for gay citizens (hypocrite) so even if you had a business, you’d not be forced to violate your groveling before your monster.

            Your life will not change one bit.

            Hypocrite.

          • Gary

            I think you are lying.

          • Badkey

            Where is the lie?

            HOW will it affect you?

            HOW will your marriage change?

            Is your marriage that weak?

            Your life THAT dependent on harming others?

          • Paul Hiett

            The government also forces you to accept blacks, and women…and people of other faiths. Why aren’t you upset about that?

          • Gary

            Being black, or being a woman, are not immoral. I do still object to the government trying to force me to associate with anyone not of my own choosing, regardless of their characteristics.

          • Badkey

            But you want them to.

    • Badkey

      Your god does not matter. Civil law does not answer to your mythology.

      Christians do not need to “support” anything. You don’t need to “recognize” anything. It will make no difference.

      • Gary

        Good. If we don’t need to support or recognize homosexuals or ssm, then there won’t be any more prosecutions of Christians like the florist in Wash.. But we both know that your ilk will continue to demand that Christians accept your immoral filth.

        • Paul Hiett

          Christians have no clue what persecution is (btw, learn some appropriate grammar, will ya?).

        • Badkey

          You must abide by the laws, just like the ones that protect you must be upheld as well.

          Why do you insist on special dispensation from the government because you’ve been brainwashed by mythology?

          • Gary

            I am not going to obey laws that conflict with my religious beliefs.

          • Badkey

            But you will expect others to obey laws that protect you.

            Hypocrite.

          • Gary

            The laws that protect me do not conflict with my religious beliefs.

          • Badkey

            But they may others… but to that, you do not care.

            Hypocrite.

          • Gary

            You mean others may want to harm me, and I should let them?

          • Badkey

            Good grief.

            You’re one selfish SOB, Gary.

          • Gary

            I don’t want people harming me, or my friends. If that means i’m selfish, then fine.

          • Badkey

            But you want others harmed.

            You are selfish.

          • Badkey

            Tell me… how will you be harmed?

  • Brenda Golden

    The point is that 75% of the people of Texas VOTED to make marriage in their state between one man and one woman. Why is the majority vote not recognized by the minority? Like a bunch of petulant children they will have their way regardless of who it hurts.

    • Paul Hiett

      Jim Crow laws were supported by the majority of citizens as well. Were they right then?

    • Gary

      Neither homosexuality, nor ssm are required to be legal under either the US Constitution, or the Texas Constitution. That means there is no constitutional reason for the courts to overturn the Texas law, or the law of any state that has heterosexual-only marriage. The courts are out of line and are doing things that they are not allowed to do under Constitutional law.

      • Paul Hiett

        There are many things not required to be legal, such as making this a Christians Only country, yet you’re trying your hardest to do so.

        • Gary

          I am not trying to make this a Christians only country. It never has been that, and I’m not trying to make it that now. I just want the laws to be moral.

          • Paul Hiett

            Horsecrap Gary…you only want the laws enacted that follow your religion, and you don’t want any opposing viewpoints legitimized.

          • Gary

            True. But that does not mean I want only Christians to live here. I do think it would be a much nicer country if we were rid of people like you and Badkey.

          • Paul Hiett

            So everyone else must sacrifice their right to their religion to live here under your regime.

            Do you even think before you speak?

          • Gary

            You want Christians to sacrifice their right to live by their religion. But you don’t want Christians to demand the same of those of another religion.

          • Paul Hiett

            No religion should be allowed to dictate how everyone lives their life.

            If you don’t like the laws of this country, then leave. Even your fellow Christians on here wouldn’t be upset about that.

          • Gary

            I am not going to obey any law that conflicts with my religious beliefs.

          • Paul Hiett

            But you would force those of other religions to obey laws that conflict with theirs, wouldn’t you?

          • Gary

            Not much. Unless they want to sacrifice humans. Or have legal ssm.

          • Badkey

            Liar.

          • Paul Hiett

            “Not much”. But some, it appears. Meanwhile, SSM has NO affect on you…such a hypocrite.

          • Gary

            But ssm does affect me. If it is legal. If it isn’t legal, then maybe it would not affect me. I could reject it without government harassment if it was not legal.

          • Badkey

            How? HOW does it affect you?

            What happened in CO or WA can’t happen to you as your state has no public accommodations protections for gay citizens.

            HOW does it affect you?

          • Gary

            The legalization of perversion poses a threat to every decent person anywhere. After ssm, the queers and you will want queers added to the civil rights laws. You will want to outlaw discrimination against perverts, and that will be a threat to me and my friends.

          • Badkey

            That DOES NOT AFFECT YOU. It is only your opinion of the state of things. It’s meaningless word salad.

            You CANNOT show us any harm to you.

            You CANNOT show any harm to your marriage.

            Or to anyone else.

            You’re right about one thing, though… ENDA will be next.

            And as long as you have special protections for being brainwashed by mythology, there’s no reason NOT to pass it.

            However, ENDA is not SSM… again, to show your weakness, you must change the subject.

          • Gary

            enda would threaten harm to everyone who objects to homosexuality.

          • Badkey

            The civil rights act harms everyone who objects to bloody mythologies.

            You don’t seem to mind that.

            You like being special… SSM and ENDA mean… you’re not.

          • Gary

            It seems odd that you say you are harmed by the civil rights act, yet you want to keep it.

          • Badkey

            I have never said that.

            Gary lies again.

          • Gary

            You want the civil rights act repealed? Me too. We finally agreed on something.

          • Badkey

            I don’t consider it possible… neither do you.

            So, treat everybody the same.

            Right?

          • Gary

            I wish it were possible.
            No, I don’t want to treat perverts like I treat decent people. I prefer the company of people who have at least some morality.

          • Badkey

            Ah, that’s what I expected. You need to be “special”.

            No, Gary. We will treat everyone the same, just as you’ve said we should.

            Even if Gary doesn’t like it.

          • Gary

            How you treat people is up to you. Who you associate with is up to you, as far as I’m concerned. Of course the government wants to tell you who you must associate with, so you will either have to obey them, or not.

          • Badkey

            That’s life, Gary… you get special protections.

            Other folks get special protections.

            I suggest you consider Siberia… they’re far more in tune with your outlook on life.

            ENDA is years off, Gary… you’re safe down in NC.

          • Gary

            I don’t want the government trying to force people to associate with me. People should choose their own associations. And I insist on choosing mine. And I will, even if the government does not like it.

          • Badkey

            It ain’t up to you Gary.

            Following the law (or not…) is.

            Again, you’ve nothing to worry about. You’re not a spring chicken, and NC has no public accommodations laws protecting gay citizens.

            You’re like a dog barking at shadows as cars drive by.

          • Gary

            Do you realize that slavery is when the government forces people into associations they don’t want? The government legally forces one person to do business with someone they don’t want to do business with.

          • Badkey

            No, I don’t realize that. That’s nowhere in any definition of slavery anywhere. People agree to public accommodations laws when they register their business license. It’s very very old, Gary… nothing new.

            If that’s the case, slavery is today, as it has always been, is enforced by religious people.

            Siberia, Gary… I’ll help you pack.

          • Gary

            You don’t know that the government used to legalize the forcing of a person to work for another person? They called it “slavery”. The government would not allow certain people to sell their labor to those of their own choosing, and instead legally made them work for someone they did not choose to work for?

          • Badkey

            Slavery is ownership by another… no recourse.

            If you don’t like public accommodations laws, you have recourse. Don’t open a public business.

            It’s not complicated. As usual, you’re over-dramatizing things that are simply not true.

          • Gary

            LOL. I apologize for overestimating both your education, and your intelligence. I will try not to make that same mistake again.

          • Badkey

            What is false in what I stated, Gary?

            Slaves have no recourse. That is not the case here.

            As usual… far more drama than called for by a man who has nothing to fear from what he fears most.

            You’re such a drama queen, Gary.

          • Paul Hiett

            How, exactly, does it affect you?

          • Badkey

            Good. You will know the consequences.

            For you, that’s NOTHING you hypocrite. The state you live in has no public accommodations protections for gay citizens.

            You’re screaming about things that don’t even affect you.

            Your sick obsession with all things gay is quite telling about your personality, especially that side you want no one to know.

          • Gary

            Drop dead pervert.

          • Badkey

            Why, because I told the truth?

            That where you live there are ZERO changes to your life?

            Why are you so hostile? Is it your attraction to members of the same gender, or did someone do something to you?

          • Gary

            I doubt you have ever told the truth in your life. Miserable as it is.

          • Badkey

            It IS the truth.

            Your state has no public accommodations laws protecting gay citizens.

            If you say otherwise, YOU are lying.

          • Badkey

            You are not special because you have religion.

            You are treated just like all other citizens… as it should be.

      • R.A.

        There is no secular reason to deny gay marriage. It harms no one. It has no affect on the general well being of the public except it makes some people uncomfortable. The only grounds to deny gay marriage are religious ones. And states may not make laws that respect any religion. If these laws were allowed to remain, it sets the legal precedent to legislate religious ideology. Then what happens when Christians are no longer the majority?

        • Gary

          There is no secular reason to deny many things that are immoral. Any law having to do with marriage will have religious implications. Marriage is heterosexual only. Every marriage must have both a husband and a wife. You want immoral laws. And I don’t.

          • Lemmy Caution

            “Marriage is heterosexual only.”

            Except when it’s not.

          • Gary

            It always is to me and many others. You can have whatever opinion you want, as long as you don’t demand that I share it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Your opinion means nothing though from a legal stance. Anything you say, anything you think…means absolutely nothing.

          • Gary

            It means something to me. I am never going to accept homosexuals or ssm as being anything other than perversion. And I am not going to tolerate any attempts to force me to change my mind or act on what I believe.

          • Paul Hiett

            And if your actions break a law, be prepared to suffer the consequences. No one cares what you think because you’re insignificant, and your hate nothing more than a sad, fleeting memory of days long past.

            We have the law of this country on our side, while you have only a book with a hope of something after you leave this world. We really don’t care if you think you’re better than everyone else because your religious text tells it to you. in fact, we don’t care what any religious text says. Your religion is not law.

            in your imaginary Heaven, yes, maybe your god does hate gay people as much as you do. On earth, you’re nothing.

          • Gary

            You seem to be inviting a war. You sure you want that?

          • Paul Hiett

            The war is over Gary, you lost.

          • Gary

            Not hardly.

          • Badkey

            Bring it, big guy.

          • Paul Hiett

            Look around you. Only a handful of states remain, until the USSC declares is a law.

            When that happens, the only places that share your hatred of gay people will be muslim countries under muslim law. That’s teh company you share.

            Yes Gary, your war is over, and once again, you lose.

          • Gary

            The real war has not even begun yet.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…still talking about the end times. That’s so cute.

            It’s been over 2000 years since the stories were first told. You’ll have to pardon me for not giving them any credence today either.

            Yeah, yeah, I know, I’ll suffer the wrath of your ever loving god…guess I’ll just have to take my chances.

          • Gary

            It is more than Jesus returning.

          • Paul Hiett

            More lies. Your weak attempt at veiled threats hold no fear for me.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Luckily, you don’t have to accept anyone as not a “perversion”, whatever you imagine that to be.

            The govt has to treat SSM the same as other married, and in communities where discrimination in business is illegal, well, those in SSM will be protected from discrimination, but otherwise nobody else is affected. Certainly not you, if you live in Texas, as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not illegal.

          • Lemmy Caution

            “It always is to me and many others.”

            Good for you.

            “You can have whatever opinion you want, as long as you don’t demand that I share it.”

            Could care less about if you share the opinion. I care about the secular rule of law. Victory is at hand. Soon.

          • Gary

            If it comes, it will be temporary.

          • Lemmy Caution

            I’m sure the bigots in Canada thought the same thing. Over ten years ago.

          • Gary

            It will soon end in Canada too.

          • Lemmy Caution

            Hold your breath. Please.

          • Guy Norred

            No one is demanding you share the opinion. You are the one demanding that others share your opinion.

          • Malcolm Swall

            There are many things that are immoral and sinful, yet are not illegal. Adultery is immoral, sinful, unethical, and probably fattening, too. It isn’t against the law. Cheating at monopoly is immoral and sinful – still not illegal. “No god but me…”, right in the 10 commandments, still not illegal.

          • Gary

            You are correct. But so far, no one that I know of has demanded that Christians approve of adultery. But the government has already demanded that people accept ssm as valid.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Christians are not required to approve of SSM. They just don’t get to insist that it be illegal.

            Similarly, they don’t have to approve of adultery, they just don’t get to make it illegal.

          • Paul Hiett

            Something Gary seems to be incapable of understanding.

          • Badkey

            He understands.

            He just doesn’t like it. It means he’s not special.

            He likes being special.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh…he’s special, all right.

          • Gary

            A florist in Washington state has already been prosecuted because she would not recognize a ssm as being valid.

          • Oshtur

            This is America, her customer’s have a right to their own beliefs and as a public accommodation she can not reject them because of them.

            The want to have a wedding and the business offers wedding floral services to the public then they can buy them whether she would herself have had one like that herself or not.

            She currently doesn’t offer wedding floral services to anyone so she is now treating all customers the same and legally and in keeping with her religious conscience.

            There is no right to religious discrimination in a public offer, the customer’s own right to religious freedom and exercise shields them from such wickedness.

          • Gary

            She was following God’s law, not man’s. In that case, man’s law was and is immoral.

          • Oshtur

            If she was following God’s law she wouldn’t have been offering wedding floral services as a public accommodation in the first place.

            Romans 13:1-5
            Titus 3:1
            1 Peter 2:13-17

            That she defied the law when she didn’t need to comes from pride, hubris, and greed, not God’s law.

          • Gary

            The law of men she was asked to obey is immoral. God does not allow ssm, and had ssm not been legal in Wash., she would not have violated any law.

          • Oshtur

            You don’t understand, this was about a wedding, there is no law about weddings no contract needed to have one.

            And considering Paul said to obey the Roman Empire the idea that ‘immoral’ somehow negated that is ridiculous.

          • Guest

            If you’re such a “Christian”, Alessandra/Martin/Heather/Osthur, why do you only troll gay articles? Why don’t you visit other subjects on the site?

          • Oshtur

            Well you got one handle right. And this is a topic of interest, I live in Washington and see much gossip about this, here to educate. Again ruling was exactly as expected, and won’t change between here and the state Supreme Court. That people think it will for the most bizarre reasons is why I’m here.

          • Paul Hiett

            Gary has no grasp of of the laws governing commerce.

          • Guest

            Now you’re making stuff up. Restaurants have the right to refuse patrons who are slovenly. Businesses have the right to decide which services they will offer. This dear soul has opted NOT to offer services for gay weddings. She is being persecuted, and you are one of the persecutors. Have you picked up a big enough stone to hurl at her?

          • Oshtur

            Yeah insane, where is the religious discrimination in your examples?

          • Guest

            The point is that business owners have the right to PERSONALLY decide which way they will run their businesses. They can decide which services they are PERSONALLY most comfortable providing. This woman is PERSONALLY most comfortable not servicing gay weddings. That is her right, just as it is the right of a Christian carpenter to refuse to provide the wood and service of erecting a cross for KKK purposes.

          • Lemmy Caution

            “The point is that business owners have the right to PERSONALLY decide which way they will run their businesses.”

            No, actually they don’t.

            “They can decide which services they are PERSONALLY most comfortable providing.”

            Nope.

            “This woman is PERSONALLY most comfortable not servicing gay weddings”

            Poor thing. Life is tough. Suck it up and do your job.

          • Guest

            You are wrong. According to your logic (or lack thereof), a barbershop should be forced to become a butcher shop in order to accommodate a fringe group, and a carpenter should be forced to become a beauty parlor. Logic isn’t your strong suit, and since facts and reason aren’t on your side, you have to make things up. You are no different than the Nazis who destroyed Jewish businesses, and no different than white supremacists who destroyed African American homes. You are a bigot and should be called out as such.

          • Lemmy Caution

            “a barbershop should be forced to become a butcher shop in order to accommodate a fringe group,”

            That’s a pretty stupid analogy.

            “You are a bigot and should be called out as such.”

            Adorable.

          • Guest

            Again, you didn’t refute my argument intelligently because you are unintelligent. I merely used your “logic” back at you, and when you couldn’t refute that, you merely name-called. That’s very childish of you, and further proves that there is no logic nor reasoning on the side of gay agendists, but bullying, threats, and name calling.

          • Badkey

            You’re just not smart.

            NOBODY is asking anyone to offer a good or service that they don’t already offer.

            Good grief.

          • Guest

            Of course they are. This woman does not do gay weddings, yet this long-time customer who knew that asked her to do one. If she were against serving gays, he would not have been her customer for years, now would he? So – who is now not smart?

          • Badkey

            The flowers ARE NO DIFFERENT. She already sells them.

            Try again.

          • Guest

            It depends what the flowers are used for. Would a Christian woodmaker be expected to make a cross for the KKK to burn? Would you make one?

          • Badkey

            The flowers are no different.

            She has NOT been asked to sell anything she doesn’t already sell.

            In federal court, as every case like this historically, she will lose.

            KKK? Really? My god you people are stupid. Please show me the public accommodations laws that protect the KKK as a protected group. I’ll wait.

          • Guest

            Slow down and listen to reason. All you are doing is ranting and typing without thinking.

            The vendor does not provide services for gay weddings. She does, and has, served gay customers. She is not discriminating against gays. She just doesn’t do gay weddings.

            The KKK has just as much rights to hold their beliefs as anyone else does. The law says so. So – would you make a cross for a KKK cross burning ceremony?

          • Badkey

            Are the KKK members of a legally protected class of citizens?

            The flowers are the same. She sells flowers for weddings. She doesn’t stand a chance.

            Yes, the KKK can hold their beliefs… NOBODY can take those from them. But the KKK cannot enter a courtroom and demand protection under public accommodations laws for those views.

            I don’t know what is so confusing for you on this.

          • Guest

            All citizens are under legal protection.

          • Badkey

            Incorrect.

          • Guest

            You really don’t know that all Americans have equal rights?

          • Oshtur

            No more than the have a ‘personal right’ to pay below the minimum wage or make fraudulent claims about their products.

            Again no florist has to offer wedding floral services to the general public at all, but if they do they have to legally.

          • Guest

            You cannot compare cheating people with having the freedom and rights as a business owner to decide which services are offered. According to your logic (or lack thereof), anyone can force a barbershop to become a carpenter (offering services other than what they specialize in), or a baker to become a butcher. That is your logic, and it’s ridiculous. This is how far the gay mafia will stoop to force their agenda on unsuspecting citizens, and it is bullying, and it is wrong.

          • Oshtur

            And since the customer just wanted to buy a service other customers tge point of your straw man is that you can’t deal with the actual issue brought up.

          • Guest

            Again, you are wrong, and you are attempting to detract from the issue, Scottie. Gay wedding services are NOT offered, hence cannot be denied.

          • Oshtur

            Yeah like the deli owner didn’t make ‘black’ sandwiches. Sorry there are only wedding services

            You’re getting dinner and dimmer.

          • Malcolm Swall

            A florist in Washington state has a business license that is contingent on her behaving lawfully. The state of Washington, recognizing that discrimination in business on the basis of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation harms individuals and society has made that behavior illegal.

            The florists religious rights end when she harms others. Discrimination is a harm that is illegal, so she has been prosecuted for her illegal behavior.

            If you cannot both practice business without illegally harming others, and your particular religious interpretations, you need to find a new line of work. Or move someplace where inflicting the harm of discrimination doesn’t violate the laws and morals of the community.

          • Gary

            When a state requires that people associate with perverts, as Washington state does, then it has not morals and its laws requiring that people associate with perverts is invalid.

          • Malcolm Swall

            There is no requirement that a citizen meet your criteria for being or not being a “pervert”, whatever you imagine that to be.

            There is a requirement, in the state of Washington, that you do not discriminate in business on the basis of religion, race, gender or sexual orientation.

            If you cannot both comply with the law and your religion, you need a new line of work. Or to move somewhere discrimination is legal.

          • Gary

            I would move. But the law is still immoral.

          • Malcolm Swall

            A florist in Washington was prosecuted for illegally discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was offered a settlement of $2000 and a promise to cease discriminating. She has declined the settlement.

            Discrimination is a harm. Your religious freedom ends when it harms others.

            IF you cannot both do business without harming others and follow your particular religious interpretations, you need to find a new line of business. Or move somewhere where discrimination doesn’t violate community standards and laws.

          • Gary

            It is your opinion that discrimination is harmful. Everyone discriminates daily. When a man marries a woman, he discriminates against every woman who would have married him. You could as well say the women were harmed as to say the sexual pervert who would have had to go elsewhere for flowers was harmed.

          • Malcolm Swall

            It is the opinion of the duly elected legislature of State of Washington that discrimination in business on the basis of religion, race, gender and sexual orientation is harmful. That is why they took the step to make it unlawful.

            If you think that violates your constitutional rights, that is what the Judiciary is there for, so you can seek your rights.

          • R.A.

            When you say marriage, you see the religious aspect. But there are also civil aspects that deal with monetary gain and legal standing in society. In that regard, it’s the civil authorities recognition of your marriage that counts, not whether a certain religious group views you as “really” married. Marriage exists as a secular institution, too, though we are free to view our own marriage in any light we choose. We just have to have that legal certificate, too, if we want the governmental benefits from it.

            According to the Bible, every marriage can have several wives. And maybe a concubine or two, or hundred, in Solomon’s case. Not once is polygamy ever called sinful in the biblical witness. So the “clear cut” view of marriage is not so clear.

            It’s your religious belief that marriage must have a man and woman. And you want to legalize that religious belief, which sets the legal precedence to legislate other religious ideas, which leads to a theocracy, like many Muslims have in the Middle East because they, too, have religious beliefs made into law. But the not so fun part for you and me is when we become the religious minority, and suddenly those laws affect our ability to live as we believe our religion calls us to and allows us to live. This is what makes me thankful for the Founding Fathers’ ideology that religious matters should not be codified.

            An immoral law based on your standards, maybe. But in my view, it’s immoral to tell other people how they can express their religious beliefs. Some people believe it’s religiously acceptable for gay people to marry. And I don’t want to take away their right to peacefully practice their belief that harms no one, much like I wouldn’t want anyone to take away my right to do so, either.

          • Gary

            Heterosexual-only marriage has been the law for well over 200 years in this country. It has certainly not led to a theocracy. If queers want to “marry” I have no objection, as long as it is not legal. When it becomes legal then the government may use that legality to force acceptance of it on people who object to it. That has already happened, so don’t bother saying it never would.

    • Badkey

      Whoopdee dee doo.. we’re not a democracy.

      We’re a republic.

      SCOTUS has upheld the constitution in overturning the will of the people in states before. That is their job.

      • Gary

        There is no constitutional requirement for ssm, or for legal homosexuality.

        • Badkey

          Yes, Gary, we know how you feel.

          And we watch you lose, over and over and over and over…

          • Gary

            But you cannot prove ssm or homosexuality are required to be legal by the US Constitution.

          • Badkey

            Over and over and over and over and over…

            How did it feel the day it became legal in NC?

            Was it a rush of exaltation?

    • R.A.

      I know, right? Just like black people were too “whiney” about Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes. Or those whiney people who opposed the public’s right to outlaw interracial marriage.

    • Malcolm Swall

      No state may enact a law that violates the US Constitution.

      The framers feared what John Adams coined “the tyranny of the majority”, whereby a majority would be able to disadvantage a minority. Their answer was to write into the constitution a “system of checks and balances”, where the Judiciary would be able to correct the Legislature, when it did something that violates the constitution. So when the Judiciary finds that a law is unconstitutional, it is literally doing EXACTLY what the framers of the constitution intended.

      When you are old enough for high school civics class, your teacher will help you understand how our system of govt actually works.

      • Gary

        Heterosexual-only marriage laws do not violate the US Constitution.

        • Paul Hiett

          Nor do homosexual marriage laws.

          • Gary

            You are right. Then the perversion pimps should stop saying ssm is required by the US Constitution. The Constitution leaves marriage to the states.

          • Paul Hiett

            The Constitution left the states to decide slavery and Jim Crow laws too. How’d that work out?

          • Gary

            Then you don’t care what the Constitution says and just want your way.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “Why is the majority vote not recognized by the minority?”

      Because, Brenda, we live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. In a CR, the majority does not have the right to vote away the rights of other citizens based solely on the majority not liking something.

      If a majority of voters in Utah voted to only allow Mormons to get married, should people of other faiths in Utah simply accept that, since a majority voted for it? What if they vote to only allow Mormon churches in Utah?

      “will have their way regardless of who it hurts.”

      Who is being hurt, and how?

    • Reason2012

      Including the kids who are being legally denied the right to be raised by their biological parents 100% of the time, by design, and are also being legally denied the right to be raised by both a mother and a father 100% of the time, by design. They are using and abusing kids to promote their agenda.

  • Malcolm Swall

    Equal rights and justice for all. Even in Texas.

    • Gary

      No rights for perversion.

      • Paul Hiett

        In other words, no rights for anyone who thinks differently than you. Your kind is slowly fading from this world. Such bigotry is now laughed at, and heads shake sadly towards anyone with a like mind.

        Soon Gary, you and people who think like you will be but a distant memory.

        SSM will become legal across the nation in June, and all of your whining and crying can do nothing to stop it.

        • Gary

          And YOU will soon be barking in Hell.

          • Badkey

            According to the myth, sure…. but it’s a myth.

          • Gary

            You wish it was.

          • Badkey

            Uh-huh.

            Where are your facts?

          • Gary

            Coming soon to a city near you.

          • Paul Hiett

            So….you have no facts.

            Gotcha.

          • Gary

            Got plenty of facts. But I’m not going to waste time trying to convince you of anything.

          • Badkey

            No you don’t.

          • Paul Hiett

            Name one…just one. If you have plenty, that shouldn’t be so hard.

          • Gary

            FACT: God created the universe and all living things.

          • Paul Hiett

            No Gary, that’s an opinion.

            Do you have an actual fact?

          • Gary

            That is a fact. If God had not created those things, they would not exist.

          • Paul Hiett

            You clearly don’t know what a “fact” is.

          • Gary

            I know what a fact is.

          • Badkey

            To you a fact is a book of myths written by men.

          • Gary

            Myths are not facts.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then why do you claim they are?

          • Gary

            I don’t. You confuse facts with myths. Some might call that insanity.

          • Badkey

            Your buybull is myth.

          • Paul Hiett

            Prove, without quoting the BIble, that your choice of a deity created everything, and not something else, such as the big bang OR another deity.

          • Gary

            The “big bang” was an alleged explosion. Explosions can’t create anything. Christians believe Jesus Christ created everything. Somebody did. If you can prove it was someone else, then let’s see the evidence.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re the one making claims about your god creating everything. I see you can’t prove it and try to change subject.

            Prove it Gary. Prove it with the facts you claim to have.

            Or, admit you’re lying.

          • Gary

            The universe and life had to have been made by someone because they could not have created themselves, and they could not come to exist without being caused(chance). Then who was the Creator, or Maker? It had to be someone with the ability to plan what they wanted to make, and the ability to make it from nothing. Who could that have been? Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, healed sick folk, raised some dead people to life again, and after he was killed, came back to life himself. The Bible says it was Jesus who created everything. (John 1:1-3) I believe it was Jesus Christ who made everything. And I have seen, read, or heard nothing that is believable to indicate it was someone else.

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s called the “God of the Gaps Argument” , and it’s been proven to be one of the wrost defenses a Christian can put forth.

            Again, can you produce an actual fact to back up your claim?

          • Gary

            Your turn. Why do we exist?

          • Paul Hiett

            Three simple words, Gary, that can free your mind of the shackles of religion…”I don’t know.”

            That’s the beauty of science, we’re not afraid to admit when we don’t know something. And, we change our viewpoints based on facts, as they become presented. The truth is, no one knows where we came from, how life began, how the universe was formed. But, science works to learn…religion relies on books 2000 years old.

            So again, I ask, can you present one single fact to back up your claim?

          • Gary

            I know who did it. But I don’t know how. You believe whatever you want about it, but clearly you have no answer. But I only claimed that God created everything, and I think that is a fact. At least it is a premise you cannot prove is false.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re hilarious…you can’t “think” something is a fact gary, that’s what an opinion is. So you continue to be unable to provide so far.

            And you’re right, I don’t have the answer to those questions, but neither do you. The difference is that I am educated and smart enough to admit it.

            You’re aslo right that that I can’t prove Creation to be false. Nor can you prove it to be true, using the same criteria. That’s why you need facts to back up your claim, of which you have provided none.

          • Gary

            I proved the universe and life had to have been created by someone. All we are doing is arguing about who is was.

          • Paul Hiett

            Say what? How do you figure that you proved “someone” created it? It’s the God of the Gaps argument Gary. You’re doing nothing more than filling in the blanks with “We don’t know, so God must have done it”. So, very clearly, no, you did not prove “someone” created everything.

            Good grief, are you really this ignorant?

            One fact Gary, just one. That’s all we’re asking for.

          • Gary

            1. Everything made itself, 2. Things came to exist without being caused, 3. Someone made everything. Are there any other possible explanations?

          • Malcolm Swall

            Sure. How about – we don’t actually know, and we may never know.

            No matter how you dress it up, you still cant get from “something made everything” logically to “I know exactly who did it, It was God, and he is interactive with us, here on earth.”

          • Malcolm Swall

            You haven’t proved anything. You postulate that something must have been created by something. And then you make an unsupported leap, absent from all logic, to “therefore God as I imagine him.”

            And you ignore the recursive problem of what created that which created the thing that created the universe. I.e., if you can infer that something must have created the universe, logically you can infer that something must have created whatever created the universe, ad nauseum.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Obviously something created something at some point. We can observe astronomically, and make inferences from what we observe. Other than that, any creation story is just that, a creation story.

            By what objective criteria may we evaluate one religious creation idea in contrast with the creation ideas of all the other religious ideas out there?

            It is a literally a giant leap of faith to jump from something must have created everything, to Jesus Christ says that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

          • Gary

            Faith is involved since none of us was there to see it happen.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Yet your faith is different from thousands of other faiths. By what objective criteria may we decide that YOUR faith should be the one to use as a basis in law and govt.

          • Gary

            Read the Bible, and whatever else you want, and decide what you think is true.

          • Malcolm Swall

            As a non-Christian, the Bible is irrelevant to me. In exactly the way that the Quran and the Talmud is irrelevant to you.

            The problem with “you can decide what you think is true”, is that it really is a poor basis for making laws that apply to everyone.

          • Gary

            I’m not saying that any idea is as good an another. But if the Bible is irrelevant to you, then I cannot help you find the truth.

          • Malcolm Swall

            FACT: Something may have created everything, and obviously something must have created that something, and well, logically something else must have created that.

            Religious assumption: Because something must have created everything, that something must be the God of my religion, and definitely not any other god of any other religion.

          • Gary

            There has to be someone who was eternal and needed no maker.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Even if that is a true statement, you still don’t prove that there is currently an actual interventionist God, and you still provide no rational argument as to why we should believe that God is the God of your particular religion, as opposed to all the other Gods of all the other religions. By what objective criteria can we evaluate who’s God is the real God?

          • Gary

            Read the Bible and decide.

          • Malcolm Swall

            Telling a non Christian to read the bible is about as effective as somebody telling a Christian to read the Talmud, or the Quran.

            I disbelieve the bible exactly the same way that you disbelieve the Quran.

          • Gary

            If you are not willing to consider the Bible, then I can’t help you.

          • Malcolm Swall

            I am not asking for your help.

            I am discussing a legal, secular issue of national import.

          • Gary

            Do you make up morality as you go, or is there a moral standard that you adhere to.

          • Badkey

            Ah… so you have none.

            Thanks.

      • Malcolm Swall

        YOU don’t have the authority to decide that what you think is perverse can be used to deny fundamental rights to your fellow citizens.

        • Gary

          Nobody’s rights are being denied. There is no right to ssm, or even to homosexual behavior.

          • Paul Hiett

            Nor is there a right to heterosexual behavior.

          • Gary

            God gave people the right to heterosexual behavior, within the limits He put on it.

          • Badkey

            Your God is as real as Vishnu.

            It has no bearing on our law.

          • Paul Hiett

            Change your tune when logic proves your point moot.

            Cute.

    • Reason2012

      Everyone already has the right to marry one person of the opposite gender. Who in Texas is denied the right to marry one person of the opposite gender?

      • Malcolm Swall

        And soon everyone in Texas can marry who they choose, of any gender. Just like 2/3 of the other states.

        • Reason2012

          Everyone already has the right to marry one person of the opposite gender. Who in Texas is denied the right to marry one person of the opposite gender?

          • Badkey

            When everyone in Texas can marry one person of the same gender, who will be denied that right?

          • Reason2012

            So you admit everyone already had the same rights and it’s not about equal rights but demanding a new, special right. The point.
            Thank you for showing it’s false that this is about “equal rights”.

            Take care.

  • Gary

    In order for the courts to overturn a law, the law is supposed to violate the US Constitution. Heterosexual-only marriage laws do not violate the US Constitution. That means the courts are acting unconstitutionally. The problem is that most judges don’t care what the Constitution says. They believe they have the right to decide what the Constitution means, even if what they decide contradicts what the Constitution actually says. The judges are out of control and are themselves violating the US Constitution.

    • Badkey

      Poor Gary.