Texas Senate Approves Bill Protecting Pastors Who Refuse to Officiate Same-Sex ‘Weddings’

churchAUSTIN — The Texas Senate has approved a bill that would protect pastors from legal action if they refuse to officiate same-sex ceremonies.

Sen. Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) presented S.B. 2065, entitled “Freedom of Religion with Respect to Recognizing or Performing Certain Marriages.”

“A religious organization, an organization supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, an individual employed by a religious organization while acting in the scope of that employment, or a clergy or minister may not be required to solemnize any marriage, provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage, or treat
any marriage as valid for any purpose if the action would cause the organization or individual to violate a sincerely held religious belief,” it reads.

The legislation also prevents faith-based organizations from being sued for declining to directly or indirectly participate in the event.

“A refusal to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges [under this law] is not the basis for a civil or criminal cause of action or any other action by this state or a political subdivision of this state to penalize or withhold benefits or privileges, including tax exemptions or governmental contracts, grants, or licenses, from any protected organization or individual,” it states.

State Senators debated the bill on Monday, with some stating that it is necessary due to the growing pressure on Christians to accommodate homosexuality and others calling the legislation discriminatory. The publication Towelroad classified the bill as a continuance of a “full-fledged assault on same-sex marriage.”

“Pastors’ First Amendment rights are very important, and they should not be caused to do something that violates their sincerely held beliefs,” Estes told Breitbart Texas.

  • Connect with Christian News

“I just hope you’re not getting people afraid of something that’s not a problem,” Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston) asserted. “I don’t see what the problem is that you’re trying to solve.”

But Dave Welch, president of Texas Pastor Council Action told reporters that he thought Whitmire’s statement was naive.

“Senator Whitmire apparently lives in a parallel universe that does not have the Human Rights Campaign, President Barack Obama and Mayors like Annise Parker in Houston who are willing and committed to using police powers to force acceptance of the LGBTQIA agenda,” he said.

As previously reported, Texas Senator and Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz told reporters in 2013 that he believes churches could be the next target for homosexual activists.

“There are a lot of Christian scholars, when they talk about the marriage issue, they see it in essence going down this line of potential hate speech from the pulpit,” David Brody of CBN stated. “What is your sense about where this potentially could be going?”

“Well, if you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced,” Cruz replied. “It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage.”

Other states have presented similar bills to protect pastors, such as in South Dakota, Arizona and Utah.


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
  • LeftCoast

    We all know that a pastor can’t be forced to perform a wedding or demand a church to be used for their wedding but this law is in place to prevent this from happening in the future. Most couples know who is preaching the truth and who is not.

  • Tara

    This is a good thing as the pressure put on pastors to officiate marriages they don’t and can’t support if they follow the Lord, is going to become unreal. While the left likes to say nothing will change for believers, we all know the truth, and the Bible speaks to it, and what will happen. The more people’s desires are catered to, the worse mankind becomes. It’s like spoiling kids. The more they get, the more they want, and the left is trying very hard to demand acceptance while tramping all over the believes or views of others. That isn’t equality. Anyone saying they want equality these days is a liar; it’s all about selfishness and superiority, no matter the cost. Even though the left says now they’d never force pastors to go against God, His word and their entire belief system……they will. Wait and see.

    • Lark62

      Government employees who officiate weddings cannot discriminate, just like a muslim working at the DMV cannot refuse to issue a drivers license to a woman no matter what his religion teaches. A person acting as a representative of the government cannot discriminate based on religion.

      Churches, on the other hand, have absolute authority to decide who gets to join and who gets church sacraments. That is not changing.

      Note – When i was a christian I noticed that extreme fear mongering was usually connected to grabs for power or pleas for money.

      • jschlue2

        If you can’t see where things are headed, you’ve been living under a rock. Many of the things the left has said would never happen with regard to gay marriage have happened. We are headed down the same slippery slope that so many said doesn’t exist. Wake up.

        • Lark62

          Such as?

          For profit businesses have to serve whoever wants to sit at the lunch counter. We’ve tried Jim Crow and good riddance.

          Governments – schools, local, state or national – cannot promote, advance, advertise or endorse the favored religion of government employees. The government needs to be neutral.

          A couple of ministers in Idaho were running a for profit business marrying a couple thousand couples a year, but they are allowed to discriminate even though they care nothing about the personal lives of the 4000 other people who get hitched at their hitching post.

          Give me one example where a church operating as church, not a for profit business, was interefered with.

          Fear and common enemies are great for building unity and raising money. But that’s about it.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            You’re getting <> because there are no examples of a church operating as a church suffering any sort of interference.

      • Tara

        I think it will change. It’s only a matter of time. Time will tell if you are right or I am.

        • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

          The Bible says you are right.

      • Peter Leh

        one way it may happen is if the clergy or church performs a “secular” wedding or ceremony opening it up of civil suits.

        certainly the church and clergy need to get with their attorney to dot the “i” and cross the “T” in their policies.

        i could be wrong

    • UmustBKiddinMe

      “This is a good thing as the pressure put on pastors to officiate marriages they don’t and can’t support if they follow the Lord, is going to become unreal.”

      Really? Examples?

      • Tara

        how can I give examples when I said ‘is going to become unreal’. I am saying what I think WILL happen. Besides, there will be examples in the news sooner than later, I would suspect.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Yes, and when it does become real, you will have all the Gaystapo apologists on here saying “Oh, it’s not really persecution and besides, they are breaking the law of the land.” Happens every time. Fascists can never rein themselves in.

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s nothing to suggest that pastors are going to be pressured to officiate weddings. None. That’s nothing more than fear-mongering and assumptions on your part.

          • MisterPine

            So are we fascists, or are we liberals? Make up your mind, you know it isn’t possible to be both…a little consistency with you name-calling would be appreciated.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha – good one, MisterPine! Modern-day liberals ARE fascist, so the two terms are synonymous.

          • MisterPine

            Actually no, WorldGoneCrazy, liberals are center-left and fascists are extreme right, like Hitler. You know, your group. Have a look at the political spectrum sometime before you decide to re-define it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hitler was a National Socialist – and a radical Darwinist – your group. “Liberals are center left!” I love it!

          • MisterPine

            (sigh)
            https://sepetjian dot files dot wordpress dot com/2012/09/left_right_political_spectrum_011.jpg

          • amostpolitedebate

            You do realize that Hitler was a roman catholic right?

            Though, TBH the Nazis don’t really fall cleanly on to one point of the American political spectrum. They where this weird grab bag of random political/philosophical/religious ideals that were mostly just an empty front for “Germany good. Foreigners BAD!”. This tended to result in hyper-conservative policymaking but oddly enough you’d occasionally see them advocating for something traditionally liberal like increasing retirement pensions or banning child labor.

            Rather than focus on their specific political/religious beliefs or actions it’s more useful to study the mindset that went into creating the Nazis in the first place. Namely a pervasive fear and frustration that finds an outlet by scapegoating a vulnerable but mistrusted minority. It’s something that can happen on any side of the political spectrum, but right now is distressingly popular among certain factions of the right in America.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You do realize that Hitler was a roman catholic right?”

            “Not many Germans lost much sleep over the arrests of a
            few thousand pastors and priests… the Nazi regime intended to eventually destroy Christianity in Germany…As Bormann…said publicly in 1941, ‘National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.’… 13. The National Church
            demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany…18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles, and pictures of saints. 19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf…the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels…and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.” The Rise and Fall of the
            Third Reich, p. 240.

            Very interesting version of “Roman Catholicism” you ascribe to. 🙂

        • Deina

          Aye, and if you live another 500 years, you’ll be laying on your deathbed saying “Just watch, it’s gonna happen any day now!” ◔̯◔

          • Tara

            I highly doubt it.

        • UmustBKiddinMe

          My apologies. I misread your post.

          What is your basis for suggesting that there will be “unreal pressure” on pastors to officiate marriages they “don’t and can’t support”? Christian pastors are free to turn down marriages from other religions, and vice-versa. Why do you believe that ability would change regarding same-gender marriage?

    • Bobby Mae

      And aside from your delusional brain, where are the examples of “pressures to officiate gay weddings?” Take your time sweety I’ll wait for you to google search.

      • Tara

        lol…if you read what I typed properly, it says ‘it will be unreal’. That means ‘in the future’.

  • Lark62

    Congratulations. Texas passed a law guaranteeing a right that exists. All churches decide who can receive church weddings. This isn’t changing.

    I can’t get married in a Catholic church because I am not now and never will be catholic.

    As an atheist, I value freedom of religion, including yours. I know the fear mongering is great fun and a great way to build unity. But it isn’t real. Churches have a right to believe whatever nonsense they choose to believe. And because I believe that a secular society is a good idea, I will defend those rights.

    It would be nice if on occasion christians would defend the rights of those that believe differently.

    • jmichael39

      Then why pass ANY civil rights laws…or laws protecting the rights of homosexuals or women? Every citizen in this country has fundamental rights already protected by the US Constitution. So why do we need to draft and pass special laws protecting those groups of people?

      • amostpolitedebate

        The constitution guarantees the right to equal protection. However we need specific laws to decide exactly how those rights are enforced. So for example the constitution can block a law legalizing the murder of black people, but it doesn’t guarantee that murdering someone out of racial animus will carry with it an increased sentence.

        And yes, certain groups DO need protections/assistance above and beyond what is normal due to being at an increased risk of discrimination or violence.

        • jmichael39

          why SHOULD murdering a person out of racial animus carry any greater penalty. Is it honestly more socially unacceptable to murder someone because of the color of their skins than it is to simply murder someone? Do you seriously want to tell that to the families of those MERELY murdered?

          “And yes, certain groups DO need protections/assistance above and beyond what is normal due to being at an increased risk of discrimination or violence.” – That’s the biggest can of worms of all.
          –you’re immediately creating class ‘warfare’. Which is exactly why the best way to deal with ANY civil rights is by NON-class laws in compliance with the Constitution. There is no reason to make murdering a person of one class more punishable than murder against others You want equality of justice…prosecute the laws equally.
          –you’re also being a bigot against those “classes”…because somehow, in your small world, those people aren’t powerful enough to protect themselves. We have to have the government give them ‘special’ protections. And they certainly aren’t good enough to take of themselves. We have to have our government assist them. Can you be anymore elitist? If our Constitution isn’t strong enough to protect everyone equally, then amend it. If our laws don’t equally apply the Constitution to all people of all your “classes”, then re-write them to make them EQUAL and/or equally apply the laws to ALL crimes.
          –and lastly, aren’t laws that punish crimes committed by one class of people against another class of people more stringently than crimes committed within the class of people inherently racist. If your goal is provide added protections for certain classes of people, then ALL crimes against that class of people, no matter who commits them, should be equally stringent. And if you’re not punishing a crime done by a black man against a white man with the same amount of punishment then that is itself racist against the white man. By the mere presence of such laws, the white man, in this example, become a lesser citizen.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Yikes! You sure are awful mad about the government trying to help black people aren’t you?

            OK let’s break this down.

            Imagine you are walking down the road and see two people, one of which happens to be drowning in a river. You reach for your rope to throw to the struggling man when the other stops you.

            “You can’t do that!” he says “You didn’t offer ME any rope! It’s unfair!” He then takes the rope and burns it in the spirit of fairness. The man in the river drowns

            Guess which person you are in this story?

            The main flaw in your thinking (aside from having no idea how the law works) is that you fail to understand that all parties aren’t operating on a level playing field. African Americans are at a great disadvantage in many ways that may not be immediately obvious. Jobs are scarcer, incarceration more likely, good schools harder to find, and violence against them is more common because a certain subset of white people are still butthurt that all their slaves got taken away.

            The laws in question are an attempt to throw these communities a lifeline and even the scales. Certain states have pulled shenanigans to keep black people from voting, so we (used to) monitor them to make sure they stay honest. Certain employers will fire any employee that’s black, so we put laws in place stating that you need to show you’re not targeting people for termination by race. Certain hate groups target minorities, so we took extra legal precautions as a deterrent.

            Also: Eat the rich and take all their money! SANDSTORM 2016!

            …But that’s an entirely unrelated conversation.

          • jmichael39

            “OK let’s break this down.” – that’s a completely false analogy. There is already “rope” for that drowning man. There are already laws that provide ‘rope’ for ALL drowning people. What you want is a special law that affords certain people special ropes…above and beyond what the law already is.

            “The main flaw in your thinking (aside from having no idea how the law works) is that you fail to understand that all parties aren’t operating on a level playing field.” – BS. The law already is in place affording everyone the same opportunity. What YOU want is not equal opportunity but equal result.

            “African Americans are at a great disadvantage in many ways that may not be immediately obvious. Jobs are scarcer, incarceration more likely, good schools harder to find, and violence against them is more common because a certain subset of white people are still butthurt that all their slaves got taken away.” – More complete BS. You can’t directly blame slavery from 160 years ago, so you blame a small percentage of bigots for the things people do to themselves.

            You wanna blame the ills of the black community on any white people, blame it on the white progressives who’ve pushed their anti-family, pro-abortion lifestyle upon the entire community. The vast majority of violence against blacks comes from other blacks. Here’s a statistic for you, more blacks are killed by abortion in four days than were lynched in 86 years. Where’s your special laws protecting them. Where’s your ‘lifeline’ to them? Progressives are such hypocrites. You wanna help the black community, get your damned progressive ideas out of there.

          • amostpolitedebate

            LOL! You are SO MAD about me wanting to help black people.

          • jmichael39

            Are you honestly that illogical. Is that how you engage in a debate? Come on, man…you can do better than that. Or can you? Maybe you’re NOT as intelligent as you make yourself out to be. Maybe, like many other liberals we encounter, when confronted with an argument that you can’t refute, you resort to ad hominem and specifically the race card. That’s been the tradition of many irrational liberals…when in doubt, pull out the race card.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Great reply! Way to turn it around!

      • Lark62

        The Constitution governs the relationship between the govt and people. The Constitution protects freedom of religion from government intrusion. The government cannot interfere with what religious rites a church performs.

        Anti discrimination laws govern the conduct of businesses. If a business is receiving the benefit of roads and public infrastucture they have a responsibility to comply with laws. As a society, after decades of Jim Crow, we have figured out that discrimination by businesses makes for a nasty society and we have passed anti discrimination laws to address that.

        Just like there were no other lunch counters for blacks to eat at, if one florest refuses to serve “those people” every other florest will be pressured to join the holier than thou pissing contest and discriminate as well. For profit businesses should treat all money as green.

  • Randy Tyson

    Just underscores how bigoted Christians can be if their beliefs need to be protected from what the rest of society knows, that religion is the last bastion of discrimination and prejudice.

    • jschlue2

      Really? Progressivism is quite full of discrimination and prejudice against anyone who doesn’t see things their way. That’s plainly obvious.

      • weasel1886

        Where?

        • jmichael39

          LMAO…right here…with this very issue…as one example. Wow. I knew the left were blind, but…simply…wow.

          • weasel1886

            But you can’t gove me 1 example

          • jmichael39

            I can GOVE you many examples…but here’s a really big…unborn children. You and your progressive friends discriminate against the entire class of human beings known as unborn humans. So long as the class of humans known as women consider the unborn human to be “unwanted”, that unborn child has no rights whatsoever. However, if those women consider a particular unborn human to be wanted, then that unborn human is now considered human.

            Then, of course, it’s a rather blunt form of prejudice to even think that certain classes of humans aren’t good enough on their own to even survive without forcing other classes of humans to help them. That’s always a special prejudice of the progressives…that anyone not part of the ruling class isn’t quite good enough to take care of themselves that they need the ruling class to tell them what’s best for them.

            Then, of course, there is selective prejudices. For example, women or minorities are good people so long as their stupid enough to actually agree with progressives on how we should all live. As soon as one of them stands up and actually thinks for themselves and, God forbid, disagrees with the progressives then they’ve suddenly become ‘uncle toms’ or idiot pigs with lipstick.

            A good book on how the left is prejudicially silencing opposition opinions was just released by liberal Kirsten Powers…called The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. Yeah, I know, she’s no real liberal. After all, she works for Fox News and you’re not being prejudicial. Tell us another good one.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Kirsten is actually coming around. She was apparently converted, and the Holy Spirit is working on her to abandon her liberalism. She was the liberal who called out the lamestream media for not reporting on the Gosnell trial for 6 weeks. Made a complete fool of them – something they generally take care of by themselves.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Here’s 300: http://barbwire .com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/ (Take the space out before the dot.)

          • amostpolitedebate

            How so? Pastors were already allowed to refuse to marry whomever they wished.

          • jmichael39

            So what? Its already a crime (in accordance with the COnstitution) to murder any person…so why do we create special laws making it more of a crime for a white man to murder a black man? Its already a crime to murder. For that matter, why do we need a law making it legal for gays to marry? Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract. There is no constitutional justification for the government stepping in and giving THEIR permission to do something the Constitution already protects us from them creating laws to outlaw. Waiting for the government to pass a law ‘allowing’ gays to marry is like needing the government to pass a law allowing us to breathe or own property. And, no, that does not mean I advocate forcing pastors to solemnize those marriages. There are plenty of other ways for gays to have their marriages solemnized.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Marriage is way more than a civil contract. It’s a legal status granted by the state that offers a wide variety of perks and legal protections not found elsewhere.

            It’s more than shared property. It’s things like coverage by your spouse’s insurance, the ability to make medical decisions for your partner and the right to not be forcefully separated when you’re old and your wife’s parents decide they never liked you in the first place.

          • jmichael39

            Sorry, but marriage is more than a civil contract only to those who wish to see it as such. It a legal sense, that’s all it is.
            All of those things you mention, insurance, medical decisions, whatever, are ALL available through civil unions and civil contract laws. You’re adding nothing new.

          • amostpolitedebate

            I’m not sure you understand what a contract is or how one works.

            Let’s say marriage/civil unions are illegal and you and I want to create a contract that would serve the same function. The contents of that contract can only demand things of the other parties, NOT outside agencies like businesses or the government. Just because we agree to share custody of children and pool our money does NOT, for example, mean that you get included on my insurance plan through work.

            Now, civil unions are a step up from having nothing at all. However they have two glaring issues with them. First, they’re kind of insulting so a lot of people reject them based on that alone. Second, in practice they never really reach the same lever of rights/perks as an actual marriage. It’s kind of a “separate but equal” problem.

          • jmichael39

            In case you didn’t know, the courts have rules hundreds of times that marriage is a THREE party contract between the husband, wife and GOVERNMENT. They ARE party to the contract…including all agencies thereof.
            And, in case you hadn’t taken the time to actually READ what I wrote…my argument is NOT that gays shouldn’t be married. It’s that marriage should NOT be within the power of any government entity to approve or not approve.
            It’s like Social Security. You don’t need a SSN to work in this country. The law is clear about that. You don’t even need a SSN to pay or file tax returns. Let me explain. The SS-5 form…the form you fill out to obtain a SSN…it has what’s called an OMB number in the corner. The Office of Management and Budget must approval any form used by any agency or department of the government. When those forms are designed, before they can be used with the public, they must be submitted to the OMB with a filled out cover document. The cover document has several questions on it that the OMB uses in analyzing the form. One of the many questions on the cover document is: Will the information being collected by this form be 1) voluntary 2) mandatory or 3) to obtain or retain a benefit. Any one can obtain a copy of this cover document from the OMB regarding form SS-5 using a FOIA request. What you’ll find if you do that is that the answer the SSA gave to that question is: to obtain or retain a benefit.
            The point being that SSN are designed to give you benefits…they are not mandatory. In other words, if you want the government benefits. If that’s all you care about. If your own liberties…including the liberty to be married to whom ever you desire are less important than the government benefits you might otherwise enjoy by surrendering those particular liberties, than you go right ahead and petition the government to grant you and all the gays in the world the privilege…not the right…to be married.
            As for me, I would rather rely upon the basic fundamental rights protected by our Constitution than to surrender any of them to a government who no more has my best interests in mind than you do. If you’re okay with them doing that, feel free. But don’t be surprised when others won’t go along with your ideal of surrendering liberties for government privileges.
            And here’s the major difference, in case you’re honestly unable to distinguish between a fundamental liberty and a government granted privilege. To take away our fundamental liberties, those in power have to do so either illegally or with trickery get us to voluntarily give it away. Whereas, government granted privileges are good only so long as that same government deems you worthy of them. They can legally rescind or alter them anytime they want.
            Don’t think they can do it. Just take a look at two examples. One, driving the public roads. The courts have long ruled that traveling the public roads, but whatever means as you might use, is a fundamental right…and they place severe restrictions on the government’s right to regulate that right. But then the government found a way to get us to surrender that right in exchange for a privilege. How’d they do it? First they pass laws regulating the use of public roads by people for ‘commercial’ purposes. That’s the original driver’s licenses. The original definitions of a driver and a vehicle were all commercial in scope. Then they slowly redefined terms. They don’t have to write entirely new legislative acts to make minor alterations to existing Acts. And 99% of the time, such alterations are hidden in larger omnibus bills or merely glossed over amongst dozens and hundreds of other actions taken by legislators.
            So somewhere along the way a driver and vehicle changed from being merely commercial in nature to anyone. To accomplish this all they had to do was broaden the definition of what ‘commercial’ is…so as to more broadly include anyone using the road. You drive to work? That’s a commercial endeavor. You drive to the store…that’s driving to engage in a commercial activity. So you need a license, because you’re now a driver as defined by the motor vehicle laws. And suddenly, driving goes from being a fundamental right as the courts once described, to being a ‘privilege’…as we’re now ALL taught in driving schools.
            Example two, laboring for compensation. The courts have long ruled that it is a fundamental right for a citizen to be able to labor for compensation. And have long ruled that a direct tax on labor is unconstitutional. Then comes the 16th amendment. Many would like us to think that the 16th amendment altered the Constitution’s rejection of a direct tax on income. But according the courts, the 16th conferred NO NEW power of taxation upon the government. What the 16th amendment did was create a loophole by which the government could simply redefine what ‘income’ is so that it would also include compensation for one’s labor (read the Brubaker case). And that’s what they did with the income tax laws of 1916 and the ensuring alterations to that law. If you read all the many cases that came out of the 16th amendment and the income tax law over the past 100 years you’d likely not see it…but if you took the time to read the dozens of alterations to both 26 USC and the accompanying FCR…you’d see how they did it. It’s all done very deceptively, and arguably legally. But the result is the same…conversion of a fundamental right into a privilege almost completely controlled by arbitrary rule of the government.
            And how do they convince the public to go along? Initially by not being overt…minor changes. For example, the first income tax law barely even touched the lives of the masses. Only the extremely rich paid anything. So not only did the masses not care about any protests made against the new law, they likely loved it. They didn’t care about the doomsayers who argued that the government would soon abuse this new power. And when the people had to actually join in on paying a few years later during WWI, no one was gonna complain, after all, we had a war to fight.
            And by the time they get to OUR generation, hell, of course you pay taxes. How the hell else are we gonna pay for government? How the hell did we pay for it the first 150 years of this country’s existence? In the early 1900s, there something like an average of one congressional aid for every two congressmen. Today, there are dozens for some individual congressman.
            Maybe you’re content that the government has gotten this big. Maybe you’re okay with the idea that now the government acts as the philanthropic conscience of Americans. Maybe you’re pleased that more than 40% of the incomes taxes come from 1% of the population…though likely, if you’re a good progressive, you’d like it to be more than 40%. You may even be okay with the idea that government has the power through taxation to raise and destroy entire industries…because somehow you trust the government’s judgments. But you can be assured, there are a whole lot of us who are not okay…not pleased…not content with this…and we will NOT shut up about it.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Haha wow I am NOT reading all of that.

          • jmichael39

            Thanks for admitting you’re not actually here for a real debate. Have a nice life.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Dude. I’m not sorting through twenty pages of Timecube-style nonsense about the constitution and contract law. Especially when the writer only seems to care about either because he sees them as a useful tool for hurting groups he perceives as the enemy.

          • jmichael39

            lmao…you won’t read it but you already judge it as ‘timecube-style nonsense’. Forgive me for thinking you a laughable hypocrite and a complete intellectual fraud.

          • weasel1886

            You have no example of this law being needed. It is just pandering to the frightened little conservative sheep

          • jmichael39

            You’re so hilarious. You’re upset that a state decides to take affirmative action to stop potential violations of certain religious liberties. While Washington state is debating SB6239 which includes in Section 7 this provision:

            Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious
            organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages,
            privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a
            marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those
            accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those
            advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
            Therefore, if the church charges a fee in connection with hosting a heterosexual marriage…even if that fee is basically to cover the costs of electricity and heating the building…then this new Washington law would force them to also host homosexual marriages, even if it’s against their religious beliefs.
            Justice Scalia, whether you like him or not, is a deeply intelligent jurist who has more understanding of legal implications than 99%+ of the Americans has said that if the case before the courts now were to be upheld by the Court that it would open the flood gates which would force churches to host gay weddings and compelled licensed pastors to perform them. Right or wrong, any rational person would consider a statement that requires deep consideration.
            Two ministers in Idaho were told by officials to perform gay marriages or face jail time. It was in their chapel but how many steps is it from chapels to church buildings?
            Denmark just passed a law requiring ministers to perform gay marriages. No not America. But don’t even begin to tell me that progressives don’t look to other socialists countries for their examples.
            The UK has only allowed churches to request an exemption from performing gay marriages and many in the gay community are not happy about that. How long until they buckle under the pressure to force all ministers to perform?
            Do you want MORE examples, weasel? Too bad, you’re such a progressive brown shirt.

          • weasel1886

            Dennmark and the UK have state churches and if a church does weddings to make money they should not be exempt from the law

          • jmichael39

            So what, Canada doesn’t have a state church and it’s illegal for a minister to even say homosexuality is a sin?

            And your response of my post, which you conveniently ignored, is?

            “if a church does weddings to make money they should not be exempt from the law” – And it begins. Since most are merely charging what they think is enough to cover the costs of allowing the facility to be used, are they “making money”? Maybe you’d like the government to define how much they can charge before they are “making money”. Or perhaps they shouldn’t be allow to charge even enough to cover their costs. You’ve started down the slippery slope…keep going. But, not being a person of faith, what do you care?
            Again, what’s you’re response to the rest of my previous post? Or don’t you wanna deal with the other points I made? I know it’s a common tactic of those who have no interest in actual debate to simply pretend like certain segments on an opponent’s post never even existed, but surely you’re not gonna come in here with a “Denmark and UK have state churches” and think that’s gonna refute what I posted, right?

          • weasel1886

            Making money would imply a for profit business

          • jmichael39

            you need to go back to school, little man. Learn what a non-profit vs a for profit organization. Just because an organization charges money for services or for use of their facilities does not make them ‘for profit’. If I actually need to explain that to you, you’re borderline hopeless.

          • weasel1886

            I don’t care what you think only that you respond

          • jmichael39

            cool, then I can just respond by pointing the rest of the site to your obnoxious BS trolling. Yet another intellectual fraud. You guys sure make atheists look like a bunch of village idiots.

          • weasel1886

            How di I make someone that believes different than me look like idiots?

          • weasel1886

            No one cares. How do I make others that don’t believe as I do look like idiots?

    • Richard

      Your comments are bigoted, discriminatory, and prejudiced.

    • bowie1

      Of course it is, since we discriminate against unbelievers from becoming members since it would make the church apostate if it was otherwise. (Unbelievers are still welcome to attend but if they want to become members they must profess their faith in Jesus Christ and in some cases baptized into the fellowship of believers.) Restaurant goers also discriminate when they decide to order one item and not another. All of us discriminate in one form or another.

      • Homer for God

        Just like paying fees for memberships in clubs, You don’t want to but if you want the benefits then that’s the way it is. All God asks is for a personal relationship with him and acknowledgement that none of us can live to his perfect standards and that Jesus died to take the punishments for all sin so we can have everlasting life. Small price to pay for membership.

        • bowie1

          Absolutely, I agree.

      • Bobby Mae

        Please, comparing discriminating food choices to groups of people is elementary at best. Surely you got at least a high school education??

        • bowie1

          College – Honours Diploma in Classical Animation.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That beats his feminist studies degree. 🙂

      • amostpolitedebate

        Discrimination has a very specific legal and moral meaning beyond “choosing one thing over another”. Please don’t be willfully dense.

        • bowie1

          I was not clear enough for you?

  • mmbz67a

    Amen!

  • UmustBKiddinMe

    Since the pastors are already protected regarding performing services in their church, this apparently serves no purpose other than pandering to their constituency.

    • bowie1

      At least it’s on paper like a written contract as opposed to a verbal contract.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Uh, it’s a statute, not a contract, Mr. Sovereign Citizen.

        • bowie1

          Of course it is, as long as it is in written form so there are no misunderstandings.

  • Bobby Mae

    No one was forcing pastors to marry gay couples. You say you’re tired of the homosexual agenda being shoved down your throats, but this is something you created yourself.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Here are 300 reasons that the gay “rights” movement is more KKK than MLK:

      http://barbwire .com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/ (Just take the space out before the dot.)

      • MisterPine

        Don’t bother with this article, it is predictably alarmist garbage.

      • MisterPine

        7 months ago, on this very site, a very good summary was written of the “homofascism” article:

        “So basically, the majority of these articles can be summed up as:

        1) Isolated incidents that can easily be applied to anyone, not “homo-fascism”, as horrible as they may be (14 year old getting death threats. While I think threatening a 14 year old is wrong, her opinion is not unique in that respect. When I was 14, I defended gay rights as a young gay teen, and I got harassed, threatened, and bullied by men who were twice my age).

        2) Instances of hypocrisy (Complaining about a lawyer not getting a job for being “pro-traditional marriage”)

        It’s such a shame that Robert Oscar Lopez has such an axe to grind that this is what he does with his free time. Or, maybe this exhaustive list was the result of not bothering to fact check any of the stuff he was presenting? I wouldn’t be surprised. I’m inclined to believe the latter, since Lopez is a professor who should be busy raising his child: and I suggest that he put more energy on that, instead of embarassing himself fighting a threat that doesn’t exist.

        If you want to ask me what my opinion is on a specific article, I’d be happy to address it. I won’t go into detail about all 300 articles. But I maintain that “homo-fascism” is a myth, and I’ll happilly explain to you why whichever article you cite is not “homofascism”.

        Nobody is censoring you, Mr. Lopez. Not agreeing with you, and telling you how reprehensible and disingenuous you are is not censorship. GLAAD has done the exact opposite of censor you, they’ve shown your speech for exactly what it is.

        You’re a creep, Lopez.”

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Oh yes, more name-calling from the homofascists. “See no evil” is always the mantra of the Gaystapo. “We are the tolerant ones! Now bake us a cake – or else!” 🙂

          • MisterPine

            Cute, so 300 attacks from the nazified Christian right are fair game but when you refute the inaccuracies in it, it’s “name calling from the homofascists and Gaystapo”. Boo hoo, WorldGoneFundie! Your own fun ad hominems make you look EXTREMELY hypocritical.

      • amostpolitedebate

        I too like to share links:

        http://www.urbandictionary. com/define.php?term=Godwin%27s+Law

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          WorldGoneCrazy’s Law: “the first person to invoke Godwin’s Law has lost the intellectual debate.” 🙂

  • Bry

    Seems fair to me. I am Christian, I also have gay or lesbian friends and family, they are appalled by the bullying being done by these groups that are fighting for so-called rights. I even heard one refer to GLAAD as the Westboro church of the gay community. I respect my gay friends and family and love them just like I would anyone else. They respect my faith as a Christian. Imagine that, acting like civilized grown adults and respecting other opinions even if their opinions do not match my own. My lesbian niece gets outraged when she hears stories of gays suing bakers and such saying just go somewhere else. Again, respecting others beliefs and opinions that differ from our own. People get far to carried away with wanting their way, claiming it as their rights. To hell with rights, lets focus on what is right instead. God loves me, He also loves gays and lesbians. For those that want to argue this using the abomination word, well go ahead, but by saying this then you are also saying that God hates you, because the only person in history that was without sin was Jesus Christ. Remember, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am not pro gay, I believe the Bible to be the true word of God, that it is absolute truth and that what it says in sin is correct, again, my gay friends know this and respect it and I listen to their side and give them the respect as well. I am just glad that I had the opportunity to share the Gospel with them so that they can make the choice that God has given to us all, that being whether to accept His free give of grace given to us though the life, death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus.

    • Homer for God

      Unfortunately there is too much of singling out people and not the actions. You’re right, we need to continue to love each other no matter what they do because God is love and his love is unconditional towards everyone and we must follow that example that Jesus set.

    • amostpolitedebate

      I seriously doubt you have gay friends.

      • Bobby Mae

        I love it when people say they have gay or black friends. Their bs meter goes thru the roof.

  • Dave L

    There are Pastors who will not perform marriage ceremonies for divorced people. So it is not about discrimination of gays, it is about avoiding the sin of adultery in the one case, and the sin of homosexuality in the other. There are Conscientious Objectors who also refuse to take part in unjust wars. If the State recognizes military exemption for matters of conscience, are they not guilty of discrimination when they persecute others who will not violate their consciences?

  • Bobby Mae

    Evangelicals creating mass hysteria. Nothing new. No gay couple was forcing pastors to marry them. And please spare the “it’s coming” argument. Just more fear-mongering from the right.

    • bowie1

      Better to have it in writing.

      • Bobby Mae

        Right. Prevent those qüeers from having any legal rights. Oorah.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Didn’t you say above that it’s not gonna happen, but then when bowie replied to having the protection in place, you acted like it’s discrimination. You just proved that IF it does happen, you will be the first to condone it!

          • Bobby Mae

            No i actually dont.

    • jmichael39

      The “it’s coming” argument has been right more times you’ll ever be intelligent enough to understand.

      What would you say if you knew that the original driver’s license laws were designed to regulate the use of our public roads for commercial purposes only? And that there are multiple court cases where it was ruled that citizens have a fundamental right to use the public roads for personal travel, NO MATTER THE MEANS OF TRAVEL. And that many argued against that law because they said the government would sooner or later try to force us all to get licenses from them to use our cars to travel on. And the way they did that was NOT by writing NEW laws but to simply take that old law and redefine what a “driver” is and what a “vehicle” is.

      Or would it surprise you to know that for decades politicians tried to impose a tax upon income…upon the pay that someone earned from their labor. But that the courts ruled on numerous occasions that they didn’t have that power. Then, when the 16th amendment passed, the courts ruled again, NOT that the 16th amendment somehow gave the government some sort of new power to tax that pay for labor. So, how did it suddenly tax that labor? By taking that new income tax law that came out of the 16th amendment and slowly redefining the terms “income” and “person” and other words. Even though protests tried to warn long before that that this is where it was heading.
      You want more examples. Social Security laws, Patriot Act, NDAA, and so on and so on. The government has been doing this for 150+ years. And yet people like you keep saying, it’ll never lead to whatever it is protestors say it will. You’re the perfect frog in the luke warm water. You’ll never agree with those warning you about the rising temperature.

  • Peter Leh

    dont know if this was necessary in the first place, but it scores political points!

  • Paul Hiett

    My state continues to embarrass itself…this has to be one of the most pointless, useless laws ever created.

    • uzza

      Doesn’t look like it to me.
      “… or treat any marriage as valid for any purpose… “
      is a damn big loophole.

    • LeftCoast

      Let’s trade Paul, you come to the liberal/social, anti-god and high tax West and I will go to Jesus’ home state.

      • Bobby Mae

        Jesus’ home state? Lol where would that be? The last state to allow integration, good ole Alabama?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          We kicked the Demon-crats out long ago! They moved to Illinois and the coasts – the very blue states. Now they are all about baby sacrifice, since they can’t own black people anymore.

        • Lark62

          Thats the state where they speak Amarkin. If Amarkin was good enough for Jesus its good enough for you!

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        300 reasons this law is necessary: http://barbwire .com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/ (just take the spaces out in front of the dots)

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        More examples from the “Gaystapo Files”: https://www .facebook .com/pages/STOP-Homofascism/207823095941296

        (Just take the spaces out before the dots.)

    • Thomas Alan Langley

      In the UK & in Canada a preacher preaching the word of God can get into trouble for “hate speech” for just pointing out that the Bible condemns homosexuality. If gay “marriage” becomes the law of the land these things are sure to follow at some point. When the idea of gay “marriage” was first proposed the proponents said that it would not effect anyone else in any way whatsoever. That was a lie. The Christian bakers & florists who declined to bake wedding cakes or make flower arrangements for these unions have been sued & some of them have lost their businesses. If a baker or a florist won’t service a homosexual “couple” I have an idea for that couple…Go to a baker or a florists down the street. The first amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The owners of these businesses are people with consciences. When you are at work you don’t just leave your values at home. I would think that the “couples” involved wouldn’t want their business going to someone that they consider bigoted anyway. If these laws forcing business owners to provide services to those whose behaviors they consider sinful I read a good answer to that. If a gay “couple” wants a wedding cake or flower arrangement the business owner should have a sign up that says that 100% of the profits from such same sex “marriage” sales will go to pro-traditional marriage groups. I wonder what the gay activists will say to that one.

      • Nox

        different countries different rules

        • tmpy1

          REALLY different rules.

          i just learned recently, in Canada, most churches, including the Catholic Church, are funded in whole, or substantially, by government! – This is a RADICAL difference from the U.S., making fair comparisons impossible!

          Many in Canada are now very very unhappy with this system, and regret the control this gives government.

          Some in the U.S. whine incessantly about some tax credits churches are allowed –
          this is NOTHING compared to the system in Canada.

          It’s really not a good idea to take a tiny bit of information from another country to attempt to predict outcomes in the U.S. (but it’s attempted, all the time.) smh

          • MisterPine

            The government does not subsidize churches in Canada.

          • tmpy1

            hmm.
            i just read about that, and more, on a Catholic news site.
            i see no reason, at all, why they would state such, if not factual.
            i’ll try to locate the report.

            i have friends in various provinces who have not corrected me on that point.
            they are independent folks and would prefer separation of church and state in all possible matters. they are Christians, not Catholic.

          • Meepestos

            There are five out of the ten provinces that publicly fund Catholic Education.

            I tried to put in a link for you, but it seems to be in pending mode.

            “In Canada, the provinces and territories are responsible for setting the standards, curricula, and how to fund elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. That is, Canada has no national or federal department of education. Although there are many similarities in the delivery of education across the country, one significant difference is in the area of public funding of schools which offer a specific religious focus. In Canada, Catholic schools represent the single largest school system offering religious education. Five provincial governments fully subsidize Catholic education while others do not.”

            Source: Education Connections

      • amostpolitedebate

        I’m not entirely sure you understand the proper use of sarcasm quotes.

        If someone has been legally wed then they’re actually married regardless of whether or not you approve of the union. The same goes for “couples”. Adding sarcasm quotes to the word implies that they’re faking the relationship or something.

        Also: Don’t be afraid of using the enter key. Breaking up large blocks of text into smaller paragraphs is a great way to make sure your weird hateful nonsense is clearly understood.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Perfect explanation – thanks! Here is a good write up on the Canada situation:
        https://www .lifesitenews .com/opinion/gay-activists-claim-redefining-marriage-wont-hurt-anyone-but-thats-a-lie.-j?utm_source=LifeSiteNews .com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cd27d911da-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-cd27d911da-397685045

        Just take the spaces out in front of the dots.

        • MisterPine

          WorldGoneCrazy is wrong. I actually LIVE in Canada and you never hear a peep about gay marriage here anywhere. The website he talks about, LifeSite dot com, is very interesting. A few seconds after going to the site I had two popup windows I had to close, one asking me if I was interesting in “preserving God’s definition of marriage”, the other one was about sending Bibles to Tibet. I think they probably need other things there more urgently at the moment. Blood, food, water, you know, trivial things like that.

          Radical websites and their crazed content aside, you are very hard pressed to find anyone here who is being eaten alive over gay marriage.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I actually LIVE in Canada and you never hear a peep about gay marriage here anywhere.”

            I have a close friend who grew up in Nazi Germany and she said the same thing: you NEVER heard a peep from the Jews about the Gestapo. 🙂 Therefore, it follows that they had nothing to worry about. Is Canadian logic as bad as its beer is? 🙂

            I see you did an ad hominem attack on a website. But, you did not address the facts specified in the article – the legal homofascism that is rampant throughout Canada.

          • MisterPine

            “I have a close friend who grew up in Nazi Germany and she said the same thing: you NEVER heard a peep from the Jews about the Gestapo.”

            Yup, because Canada is so close to fascist Nazi Germany. I think your nation is probably closer to it than we are, our nation is VERY liberal. At any rate, freedom of speech doesn’t meet with visits from jackbooted types here as much as you’d like to think it was the case.

            “I see you did an ad hom inem attack on a website. But, you did not address the facts specified in the article – the legal homofascism that is rampant throughout Canada.”

            If the jackboot fits, wear it, Mr. Nazi website. As for “legal homofascism”, no need to address it at all because it doesn’t exist. Sorry. Keep trying though, one day one of your hateful firebrands will catch on with a few skinheads or something.

      • Taussig

        who cares where the money goes as long as the service is performed

      • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

        What you say is true.

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        “In the UK & in Canada a preacher preaching the word of God can get into trouble for “hate speech” for just pointing out that the Bible condemns homosexuality.”

        Did you have a point? The constitutions of Canada and the UK do not provide the same protections as does the US Constitution.

        “The Christian bakers & florists who declined to bake wedding cakes or make flower arrangements for these unions have been sued & some of them have lost their businesses.”

        Which “ones” have lost their business? They were sued because they violated anti-discrimination laws, which are distinct and separate from same-gender marriage laws.

        “If a baker or a florist won’t service a homosexual “couple” I have an idea for that couple…Go to a baker or a florists down the street.”

        Yeah, just like the coloreds should do, right?

        “If these laws forcing business owners to provide services to those whose behaviors they consider sinful I read a good answer to that.”

        The laws don’t “force” business owners to provide services. What services a business provides is the choice of the business owner. If the business owner does not want to provide services which would result in his/her religious beliefs being violated, they are free to not offer those services. There is no “forcing”.

        “the business owner should have a sign up that says that 100% of the profits from such same sex “marriage” sales will go to pro-traditional marriage groups.”

        They are certainly free to do so. Most likely such groups will cease to exist in about a month, but they are certainly free to give money to whomever they please.

        “I wonder what the gay activists will say to that one.”

        Meh

  • FoJC_Forever

    Laws can be rescinded. This law sounds good now, but when the homosexual agenda begins pulling everyone, under penalty of law, into affirming and accepting homosexual behavior as normal in everyday life situations, then a law isn’t going to stand in the way. It will simply be repealed.

    Not every person who has embraced homosexuality is pushing the homosexual agenda forward, this is obvious. However, regardless of their personal beliefs, they are not out front trying to stop their fellow gays from stomping on the rights of individual citizens who practice businesses and who are employees of companies who will penalize a person for being opposed to this sin. This happens every day in America, in one form or another.

    Jesus stated plainly that we would be persecuted, and this can come in different forms and levels. Trying to avert it may work from time to time, but Satan is intent on attacking those who follow and love Jesus (the) Christ. He will use whatever means at his disposal to trash us and try to scare us into outright forsaking Jesus or compromising the Word of God. Fortunately, those who have been saved by His power have the Holy Spirit to rely on and to empower them to continue in Faith.

    • Bobby Mae

      Oh please, stop trying to make yourself feel like a martyr with the”we are being persecuted” crap. You’re sitting at home on the computer willfully reading articles about gay topics. Turn off all media and I guarantee your own life wouldn’t be affected by “the gays.”

      • FoJC_Forever

        Another lie. You’re kind is prone to lying, but it’s not surprising.

        I’m reading articles about many subjects. It’s the homosexual advocates that shove their sinfulness in front of the American public all the time, not the other way around.

        • Paul Hiett

          I’ve noticed you don’t ever actually provide cases to prove your point…you just claim it’s happening.

          I wonder why…

        • Bobby Mae

          Oh you’re reading articles? Cool story bro. Christian magazine?

        • Bobby Mae

          Again, you’re buying into the media. As I said, turn off the media, live your own life and I guarantee your straight christian life will not be affected. You’re letting your life being controlled by fear mongerers

          • FoJC_Forever

            No, I don’t ‘buy the media’. You are part of the media and your message of deception and perversion is promoted by the media.

            Homosexuality is against God’s Will and the Devil is using this perversion to attack Christianity and the followers of Jesus who refuse to accept this Sin. No matter how hard you promote it and no matter how many people you get to be accepting of it and no matter how many fake Christians raise their voice in false compassion over your “plight”, homosexuals and the supporters of their perversion will always be outside God’s Will and will be Judged guilty of one of the most heinous of all sins – to call God a liar.

          • Bobby Mae

            Im gay… And you can’t “promote” homosexuality, you’re either gay or you’re not. Do I think consenting adults deserve to live how they want with the same legal protections? Absolutely. So if that makes me a promoter of homosexuality, then I’m proud to be one.

          • FoJC_Forever

            A person can promote anything. The English language escapes you as well.

            Homosexuals have always had legal protections. What you and your advocates want is legal preference to promote your sin in others lives, particularly in children’s lives.

          • Bobby Mae

            We’ve always had legal protections? Please share. And no, despite what you think I’m not at protests promoting anything.

  • Nox

    completely pointless

  • amostpolitedebate

    Pretty sure the constitution already allowed pastors to refuse gay weddings the same way they’re allowed to refuse interracial unions, but whatever.

    • Asemodeus

      Don’t ask for logic from conservatives.

  • akosipatriot

    Step in the right direction to protect Christians. This is to protect their religious rights. A certain Christian businessman who offered services might politely decline if a service will be personal(like attending and servicing a same-sex marriage) and therefore, the same-sex couple who want that service should politely go to a different company that will offer them the same services. That is how it will play out, unless the same-sex couple will go vicious and will sue the Christian businessman to bankruptcy.

  • TheBBP

    Might not have been legally needed, but it is great to have it reinforced. Good move.

    • Asemodeus

      So wasting tax payer money is a good move?

      • TheBBP

        Oh please, stop being petty. If you were concerned about wastes of tax dollars there are MANY other examples that would be worthy of mention before approving a bill.

        • Asemodeus

          Like our bloated defense spending and corporate socialism?

  • Digiadam

    Awesome!

    Well done!

  • Tangent001

    The way this is written, it goes well beyond protecting clergy from officiating a same-sex wedding. A minister who, say, runs a bed and breakfast on the side could also refuse to provide accommodation for a same-sex honeymoon. A church that otherwise rents out space to the public could refuse a same-sex anniversary party or wedding reception. A Catholic deacon who owns a tux rental business could refuse to rent to a same-sex couple or their groomsmen for a wedding.

    • SFBruce

      You’re absolutely correct. Clergy and churches are already protected, and can turn anyone away they like. No one has more rules about who can and can’t get marred in the Church than Roman Catholics, and yet no one has ever filed a lawsuit as a result, and if they did, it would go no where. This is put in place to protect florists and bakers who think that gay people’s money isn’t good enough; and even this isn’t necessary, since in most of Texas, it’s perfectly legal to openly discriminate against gay people.

  • MisterPine

    A Facebook friend posted this earlier, it’s particularly salient to this article:

    “Given the latest in the hand-wringing from the political right in regards to the studies depicting the sharp decline of American Christianity and their ever-whirling blame game, their sniveling at the denunciation of their hateful tirades, all I can say is this.
    If the Christians wish for better treatment, I suggest they stop using their religion as a cudgel with which to beat down any dissenting voices regarding the totalitarian agenda of the religious right in this country. Religion in church, reason and compromise in governance. Christianity needs to be shoved out of American politics for good. It is WELL past time. It isn’t even a religion for these people anymore; it’s become a convenient partisan weapon that should have outlived its usefulness a century ago or more. The demagogues on the right virtually ignore everything Jesus said and rather pronounce the judgment of their god from holy writ, something the New Testament their holy book specifically says NOT to do. When all is said and done, the moral is if they want to be taken seriously, they need to act more like Jesus and less like a Christian.”

    • Tangent001

      “I suggest they stop using their religion as a cudgel with which to beat
      down any dissenting voices regarding the totalitarian agenda of the
      religious right in this country.”

      The irony is if you even suggest they are using religion as a cudgel, they will cry “Persecution!” to the high mountaintops.

    • Paul Hiett

      I get a kick out of their hypocrisy on a daily basis. If a law is passed that prevents discrimination, it’s somehow an attack on their beliefs. Go figure…

      • MisterPine

        I am amazed that they refuse to see how their religion urges hatred and discrimination. The Westboro Baptist church was an extreme example, but it serves as a very GOOD example.

  • Paul Hiett

    Speaking of Texas…

    http://www .washingtonpost .com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/05/15/bill-opposing-same-sex-marriage-dies-in-texas/

  • John Langborne

    Just the thought of somebody being sodomised is extremely sickening!

    • Deina

      Apparently most people have a stronger stomach than you. As shown below, 90% of adults from 25-44 engage in sodomy on a regular basis!

      Based upon information taken from CDC/NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2008 www DOT cdc DOT gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036 DOT pdf, (report released 2011), for women aged 25-44 years old, 89% engage in oral sex (opposite sex), 36% in anal sex (opposite sex), and 12% in any type of same sex activity. For men in the same age range, the numbers are 90%, 44%, and 6% respectively. (Figure 1 & Tables 5 & 6 of above report)

      I’m going to guess that with parents, siblings, children, friends & whatnot, you know ten people of each gender in the appropriate age range, so I’ll let you work out the numbers (10% = 1 person out of 10). If that information gives you a bit of wonky tummy, then do not look at the statistics for 15-24 year-olds!

      • maggoting

        I’m in the other 10%

        • Deina

          Well, somebody has to be.

          • maggoting

            And proud of it, by feeling so clean and fit.

  • Teodora Lazo

    Thoughtful article , I learned a lot from the info , Does someone know if my business would be able to get a fillable 2009 SSA SS-5 form to fill out ?