Equal Marriage Arizona Off and Running
Reverend Charlotte was the first signer on our petition for ballot qualification. She was incredible, telling the TV audience that she wants the ability to marry gay couples in her church, but doesn't want to force her brothers and sisters in other parishes to conduct marriages that are against their beliefs.
It was a big day for her on a personal level as well. She was married to her same-sex partner in New York a couple of years ago, and as of yesterday the Feds recognized that marriage. We still have not done so in AZ, but she was thrilled to help us get started repairing that as well.
Some of you may know that I blog in part because I am incredibly introverted and have trouble with public interactions with strangers. Yesterday I did 2 live TV feeds, one live in-studio TV appearance, and 4 taped TV interviews plus any number of radio and print interviews. Today I think I am suffering from some form of PTSD. But that is why we hurried to get our petition filed -- we wanted to be part of the story when the Supreme Court ruled, and we were.
If you are in AZ, check out our web site at equalmarriageaz.com to see how you can help. If you are out of state, you can still help financially, or just check out our Facebook page and lend us your moral support there.
Actually if you want to loose customers due to not wanting to serve Black people. That is your own stupidity. I wouldn't stop it.
I have been refused service at black places (to get a haircut specifically) but I certainly didn't make a stink. I just accepted they wanted to cut different kinds of hair. Not my strait thin stuff.
"Ok, I'll bite. What the heck is the difference between "Flo's Diner" not serving blacks, and "Sarah's Hawaiian B&B" not serving lesbians?"
None, in both cases the government should not be involved. If you are so much of a dope that you want to risk running your business into the ground for not catering to a large percentage of the population that is your idiocy.
One problem with gays and lesbians, is they demand more rights than others. For instance, in San Francisco - at least when I lived there gays would complain that they were being arrested for having sex in the park. Complaining that straights would not be arrested for doing the same. The complaint was false, but it is an attempt to cow authorities to do what the gay groups want.
If straights came in my restaurant and started necking heavy, I would ask them to leave, if lesbians started doing that and I asked them to leave, they would make a federal case about it claiming discrimination. That is the problem with giving certain groups preferential treatment.
All men and women are already allowed to get married.
There is some evidence of preponderance, but there is also a lot of PC junk science. Most people have a range. Many young adults are somewhat ambiguous. more than you would believe, and actually form their relationship desires in later life at adolescence rather than birth.
I was kind of ambiguous in high school myself, and do wonder if I was introduced the lifestyle if I would be that way today.
So you can post a bunch of stereotypes about groups and that is OK because you hold leftist views.
As long as we are adding stereotypes How 'bout adding why do Jews have big noses, blacks small craniums, etc.
As I mentioned above, the statistical analysis for many survey style studies is so poor once someone looks at them there is no evidence whatsoever.
How dopey can an argument get.
You really are dense marque2...
Nobody's saying it can't be a law because it's in the bible... there are plenty of things in the bible that make perfectly good laws. (e.g. thou shalt not steal.)
I'm saying that the fact that it's in the bible doesn't make it law. There are plenty of pointless things in the bible (prohibitions on eating pork or shellfish) that nobody in their right mind would incorporate into law.
The bible carries no legal standing... laws do. Laws can align with the bible, but laws MUST comply with the Constitution.
Funny, I never wrote anything at about incestuous relationships or bestiality. Why bring up things that have no relevance to same sex marriage? I don't understand your fixation. You're starting to resemble Santorum.
Switching gears... quick Bible quiz for you...
1. Remember Cain? That guy from the Book of Genesis who killed his brother Abel... Who was his wife if not his sister or mother?
2. And that guy Abraham and his wife Sarah. What does it Genesis 20:12 say about their parents?
Back to being serious, I have no problem whatsoever with imposing criminal sanctions on those who practice bestiality, or with prohibiting marriages between blood relatives.
Inbreeding produces genetically defective offspring.
Same-sex marriage does not produce any offspring.
When we start jailing people for not following the Bible, I'll come to regard your response as a valid rebuttal. Until then, my spaghetti monster tells me you should eat dirt.
I have my doubts about the radicalized gay movement. The argument that this is a civil rights and a "fairness" issue is offensive to me. To suggest that it is a fairness issue implies that there is different treatment between homosexuals and heterosexuals. But I argue that there is no difference. The concept of civil rights doesn't take into account ones' feelings or motivations. The whole concept is equal protection. As a male, I cannot marry another male. Whether I have the desire to or not does not matter to civil rights. A female cannot marry a female. If we extend this thought a little further, we could say that a female can marry a male. Again, no mention of sexual preference.
One's preference should not be part of the civil rights debate. The whole argument that blacks had to fight for their civil rights is insulting to the civil rights movement, and I believe it has been hijacked by the radicals. Blacks were discriminated against because of their skin color, not because of their choices.
A homosexual male can legally marry a homosexual female. The two would be gay, and the two would be marry. Just because I have no desire to marry a male, doesn't mean anyone's civil rights are violated. If same sex couples were to be able to marry, would that mean, by extension, two straight females would be able to marry? If not, wouldn't that violate their civil rights? Would a couple have to prove they are gay?
Not faith, but reason.
"So you can post a bunch of stereotypes about groups and that is OK because you hold leftist views." Actually I cited a bunch of research findings. And this is possibly the first time I can recall that anyone's ever suggested I hold "leftist" views. FYI, I hold libertarian views.
"As long as we are adding stereotypes How 'bout adding why do Jews have big noses, blacks small craniums, etc."
For the same reason that Scandinavians are frequently blond and East Africans win so many marathons. Genetics.
"As I mentioned above, the statistical analysis for many survey style studies is so poor once someone looks at them there is no evidence whatsoever."
Then go read the research and show us why the studies are weak. Simply asserting they are doesn't make them so. What you're doing is the classic "ignoring contradictory evidence". The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.
"How dopey can an argument get."
That depends on how long you're going to keep arguing.
Sure, people's sexual identities emerge in adolescence. It doesn't mean that's when they are defined.
The absence of any relationship desires in pre-adolescents (homo or heterosexual) is not proof that the wiring for sexual orientation does not develop in-utero and lie dormant through childhood.
}}} Ok, I'll bite. What the heck is the difference between "Flo's Diner" not serving blacks, and "Sarah's Hawaiian B&B" not serving lesbians?
What, outside of the fact that one is a personal home opened to the public, and the other is a public restaurant?
As well as the PRIME secondary fact that, despite contortions by racists, there's nothing in religious principles defining blacks as "abominations"?
I think her primary ISSUE wasn't even that they were lesbians. She appears to make it clear that she had no issues with them STAYING there. She just took issue with it being in the same bed -- and indicated she'd have the exact same issue with a unmarried couple sharing a bed in her home.
I concur, for the most part, that The Law should not directly be based on religious precepts. But when it comes to personal matters, religion DOES matter. And whether or not some couple you don't really know is allowed to FUCK in your own house is rather reasonably kind of a personal matter.
For the most part, I DO side with gays on the issue as a whole. I have, however, come down entirely AGAINST gays on it because they refuse to respect the beliefs or opinions of ANYONE who doesn't wholeheartedly and without reservation side with them, to the point of doing everything possible to ram their (gay) beliefs down their (opposition's) throats. So, to put it just as impolitely, FUCK THEM. with a large spiky thing.
People DO have rights due them as INDIVIDUALS, and religious beliefs are one of them. It's damned sure wrong to allow a religious zealot to beat the crap out of someone because they are gay "because it's an abomination".
It does not mean that when their individual rights come to a face off on proper social behavior, that the gay's rights trump the non-gay's, EVERY TIME.
You can damned sure as hell bet that anyone who owns a B&B in North Carolina isn't very likely to get successfully sued for being polite and honest about their religious beliefs as regards a couple sharing a bed.
Russ, first off, this sort of "science" is just as generally "valid" as climate science, especially when it is endlessly pumped by a liberal establishment that suppresses any sort of opposition ruthlessly (vis-a-vis Lawrence Summers) to the point where saying anything can be virtually career suicide -- even for anyone with tenure.
Yeah, there are going to be LOTs of Harvard-level sociologists and psychologists who might consider proposing a study that says anything but what the Gay Lobby wants them to say. And the funding for such a study is going to be quite readily available, no question of that!
The last I heard, and I don't have any idea if it's been proven or utterly disabused, but the best predictor of homosexuality is/was a household with a strong mother and a weak father. The child-psyche appears to be inclined to lock in on the mother as the proper behavior for living. Strangely, it's not a predictor at all for a household with a strong mother and NO father. It's only when the male model is shown to be actually weak that the child-psyche appears to drift towards the gay option.
I also know they've tried to do studies that determine if there really IS any actual functional brain-based causation, and the gays fight THAT tooth and nail.
mahtso: my point, Exactly.
}}} Ok, well, what if I'm a member of a religion that teaches that black people are an abomination? (This is raw devil's advocacy here.)
LOL, it's called "kkk"ism.
And if you can find some scripture that's been lying around for 500+ years that advocates it, we can have this argument. Until then, it's mere sophistry attempting to appeal to emotion.
}}} "Why should there in particular be a religious exemption from the 1964 CRA in a country that has laws against the establishment of religion?"
The exemption needs to be occurring on a small scale and generally involving personal religious issues on a high level. This is why I take issue with a server refusing service based on someone being gay, but not a small B&B owner in regards to her own home.
It's about the fact that, on this level, the events occurring are violating the rights of an individual, NO MATTER WHAT.
It's not a question of IF someone's personal rights are to be violated -- it's a matter of WHOSE.
I'm sick and f***ing tired of it automatically being "the one who is not gay".
}}} Why do people who are intolerant assholes get a free pass "because God!" when people who are intolerant assholes "because non-God based dickbag!" don't?
LOL, they don't. Gays get a far larger pass on this shit, and that's half the fucking argument. Gay Rights trump everything else except Islam in the PC canon. This is so fucking duh it's not funny.
About the only recent exception is the Chik-Fil-A fiasco, where gays found out for the first time in a long while that they "**GASP**!" are NOT the majority by a long shot.
No, because that's a freaking cult, not an established religion. If it's around for a couple hundred years, then come talk to us about it.
Until then, it's bovine excreta masking as a religion.
Well, as you note, the current climate does not justify the application of the CRA's concepts to it. There certainly is not -- nor is there likely to be anytime in the near future, any need to directly "protect" the right of gays to be gay. The CRA was probably a necessary abomination, but it was still that -- an abomination to be eradicated as quickly as possible. Like, maybe 20 years ago.
...but that's never how government operates. You grant them a power, it's like taking a haunch of beef from a winter pack of starving wolves to get it back.
Anyone notice, for example, that most of the "wool and mohair price supports" have been quietly re-enacted in the last decade-plus since they were finally removed as being the laughingstock they were??
obloodyhell,
I can sincerely say I have no agenda whatsoever on this issue, since I'm an atheist hetero libertarian ... so I'm not part of the Bible Lobby, the Gay Lobby, or the Big-Government Lobby.
I agree with you that politicization of academia by "progressives" makes honest objective research almost impossible. The way to deal with it is to look past all the politically correct BS, agendas and axe-grinding, and focus critically on the actual methods and observed facts. This also means identify and getting over your own biases.
I asked you a question a few days ago, to no response... so I'll ask it again.
What individual religious right is being denied? You're still free to practice, or not practice, your religion, as you see fit. Please be specific.
I suspect you're claiming a "right to not be offended".
Enh. Neo-Nazis were a convenient example that people generally understand as being really hateful towards blacks. I was mostly trying to demonstrate that given a "free exercise" clause and a "establishment" clause in the First Amendment, it's basically trivial to hack around the CRA 1964 is there is a "religious exemption". You simply declare "discrimination against X is a tenet of my religion", and "establishment" means the government can't say "that's not a valid religious belief", and "free exercise" means you get to implement it.
Really, ditching Title II and the conversion of private property to public accomodations is probably the way to go.
Why does longevity matter? Do you really want to give the government the power to declare what is or isn't a religion?
How about the LDS? The Book of Mormon is way less than 500 years old. "Cult"? "Established religion"? Religions have to start somewhere...
What, outside of the fact that one is a personal home opened to the public, and the other is a public restaurant?
The only thing that makes the restaurant "public" is the declaration by the feds that the building privately owned by Flo is defined as such because she runs a business there. Which is pretty much exactly the same as the building privately owned by Sarah. See also, Title II CRA 1964 is an abomination.
And whether or not some couple you don't really know is allowed to FUCK in your own house is rather reasonably kind of a personal matter.
That's absurd. A B&B owner won't know 99% of her customers, and popular jokes notwithstanding, married couples do still fuck on occasion. If people you don't know fucking in your house bothers you, B&B owner is probably not the wisest career choice.
Maybe not, but you aren't familiar with much else. At least you English
skills have improved to the point where you can write trite metaphors
Man, I bet you really wish you had noticed your grammatical error here before I did. What was that about someone here needing to take an English class?
I have decided to show pity on you. There were 2 direct mentions of Gods commandments of homosexuality in Leviticus, and the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, which I had forgotten because it wasn't as direct.
You've decided to show pity on me, by saying exactly the same thing I did, seven comments ago. Wow. You're really showing me up here. And that's "Gomorrah", oh mighty literary expert.
Since you're such a biblical scholar, and so historically aware, you of course already knew that the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) are also the Jewish Torah, also known as the Pentateuch, which by tradition were given to Moses by direct revelation from YHWH.
So, when I said "If you can claim God talked to Moses and said "t3h gheyz are t3h suck!", and he wrote it down", that's a reference to Moses receiving the Pentateuch via revelation from YHWH. Admittedly, I expressed the actual content in lolspeak vernacular to mock it, which evidently made it too complex for you to parse, so I can see how you were confused.
Would you like to hand me your shovel before you hurt yourself? I can go look for a rope to haul you out of that hole, too.
My minor typo was due to typing fast on a keyboard. Your problems seem endemic.
That is the difference.
Cult.By multiple measures (recency, internal inconsistencies, enormous contradictory changes in official doctrine: at root LDS asserts one gets to be a god and create their own planet. Any appeal to the Bible as having anything to do with LDS is akin to perpetual motion people insisting they have a claim in physics.)
On the one hand, this is a sidetrack.
On the other, you, perlhqr, have a serious elephant wondering around in your room, said elephant not merely not wrestled into submission, but not even named. What about what you think, perlhaqr, does not in the final analysis rest upon, well, your faith?
}}}}} Am I forced to do business with you, even though you've made a pass at me? Yes, that's, in the end, what will apply.
}}} You're not a woman, are you? I'd guess that damn near 100% of women who have ever worked in a customer-facing foodservice capacity has had to deal with precisely this scenario... but in a heterosexual context.
LOL, ya, I'm so unaware of this I can give you two jokes about it:
1:
Q: What's the difference between a waitress and a proctologist?
A: The proctologist only deals with one asshole at a time.
2:
"Hey baby, I'd like to get into your pants!!"
"Thanks, but I prefer to have only one asshole in my pants at any given time..."
There's a distinction, and that is
1) I don't advocate women having to put up with such crap either, and, these days, most businesses discourage it.
2) Women do get benefits from being the "approached" in general. That there is a downside to this is not entirely surprising. The same cannot be said for guys who are getting hit on by guys. There's pretty much NO possible upside there if you're not gay.
3) We are not talking solely about waitron positions. This can be applied to almost ANY situation, where you, being gay, can make a pass at me, and, if I refuse, they you can threaten to make my life hell by making shit up about the fact that I did or said some BS anti-gay thing in response and/or bring civil rights charges against me for any number of BS reasons in retaliation.
In the end, being gay is not, and should not, be specially protected status. Not that many other things should be specially protected status all around these days. It's all about giving some supposed victim group more power over others. and THAT is a direct violation of the notion of "equal protection".
}}}}}}} What individual religious right is being denied? You're still free to practice, or not practice, your religion, as you see fit. Please be specific.
}}} I suspect you're claiming a "right to not be offended".
ANNNKKKKKK.
The right to simply not deal with gays in private life or in specific narrow arenas of public life if I choose not to.
I have no particular specific examples of such. I actually don't care about the matter directly. What I do care about is the propensity and tendency of gays to force others to accept and otherwise associate with them and their gayness in public life. No, lots of them are fairly decent, but, just as there are offensively militant blacks, so, too, are there offensively militant gays. And in both cases, we are giving them too much power over the individual's choice to deal with them or ignore them as they see fit.
The primary example being the B&B owner. You can argue that she should have known the rules regarding "equal protection", but the simple fact is there was no reason whatsoever for the lesbians to NOT respect her wishes, since she was -- in the worse of the lesbian attempting to make the reservation -- quite polite about it. She didn't say anything bad about gays or anything, and she did, as I have noted, even comment that she would take issue with an unmarried couple staying in the same room together. So they sodomized her for being decent and honest.
And more than anything else, that -- almost a complete lack of respect for polite social behavior -- offends me. (Which I don't believe is quite what you mean when you say "right not to be offended"). They should have respected her religious beliefs sufficiently to not stomp all over them, even if they disagreed, and even if they were disappointed -- because she has every right to them.
Yet such is very common with gays. They are in the minority, and people have bent over backwards to attempt to provide them with leeway anyway, and their response has been pretty much "well, you're such a pushover... let's see what more I can get from you in concessions."
It would have been different if this was a major chain or anything resembling a large business, mind you. We're talking about an individual, not a corporation or a chain. And that's where the issue of individual rights comes into play. This is a question of the B&B owner's individual property and religious rights vs. the overarching rights of the gays to live their lives as they choose. In this case, the gays could have gone somewhere else, at markedly little cost to themselves, and let her believe what she chose to believe, regardless of their own inclinations. But that's not acceptable -- she DARED challenge the right of gays to be gay, in that teeensy little way. So, "let's get the GOVERNMENT to stomp all over her for us!!"
It's an abuse of power on multiple levels.
And at some point, it's time to say "Fuck you. Enough is enough."
So instead of being mildly supportive, as I have been for decades, I've moved into the adamantly opposed camp. I'm TIRED of being "reasonable", and seeing people getting run roughshod over.
And so are a lot of other people. The backlash in the long run is not going to be pretty.
}}} The government, however, has no such right. It has an obligation to treat every individual equally under law.
Except that governments are in the practice of enforcing contracts, and the marriage contract has specific public social obligations. Especially in this day and age when the government will stomp all over you for exercising that freedom you just said was "ok"... except, by making the gay-gay contract officially sanctioned, you're then FORCING OTHERS to acknowledge it in all manner of public life.
So pardon me if I find your support for "general freedoms" to be mere lip service while you, and others who agree with you (such as Warren), are busy giving gays the power of invoking GOVERNMENT ACTION against individuals and organizations who chose to exercise those freedoms.
}}} FYI, I hold libertarian views.
Then why do you advocate MORE laws giving government more power to dictate how individuals interact?
}}}} That's absurd. A B&B owner won't know 99% of her customers, and popular jokes notwithstanding, married couples do still fuck on occasion.
And if I have a problem with UNMARRIED couples or GAY couples FUCKING in my home then that is my right as the OWNER.
Funny how you keep claiming the CRA is an abortion yet you keep defending further enhancements to its application being used to screw over little people.
}}}} One problem with gays and lesbians, is they demand more rights than others. For instance, in San Francisco - at least when I lived there gays would complain that they were being arrested for having sex in the park. Complaining that straights would not be arrested for doing the same. The complaint was false, but it is an attempt to cow authorities to do what the gay groups want.
If straights came in my restaurant and started necking heavy, I would ask them to leave, if lesbians started doing that and I asked them to leave, they would make a federal case about it claiming discrimination. That is the problem with giving certain groups preferential treatment.
Yup.
}}}} "Help! The fags want my sweet, pretty ass! Save me!" This is awesome. Do tell more about how you're at the mercy of their sexual depravities.
Sorry, your ad hominem bovine excreta doesn't fly here. You can make all the ludicrous jokes about it you want, I don't give a rodent's patootie.
It's none of your, or the governments, fucking business about who I should choose to do business with or why. That the CRA might have been needed to deal with the situation in the South in the 50s and 60s I'll ack is likely to be true.
That it has ANY business being applied except in the most overtly extreme and ridiculously obvious cases TODAY regarding blacks, women, Muslims, or gays is undeniably crap.
If some COPS start beating the crap out of someone because he's black or gay -- notably by shouting appropriate epithets -- is close to the only circumstance where it should be applied off the top of my head. I'll allow you can list some more if you feel the need. But for the most part, any application of it TODAY is just garbage.
Downcheck it all you want. Either refute it or KMA.
}}} I mean, surely you're aware the Congress passes laws all the time that violate the Bill of Rights, right?
And this means I should respect and follow those laws any more than I must? That I am thereby obligated to "respect" (as opposed to grudgingly obey) some idiot law that has no business being law, simply because the courts have (not yet) overturned it?
}}}} The Book of Mormon is way less than 500 years old.
Yup. And their inability to practice polygamy shows.... ????
You know, bringing up an obvious example that undermines your point like that -- have you offered to help prosecute the Zimmerman-Martin case? You'd be a slam-dunk for the team.
}}}}There should be no discrimination against anybody in the area of marriage, because there shouldn't be any involvement of the government in marriage. It is a religious and social institution.
Wow. Absolutely invalid argument already dealt with and tossed out.
Among other things marriage is a CONTRACT which places obligations not only on the two (or more) individuals upon whom it is laid, but also on other people in society to recognize that contract -- to wit, you get to sleep in the same bed in public venues without any argument from the public venue. You become the primary heir in the absence of prior contractual requirements. You are a recipient of many benefits from employers, insurance companies, and so forth. You gain almost automatic power of attorney in the event of sudden, unexpected incapacitation of the spouse... and on and on and on. All of which affect not merely the two or more individuals in the marriage, but also the social mileau in which they function.
And one of the specific FUNCTIONS applicable to government is to enforce contracts and to define finer points of contracts which might not be directly covered by it -- to clarify the contract in the social arena.
So the notion that the government should NOT be involved in what is a BLATANT contractual aspect of life is... how shall i put it... "Wronger than wrong."
Great. So you have no problem whatsoever with me refusing to do business with you, you being gay, right? Because that's the government sanctioning going on there.
Oh, I SEE. you only want the government out of it if they're interfering with your bedroom choices.
You WANT them involved when they're interfering with MY choices.
It's not about bigotry. It's about rights. Which you only care about when they are YOURS. F*** everyone else's rights.
}}}} I could care less about undefinable social effects.
Some of us care about social effects -- both definable and "undefinable".
}}}} That's a separate issue from the expansion of this particular personal liberty and in fact, has nothing to do with the issue.
It has EVERYTHING to do with this issue. Are you just retarded or are you just lying?
As I noted, I don't take issue with Warren's stance EXCEPTING as it utterly and completely IGNORES individual religious rights. On THAT basis alone, I reject it. Add some strong wording about the right of individuals to act as their conscience sees fit regarding gays in manners which cause no direct significant harm to them, and I'd reverse that stance in a heartbeat.
And for that, no doubt, in your eyes, I'm a "homophobe". :-/
Some of us really, really don't hate gays. We really don't give a fuck about them, except as they're stomping all over the rights of others using the GOVERNMENT to do it.
Hint: That's not how you change attitudes about gays.
}}} in danger from gay marriage unless it is like a "right not to be offended."
How about the right to not deal with them if you choose not to -- not for any reason other than the operation of free will and free choice in a free society?
Nawww. Too libertarian. Amazing how many people claim they are libertarians except when it comes to some pet issue, THEN they're all in favor of getting governments involved in the matter of ramming some aspect of social propriety down people's throats.
Agreed, in this country the liberals suppress fair and balanced Climate Science, Day care studies, and Homosexuality studies.
Not that the studies are all wrong, but in the case of Homosexuality, try to imagine the scientist asking for grant money to show Homosexuality can be induced by environmental causes as well (which is probably true). Nope has to be that it is genetic from birth, or else you are a homophobic gay hater.
I think there is more definition in adolescence than you realize or that what those PC homosexuality "scientists" want you to realize. I was talking up there from personal experience.
Answers to Bible quiz: a quick scan of the first five books of the Bible, Genesis thru Deuteronomy, reveals much (as does how one responds to its record). Genesis 2 clearly states Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, not madam and Eve. Further reading reveals that a transition occurred regarding marriage with near kin. An attentive reader can deduce this transition from the hinted at but unstated inferences between the lines of the history recorded. Eg, Cain (and Seth) must have (it's not stated) married sisters, Abram married a half sister. Later on in the history recorded near kin marriages did not occur. (Or, when they, or polygamy or, nB, adultery occurred, tragedy resulted.) Even a less attentive reader has to recognize the transition when meeting in Exodus thru Deuteronomy explicit commands forbidding marriage to near kin. Moses, obviously no dummy, certainly knew about the former (Cain and sister, Abram and half sister Sarai) when he reported as commanded by God the latter (no near kin marriage).
I'd like you to find in even one of my comments where I advocated for more laws giving government more power. Please use quotation marks... no paraphrasing.
Yup... just what I expected... lots of hyperbole, but not a single example of your religion freedom being denied in any way, shape or form.
And I happen to agree with you that the B&B owner should be able to deny a room to anyone she wants at her sole and arbitrary discretion. But I'm pretty sure that the lesbians never actually "sodomized her for being decent and honest". If they had, I'm sure it would have been a very different court case.
I don't have anything particularly deep to add, and I'm not going to pour fuel on the fire for my own amusement, but I must say that this little internet firestorm has been just about the most entertaining thing I've seen for days.
"telling the TV audience that she wants the ability to marry gay couples in her church"
Completely serious here - who's stopping her?
*sigh*
Look, you're really arguing with me from the wrong side here. I'm an anarchist. I neither respect nor joyfully obey any law that violates my philosophy.
My point with mahtso was to try and find out why he thought that following the CRA was appropriate in the one instance but not the other.