I asked you to be specific.Your statement to which I replied is a lie. (It is also a gratuitous insult, something you constantly whine about yet freely do to others. Hypocrite.) More generally, you seem incapable of engaging in honest discussion here. If you don't like being called out for your dishonest behavior, change it.
What do you mean by "forced"? I'll ask again.Of course. Clergy will not be forced to perform gay marriages; it would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.
...
To the list.
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I appreciate it.Maybe insinuating that clergy and churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages if that is against their beliefs.
Where have I insinuated that this was the case? I am pointing out the flaws in what bowfinger had to say by quoting the advocate for the gay couple as authoritative. Frankly, nothing any of the advocates had to say has any relevance to this question.Because that is NEVER said in the article that elitejp quoted, which was an article from 6/15 that revolved around Roberts's dissenting opinion.
How are the dissenters going to guarantee any of this?Seems pretty clear that the justices established quickly that churches and clergy were completely exempt from any perceived "punishment" for not providing same-sex marriages and the question Roberts put forth in his dissenting opinion was in relation to what Alito put forth, as quoted above....that religious organizations may indeed have to follow secular law in secular situations, like a religious university discriminating against a married couple of the same sex in housing, as Alito alluded to in his questioning.
I asked you to be specific.
What do you mean by "forced"? I'll ask again.
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I appreciate it.
Where have I insinuated that this was the case? I am pointing out the flaws in what bowfinger had to say by quoting the advocate for the gay couple as authoritative. Frankly, nothing any of the advocates had to say has any relevance to this question.
How are the dissenters going to guarantee any of this?
I totally agree that clergy hasn't been forced to marry gay couples, I've never insinuated that they have. What do you think of this exchange?This will be challenged and I wouldn't be surprised to see a test case within a few years.
"Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax*exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a 10 university or a college if it opposed same*-sex marriage?
General Verrilli: You know, **I dont think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but its certainly going to be an issue. I dont deny that. I dont deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue."
This is an assertion, now what are you basing this on?And everyone has tried to answer this point....any type of force you may imagine, whether tax related, by gun point, or any other means, is NOT going to be used to make clergy perform same-sex marriages. Period.
Very impressive deductive reasoning. Now, do you have any answers for the questions I posed?Oh, I see I'm off the LIST since you're quoting me. Surprising, since you plainly stated I was put on the LIST months ago.......
This is an assertion, now what are you basing this on?
I just popped into this thread for a reported post - saw this stuff. I can assure you, there are quite a few people in my community who take the Bible very literally. Every last bit of it.You should probably provide evidence for your repeated assertion that nobody takes the bible 100% literally. In fact, all evidence presented so far has been the exact opposite.
Why do you always ask other people to back up their assertions while never, ever backing up your own? That's pretty rank hypocrisy.
You should probably provide evidence for your repeated assertion that nobody takes the bible 100% literally. In fact, all evidence presented so far has been the exact opposite.
Why do you always ask other people to back up their assertions while never, ever backing up your own? That's pretty rank hypocrisy.
Do they think God is a literal sun and a shield?I just popped into this thread for a reported post - saw this stuff. I can assure you, there are quite a few people in my community who take the Bible very literally. Every last bit of it.
Nobody takes the bible 100% literally let alone 28% of those surveyed.You should probably provide evidence for your repeated assertion that nobody takes the bible 100% literally. In fact, all evidence presented so far has been the exact opposite.
Nobody takes the bible 100% literally let alone 28% of those surveyed.
Does anybody think Jesus is a literal door?
Do they think God is a literal sun and a shield?
Nobody takes the bible 100% literally let alone 28% of those surveyed.
Does anybody think Jesus is a literal door?
Nobody takes the bible 100% literally let alone 28% of those surveyed.
Does anybody think Jesus is a literal door?
It's worth noting that BS24 moved the goal posts significantly, and has been using the propagandist's trick of continuous repetition to revise history. Here are his actual words:You said nobody takes the bible 100% literally, which means all 28% of those people surveyed were either unaware of their own personal opinions or liars. Prove your case.
Gallup directly contradicts that claim; 28% of Americans do say that. BS24 cannot admit error, so he's shifted his argument to something he can dance around, hoping to distract us from his blatant falsehood.Nobody says the bible must be taken 100% literally, word for word. That is a caricature and a strawman.
It's worth noting that BS24 moved the goal posts significantly, and has been using the propagandist's trick of continuous repetition to revise history. Here are his actual words:
Gallup directly contradicts that claim; 28% of Americans do say that. BS24 cannot admit error, so he's shifted his argument to something he can dance around, hoping to distract us from his blatant falsehood.
Seeing how the Bible says sex is between a husband and wife, prostitution is wrong and and that we are to love our neighbor as our self and that in Deuteronomy the punishment to rape was the death penalty.
Um I guess we just skip those verses about killing all the men, women and children and keeping the young girls for ourselves. Also skip the verses about how a man has to marry a girl he rapes in the field. Yea, them good old Biblical morals are just perfect for our society.
Google Bible&rape. It might open your eyes a bit.
I just popped into this thread for a reported post - saw this stuff. I can assure you, there are quite a few people in my community who take the Bible very literally. Every last bit of it.
Very impressive deductive reasoning. Now, do you have any answers for the questions I posed?