Pastors forced to perform same-sex marriages

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

What if there is a religion that believes 50 year old men can marry 12 year old girls. Should we celebrate that, because that is their religion?

Already laws on age of consent.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Seriously?
You do know that there are religions that practice that, correct?

You also never answered the question about multiple partner marriages, either.

If you're Muslim, and you're dumb enough to marry four women... that's your business.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Its funny how some people are against big govt, yet they want to regulate someones private love life.

BINGO!

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are STATISTS. The Conservatives push for GOVERNMENT regulating our private lives, behaviors, and relationships. Liberals push for the GOVERNMENT to regulate our money, businesses, jobs, and churches. At the end of the day... they both have successfully brought our entire lives under GOVERNMENT regulation. They are the right and left hands of STATISM.

The only truly principled position that upholds liberty and justice for all is... Libertarianism.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Incest bound! On a more dignified note... the man refusing to sell homos a cake wasn't trying to regulate their love life, but he was regulated into making them a cake.

He's too cowardly and squeamish to serve the general public in a business. Maybe he should close his shop and open up a bake sale in a local church. That way he's sure to only serve saints, since that's what he obviously wants.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

So FMC, where should the lines be drawn on love....
Homosexuality
Beastiality
Multiple partners
Incest
Children

Well?

First, all of these are morally wrong. However, I'm only speaking as it relates to politics and personal liberties...

Homosexuality - Between two consenting adults, that's their business.
Beastiality - An animal cannot confirm consent. Therefore it's cruelty to animals.
Multiple Partners - Between consenting adults, that's their business.
Incest - Between consenting adults, that's their business.
Children - Children are not consenting adults. That's child abuse.

As it relates to "marriage". Marriage should be a private contract between individuals and/or families. It shouldn't be a GOVERNMENT tax relief program.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

jf - what if incest involves consenting adults? Should they not have the right to love each other as others do?

It's sick... but it's also a free country.

[anon5]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What if a Muslim couple (third wife for the gentleman in question) wanted this baker to cater their wedding cake?

Polygamy is nowhere condemned or even discouraged in the bible. Not old or new testament. Homosexuality IS, both in old and new.

Although, that being said, it seems ironic to me that we as Americans pick and choose what issues of constitutionality we support the govt on. We have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed over time, and I believe almost all of us suffer from it. Also, many are torn between supporting the constitution vs the word of God.
As much as I would love for us to go back to the values of the past, the LAST thing we need is some crazy Nehemiah Scudder run theocracy.

[Monterrey]

What if the cake he makes for them tastes horrible? You ever notice that those cakes taste bad?

Can he be forced to make them a cake that tastes good for their wedding?

That my friends, is the real question here!

JK

[anon5]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If the best bakery in town was owned by a gay couple and I wanted to buy a cake from them for a straight wedding, and they refused... I think I'd consider a lawsuit.

While it's not a gay or Christian business, the best cake in town where I live is, El's. If they refused me because it was a straight wedding... I'd be highly offended. Now, if I walked in mouthy and belligerent.... I can see them denying me service. But based on the type of coupling? That would erk me.

America no longer practices boycotting anymore. Way too lazy. Yet that is what ultimately works. If we all boycotted a business that practiced something we did not agree with, then they would either alter their attitude/behavior or simply go out if business. Attacking the pocketbook is still the most effective way. Getting the govt to write more laws only creates more problems.

I KNEW the passage of the civil rights act would eventually lead to these kinds of problems. A business owner has the constitutional right not to serve anyone for ANY reason. The people in turn, should respond to that with a boycott, not some legislation. It's why I don't eat at Dennys anymore or KFC.
I just think when we get to the point as citizens that we rather take the easier, softer route of letting govt solve our problems for us, then we deserve this junk coming our way. Maybe it will get to the point where we'll be forced to pull our heads from our backsides.

[anon5]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

jf - what if incest involves consenting adults? Should they not have the right to love each other as others do?

No because then they'll make mutants like fish babies or something.

They really would be most likely retarded. This particular law was created years before social programs existed that would take care of these people. It seemed cruel
, that in a " survival of the fittest" type world they should be born retarded. Made sense then, but not so much now with all the droolers on govt doll.