The homophobic thread :>

[Mr.B]

"Will you ever learn that suggesting "gay" about gays or the gay tolerant fails as an insult? This is one of the reasons your attempts to mimic me flop so often." ....."Your call."

Some of the greatest "gay" scientists of our time have proved that fanatics who scream "gay tolerance" and lash out at those who disapprove of homosexuality while calling the disapprovers names, and deny to be "gay" themselves are 93.72% likely to be closet homosexuals.

[Mr.B]

Urge your representative to oppose Senate Bill 2

[rstrong]

Urge your representative to oppose Senate Bill 2

What's wrong with that? Why should public officials be allowed to refuse public services to whoever they have a phobia or prejudice against? Your personal religion for example?

Understand, no-one is saying that a church or private citizen should be forced to provide a service contradicting their religious beliefs. This is strictly about government officials.

[bannination]

Urge your representative to oppose Senate Bill 2

What's wrong with that? Why should public officials be allowed to refuse public services to whoever they have a phobia or prejudice against? Your personal religion for example?

Understand, no-one is saying that a church or private citizen should be forced to provide a service contradicting their religious beliefs. This is strictly about government officials.

It gets in the way of the government being the church apparently.

[Mr.B]

What's wrong with that? Why should public officials be allowed to refuse public services to whoever they have a phobia or prejudice against? Your personal religion for example?
Why not? There's nothing in the Constitution or any state constitution that says anyone has a right to get married; it's a privilege. "Gays" are claiming legal choices are on the line. So tell me....here's a straight couple, unmarried, with 4-6 kids. Who makes legal decisions here if one of the parents suddenly becomes disabled? Who makes legal decisions regarding the kid's futures? (We already know who's supporting the kids and paying for their everyday needs, schooling, etc.)

If issuing a license to two of the same gender goes against a religious belief or conviction, then that person should have the right to refuse if they're given the OK by the state/municipality that employs them. If it's not OK to refuse, then their employer has the right to terminate their employment.

Understand, no-one is saying that a church or private citizen should be forced to provide a service contradicting their religious beliefs.
Yeah, right!...you tell Vrede that; mention the bakers, the florists, etc....opps!

[Mr.B]

See page 152 on for responses to Mr.B's childish, taxpayer money wasting, bigoted hatred for the Constitution he once swore to God to uphold and defend.

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it's working really well.

[O Really]

Sorry, Mr.B, but even if you are correct that "marriage is a privilege" (which I think is a really shaky premise), that's still not the problem. Issuing a license, whether a business license, marriage license or dog license is a service provided by the government in order to accomplish whatever the particular law requiring a license is. It may sound frivolous, but it's logically the same if a government employee refuses to issue a dog license to owners of cats because their Wiccan religion believes cats to be sacred.

[rstrong]

What's wrong with that? Why should public officials be allowed to refuse public services to whoever they have a phobia or prejudice against? Your personal religion for example?
Why not? There's nothing in the Constitution or any state constitution that says anyone has a right to get married; it's a privilege. "Gays" are claiming legal choices are on the line. So tell me....here's a straight couple, unmarried, with 4-6 kids. Who makes legal decisions here if one of the parents suddenly becomes disabled? Who makes legal decisions regarding the kid's futures? (We already know who's supporting the kids and paying for their everyday needs, schooling, etc.)

No, "there's nothing in the Constitution or any state constitution that says anyone has a right to get married." But so what...? The default under American law is FREEDOM. With nothing in the Constitution or any state constitution taking away that right, Americans have that right. Nothing in the Constitution gives you the right to walk, read, wear clothes, own a home, shoot pool or own a goldfish. You have those rights regardless.

The disabled parent thing applies equally to straight and same-sex marriages, and has no bearing on it.

If issuing a license to two of the same gender goes against a religious belief or conviction, then that person should have the right to refuse if they're given the OK by the state/municipality that employs them. If it's not OK to refuse, then their employer has the right to terminate their employment.

As expected, you avoided the greater issue I brought up: It's not just YOUR beliefs, phobias and bigotries that this applies to:

Should a Catholic public official be allowed to refuse service to Protestants and Mormons? Should a Muslim public official be allowed to refuse service to Christians? Should a Quaker public official be allowed to refuse service to those in the military?

Should a Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 public official be allowed to refuse service to a heretic from the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?

Should a mainstream Protestant public official be allowed to refuse service to YOUR sect, citing it's hatred towards gays? Should a public official be allowed to refuse service based on race? On gender? On long hair?

Again, we're talking about public officials here. The gatekeepers to public services, vehicle licensing, marriage licencing, fire-fighting, policing, and justice itself.

[O Really]

Understand, no-one is saying that a church or private citizen should be forced to provide a service contradicting their religious beliefs.
Yeah, right!...you tell Vrede that; mention the bakers, the florists, etc....opps!

[/quote]
I think he's talking about a marriage ceremony, Mr.B. A minister wouldn't have to conduct a marriage for black people if s/he found it against his/her beliefs. The church wouldn't have to bless the marriage. But a minister isn't in the business of conducting marriages for the public. If s/he were, as in a Vegas wedding chapel not a part of a church, then yes, they'd have to do it. Open to "the public" or don't.

[rstrong]

I think he's talking about a marriage ceremony, Mr.B. A minister wouldn't have to conduct a marriage for black people if s/he found it against his/her beliefs. The church wouldn't have to bless the marriage. But a minister isn't in the business of conducting marriages for the public. If s/he were, as in a Vegas wedding chapel not a part of a church, then yes, they'd have to do it. Open to "the public" or don't.

I was referring to public officials, not private companies.

Of course a private company serving the public - a baker, a florist, whatever - is not allowed to refuse service to someone based on race. There's no logical reason why it should be different for same-sex couples.

But society recognizes that religious institutions are exempt from logical reasoning. And so fortunately for Mr.B they're free to discriminate based on whatever phobias, bigotries and hatreds motivate them.

Here in Canada where the same-sex marriage debate is long over, it's legally recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. (The largest Protestant denomination and a number of others do in fact endorse and perform same-sex marriages.)

Marriage commissioners on the other hand, being public officials, must do their job. Just like police, fire fighters, and those in charge of drivers' licences and voting booths. The citizens they serve are NOT like pages in Mr.B's Bible: Cherry picking the ones they like and rejecting the rest is not an option, nor should it be.

[Mr.B]

"That's the start of so many posts to Mr.B. He always runs away when even he can't think of a coherent defense for his bigotry."

Again, I ask you....am I supposed to respond to every nutty comment that is made in reply to something I said? I don't think so. Because you don't respond to every comment, does that mean you're running away? I don't think so. .

[Mr.B]

"You responded to rstrong's question without really responding to his question. That's wussy."
In your wee little mind, of course it is.

"Now, about your lie ( ) that marriage isn't a right? Of course you know it's a right, though it's unlikely you'll ever admit it."
So show me where in any constitution it states "marriage is a right". Marriage between a man and a woman was blessed by God, but since God has been tossed out by the God-haters, people in their lust, prefer to "shack-up" or turn to their own gender. Even at that, no where is it written that marriage is a "right".

"If anyone had ever told you that you didn't have the right to marry who you wanted when and where you wanted, you would have screamed bloody murder."
Wrong...I screamed "bloody murder" afterwards.

Again, I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it's working really well.

[Mr.B]

Your whining and lying is noted. (® 2011 Vrede's Greatest Witticisms, Vol. 2 )

[Mr.B]

"con legislator masturbation".....obsessed with the sex lives* of legislators; nttawwt. (*® 2011 Vrede's Greatest Witticisms, Vol. 2 )

[Mr.B]

Whoosh, it's a metaphor for con legislators spending our money on doomed legal cases.

Every single time you've accused me of "lying" I've challenged you to ID the lie. Every single time you've run away. Guess you were lying.

Whining again...nttawwt.

[rstrong]

*sigh*

Another day, another instance of Mr.B writing something offensive and stupid and being unable to defend it.

[bannination]

I just did. In their wisdom the founders set up SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution and it unanimously said marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". As usual, you have no balls when proven wrong.

If we chose to interpret that the way some christians choose to interpret their own crap, it clearly says that only men have marriage rights. :gayhappy:

Fabulous!

[bannination]

*sigh*

Another day, another instance of Mr.B writing something offensive and stupid and being unable to defend it.

My day would be slightly less entertained without it.

[Mr.B]

Illiterate again, plenty wwt.
"Again"...? When did you get over your first bout of illiteracy?

*sigh* Another day, another instance of Mr.B writing something offensive and stupid and being unable to defend it.
I'm only attempting to speak what you can understand; I'm trying not to go too far over your heads.

As usual, you have no balls when proven wrong.
Seems you and Boatrocker both have this affinity for "balls". Obsessed

If we chose to interpret that the way some Christians choose to interpret their own crap, it clearly says that only men have marriage rights. :gayhappy: Fabulous!
If you're so upset that you didn't marry a man, :gayhappy: divorce the little lady you're married to now (if it is a she) and go pay billy.p or Boatrocker a visit. I'm sure either would welcome you with open arms. I didn't mention rstrong as a possibility, because it's too cold in Canada, and I wouldn't wish him or his environment on anybody. I didn't mention Vrede because he considers himself above anyone else's intelligence level.

I've got more sense than the five of you combined, and I ain't got a damn lick of sense.

You all were born during low tide in the gene pool proving there is such a thing as evolution after all....only thing is, it's going backwards for you.

[rstrong]

*sigh* Another day, another instance of Mr.B writing something offensive and stupid and being unable to defend it.
I'm only attempting to speak what you can understand; I'm trying not to go too far over your heads.

So you speak only in pathetic dodges and lame cop-outs. Right. Gotcha.