Some people of faith get singled out because some of them go through the whole process of shaming everyone for not being as in tune with God and their faith as them.

 

 

Agreed. The sanctimonious ones are what gives people of faith a bad rep. A few of them have popped up in this thread.

There you go again trying to paint a picture with an extreme distorted broad stroke. It's ate up with ignorance, and a ridiculously unfair and untrue assessment.

 

I've noticed that you never responded the last time I addressed you on your backward thinking in this matter. Perhaps for you to try to understand is far more boring than it is to hang on to some negative mean spirited false angle that tries only to serve your misguided agenda...sounds like pure evil to me.

 

...no wait...

 

I'll lay it on the line....

 

Hear Ye Hear Ye,

 

I am a member a the Gay Militants and we are here to silence all of the opposing heterosexuals. In fact we are recruiting and coming for your children. We've been lying all along that being gay is not a choice. It is a choice indeed spawned by massive brainwashing and we will see to is that your kids travel down the best and only way, which is the gay way. Nothing will stand in our way and nothing will stop us. If your kids don't abide, we will simply use them to create more children to indoctrinate into the cult. We'll also continue to grow children in a lab in a petri dish to also immediately brainwash. We will not stop until we are the majority on Planet Earth, and any remaining heterosexuals will be forced to speak our vision or pay the cost.

 

You have been warned, but there is nothing that you can do because nothing will stand in our way, and we will stop at nothing.

 

There you go, there's some wild juice for you to run with , and while anyone with any sense would know that it's a line of malarkey, I wouldn't be surprised if you did run with it anyhow because it appears to me that you would stop at nothing to try to advance you misguided hate filled agenda even if all you've got is a load of crap.

 

I try to be succinct so here it is. If you say that there's not a militant arm of the LGBT community that tries to silence all opposition you're either misguided or dishonest. You ignore how the CEO of Mozilla was forced out for supporting a position that MOST politicians, including Obama and H. Clinton, held in 2008. The owner of Chik-fil-a has been vilified for supporting traditional marriage. How many small Mom and Pop businesses have been targeted because they tried to politely and quietly refuse to lend tacit approval to something they have faith based objections to, at least one based on a hypothetical presented by reporter trying to manufacture a sensational story.

 

I've NEVER said anything on here to castigate individual gay people so in this instance if anyone is advancing a misguided hate filled agenda, it isn't me and the load of crap didn't come from me.

This a million times over. I have absolutely no doubt as to the bolded.

 

I've always wondered what will happen to morally upright Jews, etc. etc. etc.

How can you so easily assume that jbird's taste in movies etc... belie his professed disdain for "talk of killing and rape". That's reaching.

[edit]

.

 

I am taking a shot in the dark, "willing to bet" indicates that. I am saying that I believe jbird is being disingenuous. If you watch TV today, you sit and watch lots of stories about killing, rape, and much blood and gore so to pretend that when the Bible contains the account of such things it is a turn-off is sanctimonious and disingenuous. Law and Order SUV, Criminal Minds, etc glorifies these things. It is a false deflection. That is my point. If jbird comes back and says that he doesn't view or read about such things then I am wrong and will apologize for being off-base.

 

I have not read any of the opinions and am not a legal scholar so.....

 

Is it a requirement that the actual issue be named in the Constitution as a named right?

 

What was the basis used by the 5? Just a broad interpretation of the 14th amendment?

 

For those that say the 5 were wrong what is your basis? (and I don't mean the Bible )

 

Clyde, these are good questions. You can google for the responses of the 4 dissenting justices and they will answer these questions for themselves. I found it quite educational. Here is one link to get you started--yes it is to a conservative site. It was one of the first that popped up 12 Must-Read Quotes From Scalia?s Blistering Same-Sex Marriage Dissent | TheBlaze.com

 

You can also google the majority opinion to see their reasoning. You can then compare what they said with the critiques by Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. That should pretty much tell you the arguments. You don't need to be a legal scholar to get the gist of their arguments.

 

What we see with the 5-4 split is the difference between legal philosophy on the role of the Supreme Court and the justices on it. This is one reason it matters who takes office as President because of the kinds of judges he/she appoints. Conservative Presidents tend to appoint judges who believe it is their role to read and understand the constitution and rule based on what the constitution says and was intended to say by the founders. Liberal Presidents tend to appoint judges who view the constitution as more fluid and adaptable. That pretty much explains the votes right there, IMO.

I try to be succinct so here it is. If you say that there's not a militant arm of the LGBT community that tries to silence all opposition you're either misguided or dishonest. You ignore how the CEO of Mozilla was forced out for supporting a position that MOST politicians, including Obama and H. Clinton, held in 2008. The owner of Chik-fil-a has been vilified for supporting traditional marriage. How many small Mom and Pop businesses have been targeted because they tried to politely and quietly refuse to lend tacit approval to something they have faith based objections to, at least one based on a hypothetical presented by reporter trying to manufacture a sensational story.

 

I've NEVER said anything on here to castigate individual gay people so in this instance if anyone is advancing a misguided hate filled agenda, it isn't me and the load of crap didn't come from me.

 

I've never said that there aren't any extreme gay activist and in my response to you the other day, in my second paragraph I said this...

 

"Are there some gay activists that can go overboard? No doubt there are, but to try to paint all gay people like this with a broad stroke is ridiculously unfair, distorted, and slanted. I've heard from many other gay people that are in agreement that some extremists do not represent the majority in a favorable light."

 

You might now claim after now being called out that you've never said anything to castigate individual gay people, but up until now your language has stayed right in the territory that would insinuate or imply that the gay community has this type of an agenda. Coming from that angle it would appear that your personal agenda is slanted and shortsighted.

 

I'm happy that you are not including all gay people in your assessment, and that this discussion has now prompted you with the opportunity for that clarification.

 

My apologies if I misread your true point of view, and your intended approach.

This a million times over. I have absolutely no doubt as to the bolded.

 

So you are fair, equal, good, and kind 100% of the time? If not what about the times you are not? Does your maker just turn a blind eye or do you think he keeps score of the good things versus the bad things and if the good things out number the bad you will be deserving? What if what you see as good isn't so good from your maker's point of view?

 

Not trying to be argumentative just always wondered if people really want to receive what they actually deserve.

Why are you so sensitive about their conservative views? I wasn't even talking to you about my conservative friends when you jumped in to tell me they aren't conservative. I mean my friends that aren't socially conservative. My fault.

 

I am not sensitive at all. I am explaining to you that those who believe in gay marriage are not social conservatives.

Oh I have a very good understanding of the political spectrum, of that I have no doubt.

 

not if you believe that those who believe the rights for gay marriage are social conservatives

 

not at all

This a million times over. I have absolutely no doubt as to the bolded.

 

Then you do not understand the concept of salvation and will fail to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Agreed. The sanctimonious ones are what gives people of faith a bad rep. A few of them have popped up in this thread.

 

I am not here to save you.

 

I am here to save those who will listen to The Word of God as it is the Truth and will never bow to any word from man.

@BreakingNews: Texas attorney general: Clerks can refuse to issue gay marriage licenses based on religious objections - @Statesman Texas AG: County clerks can refuse gay couples | www.statesman.com

Not doing there job, fire them all!

I am not sensitive at all. I am explaining to you that those who believe in gay marriage are not social conservatives.

 

:deadhorse:

 

Broken record

So you are fair, equal, good, and kind 100% of the time? If not what about the times you are not? Does your maker just turn a blind eye or do you think he keeps score of the good things versus the bad things and if the good things out number the bad you will be deserving? What if what you see as good isn't so good from your maker's point of view?

 

Not trying to be argumentative just always wondered if people really want to receive what they actually deserve.

 

Absolutely, without a doubt. I always have believed we should receive at the minimum what we deserve.

I've never said that there aren't any extreme gay activist and in my response to you the other day, in my second paragraph I said this...

 

"Are there some gay activists that can go overboard? No doubt there are, but to try to paint all gay people like this with a broad stroke is ridiculously unfair, distorted, and slanted. I've heard from many other gay people that are in agreement that some extremists do not represent the majority in a favorable light."

 

You might now claim after now being called out that you've never said anything to castigate individual gay people, but up until now your language has stayed right in the territory that would insinuate or imply that the gay community has this type of an agenda. Coming from that angle it would appear that your personal agenda is slanted and shortsighted.

 

I'm happy that you are not including all gay people in your assessment, and that this discussion has now prompted you with the opportunity for that clarification.

 

My apologies if I misread your true point of view, and your intended approach.

 

Go back to post 68. It was my first in this thread. When I said the LGBT community I meant just the militant wing and for misstating that I apologize. I still believe what I have said however that that faction will not be satisfied until all traces of dissent are gone and will go to any means including personal and professional destruction of opponents to achieve it.

[/b]

 

Absolutely, without a doubt. I always have believed we should receive at the minimum what we deserve.

 

Do you? So every time you exceed the speed limit or roll through a stop sign you go down to the court house and drop off a check?