It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

page: 34
53
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
For those who are interested last night this whole thing was exposed for the scam that it is. Read the details here:

Pg28

Pg 29

Pg 30

These people are pulling a scam with this whole BS circus. All organized by ADF and these lying ass ministers.




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes. The Hitching Post Wedding has advertised that they sell secular wedding.



I don't see a "secular" package: hitchingpostweddings.com...
Do you?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
See the post above yours for the links exposing the scam.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite




Just for reference, some states do require it in order for the marriage to be valid. Others don't. Still, others it is grounds for annullment if the marriage is not consummated.


The Knapps aren't concerned over whether or not a consummation will happen, that seals the marriage. They're concerned about the orifices in which it happens.


So is science. Homosexuals cannot consummate their union. Sexual intercourse is not possible. Sexual acts are, but not sexual intercourse.


WRONG! Hope this isn't too graphic for the T&Cs. (MODS: edit if you must)


Sexual intercourse, or coitus or copulation, is chiefly the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis, usually when erect, into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction; also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex. Other forms of penetrative sexual intercourse include penetration of the anus by the penis (anal sex), penetration of the mouth by the penis or oral penetration of the vulva or vagina (oral sex), sexual penetration by the fingers (fingering), and penetration by use of a strap-on dildo. These activities involve physical intimacy between two or more individuals and are usually used among humans solely for physical or emotional pleasure and commonly contribute to human bonding.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
For those who are interested last night this whole thing was exposed for the scam that it is. Read the details here:

Pg28

Pg 29

Pg 30

These people are pulling a scam with this whole BS circus. All organized by ADF and these lying ass ministers.


Lol, I love the outrage you've shown that a business would protect it's values (and would preemptively do so) in case there is a change in the law. I mean, prior to the change they didn't need to do this, but as it looked like there was going to be a change, they decided to protect their beliefs. Oh the humanity!



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite





In the past their web page openly admitted they would "marry you using a traditional or civil ceremony" and would also "perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings." Now the ADF claims the business will "only perform ceremonies consistent with their religious beliefs.

At no point did the doctrines the Knapps believe restrict their business activity prior to same-sex marriage becoming legal. These admissions were scrubbed from their page after they filed their lawsuit.


Source


edit on 21-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword

The Knapps aren't concerned over whether or not a consummation will happen, that seals the marriage. They're concerned about the orifices in which it happens.


So you do understand the religious objection after all? Here I was thinking you were under the impression that we're just masking our hate for gay people.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite




Just for reference, some states do require it in order for the marriage to be valid. Others don't. Still, others it is grounds for annullment if the marriage is not consummated.


The Knapps aren't concerned over whether or not a consummation will happen, that seals the marriage. They're concerned about the orifices in which it happens.


So is science. Homosexuals cannot consummate their union. Sexual intercourse is not possible. Sexual acts are, but not sexual intercourse.


WRONG! Hope this isn't too graphic for the T&Cs. (MODS: edit if you must)


Sexual intercourse, or coitus or copulation, is chiefly the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis, usually when erect, into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction; also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex. Other forms of penetrative sexual intercourse include penetration of the anus by the penis (anal sex), penetration of the mouth by the penis or oral penetration of the vulva or vagina (oral sex), sexual penetration by the fingers (fingering), and penetration by use of a strap-on dildo. These activities involve physical intimacy between two or more individuals and are usually used among humans solely for physical or emotional pleasure and commonly contribute to human bonding.





merriam websters defines sexual intercourse as:
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis.

Not sure where you got your definition. But they're obviously trying to be more inclusive to be nice to those deviants out there.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm


last time i was aware, you dont buy a 6 ft 4 frame in a store, nor do you have to pass a background check in order to have blonde hair. so i dont think being gay is in any way comparable to bearing or purchasing a firearm.

Gay is not hair color.
There is no Amendment guaranteeing Gay.


originally posted by: TzarChasm
and heterosexuals broadcast their relationships all the time, so why should homosexuals? holding hands, embracing, kissing, dancing together, sharing a shake, attending an official function as a pair, etc.


And places have denied service to people involved with PDA. And they have the right to do so.

Again, Gay is something attached to the customer, by the customer.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can guarantee that no matter what type of wedding they've performed in the past, the last thing the minister said at the end of every one of them was "I now pronounce you man and wife, you may kiss the bride".

Forcing him or her to change that statement changes the product. Hence the need for another product, which the chapel is not obligated to provide.



So you have evidence about the complete text transcription of of every wedding performed at Hitching Post? You're certain based on your review of that information that every wedding has the exact same text?

If you do, I'd be glad to take a look at that. If you don't, you're just making what little merit your argument had into specious nonsense.

For example, by your reckoning, if different songs were played during the service, that would constitute a different wedding, a different product, requiring a different menu offering ... every time?

That's patently ridiculous, as is your contention about wedding scripts unless you have other evidence.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

I understand the hypocrisy of their supposed concerns. Like I said, many hetero couples engage in the same thing. I don't see the Knapps sticking their nose in how previous clients consummated their marriage, or what their sexual habits or preferences were.


edit on 21-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


What part of the 1st Amendment eludes you?

The part where it says that some people have less rights than religious folk - can you point that part out to me?

You have never once answered this question: Do the rights of the religious trump all other rights?

A business - run by Christians, Muslims, Jews or atheists - is a business. We're free to live our lives according to our beliefs. We are not free to discriminate against each other in public

You already know this is true. If you insist on playing dumb - people will think you actually are dumb. Rethink, rework and restate your argument. If for no other reason than it's a valid argument that is completely lost because it's being delivered from the point of view of a two year old that just wants to do whatever it wants to do. An id-based civilization doesn't work for grownups

You're concerned that the government will start telling people how to practice their religion. Fine. I'm concerned that religion will force me to live according to it's rules. So, we come up with laws that we all live under because they protect us all (more or less) equally

Would you also support be-headings? If you run away from this question, I'll know you don't take your own argument seriously

Society demands that we treat each other equally - in the places where we all live and interact

Churches are not public - even though they might welcome the public. Your church is a sanctuary - a protected place away from the rest of this confusing and sinful world

Discriminate away...

:-)


edit on 10/21/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

Lol, I love the outrage you've shown that a business would protect it's values (and would preemptively do so) in case there is a change in the law. I mean, prior to the change they didn't need to do this, but as it looked like there was going to be a change, they decided to protect their beliefs. Oh the humanity!


Lol...Oh please, spare me the details about these poor victims crap. You can play blind man all you want man, I expected some members to avoid the truth even when it's place right in front of them, so go ahead. But researched this enough to see what's going on and so do others.

I guess it must be hard to accept that a couple of Ministers and a Team of Lawyers with a mission are actually at fault here. Much easier to believe in that scary Gay agenda BS. It's because of that mindset that these f*cking scumbag lying sellouts keep winning. Well, that and the massive amounts of money being poured into it.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




private clubs can discriminate. Open to the public businesses cannot


How is a private club not open to business? I once went with a friend to the MAC which did not allow female membership but they did allow us to have lunch in the dining room. I had to pay to have lunch there. They sold me a product even though as a female I personally was not allowed to join. So tell me how a private club which charges money for services and memberships is not open to the public. Of course this years ago and I think the feminists have been working on this type of discrimination. The MAC is not a religious affiliation, it's just a fancy golf club with dining services. Now maybe after all these years they have changed their policy, but you still cannot join without having your application reviewed by a committee,
That means they can turn you down for any reason they choose.
So how is it again that a private club selling athletic services is different from a wedding chapel that sells wedding ceremonies? And by the way, it's just the ceremony they are selling, the couple still has to bring them a marriage license from the courthouse before they will perfume any ceremony.


edit on 21-10-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite




Just for reference, some states do require it in order for the marriage to be valid. Others don't. Still, others it is grounds for annullment if the marriage is not consummated.


The Knapps aren't concerned over whether or not a consummation will happen, that seals the marriage. They're concerned about the orifices in which it happens.


So is science. Homosexuals cannot consummate their union. Sexual intercourse is not possible. Sexual acts are, but not sexual intercourse.


WRONG! Hope this isn't too graphic for the T&Cs. (MODS: edit if you must)


Sexual intercourse, or coitus or copulation, is chiefly the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis, usually when erect, into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction; also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex. Other forms of penetrative sexual intercourse include penetration of the anus by the penis (anal sex), penetration of the mouth by the penis or oral penetration of the vulva or vagina (oral sex), sexual penetration by the fingers (fingering), and penetration by use of a strap-on dildo. These activities involve physical intimacy between two or more individuals and are usually used among humans solely for physical or emotional pleasure and commonly contribute to human bonding.





merriam websters defines sexual intercourse as:
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis.

Not sure where you got your definition. But they're obviously trying to be more inclusive to be nice to those deviants out there.


Oh! You like intellectual dishonesty, do you?


Full Definition of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

1
: heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2
: intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis


www.merriam-webster.com...



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
This is all very simple to avoid.

Business just need to stop giving reasons for denying service to people they don't agree with.

There is no law demanding a reason be given...just that the reason stated can't be discriminatory.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Dfairlite

Lol, I love the outrage you've shown that a business would protect it's values (and would preemptively do so) in case there is a change in the law. I mean, prior to the change they didn't need to do this, but as it looked like there was going to be a change, they decided to protect their beliefs. Oh the humanity!


Lol...Oh please, spare me the details about these poor victims crap. You can play blind man all you want man, I expected some members to avoid the truth even when it's place right in front of them, so go ahead. But researched this enough to see what's going on and so do others.

I guess it must be hard to accept that a couple of Ministers and a Team of Lawyers with a mission are actually at fault here. Much easier to believe in that scary Gay agenda BS. It's because of that mindset that these f*cking scumbag lying sellouts keep winning. Well, that and the massive amounts of money being poured into it.

Again, would they Wed gay couples before? No, it was not legal so there was no need for protecting themselves. Assisting people to commit a sin (perform gay marriage) is different from offering a service TO sinners (everyone). The only blind man here is you and those of you who claim there is hypocrisy despite the total lack of evidence supporting that claim.
edit on 21-10-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Not surprising; it seems from the evidence that the whole thing is merely about deceit rather than honesty.

When that also applies to the arguments here at ATS, it's no less disturbing.

But I guess most of us have come to expect that from the most vociferous "belief-based" individuals.

Still makes me sad.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword

Like I said, many hetero couples engage in the same thing. I don't see the Knapps sticking their nose in how previous clients consummated their marriage, or what their sexual habits or preferences were.


I'm sure they didn't, but its pretty obvious when 2 men ask to be married how they intend to seal the deal.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

So, Christians should lie in order to freely exercise their Christian faith?

And here I thought the Bible forbade lying.

What am I saying? Since when have people really cared what the Bible actually says or tried to honestly follow its teachings.

Silly me.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join