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: 36
53
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite




You aren't assisting them in sin by not marrying them, they're either already committing that sin (fornication) or they're not. either way you're not really culpable.


WOW! Such hypocrisy! I should expect no less.

But, they are culpable for their married sex? How is that different?


Because they set up the circumstance. You leftists are really hard of understanding sometimes.

Who sets up the circumstance to be in a gay relationship? The gay couple. In that circumstance they can fornicate or not fornicate.

When they come to you to marry them, you become part of the equation, you can either assist them in going forward in sin, or not.

Keep using the word hypocrisy, it doesn't mean what you think it means....




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: roth1

These people aren't running a cult! They're running a for profit "Hitching Post Wedding Chapel", that for decades performed weddings for non-religious people, including atheists.

Their supposed "sincerely held beliefs" are politically motivated BS.
edit on 21-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Your evidence is that they changed the packages offered to adjust to what may soon become a law. That is not hypocritical. It would only be hypocritical if they would marry gays before it became legal and refused to do so afterwards. Is it really that hard to understand?


Yah, and the employee policy and changed any mention of them performing "civil weddings" and "weddings of other faiths".

They are whitewashing themselves and remaking themselves into exactly what they need to represent in order to pull off this scam. There is more than enough evidence to show this. That's all can say. You believe what you want, you don't intend on changing your point of view anyway and no evidence I show can change that so why even bother debating with me about it. I at least looked into this deeper and have shown evidence for my side. You have shown nothing to support your side other than you opinions.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace




Truly undeniable massive balls would be offering and putting in place incentives for illegal aliens unavailable to United States citizens. Truly undeniable massive balls would be having a security in place before an establishment to allow only the best dressed, coolest, most popular people into a business. I know you will get this in Kalifornia you never hear a peep about hollywood parties. Truly undeniable massive balls would be forcing US citizens to a medical plan they don't want while you are in a privileged position of power to exempt yourself from the same plan. Truly undeniable massive balls would be having the full weight and force of the DOJ behind a race based crime and not having the same benefits because you are a different color. My personal favorite is, it being legal for congress to use insider information based on legislation to make money on investments. That discriminates to all citizens, this takes undeniable massive balls on a national scale. Who do we get to put in jail for these discriminations?


oh my did you hit the nail on the head with this one.
In my opinion there is a whole list of agendas being pushed at this time at a furious pace and people can hardly keep up. However I will say that the CDC at least did not discriminate against health care workers exposed to Ebola patients and let them fly on airplanes while having fevers. (end sarcasm)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Last time I checked people were allowed to change their sites to reflect new laws.


They didn't change it to "reflect" new laws, they changed their website and brought a lawsuit in an attempt to AVOID having to obey they law.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


I never stated anything about lying.

Since when does Christian beliefs or the bible perk your attention.................oh, only when you think you can use something from it to satisfy your bias.

Ahhh, I get it now.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The Bible, Jesus Christ nor St Paul never elevated one (perceived) sin above another. These people are. These people never cared about the sins of their customers, before now, and how it effected the practice of their faith. That is Christian hypocrisy!



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


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


That's absurd.

If homosexuals want to be married, then they can get married without imposing themselves on a church that doesn't believe in homosexual marriage.

Churches have belief systems in place. If you don't believe what that church teaches, then you have no right to insinuate yourself into that church and demand something that goes against their religious beliefs.

A Catholic wouldn't go to a Jewish Synagogue and demand to be married there and to have Holy Communion. That would be a stupid thing to do. The Catholic can go get married in his/her own church or at the town hall or someplace else with a Justice of the Peace. Ditto homosexuals who want same sex marriage. They shouldn't want to be married in a church that they disagree with anyways.

Homosexuals in states that have marriage equality can still get married. They don't need a religious ceremony done by a church they disagree with. So no homosexual civil rights are being stepped on by churches not allowing gay marriage within their walls. However, the civil rights of those who go to the churches ARE being oppressed by whatever stupid politician is pushing for them to have to break their religious beliefs.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

I believe the distinction they were making between a "traditional ceremony" and a "civil ceremony" was that they offered Christian themed weddings as well as non-Christian themed weddings. I hope you're not confusing "civil ceremony" with "civil union".


No, I know they don't mean "civil union". I don't think they did gay weddings or civil unions. They also say they did weddings of different faiths.

It just shows that they are being dishonest claiming that they've always only done christian themed weddings.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

It's not a church. It's a for-profit business. Lots of information in the thread.
edit on 10/21/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: roth1

These people aren't running a cult! They're running a for profit "Hitching Post Wedding Chapel", that for decades performed weddings for non-religious people, including atheists.

Their supposed "sincerely held beliefs" are politically motivated BS.


And now you're back to not understanding the religious objection. At least a little consistency would be nice.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Your evidence is that they changed the packages offered to adjust to what may soon become a law. That is not hypocritical. It would only be hypocritical if they would marry gays before it became legal and refused to do so afterwards. Is it really that hard to understand?


Yah, and the employee policy and changed any mention of them performing "civil weddings" and "weddings of other faiths".

They are whitewashing themselves and remaking themselves into exactly what they need to represent in order to pull off this scam. There is more than enough evidence to show this. That's all can say. You believe what you want, you don't intend on changing your point of view anyway and no evidence I show can change that so why even bother debating with me about it. I at least looked into this deeper and have shown evidence for my side. You have shown nothing to support your side other than you opinions.


Why are they doing all of this??? BECAUSE THE LAW CHANGED. They are not denying gays when they allowed them before. I have viewed the same evidence you have. You think they're evil hypocrites, I think they're protecting their beliefs. The evidence isn't biased, your opinion and my opinion on WHY is biased. Go talk to them and ask them why, then we'll know who's right.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Well, that is why I am who I am.

You don't mention something I am against, it never gets to be a problem. And vice versa.


While I am a Christian (I know, I bet there are many of gasps here), I don't care what others do, so long as I am not forced to their beliefs.

I don't force my beliefs on others. Guess it is too much to ask for the same courtesy.


But, like I stated before. The $3k from a gay, black, midget, transvestite Eskimo with purple hair spends the same as anyone else's.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Well fellow my leftists/socialists/atheists (whether you believe or not)/Marxist/Alinskian Comrades aka " regular folks" ... it seems our esteemed colleagues on the other side are now out of ammunition, as we're seeing the usual attempts to pepper in non-relevant topics ... gun control, Ebola, etc.

I'm sure there will be a "thanks Obama" soon with an explanation of how the President conspired to arrange this.

LOL



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75




And now you're back to not understanding the religious objection.


I see through their attempt to hide their bigotry behind the moniker of "sincerely held belief" and religious practice. But the historicity of their practice betrays their hypocrisy.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It is impossible to force or indoctrinate people into acceptance of anything. And no one want's to do so.

That's a really tired argument that has no basis in fact.

It is possible to change the laws to insure that all Americans are treated equally under the law and with due process ...
and that is happening on an amazing nationwide scale, despite the best efforts of the religious and political right to stop it and continue to deprive Americans of their Constitutional, civil and human rights.



Just that they need to be forced to do business with others they don't accept.

Your wordsmithing has lost its luster.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
I think their changing their website is a straw man argument. Sorry. You see it as some kind of wrong doing. Last time I checked people were allowed to change their sites to reflect new laws.


Ok. That's your choice to believe whatever you want.

It's more than just changing a website though. You are only focusing on that one detail. Put it all together for a bigger picture. Or don't, that's up to you.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite

The Bible, Jesus Christ nor St Paul never elevated one (perceived) sin above another. These people are. These people never cared about the sins of their customers, before now, and how it effected the practice of their faith. That is Christian hypocrisy!



That's because they weren't assisting their customers in committing a sin! They didn't set up hookup spots for married adulterers. They provided weddings for men and women. And any gay person can still get married at the hitching post, to a person of the opposite sex.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


These Zealots however don't like that option.


I remember hearing a few years ago, well reading it online that is, that some gay activists who didn't like Christians would deliberately ruin their wedding cakes, flowers, and other things provided to straight people in their weddings. Now who's the zealot? Of course, to really do that on a practical level might ruin their businesses' reputations as a reliable provider but I guess they are willing to take that risk.
Oh, and then there's this


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



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: macman



Just that they need to be forced to do business with others they don't accept.

Yep. And people are forced to do business with people with a skin color they don't like.


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







 
53
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join