I'm not asking if they will have a good legal argument. I'm asking if gays will attempt to force churches to marry gays, or if gays will try to take away the churches' tax exempt status for discrimination, etc.

They've already shut down the Catholic Church from handling adoptions in Massachusetts.

(06-26-2015 08:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm not asking if they will have a good legal argument. I'm asking if gays will attempt force churches to marry gays, or if gays will try to take away the churches' tax exempt status for discrimination, etc.

They've already shut down the Catholic Church from handling adoptions in Massachusetts.

No. They already shut down a group using the power or assets of the state to discriminate.

Yes! They are relentless.

(06-26-2015 08:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm not asking if they will have a good legal argument. I'm asking if gays will attempt force churches to marry gays, or if gays will try to take away the churches' tax exempt status for discrimination, etc.

They've already shut down the Catholic Church from handling adoptions in Massachusetts.

Yes with a vindictive vengeance, churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages or lose the ability to perform state sanctioned marriages and potentially lose their tax exempt status.

Yes. Tom's a bullshitter.

The precedent set in Dale v Boy Scouts is still valid, and won't be challenged. But you don't have a right to government grants to perform state social work while discriminating in employment of provision of services.

The issue of tax breaks for mansions and lear jets for megapreachers is a salient one, but one that stands without reference to same sex marriage.

Of course they will. With libs it's always the next step

Tom, you don't speak for all gays.

Yes they will.

(06-26-2015 09:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The precedent set in Dale v Boy Scouts is still valid, and won't be challenged. But you don't have a right to government grants to perform state social work while discriminating in employment of provision of services.

The issue of tax breaks for mansions and lear jets for megapreachers is a salient one, but one that stands without reference to same sex marriage.

How is discrimination employment tied to a clergy person doing this or that marriage ceremony?

Equal rights has always been a red herring, gays want acceptance not rights.

And the bakeries that won't make the cakes.

(06-26-2015 09:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The precedent set in Dale v Boy Scouts is still valid, and won't be challenged. But you don't have a right to government grants to perform state social work while discriminating in employment of provision of services.

The issue of tax breaks for mansions and lear jets for megapreachers is a salient one, but one that stands without reference to same sex marriage.

How is discrimination employment tied to a clergy person doing this or that marriage ceremony?

Equal rights has always been a red herring, gays want acceptance not rights.

This.

(06-26-2015 09:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The precedent set in Dale v Boy Scouts is still valid, and won't be challenged. But you don't have a right to government grants to perform state social work while discriminating in employment of provision of services.

The issue of tax breaks for mansions and lear jets for megapreachers is a salient one, but one that stands without reference to same sex marriage.

How is discrimination employment tied to a clergy person doing this or that marriage ceremony?

Equal rights has always been a red herring, gays want acceptance not rights.

You're absolutely right.

There are some real legitimate "discriminatory" issues with gay marriage, such as employee spousal benefits. Yet when you heard them talk about their lawsuits, it was ALWAYS about acceptance.

I could play amateur psychologist, but will resist the urge.

(06-26-2015 08:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm not asking if they will have a good legal argument. I'm asking if gays will attempt to force churches to marry gays, or if gays will try to take away the churches' tax exempt status for discrimination, etc.

They've already shut down the Catholic Church from handling adoptions in Massachusetts.

Without a doubt.

(06-26-2015 09:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The precedent set in Dale v Boy Scouts is still valid, and won't be challenged. But you don't have a right to government grants to perform state social work while discriminating in employment of provision of services.

The issue of tax breaks for mansions and lear jets for megapreachers is a salient one, but one that stands without reference to same sex marriage.

How is discrimination employment tied to a clergy person doing this or that marriage ceremony?

Equal rights has always been a red herring, gays want acceptance not rights.

This.

Gay people want to walk down the street to the community cookout, hold hands, kiss on the cheek, and you have to accept it. Not about taxes, estates will probate, equal rights.
They want that gayness out there, you gotta buy in.

(06-26-2015 09:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The precedent set in Dale v Boy Scouts is still valid, and won't be challenged. But you don't have a right to government grants to perform state social work while discriminating in employment of provision of services.

The issue of tax breaks for mansions and lear jets for megapreachers is a salient one, but one that stands without reference to same sex marriage.

How is discrimination employment tied to a clergy person doing this or that marriage ceremony?

Equal rights has always been a red herring, gays want acceptance not rights.

You're absolutely right.

There are some real legitimate "discriminatory" issues with gay marriage, such as employee spousal benefits. Yet when you heard them talk about their lawsuits, it was ALWAYS about acceptance.

I could play amateur psychologist, but will resist the urge.

Tolerance is not enough.
Acceptance is not enough.
Apathy is not enough

Affirmation is required.

I do think they should lose their tax exempt status. Too much abuse.

(06-26-2015 09:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I do think they should lose their tax exempt status. Too much abuse.

I'm willing to discuss that right after unions lose their tax exempt status.

(06-26-2015 09:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I do think they should lose their tax exempt status. Too much abuse.

Poor legal position Mach. Cue your meltdown in 1 2 3.................

(06-26-2015 09:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I do think they should lose their tax exempt status. Too much abuse.

I'm willing to discuss that right after unions lose their tax exempt status.

And professional sports leagues lose theirs.

(06-26-2015 09:51 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 09:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I do think they should lose their tax exempt status. Too much abuse.

I'm willing to discuss that right after unions lose their tax exempt status.

And professional sports leagues lose theirs.

The NCAA too