Thread: Marriage Equality

Will Muslim bakeries make a gay wedding cake? Surpriiiise!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Gay Activists Visiting White House Take Photos of Themselves Flipping Off Reagan Portrait
June 22, 2012 11:50am Madeleine Morgenstern



Gay activists from Philadelphia posed for pictures while giving the middle finger to a portrait of former President Ronald Reagan during a recent trip to the White House, according to Philadelphia Magazine:



Strauss posted a second one on her blog with the comment:





Neither Hart nor Strauss responded to The Blaze’s requests for comment about the photos.

Strauss refused to speak to Philadelphia Magazine about the photos, reportedly texting that she was “keeping out of the press!” Hart, however, repeated his “f–k Reagan” epithet to the publication:



.

Remember a year or so ago, there was a woman who went to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and pretended to scream at, and flip off the sign that says "Silence and Respect?" Remember the uproar about that!??
That photo got her fired from her job, and pretty much ruined her life

Why aren't these photos plastered all over the news and internet?? Why didn't these people get fired??

I don't care WHO you are, or WHAT you believe in..........you DO NOT go to the White House and disrespect ''THE PEOPLE!!"


ETA: Just now seeing that this article is almost 3 yrs old. lol. Why didn't we see these pics before??

Originally Posted by 3lilpigs

ETA: Just now seeing that this article is almost 3 yrs old. lol. Why didn't we see these pics before??

MSM has a lot of power - controlling what is presented and what remains hidden.

Example : Dukes of Hazzards has been on the air for 35+ years ... suddenly they discover that the General Lee has a Confederate Flag painted on the roof and they are offended. TVLand drops the program; Waner Brothers is altering the merchandise that they have been reaping profits from for decades.

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

ISIS Celebrates Gay Love by Tossing 4 Gays from Roof of Highrise Building

Jim Hoft Jun 26th, 2015 6:15 pm —

Several Islamists tweeted out #LoveWins – the same hashtag that was used today after the Supreme Court ruling.

Of course this wasn’t the first time…
A massive crowd assembled to watch ISIS rebels throw another gay man off a building top earlier this month.
Hundreds of spectators came out to watch the brutal public execution.

Several Islamists tweeted out #LoveWins – the same hashtag that was used today after the Supreme Court ruling.

Of course this wasn’t the first time…
A massive crowd assembled to watch ISIS rebels throw another gay man off a building top earlier this month.
Hundreds of spectators came out to watch the brutal public execution.

The execution was most likely filmed in Nineveh Province where the Islamists have murdered several gay men.

ISIS is reportedly using “flirting squads” to single out gay men for trial and execution in the Caliphate.

The Islamic State has posted several public executions of gay men online.
ISIS released photos and video of Islamists throwing two men off a rooftop in January.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015...#ixzz3eIG3IZ1o

I am NOT posting the images.

Churches Are About To Face A Nightmare Gay Wedding Scenario That Could Doom Many
Churches would do well to strap on their seat belts and prepare for impact - the war over religious freedom is going to make this one bumpy ride.

Heather Laskin July 10, 2015 at 4:16pm

With the Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, churches are now facing a potential nightmare as same-sex couples search for venues in which to hold their wedding ceremonies.

While as of yet there are no meaningful judicial precedents that would allow the government to force churches to perform or recognize same-sex marriages, National Review warns lawsuits are just around the corner.

Former owners of Oregon bakery Sweetcakes By Melissa, Aaron and Melissa Klein, were recently ordered to pay a $135,000 fine after they declined to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Inevitably, lawsuits against churches will follow.

Churches protect themselves against liability risks and litigation like most other corporations – through liability insurance. However, many are facing the hellish reality that their insurance may not cover them if they are slapped with a lawsuit for refusing to perform or host a same-sex wedding.

On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company, which serves “more than 8,400 churches across many denominations and states,” issued a disheartening bulletin to agents in all states addressing the issue:

We have received numerous calls and emails regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages. The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage.

The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury. If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured.

National Review points out it is “unusual for an insurer to deny purely hypothetical claims” like this, stating that, “typically, coverage decisions are made only after evaluating the claims in the complaint and the terms of the insurance policy.”

The Review also notes that, if previous lawsuits over same-sex issues are any indication, litigants are likely to play the “personal injury” card if they are denied the use of a church for their wedding. In the Klein’s case, the lesbian couple they refused to make a cake for claimed they had suffered an array of injuries, including “impaired digestion,” “high blood pressure,” “excessive sleep,” “migraine headaches,” and “anxiety.”

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, highlighted the real-world impact of Southern Mutual’s decision, the reason many churches may capitulate before even attempting to fight: “More fear.”

Churches would do well to strap on their seat belts and prepare for impact – the war over religious freedom is going to make this one bumpy ride.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/chu...ent=2015-07-10

comments

All of us know that in the past if you go and ask to have your wedding vows taken in a church whether you are a member there are not, they have the "right" to deny you. Each individual church has their own statement. Also, the minister has his own way of doing weddings. He may want several counseling sessions with the couple, and in the end he may or may not decide that he will marry them. It has always been an option for those who do not have a "church home" to go to the clerk of courts. So if a minister tells me or you we cannot be married in that church, what is our response as heterosexuals. Okay, that is fine, I understand where you are coming from, and I will go elsewhere. But oh my if you are homosexual (not all homosexuals) right away we are going to cry discrimination, etc. Let's face this honestly now. If these people do not know you, how can they pronounce marriage on you and give their blessing. They do not know who you are. They have to answer to their own conscience as well. So please, give me a break on this. I well know about this side of the coin having been married to a minister for 30 years. It is up to the individual doing being asked by a couple -- heterosexual or other, whether or not they will do so. It is called freedom. It is called the right to say "no."

..

Make it mandatory that anyone getting married must attend a 40 hour course on "What a good Christian Marriage Requires".

Polygamist Denied Second Marriage License In Montana
By Kathryn Schroeder, Sun, July 19, 2015

The Collier family had their request for a second marriage license denied that would make their polygamous union legal by Montana’s Yellowstone County Attorney’s Office. Nathan Collier, 46, legally married Victoria Collier in 2000. In 2007, a religious ceremony joined him to his second wife, Christine. Their family has a total of seven children, some from their unions and others from previous relationships.

Nathan was seeking to have two separate marriage licenses so his union with Christine would be considered legal, reports KRTV. "I have a marriage with my wife Vicki, I seek a marriage with Christine," Nathan said. "That's the difference between group marriage and plural marriage."

The Colliers used the then 5-day-old Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide as a basis for why a polygamist marriage should be accepted, reports Washington Times. “It’s about marriage equality,” Nathan said. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

“We’re a plural family,” Nathan added. “I am a polygamist. I have two wives.”

In the refusal letter sent to the Colliers by Deputy Yellowstone County Attorney Kevin Gillen, it states: “ ... reliance on the recent United States Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage is misplaced, there is nothing in that ruling that described the arrangement you seek to establish.”

"Throughout the ruling, the majority opinion references marriage between two people,” Gillen added, referencing the Marriage Equality Act. "That ruling did not expand the number of persons involved in a marriage; the ruling only acknowledged fundamental rights of a person who wishes to marry another person.”

The Colliers were not surprised by the second marriage license refusal. "I don't think the County Attorney fully understands our arrangement now, or the arrangement that we are seeking," Nathan said. "He seemed to confuse plural marriage with group marriage, whereas again, we aren't looking for my wives to be married to each other."

"We kind of anticipated that the answer would be no," Christine said. "It was predictable based on how the laws are written. There's no distinction between polygamy and bigamy in the written law. To us, polygamy is consensual, where bigamy would be non-consensual."

"To have them render a decision where the information is incorrect disturbs me," said Vicki. "This effects [sic] people's lives. It was heartbreaking, and I tried to prepare Christine for that because there's always that small glimmer of hope."

Gillen specifically stated in the letter that bigamy and polygamy are illegal under Montana state law. "I am not in the business of speculating as to what types of consequences (and new laws) may flow from the recent Supreme Court case," Gillen wrote. "However, until such time that laws change, the law of the State of Montana is that bigamy and polygamy are illegal arrangements and, consequently, the Yellowstone County Clerk of District Court is unable to issue such a marriage license."

Christine believes the inability to legally marry Nathan places her and her children in a vulnerable position. "There's not just protections for me, but protections for my children as well," Christine said. "I have two children that are not biologically Nathan's, and this is the only family that they've known. If something were to happen to me, they could easily be taken away from the only family they've ever known, so it protects them as well."

The Collier family is considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the state law that limits marriage to two people. “We’re not even asking for acceptance,” Nathan said. "We’re just asking for tolerance. Let us live our lives together without fear.”

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...icense-montana

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Where’s the liberal outrage over this HORRIFIC gay hate crime?
(WARNING: Graphic)

Written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor on August 15, 2015

Given liberal outrage over everything from businesses who support traditional marriage to Christians who refuse to serve gay weddings based on religious beliefs, surely the outrage over what just happened to these two gay men will be deafening.

It’s breathtakingly horrific — and very graphic.

As the Daily Mail reports: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ter_mailonline

A gruesome video has emerged showing ISIS jihadists executing two men whose only crime’ was being gay.

The video shows two men being thrown to their deaths from a roof in Homs, before being stoned by a bloodthirsty and baying mob – which included children.

It goes on to show the killers apparently conducting the rituals of an Islamic burial – only to be dumped in an unmarked grave.

The murders are the latest in a string of rooftop ‘executions’.

It is the so-called Islamic State preferred method of murder for the men they suspect of being gay, an ‘offence’ which is punishable by death.

This latest shocking video – which runs to over six minutes – shows the proclamation being read out in front of a captivated audience, who have crammed into the street, lining the walls as they awaited the gruesome execution.

The warped justifications for the murders say they can be carried out on the grounds of religion – as are the rapes of ‘non-believers’, like the Yazidi girls.

The two men are then led, blindfolded, across the roof, before being thrown to their death after being made to teeter on the edge by their evil captors.

The men shown falling from the rooftop of the building, in Homs, Syria, after they are pushed.



The crowd was waiting below and rushed to stone them once they hit the ground...



The blood-covered stones are shown around the twisted bodies...




So, anyone want to bet on whether the same people who are persecuting Christian bakers in this country for not baking a cake will voice outrage over these gays being thrown off a roof and stoned to death?

Anyone want to guess how many of those carrying the banner of gay marriage and similar causes also blindly support Obama’s deal with Iran, which frees billions of dollars to further support savage Islamic extremist groups like this — the ultimate gay bashers? Both Jack Black and Morgan Freeman, for example, have both been vocal in their support of gay causes such as marriage equality — and yet voiced vehement support for the Iran “deal” in this video.

Where’s the disconnect here? Why are liberals (or anyone, for that matter) supporting a move — Obama’s Iran deal — that FUNDS savages like this? Is this just another example of liberal logic? I’d say it’s high time we take a liberal tactic and boycott the business of these Islamic terrorists.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/08/wheres...rning-graphic/

Oregon Judge Refuses To Perform Same-Sex Marriages
Mollie Reilly - 1 day ago

A circuit court judge in Oregon's Marion County is refusing to perform same-sex marriages, claiming doing so would violate his First Amendment rights.

Judge Vance D. Day, who has served in Oregon's Third Judicial District since 2011, has never married an LGBT couple, and has stopped performing marriages all together. Day says performing gay marriages would go against his religious beliefs, and has reportedly instructed his clerks to refer gay couples to other judges.

While no complaint against Day has been made public, Day spokesman Patrick Korten told KATU that the judge is currently under investigation by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability. According to KPTV, that investigation was prompted by a 13-point complaint against Day, and will be assessed in a hearing this fall. Day is in the process of setting up a legal defense fund to fight any potential charges.

The judge previously served as the chairman of the Oregon Republican Party.

Day's refusal comes as a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, made national headlines for declining to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. The clerk, Kim Davis, was jailed this week after defying a federal order to issue the licenses.

On Friday, Davis' deputies agreed to comply with the courts and issued a marriage license to James Yates and William Smith, who were previously denied during previous attempts to obtain one in Rowan County.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ore...d=ansmsnnews11

Cartoon Explains the Ironic Hypocrisy of Liberal “Tolerance” PERFECTLY
Michael Cantrell - June 8, 2015

One of the things that often drives me — and probably everyone else with a drop of common sense — is how liberals constantly drone on and on about “tolerance” and how anyone who disagrees with their opinion on social issues is “intolerant” and is a “bigot.”

Which in all honesty is hilarious given that by their constant attempts to silence those who have opinions that are different from their own, they become the very thing they claim to fight against.

This little webcomic by Adam Ford — who is pretty awesome by the way — pretty much exposes how ridiculous this sort of thing really is.













Well played, Mr. Ford. Well played.

While this will definitely get a chuckle out of you, it’s also quite sad, because it’s absolutely true.

Tolerance is a word the left loves to use, but unfortunately for them they, they don’t cart to live by it nearly as much they claim to.

Go figure.

http://www.youngcons.com/cartoon-exp...nce-perfectly/

Today 10:27 am
Many in Nation Tired of Explaining Things to Idiots

By Andy Borowitz

MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report)—Many Americans are tired of explaining things to idiots, particularly when the things in question are so painfully obvious, a new poll indicates.

According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, while millions have been vexed for some time by their failure to explain incredibly basic information to dolts, that frustration has now reached a breaking point.

Of the many obvious things that people are sick and tired of trying to get through the skulls of stupid people, the fact that climate change will cause catastrophic habitat destruction and devastating extinctions tops the list, with a majority saying that they will no longer bother trying to explain this to cretins.

Coming in a close second, statistical proof that gun control has reduced gun deaths in countries around the world is something that a significant number of those polled have given up attempting to break down for morons.

Finally, a majority said that trying to make idiots understand why a flag that symbolizes bigotry and hatred has no business flying over a state capitol only makes the person attempting to explain this want to put his or her fist through a wall.

In a result that suggests a dismal future for the practice of explaining things to idiots, an overwhelming number of those polled said that they were considering abandoning such attempts altogether, with a broad majority agreeing with the statement, “This country is exhausting.”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borow...ings-to-idiots

basicly, if you don't agree with their point of view, you are an idiot, moron, cretin, and more.

Experiments in tolerance ...

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Oregon Judge Refuses To Perform Same-Sex Marriages
Mollie Reilly - 1 day ago

A circuit court judge in Oregon's Marion County is refusing to perform same-sex marriages, claiming doing so would violate his First Amendment rights.

Judge Vance D. Day, who has served in Oregon's Third Judicial District since 2011, has never married an LGBT couple, and has stopped performing marriages all together. Day says performing gay marriages would go against his religious beliefs, and has reportedly instructed his clerks to refer gay couples to other judges.

While no complaint against Day has been made public, Day spokesman Patrick Korten told KATU that the judge is currently under investigation by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability. According to KPTV, that investigation was prompted by a 13-point complaint against Day, and will be assessed in a hearing this fall. Day is in the process of setting up a legal defense fund to fight any potential charges.

The judge previously served as the chairman of the Oregon Republican Party.

Day's refusal comes as a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, made national headlines for declining to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. The clerk, Kim Davis, was jailed this week after defying a federal order to issue the licenses.

On Friday, Davis' deputies agreed to comply with the courts and issued a marriage license to James Yates and William Smith, who were previously denied during previous attempts to obtain one in Rowan County.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ore...d=ansmsnnews11

GAY JUDGE REFUSES TO CONDUCT HETEROSEXUAL WEDDINGS...
But It's Against Law For Bakers To Refuse To Make Cakes For Gays Because Of Religious Beliefs?

Published: 03 October 2014

It's nice to know that judges are able to openly flaunt their ability to discriminate from the bench...

Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker touted her refusal to conduct marriage ceremonies in her courtroom on Tuesday night. “I have the power, of course, to perform marriage ceremonies,” Parker said. “I don’t.”

The mention of her decision to not perform marriage ceremonies came while the 116th Civil District Court judge addressed the audience at the monthly meeting of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas, of which Parker is a member. While Parker highlighted her progress in her first year as judge in what had been “the worst district court at the courthouse” with more old pending cases than the other 12 district courts, she also spoke about the importance of having an LGBT person on the bench.

Parker is the first LGBT person elected judge in Dallas County and is believed to be the first openly LGBT African-American elected official in the state’s history. As such, Parker said she takes into account the importance of her position to make members of the LGBT community feel comfortable and equal in her courtroom by “going out of my way to do things that other people might not do because they are not who I am.”

Using the example of turning young couples away who want the court to marry them quickly because they are often pregnant and desperate, Parker said she refers them to other judges because of the state’s marriage inequality, informing them that that is why she will not marry them. “I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.”

Parker also said she refused to allow a prosecutor to use the terms “child molester” and “homosexual” interchangeably in her courtroom, saying that just because the man on trial was accused of assaulting boys, the term “heterosexual” wouldn’t be used in place of “child molester” in cases where a man is accused of assaulting a girl.

And Parker said she includes the term partner when jurors are informed of the Texas Supreme Court directions that instruct jurors not to discuss cases with their husband or wife. “What I want to do is help those folks to have dignity in that moment that they are with me to know that I see you,” she said. “I see you and in that I have reflected to them that I have respect for them.”

When asked about declining to perform marriage ceremonies in a follow-up phone interview on Wednesday, Parker said the decision was simply about equality and having to turn certain people away. “I do not perform them because it is not an equal application of the law. Period,” she said.



http://www.100percentfedup.com/news/...igious-beliefs

Free Speech - unless we don't agree with you ...

And I thought this may be of the Tennessee Judge who now refused to grant Divorces between straight couples. silly me.