XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.survival   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:44:48 -0700, "Wayne"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >"Alex W."  wrote in message   
   >news:d90zr06lnzlq$.1k9atkgc942a1$.dlg@40tude.net...   
   >   
   >On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:21:40 -0700, Wayne wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Alex W."  wrote in message   
   >> news:1mhrz4oerenz8.1hmrfvu6y122n$.dlg@40tude.net...   
   >>   
   >> On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:18:44 -0700, Wayne wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> "David J. Hughes"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:w2PVv.315284$y33.307835@fx28.iad...   
   >>>   
   >>> On 9/27/2014 10:41 AM, Wayne wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>> # To restrict a person's rights by virtue of their anatomy is as   
   >>>> primitive   
   >>>> # and indefensible as restricting their rights by virtue of their   
   >>>> religion   
   >>>> # or skin colour.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Funny you mention religion.  You know damned well that same sex   
   >>>> "marriage" is a direct attack on religious beliefs.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> # How do you figure that?   
   >>> # As along as Bob and Bill, or Jane and Amy, aren't married in your   
   >>> # church, how does that affect or harm you, your church or your beliefs?   
   >>>   
   >>> It equates homosexuality with hetero marriage.  Some churches object to   
   >>> that.   
   >>   
   >> # As long as these couples do not insist on getting married in   
   >> # those churches, why should they be bothered?   
   >>   
   >> Do you really think that homosexual activists would stand for churches to   
   >> NOT perform homosexual marriages.   
   >>   
   >> The goal is to force all wedding planners, photographers, bakers,   
   >> churches,   
   >> etc. to accept homosexuality.  It is NOT about rights.   
   >   
   ># Bakers and wedding planners are commercial enterprises.   
   ># They are not allowed to discriminate, and rightly so.   
   >   
   >Bakers, wedding planners etc. provide services based on a religious   
   >ceremony.   
      
   Nonsense. A wedding is a cultural, social ceremony that only counts if   
   the government provided an authorization.   
      
   >And some of them take that seriously.  The government says that they must   
   >violate their beliefs or go out of business.   
   >   
   >Oh yeah...that's fair.   
      
   Why do you insist on misrepresenting weddings? Is your god that pathetic   
   that you need to lie on its behalf?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)