The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[afleitch]

Normally if you have a ceremony officiated by a clergy a civil ceremony is not required.  What I am saying is that the state could make it so that clergy who oppose same sex marriage might have their civil authority removed by the state.  Under this they might still have the marriage ceremony, but they'd have to go to a judge and have it performed there as well.   Wouldn't be the end of the world from my perspective considering what we've seen already, but that's where I see this headed.

Except no one is going to do that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I don't see the problem here. You can't abuse religious freedom as a trump card so you can violate others' secular rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really pathetic that you have to outright lie about this now.

I and many others on this forum have explained to you several times that 1.) the Indiana law was not a "generic" RFRA, otherwise this would've been an issue in the late-1990s/early-2000s. The Indiana law specifically granted corporate personhood and extended the "religious freedom" defense to civil suits, in addition to the people who helped write the bill openly bragging that it will allow discrimination, and 2.) the reason it has no precedent is because this is the first time an RFRA law was passed with such provisions.

Why do you keep ignoring these arguments? This is the third time I've had to explain this to you. Do you not want to acknowledge them? Are you unable to mentally comprehend what I am saying?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because discrimination is a pretty serious issue, and supporting it is not a legitimate "concern".

[afleitch]

Anti "safe space/SJW" people have always and forever been the people that wanted and needed safe spaces the most for their nasty opinions.