Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Leftists have a natural aversion to such a song. Greenwood was trumpeting 9/11 long before it happened is the excuse - love of America is the cause.
PLEASE CHANGE
- Thread starter Howey
- Start date
None of which is encompassed in their right to marry those they wish...
My wife and I couldn't, for instance, have been married in a Catholic church as neither of us are members of the church. A gay couple could not either, which inflicts no bodily harm.
?? It's been around since before the First Iraqi Conflict. It was never written to dance on the graves of any 3,000 people.
Definitely, they played it for us in Boot Camp on crybaby day...
tom it's not going to happen.
and your article says nothing about churches forced to gay marry. which is what we are talking about. you truly are a retard tom.
Oh sorry. That's the one written on the bodies of dead soldiers.
Which was the one written on the bodies of the victims of 9/11?
I'm glad these two guys are able to live their life's comfortably thanks to a couple of one hit wonders.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
That's just a bit ignorant. The 80s was a time of peace, he wrote the song during peacetime, it has nothing to do with dead soldiers.
But hey, every song about somebody who died from AIDS must be written to "dance on the graves" of people who died of AIDS...
Songs about dead wives are all about dancing on the graves...
Songs about dead children, all about dancing around on graves...
You're just a piece of work there, Howey.
derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp
FACILITIES USED RETARD.
Doesn't say anything about churches being forced to marry gay people.
I.E. public buildings, used by the public, can't exclude gay people. Just like a church can't exclude black people.
it says nothing that a church itself would have to marry a gay couple. FUCKING bogtrotter, al qaeida supporter, terrorist hat
Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance.
[h=1]Proposed Ordinance Would Force Kansas Churches to Host Gay Weddings[/h]
Apr. 23, 2012 3:31pm Billy Hallowel
l
According to advocates, religious freedom may be under attack in Hutchinson, Kansas. There’s a controversial ordinance being considered in the local community that would force churches to host gay weddings and parties.
According to Fox News’ Todd Starnes, the Hutchinson City Council is going to consider whether sexual orientation and gender identity should be added to the city’s human relations code. If this action is approved during next month’s expected vote, churches may find themselves in a tough position.
Hutchinson Human Relations Commission has explained that, under the new regulations, churches that make their buildings available for the general public would not be able to refuse gay couples. This essentially means that churches would be forced to, via rental agreements, support gay nuptials.
“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals. That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination,” Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the commission, said in an interview with Fox News. “If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”
But Matthew Staver, chairman of the conservative Liberty Counsel Action, said that the proposal isn’t in line with American values.
“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda. This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment,” he proclaimed. “What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ce-would-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings/
This is somewhat different as they are not acting in an ecclesiastical function. That is, if they rent out a building to just anyone in the same way a restaurant might that is different than only hosting functions for church members.
the redcoat bogtrotter can't understand basic stuff.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Bogman....that's still fucking hilarious. I called my wife a bogman yesterday.
i do not think i said that
there is a song called where have all the flowers gone do you think that it was written on the bodies of dead soldiers?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Actually they can, and have. Polygamy is a good example.
i cannot say that i am fond of it, but if you do not like it, do not listen to it
just as an aside, i have been following the amanda knox case and have added italy to the list of nations that i will not visit...along with most of the our south
i would rather live under our constitution even though there are prosecutors and law enforcement agencies here that may be just as bad, but once you can get your case out of their jurisdiction (very expensive) at least there is the possibility of legal redress
am i proud of our nation, mostly, but not always
am i a dim, no, but i prefer them (mostly) to the repugs
do i like obama, not always, but he stands head and shoulders over the repug offering of rummy
oh well
i support plural marriages among consenting adults - why should marriages be restricted to just two people
while our nation mostly has religious freedom, it does not have 100% religious freedom
only recognized religious organizations have protection
religious organizations are restricted or circumscribed in several ways, especially with regards to minors
as long as a religious organization stays out of the public sector, i.e., politics (something that some churches do not and should be penalized for) or discriminates about the use of facilities available to the general public (they may discriminate as much as they want within property used for religious purposes only)
we have several faults in our nation, but it is still freer than most if not all nations although the wealthy and some religious organizations are doing their best to circumscribe those freedoms
you pays your money and takes your chances