Will House Moderates Sell Out FADA?

July 21, 2015

by Maggie Gallagher


Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) speaks during a House GOP Leadership press conference (photo credit: House GOP via Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) speaks during a House GOP Leadership press conference (photo credit: House GOP via Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)

The ink on the First Amendment Defense Act is barely dry, and already some Republicans in the House are trying to subvert it, according to The New York Times:

At the same time, wary Republican moderates have quietly drafted a novel alternative that would actually expand legal protections for gay men and lesbians. Their legislation would narrow the scope of protection offered to groups declining services to same-sex couples seeking to marry.

The details are unclear, including how little would be left of FADA’s robust conscience protections, but Dent proposes basically passing ENDA and adding sexual orientation to the Fair Housing Act.

“This [FADA] opens up a can of worms, and Congress needs to show it can do two things at once: protect religious freedoms and provide legal protections for nondiscrimination,” said Charlie Dent (R-PA) who appears to have wiggled out of the closet as the leader of the fraidy faction.

At a closed door meeting, Dent shared with colleagues the lessons he learned from the Indiana debacle: Republicans cannot risk some bad publicity because of protests by big business leaders.  “I would really hate to see the Indiana nightmare turn into a national debacle,” he said.  Yes, if the entire Congress can be stampeded by a threats from a handful of corporate leaders.

Let’s be clear here: The courts have granted gay marriage.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission just unlawfully rewrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add “sexual orientation” to the protected categories—without any new conscience exemptions.  And Republican moderates think that in order to earn the moral right to the status quo—our 501(c)3 statuses, our schools, our charities, and our government employment—we must give something even greater to the LGBT community.

Let’s be clear hear too: President Obama did not pass new gay rights legislation when Democrats controlled the House and the Senate.  He passed Obamacare instead.  Why should the Republicans do what the Democrats dare not.

Meanwhile in the real world, a new AP poll confirms that Americans are up in arms over the threats to religious liberty that Chief Justice John Roberts warned about and that they see playing out in Oregon as the government bankrupts Melissa and Aaron Klein for the crime of not baking a gay wedding cake.  By 56 percent to 39 percent, Americans say if gay rights and religious rights conflict, religious rights should win.

Congress this is your choice: profile in courage or carry the Left’s water for them.  What did you go into public life to do?

“We cannot negotiate with those who say what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable,” as John F. Kennedy rightfully declared.  Unless you’re Charles Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania.

Dizgrazia.

Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow at American Principles in Action.


Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow at the American Principles Project.

Archive: Maggie Gallagher

63 comments on “Will House Moderates Sell Out FADA?”

  • Berniece says:

    I’ve been surfing online more than one hours
    today for http://cheapcalgarypaintings.blogspot.com & Will House Moderates Sell Out
    FADA? , yet I never found any interesting article like yours.
    It is pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all web owners and bloggers made
    good content as you did, the net will be much more useful than ever before.

  • Rickey says:

    I’ve been reviewing online more than 8 hours today for http://taeyangp88.mireene.com/xe/?document_srl=515830 & Will House Moderates Sell Out
    FADA? , yet I never found any interesting article like
    yours. It is pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the web will be a lot
    more useful than ever before.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105

    If I must have a nemesis, best it be one who makes a fool of himself by promiscuously deflecting.  Norman Old Boy, you are the gift that keeps on giving!

    1– “My point remains.  You do not get to say who is and isn’t a Christian.  You have no monopoly on Christianity–thank God!
    How is God’s nature and prescription communicated to you?
    “DEFLECTION–You don’t get to decide who is and isn’t a Christian, right?  Please answer the question. 

    2–“Did!” Isn’t God always right.  Why do you say God was wrong and needed to be corrected?   So you admit you worship a god who demands we murder disobedient children.  You worship depravity.

    WE…ARE NOT….LIVING….IN A THEOCRACY! 
    DEFLECTION–Does not address my point that you worship a god who is wrong and needs to be corrected.  
    3–“I am an ardent supporter of the Separation of Church and State!”
    Filthy Lie.  If so, you wouldn’t invoke your hideous interpretation of scripture to ban legal same-sex marriage.   That’s a marriage of your State Church and Big Government.  
    Here’s a direct question for you, jk. What do you know about the Separation doctrine…anything?
    DEFLECTION–Once again you don’t address the point.  If you believe in the separation of church and state, you wouldn’t try to impose your right wing religious views on the rest of the population through the brute force of government.
    4–Same Sex Marriage is legal, it is the law, thank you Jesus!   Thanks for making that point.
    SSM is not Constitutional! 
    DELUSIONAL–Get out of your bunker and read a newspaper.  The Supreme Court thinks otherwise.   Gnash your teeth all you want, Justices decided to apply the constitution to this question–not Norman Old’ Boys rancid religious views.   
    “What about the freedom of religion for the Sharia Muslims.”
    Sharia Muslim and Fundamentalist so-called Christians both can believe their hateful views, but they don’t have the right to break the law.   Same Sex Marriage is legal, it is the law, thank you Jesus, the Jesus who blessed my same-sex marriage!   Thanks for making that point.

    I wish you cons would actually learn about the laws you claim are being broken. I don’t like watching you publicly humiliate yourselves like this.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast

    >I take your pathological dodges to mean admission on  your part that you can’t answer my questions.  You want a State Religion that brutally enforces a right wing ideology on the rest of us. 
    Again, ad hominem, strawman and projection are not valid rebuttals, my friend.

    >”God’s ‘membership list’ is outlined in his word, which you reject!”
    Deflection.  I reject your so-called god’s sanction of slavery, a god who demands we murder disobedient children.  That’s not my God, the God who made me Gay.   My point remains.  You do not get to say who is and isn’t a Christian.  You have no monopoly on Christianity–thank God!
    How is God’s nature and prescription communicated to you?
    >”Did!” Isn’t God always right.  Why do you say God was wrong and needed to be corrected?   So you admit you worship a god who demands we murder disobedient children.  You worship depravity.

    WE…ARE NOT….LIVING….IN A THEOCRACY! You don’t have a clue as to what you speak!
    Jesus taught the separation of Church and State!
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A13-17&version=NIV
    *sheesh*

    >”I am an ardent supporter of the Separation of Church and State!”

    Filthy Lie.  If so, you wouldn’t invoke your hideous interpretation of scripture to ban legal same-sex marriage.   That’s a marriage of your State Church and Big Government.
    Here’s a direct question for you, jk. What do you know about the Separation doctrine…anything?

    >”What about the freedom of religion for the Sharia Muslims.”

    Sharia Muslim and Fundamentalist so-called Christians both can believe their hateful views, but they don’t have the right to break the law. 
    Then they are not free to practice their religion right?!
    >Same Sex Marriage is legal, it is the law, thank you Jesus!   Thanks for making that point.

    SSM is not Constitutional! That’s my point! Which ‘Jesus’ are you thanking? The figment of your fantasy?
    >. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours. 

    What..about…the Sharia Muslims! You can’t keep your story straight in your own posts!

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105

    I take your pathological dodges to mean admission on  your part that you can’t answer my questions.  You want a State Religion that brutally enforces a right wing ideology on the rest of us. 

    “God’s ‘membership list’ is outlined in his word, which you reject!”
    Deflection.  I reject your so-called god’s sanction of slavery, a god who demands we murder disobedient children.  That’s not my God, the God who made me Gay.   My point remains.  You do not get to say who is and isn’t a Christian.  You have no monopoly on Christianity–thank God!

    “Yes, my God *did*, who is the God of Christianity, whom you reject, but you also claim to be a member of the club, right?”

    “Did!” Isn’t God always right.  Why do you say God was wrong and needed to be corrected?   So you admit you worship a god who demands we murder disobedient children.  You worship depravity.

    “I am an ardent supporter of the Separation of Church and State!”

    Filthy Lie.  If so, you wouldn’t invoke your hideous interpretation of scripture to ban legal same-sex marriage.   That’s a marriage of your State Church and Big Government. 

    “What about the freedom of religion for the Sharia Muslims.”

    Sharia Muslim and Fundamentalist so-called Christians both can believe their hateful views, but they don’t have the right to break the law.   Same Sex Marriage is the legal, it is the law, thank you Jesus!   Thanks for making that point.

    You and Maggie would use your own hideous interpretation of the Bible and employ the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.  The First Amendment does not just apply to Norman Old Boy.

    Cheap ad hominem deflections are not a rebuttal my friend.

    So stop writing cheap ad hominem deflections.   You are making a fool of yourself.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    >Who died and put you in charge of Christianity’s membership list?  You are not God. Why can’t you answer?  You do not have a monopoly on God or Christianity.

    God’s ‘membership list’ is outlined in his word, which you reject! 
    >Dodge.  You god clearly sanctions murdering children.    Your god clearly sanctions owning humans as property and then brutally beating them.   That says a lot about you.

    Yes, my God *did*, who is the God of Christianity, whom you reject, but claim also claim to be a member of the club, right?
    >Exactly my point.  You and Maggie would use your own hideous interpretation of the Bible and employ the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church.

    I…DO…NOT! I am an ardent supporter of the Separation of Church and State! You don’t even know the background surrounding the doctrine, do you?
    > If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.  
    Again, AGAIN, what about the freedom of religion for the Sharia Muslims?!
    The doctrine is in a context which I’m convinced you are both ignorant of and are happy to ignore.
    >For three days you have promiscuously dodged my first point.  You want religious freedom for your own brand of religion and you will use government to prevent other religions from exercising their own beliefs.  Hypocrite. 

    Cheap ad hominem deflections are not a rebuttal my friend.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105

    More deflections from Milquetoast Old Boy!  You are inherently dishonest.

    Who died and put you in charge of Christianity’s membership list?  You are not God. Why can’t you answer?  You do not have a monopoly on God or Christianity.

    “So your god sanctions murdering disobedient children.
    No, he did in the OT dispensation. Do you know why?”
    Dodge.  You god clearly sanctions murdering children.    Your god clearly sanctions owning humans as property and then brutally beating them.   That says a lot about you.
    “BECAUSE WE DON’T LIVE IN A THEOCRACY!”
    Exactly my point.  You and Maggie would use your own hideous interpretation of the Bible and employ the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.  
    For three days you have promiscuously dodged my first point.  You want religious freedom for your own brand of religion and you will use government to prevent other religions from exercising their own beliefs.  Hypocrite.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    >Yes, it is clear you worship a sinister force that sanctions slavery and murdering disobedient children.   I proudly reject your Satan and instead worship Jesus.

    Did Jesus claim to be God?! What did he say about the OT Scriptures?!
    http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

    >”You’re not a Christian, my friend.”
    Who died and put you in charge of Christianity’s membership list?  You are not God.  That’s blasphemy.
    *chuckle*
    Pray tell, how do you determine what ‘blasphemy’ means?!
    >So your god sanctions murdering disobedient children.

    No, he did in the OT dispensation. Do you know why?
    >You dodged my questions

    I most certainly did not. Which ones?
     >Why aren’t you upset that such actions are not permitted in this country?   

    BECAUSE WE DON’T LIVE IN A THEOCRACY! 
    Please, my friend, tell me what the purpose was for the OT Law.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105

    “I’m not sure as to where you got that ‘all loving’ stuff. Does Christianity purport Hell?”

    Yes, it is clear you worship a sinister force that sanctions slavery and murdering disobedient children.   I proudly reject your Satan and instead worship Jesus.

    “You’re not a Christian, my friend.”
    Who died and put you in charge of Christianity’s membership list?  You are not God.  That’s blasphemy.

     “Indeed he was! Do you not realize that you are asserting an objective standard in judging God?!

    So your god sanctions murdering disobedient children.
    You dodged my questions.  You are good at that.Therefore you believe owning and physically beating slaves is a religious liberty. You believe murdering disobedient children is a religious liberty.   Why aren’t you upset that such actions are not permitted in this country?   
    You worship depravity.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    >A god that sanctions humans as property an owner can mercilessly beat is not the all-loving Christian God I worship.

    I’m not sure as to where you got that ‘all loving’ stuff. Does Christianity purport Hell?
     >Moreover, I am not the only Christian who is morally repelled by such a practice.
    You’re not a Christian, my friend. You repudiate the charter of the religion. Remember?
    >I am well aware of OT law’s purpose 

    What was it?
     >Was your god right or wrong when he demanded we kill disobedient children

    Indeed he was! Do you not realize that you are asserting an objective standard in judging God?!

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105

    “Okay, on what material basis do you judge?”

    A god that sanctions humans as property an owner can mercilessly beat is not the all-loving Christian God I worship.  Moreover, I am not the only Christian who is morally repelled by such a practice.   I am sorry you worship a god who sanctions slavery.

    I am well aware of OT law’s purpose and know where you are leading with this… I realize you will say that NT changes it.   But that begs the question:  Was your god right or wrong when he demanded we kill disobedient children.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    >And mercilessly beat them!  In the name of Christianity, I reject your evil god.

    Okay, on what material basis do you judge?
    >You are okay with the legal ownership of human property?  If so, your idea of religious liberty would include the right to own slaves in this country.  

    Nope. You just skipped categories, my friend.
    http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-16.htm
    >The Bible also sanctions murdering disobedient children.  I reject that passage too.
    Obviously, I do too….for today.
    Do you even know what the purpose of the OT law was/is?

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105

    So your god doesn’t believe slavery is necessarily an ‘evil” thing!  Therefore your god sanctions human property an owner can physically beat.   

    Just to be clear:  You are okay with the legal ownership of human property?  If so, your idea of religious liberty would include the right to own slaves in this country.  Why do you selectively condemn legal same sex marriage (under the guise of religious liberty), but not the fact that slavery has been abolished? That too, according to your logic, would be a religious liberty issue.

    The Bible also sanctions murdering disobedient children.  I reject that passage too.  If you believe in the literal word of the Bible, are you appalled we don’t allow parent to murder children who curse?

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    You know what? You are right! You mentioned slavery before I mentioned 1 Cor.! I apologize.

    >4–If a literal interpretation of the Bible is ONLY what makes one a Christian, then by your own definition, to be a Christian means sanctioning slavery, which is clearly and frequently sanctioned in the Bible. 
    Slavery is not necessarily an ‘evil’ thing if it can be practiced in a way that upholds the two greatest commandments.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40
    Notice what the response was of the Egyptians when Joseph enslaved them, effectively charging them a 20% tax for life:
    25 “You have saved our lives,” they said. “May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh.”
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+47

    Now, there are two types of slaves in the OT, those who are captives of war and indentured servants within Israel. Obviously there was no social safety net in that period and if a person were desperate to survive, they could indenture themselves for a period of time. This category would place them in a social status of ‘property’, thereby serving to be a disincentive to those who would want to ‘milk the system’.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105

    I quoted a passage clearly sanctioning slavery.  Why do you keep dodging my questions.
    Filthy liar.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105
    I reject that barbaric passage in the same way I reject the passages that sanction slavery.  
    Why do you keep dodging my questions?  Why do you keep lying?  

    You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

    You have an insatiable appetite for government tyranny.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    ?!
    >Filthy Liar.  I quoted it.  

    You quoted what?!

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    >Filthy Liar.  I quoted it.  

    Huh?! You explained how you reconcile 1Cor. 6:9-11 with your lifestyle?! 
    I missed that post. Would you please copy/paste?

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast
    Filthy Liar.  I quoted it.

    Why do you keep dodging my questions?

    You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

    You have an insatiable appetite for government tyranny.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    You exegeted Icor. 6:9-11?

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist
    I clearly answered your question.

    You promised to answer mine if I did so, but instead ask other readers to answer for you.

    You are a brazen liar.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist
    You really can’t answer, can you.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist 
    I take your brazen deflection as testimony on your part that you are being inherently dishonest.
    You are a brazen liar. You do not believe in the literal word of the Bible. You are a brazen liar. You do not believe in religious liberty.
    Why are you so dishonest?
    You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist
    No, my friend, you are trying to deflect. Anyone can see who reads this thread. Please comment on ICor. 6:9-11 and then we can discuss slavery.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist
    I will point out that you have been promiscuously deflecting for two days.  
    I asked you first.
    Do you, or do you not believe in the literal word of the Bible?
    If so, you sanction slavery–clearly sanctioned in the Bible. 

    You continue to deflect from my main point.

    You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

    Why do you hate true religious liberty?

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist
    Nice deflection by calling a deflection! I asked how your ‘Christianity’ was informed by 1Cor. 6:9-11. You didn’t answer and asked me to justify a different verse. Am I to take that as you are just not able to answer? 
    I’m happy to deal with your objection after you answer mine.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist

    I take your deflection to mean you are an inherently dishonest person.  Do you, or do you not believe in the literal word of the Bible?
    If so, you sanction slavery–clearly sanctioned in the Bible. 

    You continue to deflect from my main point.

    You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

    Why do you hate true religious liberty?

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist
    I didn’t ask for a tu quoque fallacy, my friend. So you are a ‘Christian’ who repudiates the Bible, then?

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist

    I guess you got those quotes from the same Bible that states:
    Exodus 21: 20 and 21 says,
    “20”If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.
    21″If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; (M) for he is his property.
    So you are the kind of Christian who sanctions slavery, where one buy and sells humans who are property. Moreover, your god sanctions owners brutally beating their human property with impunity.No, I am not that kind of Christian–thank you Jesus!!!
    I notice you deflected again.  You are good at that!
    You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

    Why do you hate true religious liberty?

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist
    May I ask what you mean by ‘Christian’?
    >9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-11#fen-NIV-28477a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-11

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist My Christian Same Sex Marriage is both religious and legal. The “because Milquetoast Old Boy says it is illegal” argument is delusional.  I was married in a Christian Church by my pastor, in front of my community and family.   It is a marriage in the eyes of God and the Country.  Your opinion doesn’t matter.

    I am married in a Christian Church.  My marriage does not deny Christians their first amendment rights.  Importantly, your bigoted hope to deny me a legal same sex marriage would deny my Christian Church is first amendment rights.

    You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist
    >You have spent the day demanding religious liberty for Right Wing Religionists, but have no problem using the brute force of government to deny liberty to churches you disagree with

    Which is what you JUST ADVOCATED.
    > Muslims can believe in Sharia Law, but they are not free to practice those aspects of it that break American law

    Now, if SSM ‘breaks American law’ by denying Christians their first amendment rights, should it be considered Constitutional? If Muslims can’t do it, why can you?

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist

    No, you have spent the day dodging.   Turn your own light on.  That would be helpful.   This was actually your question: “Is it a ‘state religion’ to prohibit Muslim mosques from desecrating distinction between Church and State?”

    But in answer to your second question: Muslims can believe in Sharia Law, but they are not free to practice those aspects of it that break American law, the same law Right Wing Religionists want to break in the name of religious liberty. 

    You have spent the day demanding religious liberty for Right Wing Religionists, but have no problem using the brute force of government to deny liberty to churches you disagree with.

    Hypocrisy.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist
    No, my friend. You just forget to turn the light on upstairs before you speak. ;)
    Remember my first set of questions? Is the Mulsim free to practice Sharia Law in America?

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    @Michael 
    Compelling argumentation, my friend.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist
    Since this is a post about religious liberty, I say your comments belong on a different post board.

    You have spent the day demanding religious liberty for Right Wing Religionists, but have no problem using the brute force of government to deny liberty to churches you disagree with.

    Hypocrisy.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105
    Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, OR THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

    You keep dodging!  
    The free exercise thereof… Meaning a hotel can deny an interracial couple a room if mixed dating violates their religion.  Is that what you are saying?   Woolworths can deny serving African Americans at its cafeteria.   That says a lot about you.  Those public accommodation issues have been settled for 50 years.   

    You continue to dodge.
    Sexual orientation is not freely chosen.  You cannot tell us the day you decided to be heterosexual.   Stop lying.  Even if I don’t have sex, my sexual orientation, just like my skin color, remains the same.  Your dishonesty is not being helpful. 

    So I’m ‘sinning’, right?

    Probably.   But I do know that only  God gets to decide who is a Christian–not you.   You  are not God.  Get over yourself.  

    I noticed you decided to define indentured servitude yourself.  More artful dodging.  The Bible clearly states the slave is property.   Are you lying or illiterate?

     Another deflection:
    So you butcher the Bible, toss aside the bits you don’t like (killing disobedient children), but then use the bits you like (anti-gay) as a weapon to harm people you hate.   That’s clear.

    For some reason, you can’t understand what I’m saying.

    Yes I understand what you are saying.  You hate gay people and want them to have less rights than you.  You find justification for your bigotry in a Right Wing Church and invoke religious liberty as a reason deny same sex couples the right to marriage.  Moreover, in the name of religious liberty, you would deny gay affirming churches the same right to perform legal, same sex marriages.

    Your hypocrisy is not helpful.    It is a desecration of human decency.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist
    No! What compelling interest does the govt have in meddling with people’s personal sex lives?!

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast

    >You dodge!
    “Ha! I JUST stated the First Amendment!” 
    Nice try.  Give me the quote.  You can’t.

    Why do you dodge
    ?!
    You don’t know it?
    Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, OR THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.
    >So you agree that sexual orientation is innate.  Why did you dodge on that question?  So like skin color, sexual orientation is no choice, but an innate characteristic.   Why did it take so long for you to admit this?   Not helpful.

    Lol. I didn’t say there was no choice, in fact, I said the EXACT OPPOSITE! Are you forced to skydive, or beat your wife?
    Please source your proof that homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable. (Second time asking)

    >So you’re judging me?

    Yes, you are acting like God, who gets to decide who is or isn’t a Christian.  You don’t make that decision.  I judge  you.  
    So I’m ‘sinning’, right?

    >Indentured servitude is ownership.  Nice dodge on your part.
    Exodus 21: 20 and 21 says,
    “20”If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.
    21″If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; (M) for he is his property.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=indenture&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&oq=indenture+&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2198j1j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8
    a formal legal agreement, contract, or document, in particular.synonyms:https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+contract&sa=X&ved=0CCAQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7, https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+agreement&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7, https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+compact&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7, https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+deal&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7, https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+covenant&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7, https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+bond&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7“the validity of the indenture was in question”
    1.bind (someone) by an indenture as an apprentice or laborer.”landowners tried to get their estates cultivated by indentured laborers”synonyms:https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+bind&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7, https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+contract&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7, https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+employ&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7, https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+apprentice&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS607US607&q=define+article&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ_SowAGoVChMI6qSg-6ztxgIVxiuICh2ZBgO7“Taylor was indentured by the age of twelve”>You worship depravity.

    Lol. So I’m ‘sinful’, right?
    >The govt should not enforce the first table of the Decalogue.

    So you butcher the Bible, toss aside the bits you don’t like (killing disobedient children), but then use the bits you like (anti-gay) as a weapon to harm people you hate.   That’s clear.
    No, actually, I have an interlocutor who hasn’t a clue as to what he speaks.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A13-17&version=NIV

    >You keep dodging my point. You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.
    For some reason, you can’t understand what I’m saying.
    SSM is not Constitutional. I am opposed to it and everything related to it! What is so hard about that?
    Please, demonstrate me wrong.
    >Despotic Rule!  That’s cute coming from someone who advocates a State Religion–his religion.    

    No, you are ignorant about the context of the American enterprise and the context of our Charter, that’s all. Did you forget that I said I stand for the Separation doctrine?

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist

    The SSM ruling, but not the Loving Ruling, which essentially is the same reasoning.

    Repent your perversity.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105
    You dodge!
    “Ha! I JUST stated the First Amendment!” Nice try.  Give me the quote.  You can’t.

    Why do you dodge”

    So you agree that sexual orientation is innate.  Why did you dodge on that question?  So like skin color, sexual orientation is no choice, but an innate characteristic.   Why did it take so long for you to admit this?   

    So you’re judging me?

    Yes, you are acting like God, who gets to decide who is or isn’t a Christian.  You don’t make that decision.  I judge  you.  

    Indentured servitude is ownership.  Nice dodge on your part.
    Exodus 21: 20 and 21 says,
    “20”If a man
    strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall
    be punished.
    21″If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance
    shall be taken; (M) for he is his property.

    You worship depravity.

    The govt should not enforce the first table of the Decalogue.

    So you butcher the Bible, toss aside the bits you don’t like (killing disobedient children), but then use the bits you like (anti-gay) as a weapon to harm people you hate.   That’s clear.

    You keep dodging my point. You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

    Despotic Rule!  That’s cute coming from someone who advocates a State Religion–his religion.    

    Go to Iran, where you would fit right in!

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist
    Ahhhh!
    My goal is to see the SSM ruling overturned! I would do everything in my power to persuade you to repent of your perversity! I am convinced that eternal damnation awaits you.
    Why would I support anything that would hurt you?!

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist
    Yes, it is comical watching you deflect.

    You keep dodging my point. You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

    Why do you keep dodging this point?  Perhaps because what you really are after is a Right Wing State Church–not religious liberty.

  • Michael says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 Counterculturalist Go jk105!  All this anti-gay argle-bargle and pokery-jiggery is a sinful attempt to redefine discrimination as a “religious belief.”  We see right through it and it will flop as it did in Indiana.

  • Michael says:

    We should not be giving anti-gay “Christians” a special right to discriminate.  They currently have the same First Amendment rights as all the rest of us.  We already are seeing vandalism and attacks on pro-equality churches (Metropolitan Community Church of our Redeemer in Augusta, GA) and demands for boycotts against any business that exercises its pro-equality freedom of speech or religious beliefs (Coalition of African-American Pastors).  We already have anti-gay “Christian” “Pastors” calling for the execution of gay Americans (Steve Anderson of Tempe).  If we legalize the special right to discriminate for anti-gay “Christians,” what will be next?  How much worse will things get?  This isn’t Uganda, this is America!

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast

    >You are the artful dodger!
    “People do not give up their right to practice their religion because they desire to own a business! Can you not see that?!”

    >You continually fail to quote  the specific place in the Constitution where it says that!
    Why?
    >Ha! I JUST stated the First Amendment! You must not be understanding my point. Do you lose your freedom of religious expression when you decide to own a business?

    >So you say sexual orientation is a choice?  Do tell me the day that you decided to be heterosexual.  Give details.   I certainly didn’t decide my sexual orientation.   
    You dodge again!   Why?
    I’ve not dodged once.
    I’m not saying that people don’t inherit characteristics that lend a desire to same sex attraction, just like people inherit characteristics to skydive, play chess, beat their wife or crochet. However, our desire to perform a given act in no way justifies the morality of given act. Agree?

    >”Can you demonstrate from the Christian Charter or from Church history that homosexuality is acceptable Christian behavior?”

    My Christian Church performs same-sex marriage!  Again, you are not God, the one who decides who is and isn’t Christian. That’s blasphemy.
    Lol. So you’re judging me?
    >Indentured servitude is the buying and selling of humans as property.  You see nothing wrong with it?   That says a lot. 

    No, it’s not.
    >Do you also believe people should be killed for working on the Sabbath?  That demanded of us in the Bible.

    As I stated, I’m a staunch supporter of the Sep of Church and State. The govt should not enforce the first table of the Decalogue.
    >You keep dodging my point. You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

    *sigh*
    The govt does not have the right to violate the Constitution.
    >Why do you keep dodging this point?  Perhaps because what you really are after is a Right Wing State Church–not religious liberty. 

    Actually, you are ignorant of American Constitutionalism and are (unwittingly) advocating despotic rule over constitutional republic.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist
    This is actually getting comical.
    I think this is the third or fourth time I’ve stated that SSM is not Constitutional. Can you demonstrate me to be wrong?

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast Counterculturalist jk105
    So then you must be repelled by her desire to have the force of the state ban freely performed same-sex marriages.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105
    You are the artful dodger!
    “People do not give up their right to practice their religion because they desire to own a business! Can you not see that?!”

    You continually fail to quote  the specific place in the Constitution where it says that!
    Why?

    So you say sexual orientation is a choice?  Do tell me the day that you decided to be heterosexual.  Give details.   I certainly didn’t decide my sexual orientation.   
    You dodge again!   Why?

    “Can you demonstrate from the Christian Charter or from Church history that homosexuality is acceptable Christian behavior?”

    My Christian Church performs same-sex marriage!  Again, you are not God, the one who decides who is and isn’t Christian. That’s blasphemy.

    Indentured servitude is the buying and selling of humans as property.  You see nothing wrong with it?   That says a lot.  Do you also believe people should be killed for working on the Sabbath?  That demanded of us in the Bible.

    You keep dodging my point. You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

    Why do you keep dodging this point?  Perhaps because what you really are after is a Right Wing State Church–not religious liberty.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    Counterculturalist jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    I don’t know about Maggie, but I am a passionate defender of the Separation of Church and State.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast

    >1–So you can’t tell me where specifically it mentions that a public business, open to customers, is a church, which is where one practices their religion.

    >You dodge the question.
    THE FIRST AMENDMENT! People do not give up their right to practice their religion because they desire to own a business! Can you not see that?!

    >2–My sexual orientation is not a behavior, it is an innate characteristic just like skin color. 

    >You dodge the question.

    Dodge what question? Would you please source that?
    >3-So you set yourself up as God, the one who decides who is a Christian.   Many Christian churches perform same sex marriage.   Your version of Christianity is just one version–not a state religion, which is what you seek.
    There are some ‘Christians’ who would consider themselves atheists. Can you demonstrate from the Christian Charter or from Church history that homosexuality is acceptable Christian behavior?
    >4–If a literal interpretation of the Bible is ONLY what makes one a Christian, then by your own definition, to be a Christian means sanctioning slavery, which is clearly and frequently sanctioned in the Bible. 

    If you are referring to indentured servitude, yes. There is nothing inherently wrong with such. In a sense, you are such with your employer. The debate over racial-based slavery that plagued antebellum America was a bloody engagement within Christianity. There has never been any type of disagreement regarding homosexuality….NEVER.
    >5-You keep dodging my point. You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

    SSM is NOT Constitutional. Can you prove me wrong?

  • jk105 says:

    Counterculturalist jk105 Norman Milquetoast

    She advocates the State banning the Christian marriages she disapproves of.  She wants religious liberty for herself, not other religions.  She wants a State Religion.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105

    1–So you can’t tell me where specifically it mentions that a public business, open to customers, is a church, which is where one practices their religion.

    You dodge the question.

    2–My sexual orientation is not a behavior, it is an innate characteristic just like skin color. 

    You dodge the question.

    3-So you set yourself up as God, the one who decides who is a Christian.   Many Christian churches perform same sex marriage.   Your version of Christianity is just one version–not a state religion, which is what you seek.   

    4–If a literal interpretation of the Bible is ONLY what makes one a Christian, then by your own definition, to be a Christian means sanctioning slavery, which is clearly and frequently sanctioned in the Bible. 

    5-You keep dodging my point. You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

  • Counterculturalist says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast Does Maggie advocate for the State to ban heretical practices in the Church?

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    >Do tell me where specifically it mentions that a public business, open to customers, is a church, which is where one practices their religion.

    Do tell me where it says that to participate in the American Dream you must abandon your religious conviction.
    You are equating homosexual behavior with skin color which is a canard. It is not possible to practice Christianity consistently and give approbation to homosexual behavior. If homosexual behavior (which has no consistent biological markers like skin color or nationality) with race, then it logically follows that Christians cannot discriminate against that which the Bible unequivocally calls wicked. If the Christian cannot freely practice their religion, then the First Amendment is eviscerated by this new erotic liberty and therefore said expression is illegitimate, Constitutionally speaking.  
    >You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church.

    Again, SSM is antithetical to American Constitutionalism. Please demonstrate how it is consistent with the First Amendment.

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105 
    Do tell me where specifically it mentions that a public business, open to customers, is a church, which is where one practices their religion. The public accomodation laws were settled long before this Supreme Court decision. That same bigot can’t turn away an interracial couple even if such a marriage is against a person’s religious beliefs.
    My same-sex marriage is a marriage. I am sorry you think it is simply erotic liberty. That says alot about you.
    Yes, being gay is an innate quality, not a choice–similar to skin color.
    You keep dodging my point. You and Maggie would use the brute force of government to ban a same sex marriage freely performed in a Christian church. You want a Right Wing State Church. If the Constitution is FOUNDED on religious liberty, it would include the liberty of all churches, not just yours.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    >No, the issue at stake in this post is the one of so-called Religious Liberty. 

    That’s exactly right and the point I want to make!
    Is this new ‘right’ at irreconcilable odds with the First Amendment, since it necessarily infringes on a Christian’s ability to practice their religion? You see, the Constitution says nothing about erotic liberty, but is FOUNDED on religious liberty. So if this new ‘right’ abrogates the First Amendment, it is not legitimately Constitutional.
    >Equating gay civil rights with desecration exposes you to be a bigot.

    Again, aside from the name calling, (which is not helpful) you make my point! Are you equating being ‘gay’ with skin color?

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105

    No, the issue at stake in this post is the one of so-called Religious Liberty.  Maggie is in favor of the brute force of government banning legal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in Christian Churches.   She is in favor of a Right Wing State Religion.  

    Equating gay civil rights with desecration exposes you to be a bigot.

    Your minority opinion in the Supreme Court’s ruling is a separate debate.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Norman Milquetoast
    ?!
    Is it a ‘state religion’ to prohibit Muslim mosques from desecrating distinction between Church and State?
    The issue at stake is what the Constitution says about this new ‘right’. Agree?

  • jk105 says:

    Norman Milquetoast jk105

    I support the Supreme Court’s decision–and its reasoning.  However, that is not the point of post.   My post criticizes Maggie Old Girl’s persistent belching about so-called Religious Liberty, a liberty she only wants for Right Wing Churches–not all churches.   Maggie wants a State Religion.

  • Norman Milquetoast says:

    jk105 Do you think gay marriage is a Constitutional right? (I am familiar with the Obergefell ruling, but I want you to demonstrate the integrity of the ruling)

  • jk105 says:

    Maggie Old Girl would use the brute force of government to ban gay-affirming churches from performing legal same-sex marriages.  Maggie Old Girl does not support religious liberty. Rather, she supports a Right Wing State religion.

Comments are closed.