Posted on 12/01/2009 11:42:08 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Just scanned it over... but it seems like a photographer or anyone privately or self-employed should not have to provide services to anyone they choose not to provide to (bad grammar). Probably some flaming coming my way.
It has long been time for the District of Colombia to become a federal reservation. By this I mean the systematic purchase of all lands in the district, so that in its entirety it is US national property, with the exception of foreign embassies, whose grounds are by law the sovereign territory of their respective nations, as are our embassies in their lands.
Many of the buildings in the District could then be torn down, and the infrastructure beneath them improved, then they would remain public park until needed for federal buildings, monuments and other needs.
The roadways could be restricted to only inspected VIP vehicles and public transportation, with alternative routes for trucks bringing supplies and materials into the district. All businesses operating in the city would do so by federal lease, to include the Watergate hotel complex.
Automatic sidewalks, such as are used in some long airport concourses, could rapidly convey pedestrians over the more popular routes.
The end result would be a city stripped of its ghetto and most street crime, with little or no automotive congestion, much easier to access by the public and tourists, with far more park land, space for memorials, and the enlargement of currently cramped federal buildings in the district.
It would no longer have the need for a city council, school board, or other such civic organization.
I don’t see how same-sex marriage could possibly have any effect on how I believe?
If I remember right,
you base your “beliefs” not on anything solid,
just on what you want to believe.
Feet firmly planted in mid-air, so to speak.
However, those of us that have the bible as the foundation of our beliefs cannot openly state our beliefs that marriage and sex is to be between one man and one woman,
because that would be a “hate crime”.
No, you do not remember correctly. I base my beliefs on how God has designed me.
Can’t you still believe, even if it is a ‘hate crime’?
Exactly, you base your beliefs on your own understanding, with no other foundation.
I don’t care what you call it - your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.
“Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conveying the highest form of social approval imaginable
And THAT is why it should never be given.
That is why it affect your marriages.
That is why it affects your children.
That is why it is rejected in referendum after referendum.
AS IT SHOULD BE!
Legalizing prostitution and drugs wouldn't affect your religious beliefs either, but that's not the point. The author wants you to consider the consequences of state-recognized gay marriage on your religious liberties, not on your religious beliefs.
If your religious beliefs are opposed to gay marriage and the state forces you to recognize gay marriage, what effect will that have on how you practice your beliefs? Maybe none in your case. But others who provide public services to and recognize only traditional marriages may be forced to provide those same services to gay married couples against their will/judgment/beliefs.
A marriage between a man and a woman celebrates diversity among people.
A “marriage” of two people with same “equipment” and chromosomes is narcissistic and discriminatory.
The Romanian state could do nothing to change what Richard Wurmbrand believed, but they could outlaw his preaching, lock him away and torture him.
Religious liberty is not about what you believe, it's about the state respecting your right to act on and promote those beliefs. A pro-homosexual law that makes it a hate crime to preach from Romans 1 won't change the preacher's belief that it's true, but it will take away his liberty to stand up for his convictions.
Does that seem American to you?
The "church" is being forced to accept the NEW religious beliefs of the religious left who no longer see this to be a sin.
That is a violation of the separation of church and state.
No man should have to bow to their religious beliefs.
Celebrating sin is aposty. We are all sinners, some seek to redefine what is sinful.
We were told that Lawrence v. Texas was strictly about consenting adults in private. Now it is about kids in schools too and in the workplace and in the church and...
After "marriage" comes adoption (when does the child get to consent to being brought into an abnormal relationship?) and insurance coverage. Could a church deny a same sex couple "membership" (not rejecting them from attending church, the doors are always open for sinners) in the church, listing in the members directory, etc? Would there be the same acceptance of publicly proud "swingers" who have wife-swapping parties every month?
BTW, I can provide you a long list of people in supposedly free nations who have had their liberty taken from them by gay activists and the laws they push. We aren’t talking about some rarified philosophical point, we’re talking about opppression.
There’s no reason for same-sex marriages to be sanctioned by the government. They don’t produce children. They don’t promote the survival of civilization.
Catholic Charities lost its way when it became a “contractor” for the government.
Catholic Charities should be: Catholics give money to do charitable things, and Catholic Charities does them.
In New York and Chicago, pro-abortion billionaires have given tons of money to the Church. In exchange, the Church takes the Catholicism out of “Catholic” schools and hospitals, and keeps quiet about pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians. A friend was told by Cardinal George that this is why he has been less outspoken about abortion than he would have liked. George said that if he made too much noise about abortion, he would have to close many inner-city Catholic schools.
They don’t dignify humans, male or female, nor advance society either.
Couldn't you still be conservative, even if the federal government shut down FR tomorrow? You could be, so let's be good little boys and girls and not object, OK?
When you were in the military, were you protecting American's rights, or just their thinking habits?
So you don’t believe God had anything to do with you and your religion?
Ok
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.