...and another loss for the religulous bigots.bah da bah bah bahh im lovin it.
Yeah, wow, amazing, how we have this idea, that all people are equal. You offer a public service you have to provide equal access. So that's just the way it is. Get over it, gay people are humans and they deserve to be treated like anyone else.
The public service is for Christians with Christian values. What's next- the service is forced to cater to adulterers, polygamists, etc., who say they are discriminated against?
I find it ironic that all these liberals who say religion and state should be kept seperate are the first ones to demand the state regulate religion to their liking. So rich.
The USA is an overly litigious society, but for once I give a big thumbs up to a lawsuit that almost certainly should never have been brought.
By the way, just because someone doesn't subscribe to your particular set of beliefs doesn't mean they aren't moral people. Morals exist separate from religion, so don't pretend you have a monopoly.
To Punisher:
The site already caters to adulterers unless it has a way of making sure that no adulterer joins. It's not as if only non-Christians commit adultery.
If it weren't for religious people trying to force their beliefs down everyone's throats there'd be no need for the state to make laws that tell them to go away.
I find it ironic that Christians claim to be followers of a tolerant religion, but tend to practice intolerance whenever they get the chance.
The problem with drawing a moral "Christian" line in the sand is that somebody else is going to want it moved. Is it "Christian" to have pre-marital sex? Get divorced? Use drugs or drink? It's funny that the only blights that main-stream Christianity can find anymore are gays and abortion! How about banning single mothers?!?! A blight on humanity if there ever was one.
"The site already caters to adulterers unless it has a way of making sure that no adulterer joins. It's not as if only non-Christians commit adultery."
Christian sites don't cater to adulterers. Sure, adulterers can try to pass themselves off as singles. But that is on them, not Christian sites. Christian sites don't condone adultery.
In this case, people as in gays are openly stating they are living in what is seen as sin by the site. Apples and oranges.
"If it weren't for religious people trying to force their beliefs down everyone's throats there'd be no need for the state to make laws that tell them to go away."
Your problem is with the founders. The founders wrote themselves in the NW Ordinance that religion and morality shall be forever encouraged since they are essential to good government. It was Washington who also said the same thing in his farewell address.
Or need I remind you the abolitionist movements in England and America were driven by evangelical Christians? And yes, slaveowners then played the card how Christians were trying to force their morality on their "private" lives and right to "property" as well.
"I find it ironic that Christians claim to be followers of a tolerant religion, but tend to practice intolerance whenever they get the chance."
And what Christians claim to be follower of a religion tolerant according to your definition of tolerance?
Tolerance according to liberals is not even to consider anything like abortion and gay lifestyle to be sin.
Sorry, but that is not Christianity. Christianity does not teach all religions are the same. Christianity does in fact teach there is a moral standard on what is or what is not sin.
In actuality, liberals talk alot about tolerance but don't practice theri own brand. They don't tolerance any worldview that has moral absolutes.
They don't tolerate any idea of religious folks who vote their consciences when it comes to moral issues of the day.
"The problem with drawing a moral "Christian" line in the sand is that somebody else is going to want it moved. Is it "Christian" to have pre-marital sex? Get divorced? Use drugs or drink? It's funny that the only blights that main-stream Christianity can find anymore are gays and abortion! How about banning single mothers?!?! A blight on humanity if there ever was one."
You are clueless about Christianity if you believe all that is preached about in regards to what is sin are gay and abortion.
Yes, it is sin to commit premarital sex. What conservative Christian group denies that?
Divorce is considered sin in general by Christians if done for any other reason other than marital unfaithfulness and perhaps abuse.
Many Christians, especially of Baptist mindset, believe it is sin to drink (though those like me don't).
Here's the difference, adulterers are not the ones using the law in this case to try to force a Christian ministry to accept their lifestyle.
I agree with "Punisher" above. The leftist illuminati are speaking out of both sides of their mouth, aren't they?
Liberals and gay activists are experts at speaking out from both sides their mouths: they shout "get over it" when they get their way in the courts and as we see in California, beat people up, hurl racist insults, bully, threaten and terrorize Christians when they don't.
This is all about destroying the Judeo-Christian values and laws are fore-fathers created for this country. This is nothing but force and power for the gay mafia. Those of us believe marriage is between a man and a woman have been deemed hateful bigots by the left. Gay behavior is an unhealthy and, to many, a morally offensive lifestyle which I shouldn't be forced to support. This will not only destroy gender roles for this country( which the libs want) but also open the doors for other unhealthly and morally wrong lifestyles such as polygamy, bestiality and even pedohilla. Already like with homosexuality, the Psychiatric headquaters refuse to call pedohilla a mental illness and morally wrong. This is nothing but communism at its finest, such as economic equality, ending of all class, racial, and now, sexual distinctions. Funny the communist agenda is alot like the liberal agenda.
Grey Ghost and Gal,
Bingo to your posts. See also the Fowler dude suing Bible publications for daring to print Bible versiuns that has living gay lifestyle as sin in them.
"Liberals and gay activists are experts at speaking out from both sides their mouths: they shout "get over it" when they get their way in the courts and as we see in California, beat people up, hurl racist insults, bully, threaten and terrorize Christians when they don't."
I am reading on Michelle Malkin blog, that there is a class action gay lawsuit in Cali against eharmony.
I hope eharmony learns its lessons here and don't cave in. It was wrong to cave in NJ.
The bigots here are the anti-Christian gays who want to force Christian ministries and churches to capitulate to their demands that their lifestyles not only be tolerated, but be accepted. And not only tolerated and accepted, but be outright promoted by groups that see their lifestyles as sinful.
It is intimidation tactic. It is using the government to try to oppress religion.
Memo to eharmony: do NOT cave in. Stand and be counted for truth. The battle is the Lord's.
When I heard about this on the radio this morning, I couldn't believe it. The website is a private enterprise. They should be free to do whatever they want. This is a sickening turn of events in our great nation.
Punisher
I don't think the lesbian's case in Cali will stand up now that this ruling has come down as it sets a precedent. I also don't think eharmony "caved" per se as much as this 3-years in the making settlement was most likely effecting their bottom line a great deal. I do wonder tho how much they were worried about actually losing considering that NJ is a noted liberal haven.
To Punisher:
You completely ignored the point of what I said. You were asking if the site should be forced to accept various groups, adulterers being one. Given that the site already accepts them, it seemed a foolish thing to say.
My problem is not with the founders when it comes to a particular version of morality being forced down everyone's throats. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that I'm not in the USA. The second is that there's plenty of evidence that the founding fathers did not attempt to impose their beliefs on everyone and tried to keep it out of the founding of the country. Unfortunately I don't have the evidence on hand. As I said previously, it must be borne in mind that religion and morality are not inextricably linked and morality exists independently. Also, encouraging and forcing are two different things.
The example that tends to stand out for me was the addition of 'under God' to the pledge of allegiance. If I were a US citizen I would consider it my right either to refuse to say the pledge at all or at least to leave that part out. I'd consider it offensive that anyone would expect me to lie like that since I don't believe it's a nation under any god.
Given that I did not invent the word 'tolerant' nor any of its variants, it's not "my" definition. Tolerance means allowing other beliefs, other opinions, other practices. It does not mean condoning it, it does not mean not considering it a sin. I don't go around trying to get Christianity or any other religion banned. Do I believe they should be? Absolutely. Christians not only believe things like homosexuality to be a sin, but want it banned (not all, but many do). That's being intolerant. That's just one example.
Does tolerance open up a can of worms? Yes, it does. It's very easy to jump to extremes and say that we should therefore allow anything. The extreme extension is to assume we should therefore have no laws and 'tolerate' everything. But laws exist to protect the people physically, in terms of property and that sort of thing. Not allowing someone to steal and not allowing (in the legal sense) someone to be homosexual are two completely different things.
Voting one's conscience on a moral issue sounds grand and noble, but it very carefully sweeps tolerance under the carpet. Believing something is a sin and trying to stop anyone from doing it because you believe it to be a sin are two very different propositions. Surely it's a personal choice to accept being homosexual rather than fighting it? I couldn't care less if someone is homosexual - it has no impact on my life or on anyone else in the world.
I have no problem with moral absolutes. What I have a problem with is the idea that there is only one set of morals and that everyone must be forced to stick to that particular set.
It's a tricky business. The law says that the guy can't be discriminated against based on his sexual orientation, but then there's freedom of association. Christians don't want to associate with homosexuals and it's their right not to do so. The creators of the site created a site for Christians to associate and they should therefore be allowed to associate only with whom they choose on that site.
Were I the judge I'd have ruled in favour of the site. I suspect the judge ruled against the site because that's the sort of thing that's in vogue at the moment. Besides which it's the politically correct thing to do in this case, even if it tramples on other issues. It'll be easy to jump to the conclusion that I'm just saying this and were I really to have been the judge I'd have ruled as actually happened. I can't make you believe that I wouldn't, but I wouldn't. I don't think the particular circumstances justify the judgement handed down.
"You completely ignored the point of what I said. You were asking if the site should be forced to accept various groups, adulterers being one. Given that the site already accepts them, it seemed a foolish thing to say."
Does the website have a policy that accepts adulterers, or adulterers pass themselves off as singles looking for other singles?
"My problem is not with the founders when it comes to a particular version of morality being forced down everyone's throats. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that I'm not in the USA. The second is that there's plenty of evidence that the founding fathers did not attempt to impose their beliefs on everyone and tried to keep it out of the founding of the country. Unfortunately I don't have the evidence on hand."
I do, and the evidence contradicts you period.
Founding documents:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earl...nance/
text.html
Text of The Northwest Ordinance
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earl...ewell/
text.html
George Washington's
Farewell Address
To the People of the United States
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
"Given that I did not invent the word 'tolerant' nor any of its variants, it's not "my" definition. Tolerance means allowing other beliefs, other opinions, other practices. It does not mean condoning it, it does not mean not considering it a sin. I don't go around trying to get Christianity or any other religion banned. Do I believe they should be? Absolutely. Christians not only believe things like homosexuality to be a sin, but want it banned (not all, but many do). That's being intolerant. That's just one example."
An example that is more based on your misconception of what Christians believe.
Christians in general, even conservative ones, don't believe we can ban gay lifestyle. However, we also believe that should be not forced now on the throats of children, especially those of Christians, in public schools, as some are trying to teach that lifestyle as acceptable. We also don't believe they have right to redefine marriage. It is more like gays trying to force the rest of the world to accept their lifestyle and agree to have what is already defined for thousands of years to be redefined.
We do believe in terms of right to life, liberty, and property, gays are entitled to that like everyone else.
"As I said previously, it must be borne in mind that religion and morality are not inextricably linked and morality exists independently. Also, encouraging and forcing are two different things."
While most Christian conservatives don't believe in making laws that outright ban gay lifestyle, the founding fathers, even the ones who were not considered traditional Christians like Jefferson had no problem doing so. Not only do they not have any problem doing so, they also prescribed draconian punishments for gays.
Jefferson by the way was for castration for gays. Hardly liberal.
Not something Christian conservatives would favor today either.
Just pointing out on certain conducts of immorality, the founders were anything but tolerant or liberal.
Here is what Jefferson wrote:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/
f...endVIIIs10.html
Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.
Original state constitutions:
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/
...13ReligHist.htm
In an effort to shed light on the subject, a few excerpts are included below from the hundreds contained in the new book by William J. Federer, titled: “THE ORIGINAL 13-A Documentary History of Religion in America’s First Thirteen States” (Amerisearch, Inc., 2005, www.AmericanMinute.com):
CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA, June 29, 1776 (written by James Madison and George Mason): BILL OF RIGHTS, SECTION 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, June 15, 1780 (written by John Adams): ARTICLE 3. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God...Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to...make suitable provision...for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality...And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSTITUTION, 1784:
PART 2-THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, SENATE: That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion...
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES...Every member of the house of representatives...shall be of the Protestant religion.
CONSTITUTION OF VERMONT July 8, 1777, (claimed by New Hampshire and New York at the time of the Revolution): SECTION 9...And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. "I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion."
CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND, November 11, 1776:
ARTICLE 35. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.
CONSTITUTION OF NEW JERSEY, 1776:
ARTICLE 19: That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government...shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust.
CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA, September 28, 1776 (Signed by Ben Franklin): PLAN OR FRAME OF GOVERNMENT, SECTION 10. And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and the Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration. And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/
...13ReligHist.htm
CONSTITUTION OF DELAWARE, 1776 (written by George Read and Thomas McKean, both signers of the Declaration of Independence): ARTICLE 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall...make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1776:
ARTICLE 32. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, March 19, 1778:
ARTICLE 12: And that no person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be of the Protestant religion, and hath attained the age of thirty years...
CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA, 1777:
ARTICLE 6: The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county...and they shall be of the Protestant religion.
CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT, 1662 till 1818:
PREAMBLE. The People of this State being by the Providence of God, free and independent, have the sole and exclusive Right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and having from their ancestors derived a free and excellent Constitution of Government whereby the legislature depends on the free and annual election of the people, they have the best security for the preservation of their civil and religious rights and Liberties. And forasmuch as the free Fruition of such Liberties and Privileges as Humanity, Civility and Christianity call for, as is due to every Man in his Place and Proportion, without impeachment and infringement, hath ever been, and will be the Tranquillity and Stability of Churches and Commonwealths.
CONSTITUTION OF RHODE ISLAND, 1663 till 1842:
That they, pursuing, with peaceable and loyal minces, their sober, serious and religious intentions, of godly edifying themselves, and one another, in the holy Christian faith and worship as they were persuaded...to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained...with a full liberty in religious concernements; and that true piety rightly grounded upon Gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty...Now know ye, that we being willing...to secure them in the free exercise and enjoyment of all their civil and religious rights...and to preserve unto them that liberty, in the true Christian faith and worship of God...and because some of the people and inhabitants of the same colony cannot, in their private opinions, conforms to the public exercise of religion, according to the liturgy, forms and ceremonies of the Church of England, or take or subscribe the oaths and articles made and established in that behalf; and for that the same, by reason of the remote distances of those places, will (as we hope) be no breach of the unity and uniformity established in this nation.
CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK, April 20, 1777:
38. And whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.
After examining the Constitutions of the original States, it becomes clearer that the initial purpose of the First Amendment, and for that matter the First Ten Amendments, was to limit Federal Government jurisdiction, not the States, as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833:
"The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their sense of justice and the State Constitutions."
this sites is very good and has not of profiles to choose
What's the big deal? Gay Christians want to meet other nice Gay Christians, seems harmless to me.
"What's the big deal? Gay Christians want to meet other nice Gay Christians, seems harmless to me."
The big deal is some gays want to force certain Christian ministries, that believe living gay lifestyle is sin, to promote that.
"Gay Christians"??? Talk about a misnomer. What's next, "Bible-pushing Heathens"?
The Christian religion is based on doctrine and a moral standard. As a matter of conscience, it is unacceptable for the Christian to ignore what the Bible says in the name of political correctness and accommodation. The Gay Lobby is essentially forcing it's political views on a private Christian company through litigation. This will certainly not be the last time we see this type of bullying.
"This will certainly not be the last time we see this type of bullying."
Nor the first:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ind...ew&
pageId=69147
A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.
Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said.
He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.
Zondervan says that even if Fowler's claim is credible, he's suing the wrong party. A company spokesman told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that Zondervan doesn't translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations but relies, instead, on the "scholarly judgment of credible translation committees."
U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused Monday to appoint an attorney to represent Fowler in the Thomas Nelson case, saying the court "has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims."
Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, says in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."
Fowler alleges both Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, with its King James Bible, manipulated Scripture without informing the public by using the term "homosexuals" in a New Testament passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9.
He told the Grand Rapids TV station in an interview he wants to "compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability."
Zondervan, he contended, is misinterpreting the Bible.
"These are opinions based on the publishers," Fowler said. "And they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life."
"You completely ignored the point of what I said. You were asking if the site should be forced to accept various groups, adulterers being one. Given that the site already accepts them, it seemed a foolish thing to say."
I think you might like to revise that statement. The site has been sued before by a man in 2005 who the site refused service to, when the site discovered he was married. It apparently does NOT pander to adulterers, as you claim it did.
Oh, Punisher - do you tell a biased story!
Yes, I'm sure all the documents you cited are "correct" but they only tell part of the story.
George Washington's administration wrote to an African country in the 1700's and said "in no sense is this a Christian nation..." I don't remember if this was a treaty, trade agreement or what but it most definitely was from the 1700's.
The thing to remember also, Public officials could make all the platitudes about religion they wanted, thanking God for the blessings of liberty etc. but that did NOT mean that a specific religion was supposed to be prescribed for the public or influence the laws. The Colonies for example made members make mandatory contributions to specific sects such as the Anglican or Presybterian. That soon went out the window. States had officials swear they believed in the Trinity. Gone also.
This is not to say God has no place in Public life but you are telling such a selective story you might as well be lying. Read up on Jefferson's views on the Divine. He clipped out the words of Jesus from a Bible because although he though Jesus was a great prophet, Jesus was not the "Son of God." He is to me, by the way, but I don't presume to force others to believe as I do.
Finally, Craig's point is that divorce is legal, many other things such as single motherhood, etc. and these sites don't discriminate against them! They are picking an easy, minority target.
Example - my cousin's belong to a very fundamentalist Christian group. They got the Walmart near them in Tenn to stop selling beer & wine. No report on cigarettes! Because of their religion.
Fine. They won the battle but they will lose the war. The principle here is that mob rule doesn't control everything. When the Christians become the minority where they live, Walmart will sell beer & wine. Get it? Lets go for principle not trying to force narrow views on people when there is no evidence Gays are going to "destroy" society.
I wonder how different your point of view would be if it were any other group being excluded... how about blacks?... Hispanics?... how about a black man can't be matched with a whit woman?.. I'm sure they allow atheists on their "religious" based site don't they?... divorced people?... ex-cons?... Jews...Muslims...?... It seems quite unlawful to single out just one group doesn't it?...
Commenting by HaloScan
