For those of you that support George Wallace and/or the Confederacy, do you...

[Townhallsavoy]

...support Roy Moore?

I can see the argument both ways (even though he has a hard time seeing things both ways). 

On one hand, he's trying to protect the rights of religious citizens currently elected and/or employed by the government.  You could argue that Roy Moore is a champion of those who want to freely exercise their freedom of religion.

On the other, he's is practicing blatant bigotry against homosexuals and will appear in the history books much like George Wallace and those that support the confederate cause.  Sure, you can argue that Wallace was for state rights, but in the long run, people outside of his supporters will always see him as the white man in governmental power who stood in front of blacks trying to gain equality in life. 

[Kaos]

...support Roy Moore?

I can see the argument both ways (even though he has a hard time seeing things both ways). 

On one hand, he's trying to protect the rights of religious citizens currently elected and/or employed by the government.  You could argue that Roy Moore is a champion of those who want to freely exercise their freedom of religion.

On the other, he's is practicing blatant bigotry against homosexuals and will appear in the history books much like George Wallace and those that support the confederate cause.  Sure, you can argue that Wallace was for state rights, but in the long run, people outside of his supporters will always see him as the white man in governmental power who stood in front of blacks trying to gain equality in life.

And they will be terribly wrong. 

[WiregrassTiger]

And they will be terribly wrong.

Gotta go with K on this. Read about him, met him as a kid and know people who knew him. I truly believe he was trying to do the will of the people.

Do I believe it was the right thing? No. I'm just saying Wallace didn't hate the black race as most would like to go in the books.

History books are not infallible.

[Saniflush]

Gotta go with K on this. Read about him, met him as a kid and know people who knew him. I truly believe he was trying to do the will of the people.

Do I believe it was the right thing? No. I'm just saying Wallace didn't hate the black race as most would like to go in the books.

History books are not infallible usually no where close to the actual history.

FIXT

[CCTAU]

On the other, he's is practicing blatant bigotry against homosexuals and will appear in the history books much like George Wallace and those that support the confederate cause.  Sure, you can argue that Wallace was for state rights, but in the long run, people outside of his supporters will always see him as the white man in governmental power who stood in front of blacks trying to gain equality in life.

To equate the civil rights movement with the gay movement is ridiculous. As we can prove, blacks are born black and have a gene that we can determine just how black.

Gays choose to live a lifestyle and want the same rights as people who are born that way?

And people like you give credence to the "civil rights" claim?

It shows the difference between individuals educated before the weather underground infiltrated all aspects of education and after they hijacked education for liberal purposes.

[Snaggletiger]

I'm all for the Confederacy and Colonel Angus.

[Snaggletiger]

To equate the civil rights movement with the gay movement is ridiculous. As we can prove, blacks are born black and have a gene that we can determine just how black.

Gays choose to live a lifestyle and want the same rights as people who are born that way?

And people like you give credence to the "civil rights" claim?

It shows the difference between individuals educated before the weather underground infiltrated all aspects of education and after they hijacked education for liberal purposes.

Bruce Jenner hates you.

[Townhallsavoy]

To equate the civil rights movement with the gay movement is ridiculous. As we can prove, blacks are born black and have a gene that we can determine just how black.

Gays choose to live a lifestyle and want the same rights as people who are born that way?

And people like you give credence to the "civil rights" claim?

It shows the difference between individuals educated before the weather underground infiltrated all aspects of education and after they hijacked education for liberal purposes.

Gays have a lifestyle (chosen or genetic) that they - in their own experience - claim to be unable to control.  Whether or not it's genetic or psychologically influenced, they feel attracted to members of the same sex.  Outside of religion, there's no reason why a gay couple should be told they cannot as two consensual adults apply for and receive a marriage license in order to receive the same benefits that heterosexual married couples receive from the government. 

So it is most definitely a civil rights claim.  Adults making decisions that cause harm to no one are being told they are not equal to other adults. 

But that's mostly besides the point.  I'm asking if people see this as an infringement upon their religious freedom especially when it comes to being a probate judge. 

[AUTiger1]

Gays have a lifestyle (chosen or genetic) that they - in their own experience - claim to be unable to control.  Whether or not it's genetic or psychologically influenced, they feel attracted to members of the same sex.  Outside of religion, there's no reason why a gay couple should be told they cannot as two consensual adults apply for and receive a marriage license in order to receive the same benefits that heterosexual married couples receive from the government. 

So it is most definitely a civil rights claim.  Adults making decisions that cause harm to no one are being told they are not equal to other adults. 

But that's mostly besides the point.  I'm asking if people see this as an infringement upon their religious freedom especially when it comes to being a probate judge.

No, just because they legalize it and they get married/civil union doesn't keep me from worshiping or not worshiping how I see fit.  Now, the first time they (the courts) force a church to accept a homosexual couple as members of that church which preaches against homosexuality, or they force a preacher to perform their ceremony that is against homosexuality, then yes it has been infringed upon.

Besides the government doesn't need to be involved in marriage anyways.  Let it be between two people and get the government out of it. 

[Kaos]

Gays have a lifestyle (chosen or genetic) that they - in their own experience - claim to be unable to control.  Whether or not it's genetic or psychologically influenced, they feel attracted to members of the same sex.  Outside of religion, there's no reason why a gay couple should be told they cannot as two consensual adults apply for and receive a marriage license in order to receive the same benefits that heterosexual married couples receive from the government. 

So it is most definitely a civil rights claim.  Adults making decisions that cause harm to no one are being told they are not equal to other adults. 

But that's mostly besides the point.  I'm asking if people see this as an infringement upon their religious freedom especially when it comes to being a probate judge.

Disagree on all points.

[Snaggletiger]

No, just because they legalize it and they get married/civil union doesn't keep me from worshiping or not worshiping how I see fit.  Now, the first time they (the courts) force a church to accept a homosexual couple as members of that church which preaches against homosexuality, or they force a preacher to perform their ceremony that is against homosexuality, then yes it has been infringed upon.

Besides the government doesn't need to be involved in marriage anyways.  Let it be between two people and get the government out of it.

For once I agree with you.

[Townhallsavoy]

No, just because they legalize it and they get married/civil union doesn't keep me from worshiping or not worshiping how I see fit.  Now, the first time they (the courts) force a church to accept a homosexual couple as members of that church which preaches against homosexuality, or they force a preacher to perform their ceremony that is against homosexuality, then yes it has been infringed upon.

I think what Roy Moore is arguing is that telling probate judges that they must comply with the law in this case is actually preventing them from worshiping how they see fit.  Does signing marriage licenses glorify God according to their denomination?  Some would say no. 

Besides the government doesn't need to be involved in marriage anyways.  Let it be between two people and get the government out of it.

Agreed.

[GH2001]

Wallace is dead. The confederacy has been long gone.

How can they be supported ?

[GH2001]

No, just because they legalize it and they get married/civil union doesn't keep me from worshiping or not worshiping how I see fit.  Now, the first time they (the courts) force a church to accept a homosexual couple as members of that church which preaches against homosexuality, or they force a preacher to perform their ceremony that is against homosexuality, then yes it has been infringed upon.

Besides the government doesn't need to be involved in marriage anyways.  Let it be between two people and get the government out of it.

This guy^^ all of what he said.

And he's pretty good for a few free beers tailgating too.

[Townhallsavoy]

Wallace is dead. The confederacy has been long gone.

How can they be supported ?

You just have to prop them up a little bit.  Kinda like this:

[CCTAU]

No, just because they legalize it and they get married/civil union doesn't keep me from worshiping or not worshiping how I see fit.  Now, the first time they (the courts) force a church to accept a homosexual couple as members of that church which preaches against homosexuality, or they force a preacher to perform their ceremony that is against homosexuality, then yes it has been infringed upon.

Besides the government doesn't need to be involved in marriage anyways.  Let it be between two people and get the government out of it.

So you are OK with the bleeding goat's dick cake....

[AUTiger1]

So you are OK with the bleeding goat's dick cake....

Bother's me not, since I am not going to order one, nor will I be participating in any ceremony with said cake.  Do I think that shops rights were infringed upon, yes I do.  That's another argument for another day or thread.  He was asking if the legalization is an infringement upon my religious freedom.  It's not.  If the gay couple down the street gets married, then it's no skin off my back until they force my place of worship to accept them or my preacher to perform the ceremony.   Why does it bother you?  Sanctity of marriage? 

[CCTAU]

Bother's me not, since I am not going to order one, nor will I be participating in any ceremony with said cake.  Do I think that shops rights were infringed upon, yes I do.  That's another argument for another day or thread.  He was asking if the legalization is an infringement upon my religious freedom.  It's not.  If the gay couple down the street gets married, then it's no skin off my back until they force my place of worship to accept them or my preacher to perform the ceremony.   Why does it bother you?  Sanctity of marriage?

But it is already happening. You are telling me you cannot see the connection between the cake makers and anyone else who disagrees based on faith?

You are now just changing the location of the line that was drawn in the sand....

[GH2001]

But it is already happening. You are telling me you cannot see the connection between the cake makers and anyone else who disagrees based on faith?

You are now just changing the location of the line that was drawn in the sand....

He did qualify his stance in his first post. It's conditional. I have no issue with them doing what they want either. But the minute they come into places of worship demanding they make them do things, then yeah we got problems. And I agree you can already see it happening subtly if you look around. And I have an issue with THAT. Not so much just them being gay together legally. Aut1 pretty much said the same and he's spot on. As did K. At that point they have gone way beyond live and let live.

[AUTiger1]

But it is already happening. You are telling me you cannot see the connection between the cake makers and anyone else who disagrees based on faith?

Please to be providing me where it has happened at a church yet?  Where the church was forced to place a gay couple on the membership and where a pastor who is openly against homosexuality was forced by a court of law to perform the ceremony.

He did qualify his stance in his first post. It's conditional. I have no issue with them doing what they want either. But the minute they come into places of worship demanding they make them do things, then yeah we got problems. And I agree you can already see it happening subtly if you look around. And I have an issue with THAT. Not so much just them being gay together legally. Aut1 pretty much said the same and he's spot on. As did K. At that point they have gone way beyond live and let live.

Also this.