You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Rummel 71 points -22 points (+49|-71) ago  (edited ago)

Except for the freedoms of the church who are now forced by government to go against their own religion's deep rooted principles. Separation of church and state, my ass.

Churches who refuse to marry gays will be on the militant loudmouth SJW chopping block next.


[–] redikulous [S] 5 points 69 points (+74|-5) ago 

Still don't get it do you? No church is going to be forced to take part in anything they disagree with.


[–] phillip 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I honestly hope you're right. I have no problem with gay marriage but a huge one with making churches marry people they don't believe should be married (for any reason). I look at how fast bakeries were sued for not wanting to make gay wedding cakes and I have to wonder what will happen to churches.


[–] Dontcensormebro 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The supreme court in the argument for the ruling basically stated that marriage is fundamental liberty like speech, and press, and religion, a that cannot be infringed on, so as of now, the church's are infringing on an inalienable right. You better believe that this is coming sooner or later. The first thing people will say is that the church should lose their tax exempt status unless they start performing gay marriages.


[–] Patranus 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

What are you talking about? People being forced to participate in things they disagree with on a religious basis is already happening.


[–] morrwin 8 points 0 points (+8|-8) ago  (edited ago)

You sure? First we have companies obliged to service gays now e have them legally to be married. Give them 5-10 years and I guarantee it some butthurt SJW will picket a church to get married there and if they turn him away he will sue and prob win!

Imo, at least US is on track to runining itself, won't be long for that civil war to begin!


[–] reshp1 11 points 56 points (+67|-11) ago 

Really glad I finally have my down voting privileges just in time to see this post.


[–] Dissident_Aggressor 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 



[–] wb 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I love how you can tell someone said something really controversial when it has 30+ downvoats.

[–] [deleted] 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 



[–] Rummel 16 points -11 points (+5|-16) ago  (edited ago)

Go back to your Reddit statist circlejerk, it's not a disagree button.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 47 points (+49|-2) ago 



[–] JunOS ago  (edited ago)

Because only religious leades can legally marry people. /s

Apparently some people haven't heard of people getting married in courthouses.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 41 points (+43|-2) ago 



[–] jeebusmcchrist 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That's an interesting and well argued point.

The opposite viewpoint would state that marriage is inherently religious, which is overturned by the fact that the government currently has a hand thoroughly dipped in marriage (ie. providing specific benefits to married couples vs single individuals). Therefore, marriage cannot by law be religiously interpreted. It must be secularly considered.

The caveat is consenting, mentally capable adults are the only ones who enjoy this new relaxation of restrictions.

Oh wait! It's almost like the only people who should receive the right to marry are consenting, mentally capable adults!