California bill to purge Christians from police

#130
#130
clarksvol00 said:
Hot take incoming:

The government doesn't care about your church wedding now. Basically a governmental marriage subjects you to laws regarding government benefits, division of property if you die without a will or get divorced, etc. Same as a civil union they just call it marriage and vice versa. I'm not aware of any law that says, "you have to get a marriage license to have a religious wedding ceremony."

If religious folk don't want the government meddling in their religious institution, go get religiously married and skip the trip to county clerks office. You just won't get the civil law benefits.
Click to expand...

But the .gov sets the rules on who can be married/civil union. I’m say the .gov should get out of it altogether, if 2,3,4 consenting adults sign a civil union contract the . Gov should honor it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#134
#134
Wafflestomper said:
Saying "I don't think gays should be allowed to get married" is tantamount to "I don't think interracial couples should be allowed to get married." If one is hate speech they both are in my opinion. The fact that the California GOP has this as a central tenet doesn't make it okay. Granted, you're free to believe either or both of these things, but if you go around proselytizing it there may be consequences.
Click to expand...
lol no it's not
 
#135
#135
RockyTop85 said:
Go read the article, if you can. Nobody is talking about firing people for reading the Bible, being gay, or pushing an agenda. (Unless the agenda is pro- genocide, violence, or deprivation of constitutional rights.)
Click to expand...

Like antifa and the Cal gov does? Are you that ignorant?
 
#137
#137
Wafflestomper said:
I'm pretty sure I'd be fired for going around work telling people that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, or any number of other sensitive issues. I also don't go around work telling people I think their religious beliefs are ridiculous. The trick is to keep your opinions to yourself in a public setting.

If cops are outspoken about their lack of regard for minorities in their community how much trust are those people (or everyone else) going to have in their ability to enforce laws in an unbiased manner?
Click to expand...
I think it’s with the advent of social media.

For example, the cop in Atlanta was s being Doxxed because he had a Chyna virus t/shirt pictured on his social media. So, you support doxxing? Good to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, VolsAgainstTheWorld15 and Rickyvol77
#139
#139
Wafflestomper said:
How so?
Click to expand...
I don’t think minors should be able to get married. I don’t think people of different religious beliefs should get married. The reason I believe that is completely different in both cases. You’re conflating and then asking someone else to prove you wrong. Typical BS from you.


saying what you think should or shouldn’t be is an opinion. It isn’t forcing law upon others. This is thought policing and ultimately cloaked to go against people who belong to churches that hold positions against such. But you’re OK with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsAgainstTheWorld15
#140
#140
Wafflestomper said:
Why even respond if you're not going to provide a reason? What are the important differences?
Click to expand...
Because homosexuality is considered a sin (no more or less than any other one), and if you are a true Christian, you do not believe in gay "marriage" from a religious standpoint. So saying that in your beliefs, you disagree with it, doesn't equate to you saying you don't think races should intermix, which is a stupid statement on it's face.

I can support civil unions for homosexuals (because i believe anyone should have the right to live, carry insurance, visit in hospital, etc with anyone they choose). But MARRIAGE is a religious ceremony, not truly a governmental institution. and even then, saying people with gender dysphoria are mentally ill or that gay "marriage" is against God, isn't being a bigot or doing anything other than stating an opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: csmize and VolsAgainstTheWorld15
#142
#142
Roustabout said:
Their parts don’t fit? Duh
Click to expand...

You lack imagination. But even if this were true, that doesn't explain why the government should go along with the Bible-thumping prudes and prevent consenting adults from marrying. Like they did with both interracial and gay couples. Hence the comparison.

Roustabout said:
I don’t think minors should be able to get married. I don’t think people of different religious beliefs should get married. The reason I believe that is completely different in both cases. You’re conflating and then asking someone else to prove you wrong. Typical BS from you.
Click to expand...

What exactly am I conflating? I said it was a similar issue and all I got was "nuh uh, that's stupid."

Roustabout said:
saying what you think should or shouldn’t be is an opinion. It isn’t forcing law upon others. This is thought policing and ultimately cloaked to go against people who belong to churches that hold positions against such. But you’re OK with that.
Click to expand...

So you think it's appropriate for a police officer to state his support for racial segregation and then go out and police in his community?

What if I was a cop and had been outspoken against Christians. Would you want me providing security for your church?
 
#143
#143
Nobody's answered my question. Is this only applying to white officers?

Theoretically, and as an example, would a law like this have been actually used to keep the openly racist Somali guy that randomly blasted a woman on her own front yard off of the Minneapolis police force?
 
#144
#144
Rickyvol77 said:
Because homosexuality is considered a sin (no more or less than any other one), and if you are a true Christian, you do not believe in gay "marriage" from a religious standpoint. So saying that in your beliefs, you disagree with it, doesn't equate to you saying you don't think races should intermix, which is a stupid statement on it's face.
Click to expand...

The government has no business denying people rights based on religion. Also, interracial marriage was opposed by many Christians and was illegal in most places until the 1960s. That's one of the reasons why I compared them.

Rickyvol77 said:
I can support civil unions for homosexuals (because i believe anyone should have the right to live, carry insurance, visit in hospital, etc with anyone they choose). But MARRIAGE is a religious ceremony, not truly a governmental institution. and even then, saying people with gender dysphoria are mentally ill or that gay "marriage" is against God, isn't being a bigot or doing anything other than stating an opinion.
Click to expand...

tenor (9).gif
 
#145
#145
Wafflestomper said:
The government has no business denying people rights based on religion. Also, interracial marriage was opposed by many Christians and was illegal in most places until the 1960s. That's one of the reasons why I compared them.



View attachment 358137
Click to expand...
GeNdEr DySpHoRiA iSn'T a MeNtAl IlLnEsS he implies while watching near half of transsexual people kill themselves.

In b4 "they only kill themselves because they aren't accepted" while ignoring the truth that all the other "oppressed" and "unaccepted" classes around the world don't have near the same suicide and self harm rates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#146
#146
ButchPlz said:
GeNdEr DySpHoRiA iSn'T a MeNtAl IlLnEsS he implies while watching near half of transsexual people kill themselves.

In b4 "they only kill themselves because they aren't accepted" while ignoring the truth that all the other "oppressed" and "unaccepted" classes around the world don't have near the same suicide and self harm rates.
Click to expand...

Yes, because comparing transsexuals to some other nebulously defined class of "oppressed" or "unaccepted" people warrants a 1-1 comparison. Nice analysis.
 
#147
#147
Wafflestomper said:
The government has no business denying people rights based on religion. Also, interracial marriage was opposed by many Christians and was illegal in most places until the 1960s. That's one of the reasons why I compared them.



View attachment 358137
Click to expand...
This shows you have no idea what you are talking about in terms of why this law will not hold up in court. But continue to "feel" like someone is a "bigot" for having a different opinion than yours based on actual historic and societal norms as well as science
 
#148
#148
Wafflestomper said:
You lack imagination. But even if this were true, that doesn't explain why the government should go along with the Bible-thumping prudes and prevent consenting adults from marrying. Like they did with both interracial and gay couples. Hence the comparison.



What exactly am I conflating? I said it was a similar issue and all I got was "nuh uh, that's stupid."



So you think it's appropriate for a police officer to state his support for racial segregation and then go out and police in his community?

What if I was a cop and had been outspoken against Christians. Would you want me providing security for your church?
Click to expand...
Should a brother and sister in Alabama be allowed to marry if they are consenting?
Racial segregation is NOT what we are talking about, although you keep acting like it is
Who cares if an atheistic police officer provides Security for your church? (Which is a paid "private" gig anyway?)
 
#149
#149
Wafflestomper said:
Yes, because comparing transsexuals to some other nebulously defined class of "oppressed" or "unaccepted" people warrants a 1-1 comparison. Nice analysis.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're right.

Other oppressed classes aren't mentally ill.

So thanks for proving everyone's point.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top