Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not about a 20 dollar cake, it's about the discrimination. They broke the law. You and they may not like the law, but it is the law.

If the law compels someone to act contrary to their conscience than the law contravenes the first amendment. She retains the right to decline to participate.

That's only your opinion. So far the courts disagree with you.

Sure. The courts can continue to undermine the Bill of Rights all they like. Not like there's going to be consequences for that. I imagine it will be a wakeup call when they realize that their authority is dependent upon the Bill of Rights.

If there is no justice then there is no law.

Yet one more time... just your opinion/morality.

Funny that a Catholic would say that. Most Catholics would say that the teaching comes from God, but what do I know?

You are the one ignoring stuff in the the bible you disagree with... are you no longer a Christian BK?

Where am I quoting the bible, Ming? I have not done so. Yet here you are, quoting the bible like any atheist here.

I have a traditional marriage... Been married over 30 years... It is what the Church teaches.

Then it is not merely 'my opinion'.

But I believe in freedom, which you obviously don't. Anybody that is not a Catholic can follow their religious teachings. And when gays get married because it is their moral code, who am I stop to them. You are more then welcome to believe they are sinners... and that they are going to hell. And they are free to believe that you are wrong. Nobody is forcing you to be gay. But the law of the land allows them to get married.

Sure I agree with that. Anyone who is not Catholic is free to follow whatever their hearts desire. However, the rules are different for Catholics. You've made a promise before God to protect what God teaches.

I have no idea how you reconcile that promise you made to what you say here. Perhaps you can explain that one to me?

The law doesn't allow you to discriminate.

Sure it does. I can rent my property out to whomever I want. I can sell it to whomever I want.

Family is the most important thing... maybe someday when you have one you will understand that.

Family is important, but it is not the most important. I am not loving a gambling addict by taking them to a casino. Or an alcoholic by taking them to a bar.

And one more time, being their or not will not change the fact they are getting married or that they are gay. You will hurt them deeply by not attending. But I guess family means nothing to you. Remember, they are already going to hell in your opinion, that doesn't mean that you have to pile on the hate as well.

If I loved them and I believed that what they were doing was wrong, would I go along with it or decline?

You have a Catholic duty to help other Catholics to stay true to their teachings. Religious freedom means they can follow their own religion.

If they are my child, I have an obligation as a Catholic father to help them stay true to their faith. I will be judged by that.

They may feel you are the one going to hell because you have turned your back on your family.

If they choose to marry then I probably will end up in hell too, for failing to do my duty for her. I am a teacher, I am responsible for my charges and where they end up. All of them.

Religions freedom means you can believe in your religion, and they can believe in theirs.

That still doesn't answer the question as to why you're fining a Catholic baker for practicing her faith.

You are welcome to break those laws, but then you must be willing to pay the price.

And as Dr. King said, an unjust law is worse than no law at all. For this very reason. We will not comply. You can fine us, toss us in jail. But we will not comply.

Bad logic... simply because some past laws were bad, doesn't automatically make the current laws bad.

True, but nor does it make the current laws good.

Why don't you prove that it doesn't exist.

I've already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christians are being persecuted. Now it is your turn to prove your claim.

No they weren't. All the stories I saw on it support that the rule was in place.

The rule was in place when it was enforced. The rule was not in place during the application.

Feel free to provide valid evidence to prove that the rule was added after the fact.

I will see what I can dig up.

Only bigots believe that they should be allowed to discriminate. Many people's lives are destroyed when they break the law. But they are the ones that destroyed their own lives by breaking the law. Yeah, a bunch of bigots will whine about this, and they are welcome to their bigoted opinions. And maybe the next time a bigot wants to break the law and discriminate against somebody they will think twice.

Again, most people I have spoken to do not believe a 20 dollar cake is worth a 125k dollar fine. They do not believe that there was a substantial impediment, and they believe that the Christian baker was deliberately targeted for being open about their faith.

Really, this case is destroying much of the work done to change public opinion.

Catholics don't have to allow gays the Catholics sacrament of marriage.

Not yet, but that is coming.

Nobody is forcing them to (and stop with the Nazi scare tactics that it is coming... simply fear mongering... when it happens, you can claim you are so right, but don't hold your breath) But gay marriage is legal, and many religions support it.

Gian has argued that religious freedoms should not be protected.

The state is asking institutions to follow the law. In some states, Catholic institutions have simply closed down to avoid breaking the law. In cases when they don't, the state has closed them down for breaking the law. The Catholic institutions are the ones that are not willing to place children in loving homes.

Religious freedoms would protect Catholic institutions from laws that discriminate against them.

They are even going so far as breaking the law to deny children the right to a loving home. It is your right as a American to protest the law... It is your right to try to change the law... but if you break the law, you will "do the time", just like anybody else. It's the Catholic institutions that are playing politics, and they don't care if the children suffer.

Again - the children are suffering because to the state of Massachusetts it is more important to override the conscience rights of Catholics than to place a child.

[Ben Kenobi]

She should have been removed.

You had her put in jail. I bet that felt really good, right, Giancarlo?

A public servant has to serve the public. She is paid by the tax dollars of all citizens. She has an obligation to follow the law.

She signed an oath to preserve the law not destroy the law.

I didn't have anyone arrested. She chose to be in contempt of court and was arrested on the orders of a Judge. Kim Davis should be removed from her office because she failed miserably in doing her job.

And what was her job? Her job was to uphold the law. If someone came to you and said that the law had been changed, and that you no longer had to protect what you were defending, what would you say?

Would you stop doing your job? Or would you argue that the oath remains what it was when you signed it?

There are same sex couples in Kentucky, crackpot.

That still doesn't explain why the two folks from Ohio drove all the way to Kentucky - to that particular county - to seek a marriage license. Perhaps you can explain that one to me, eh?

[Giancarlo]

Her oath was subject to the law and constitution. The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage. She has a duty to follow the law. She was found in contempt of court. You need to take a civics class, Ben.

She knew the top court of the land could change the law. So yes, a public servant has to follow what the Supreme Court says. The US Supreme Court interprets the law and issues rulings. She was obligated to follow the ruling.

Please understand this is my background. You won't win in this argument. Your argument is ridiculously false.

[Ben Kenobi]

You weren't born a Christian and you weren't born with those deplorable opinions.

Your words, Gian. The First says precisely the opposite and states that people have the right to exercise their religion.

Oh and don't quote Kinsey who has been widely discredited.

By whom? Many people quote Kinsey and argue that he is correct.

Gender fluidity has nothing to do with sexual orientation either. Gender identity is a different matter entirely.

Kinsey's argument is that the two are sides of the same coin - if people can change their genders then they can change their orientation.

Sexual orientation does not change so don't even try that crackpot argument here. By the way, do you even know what gender fluidity is? It appears you are using the wrong argument.

I am. I love that you dismiss Kinsey so quickly. Really, there isn't much argument for immutability.

[Giancarlo]

So if a cop didn't want to follow Miranda v Arizona he doesn't have to because the law said something different before? You have no clue what you are saying, Ben. Give it a rest. The top Court has the final say.

[Ben Kenobi]

Her oath was subject to the law and constitution.

Of the state of Kentucky. Which has not changed. Her oath remains the same as it was.

The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage. She has a duty to follow the law. She was found in contempt of court. You need to take a civics class, Ben.

Good thing I teach one then. Her oath specifies the constitution of the people of Kentucky which states that traditional marriage is the law of the state of Kentucky. She cannot be removed for doing her job.

She knew the top court of the land could change the law. So yes, a public servant has to follow what the Supreme Court says. The US Supreme Court interprets the law and issues rulings. She was obligated to follow the ruling.

Not if she's a state official. The state law takes primacy.

Please understand this is my background. You won't win in this argument. Your argument is ridiculously false.

I didn't know being homosexual gave you superpowers. Davis was exonerated, kept her position and remains as a county clerk. If you were correct, why did she keep her job?

[Giancarlo]

Your words, Gian. The First says precisely the opposite and states that people have the right to exercise their religion.



By whom? Many people quote Kinsey and argue that he is correct.



Kinsey's argument is that the two are sides of the same coin - if people can change their genders then they can change their orientation.



I am. I love that you dismiss Kinsey so quickly. Really, there isn't much argument for immutability.

The First Amendment has nothing to do with my argument, you putz.

Your argument is incorrect. Kinsey isn't even accepted in psychology and among professionals. No. Sexual orientation cannot change and gender identity is something different entirely. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Stick to subjects you know about, like that 2,000 year old fictional book you take so seriously. Only a total fool who has lived under a rock for forty years would say sexual orientation can change. My oh my what a clown. Sexual orientation is innate. Prove me wrong, bigot!

[Ben Kenobi]

The First Amendment has nothing to do with my argument, you putz.

No wonder you're arguing against it.

Your argument is incorrect. Kinsey isn't even accepted in psychology and among professionals.

[[Citation needed]]

No. Sexual orientation cannot change and gender identity is something different entirely. You have no clue what you are talking about.

If you can change your sex you can change your orientation.

Stick to subjects you know about, like that 2,000 year old fictional book you take so seriously. Only a total fool who has lived under a rock for forty years would say sexual orientation can change. My oh my what a clown. Sexual orientation is innate. Prove me wrong, bigot!

There are plenty of people who would argue that they have changed, Gian. Who is more right, you or them? I gotta go with what they say, and it makes no sense if sex is fluid that orientation is not.

[Giancarlo]

Of the state of Kentucky. Which has not changed. Her oath remains the same as it was.

Except the US Supreme Court has the final say. Check the Supremacy Clause. The laws of Kentucky were changed by US Supreme Court ruling.

Good thing I teach one then. Her oath specifies the constitution of the people of Kentucky which states that traditional marriage is the law of the state of Kentucky. She cannot be removed for doing her job.



Not if she's a state official. The state law takes primacy.



I didn't know being homosexual gave you superpowers. Davis was exonerated, kept her position and remains as a county clerk. If you were correct, why did she keep her job?

The law of Kentucky no longer says that because of the US Supreme Court overruling state law. The US Supreme Court has done this since its inception. Check the Warren Court.

State law never takes primacy. The US Supreme Court rulings overrules state laws.

She is now being forced to do her job and issue licenses to same sex couples. Plus she could face further sanctions if she refuses.

My superpowers? Try a Masters Degree in Political Science and Constitutional law.

[Giancarlo]

No wonder you're arguing against it.



[[Citation needed]]



If you can change your sex you can change your orientation.



There are plenty of people who would argue that they have changed, Gian. Who is more right, you or them? I gotta go with what they say, and it makes no sense if sex is fluid that orientation is not.

Only morons think that sexual orientation can change. I am right as is the AMA and APA who argue the same thing. Those who claim to "change" went to those discredited "exgay" camps. You are a vile disgusting person, Ben.

And it is funny you demand citations when you never provide any of your own.

[Ben Kenobi]

How was your brother wanting to marry hurting his family ?

Finally, someone starts to ask the real questions.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except the US Supreme Court has the final say. Check the Supremacy Clause. The laws of Kentucky were changed by US Supreme Court ruling.

I'm aware of the supremacy clause. However, the law of the state of Kentucky remains the same. She was not removed because ultimately, she holds her position through the will of the people of Kentucky whom she serves. The state of Kentucky retains the right to appoint their officials. Supremacy clause cannot remove popularly elected officials, because while the supremacy clause is important, ultimately the people of Kentucky have a say in their state officials. It would be akin to the Supreme court removing a governor of Alabama because they disagreed with them. Federalism prevents that.

She is now being forced to do her job and issue licenses to same sex couples. Plus she could face further sanctions if she refuses.

She isn't doing that, Gian. That was the whole point. She has had her name taken off them entirely. Other officials will do it, but she is not.

[Giancarlo]

I'm aware of the supremacy clause. However, the law of the state of Kentucky remains the same. She was not removed because ultimately, she holds her position through the will of the people of Kentucky whom she serves. The state of Kentucky retains the right to appoint their officials. Supremacy clause cannot remove popularly elected officials, because while the supremacy clause is important, ultimately the people of Kentucky have a say in their state officials. It would be akin to the Supreme court removing a governor of Alabama because they disagreed with them. Federalism prevents that.



She isn't doing that, Gian. That was the whole point. She has had her name taken off them entirely. Other officials will do it, but she is not.

Her office must issue them or face contempt.

Kentucky law has changed and she is obligated to follow it. She was not appointed either. If she violated US law she should be removed or impeached. You have no idea what is going on here, do you? What is your degree in?

The state of Kentucky must follow US Supreme Court rulings. They do not have any other choice. Period.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gian:

You stated that Kinsey is not highly regarded among psychiatrists. That's going to take a citation needed.

Only morons think that sexual orientation can change.

Again, there are plenty of examples of it. Who is right, you or them?

I am right as is the AMA and APA who argue the same thing. Those who claim to "change" went to those discredited "exgay" camps. You are a vile disgusting person, Ben.

All I stated is that some people claim that they have successfully changed. I said nothing about how. If, as you claim, it is immutable, then why are these other people claiming otherwise?

And it is funny you demand citations when you never provide any of your own.

That's because you're not challenging any of my factual statements RE Kinsey.

If you don't have any proof of your assertion that Kinsey is not well regarded among psychologists, then you'd better fire up the helicopter.

[Giancarlo]

I hope you really do not teach history. Your understanding of government is hysterically wrong. It is almost facepalm embarrassing. Too embarrassing to read what you write. By the way, Eisenhower deployed troops because of a states refusal to follow federal law.