The religious opposition
Wednesday, Nov 6, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From yesterday’s debate…
“This bill is the worst in the U.S. in protecting religious liberty,” said Rep. Jeanne Ives, R-Wheaton. “It does not have the religious protections most of us agree should happen.” […]
[Rep. Greg Harris] said the bill as written specifically immunizes religious leaders from having to perform same-sex marriages and also exempts religious facilities from hosting them.
Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, said that didn’t go far enough.
“Why are religious rights only granted to priests, pastors and rabbis?” Reis said. “What about our rights? This is about individual religious rights.” […]
Rep. Dwight Kay, R-Glen Carbon, said biblical teachings should determine how someone votes on the issue.
“The Constitution has always looked to the scriptures for guidance,” Kay said. “I’ve heard nothing today about the scriptures. All I’ve heard about is human rights. My conviction is that this is wrong, but my conviction is scripture is right.”
* Also from the debate…
State Rep. Mary Flowers, D-Chicago, who also voted against the bill, said the Bible defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, and no government has the authority to undo that.
“Even if the legal definition of the word ‘marriage’ was changed to include homosexual couples, those couples will not ever be truly married in God’s eyes,” she said.
* And…
State Rep. David Harris, an Arlington Heights Republican, described meeting with a religious leader who urged him to vote “yes” and called him “homophobic” when he disagreed.
“It shows the tenor of the debate,” Harris said.
He said he rejects the suggestion people who vote against same-sex marriage don’t care about civil rights.
“Are those black ministers who represent so many African-American congregations … around this state, are they bigots who don’t care about civil rights? I think not,” Harris said.
* The Sun-Times caught up with Cardinal George and Bishop Trotter…
“It’s no enormous surprise. There was a lot of effort placed into passage of this legislation. I think it’s bad legislation, but we’ve lived with bad laws before. It’ll make some people happy … but it will also, I think, change the nature of our society over a period of time,” Cardinal Francis George told the Chicago Sun-Times after speaking at Holy Name Cathedral. […]
Bishop Larry D. Trotter, who helped lead opposition to the bill, applauded legislators “who stood up for God.”
“Regardless of the passage of SB10, we will always believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Trotter said. “Yet we will still love the members of the LGBT community. We pray God’s grace, mercy and blessings over the state of Illinois and the United States of America.”
* From the Catholic Conference of Illinois…
Today’s decision by Illinois lawmakers to change the definition of marriage not only goes against the common consensus of the human race – which understands that nature tells us that marriage is the union of one man and one woman – but it also undermines an institution that is the cornerstone of a healthy society. The optimal condition in which to raise children is a home that includes both a mother and father, since women and men are not interchangeable.
The Catholic Conference of Illinois is deeply disappointed that members of the General Assembly chose to redefine what is outside of its authority: a natural institution like marriage. We remain concerned about the very real threats to religious liberty that are at stake with the passage of this bill.
* Thomas More Society…
“While we believe it regrettable that Illinois legislators have now purported to redefine marriage as something different from the union of one man and one woman, we are at least pleased and reassured to hear that legislators insisted during today’s floor debate in the House of Representatives that Illinois’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other constitutional and statutory guaranties of Illinois citizens’ religious liberties remain in full force and effect.
We will do our part to insure that those fundamental religious liberties are given robust and unstinting protection. The free speech and free exercise clauses of our First Amendment remain at the core of our constitutional order, and no law nor any public official may lawfully coerce anyone to deny or disavow his or her religious beliefs, or refrain from professing those beliefs in the public square, or to go against those beliefs in practice.
This is still a free country, and Thomas More Society stands ready to do its utmost to keep it free,” said Tom Brejcha, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Society.
* But religion was also cited by the proponents…
Advocates soon received additional help from Pope Francis, who warned that the Catholic Church could lose its way by focusing too much on social stances, including opposition to homosexuality.
“If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?” Francis said in July.
The comments sparked a wave of soul-searching by several Catholic lawmakers who had battled to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sworn duty to represent their constituents who were increasingly supportive of gay rights even as Cardinal Francis George remained opposed.
“As a Catholic follower of Jesus and the pope, Pope Francis, I am clear that our Catholic religious doctrine has at its core love, compassion and justice for all people,” said Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, a Democrat from Aurora who voted for the bill after spending much of the summer undecided.
House Speaker Michael Madigan also cited the pope’s comments in explaining his support for the measure.
“For those that just happen to be gay — living in a very harmonious, productive relationship but illegal — who am I to judge that they should be illegal?” the speaker said.
- ChicagoR - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:56 am:
“This is still a free country, and Thomas More Society stands ready to do its utmost to keep it free”. Unless you’re gay, apparently.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:57 am:
When did religious freedom come to mean that if it goes against your religious beliefs it violates your religious freedom? Nonsense. There are a lot of things I don’t like but I don’t go around spouting that my “freedoms” are being infringed upon. I was appalled at Rep. Reis and Rep. Ives and their comments. They essentially said that if we can’t continue to discriminate against gay people because we don’t like them then it violates our religious freedom. I fully expect the Thomas More society to start filing lawsuits when a flower shop objects to selling flowers to a gay couple. Defending hate and bigotry is their game.
- A guy... - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:58 am:
Measured responses all. As it should be.
- too obvious - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 9:59 am:
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. At least never quoted in the Bible. Just sayin’.
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:01 am:
The comments of Kay and Ives were especially disappointing and in many cases outright falsehood
- Chicago Publius - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:03 am:
I wonder why all of those so-called catholic leaders don’t express their opposition to divorce? In the new testament, Jesus says that those who get divorced and then marry someone else are committing adultery. So howcome catholic clerics don’t speak against that? Is is because they don’t want to risk alienating a large number of the people who sit in their pews and drop coins in their baskets?
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:03 am:
==I’ve heard nothing today about the scriptures.==
He heard nothing about the Scriptures? What room was he in. I would also remind Rep. Kay that the Scriptures aren’t the law.
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:04 am:
Each of these religious leaders and legislators can continue to believe what they believe, and vote and advocate accordingly. They can maintain their concerns about future changes in society, and cultural values, and express those concerns. This bill doesn’t impact or change any of that.
They just cannot insist that their beliefs and rules automatically be the law of the land. They cannot ignore the law, (outside of religious institutions, which are specifically exempted), because they don’t agree with it.
That’s true for any law.
Thank God for America and our Constitution!
- A. Nonymous - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:07 am:
“Why are religious rights only granted to priests, pastors and rabbis?” Reis said. “What about our rights? This is about individual religious rights.” […]
Dear Rep. Reis, nobody has taken away your right to marry or divorce a gal.
Nor is anyone forcing you to marry or divorce a dude.
Thus, your soliloquy about rights rings hollow, at best.
Cheers,
A Happily Married Illinoisan who acknowledges love is in the air
- TJ - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:07 am:
The opponents of marriage equality can yap all they want, all they’re doing is increasing the odds that future generations will remember a gem from them with the same confusion that people of my generation look at segregationists in the 1950s and 1960s. Complete and utter confusion.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:08 am:
I give loads of credit to those who spoke in opposition to SB10 on the HGOP side, and the only “blemish” I heard was from Rep. Morrison, who just can’t help himself with the “polygamy” arguement.
Please stop with these arguements. This is the same Tom Morrisson who sent the email equating SSM to other forms of relationships that are not even being discussed in the SSM forum.
Rep. Morrison was the disappointment yesterday. While there is a case for pointing out some hyperbole, Rep. Morrison just can’t help himself, dragging in polygamy, which made me think … immediately … to that constituent email… and the “If I offended…” faux apology.
Rep. Morrison, please, leave the speaking against “social” bills to those who will not make My Party look Dopey, or to those I do not have to apologize for, because the Representative lacks the understanding of the issue at hand.
Overall, the tempered and measured tone was gresat to hear/see, and I applaud those… those who understood that speaking against a Bill, should not be the same as soeaking against People, and keeping the focus where it needed to be, on SB10.
- GoodGrief - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:17 am:
This is why government should only be in the civil union business and leave marriage to the churches. This makes the government position inclusive while your religious beliefs are maintained in the church you choose to attend. If ANY couple wants the rights provided by the government then a civil union would be required. You want your union recognized by the church then find one that will perform the marriage ceremony.
- RonOglesby - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:20 am:
—This is why government should only be in the civil union business and leave marriage to the churches—
Exactly. get gov out of the marriage business all together. Then these folks dont have to go begging to gov for the right to be “married”. some people against SSM are really apposed to MARRIAGE. but can take a civil union without choking too much. Fine. lets get gov out of marriage and everyone gets civil unions and marriage is something for the church. Done.
- Southwest Cook - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:24 am:
Ives: “It does not have the religious protections most of us agree should happen.”
Did she propose any amendments or try to work in good faith to craft a bill she could vote for? Of course not. She (and others) wouldn’t have been a “Yes” even with the strictest language protecting “religious liberty”.
- Wensicia - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:33 am:
“It does not have the religious protections most of us agree should happen.”
The only religious protection that would please these people is a ban of any marriage outside of heterosexual unions.
This is not a theocracy, get over it people.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:52 am:
Am I a bad person for taking some pleasure in the “pain” being expressed by Bishop Trotter, Cardinal George and some of the “religious” leaders? Although it feels good to see justice done and the good guys win, it also feels good to see them lose. Sorry,
- A guy... - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:59 am:
Chicago Publius at 10:03, why don’t you go sit in those pews. No need for you to drop coins, just listen. “Catholic Clerics??” Your statements belie your bias against Catholics. Fine. The Church does speak out against divorce (with few exceptions, abuse, etc.) and preaches the sanctity of marriage. Find something to believe in dude. Without the Catholics in the legislature, the bill wouldn’t have passed. Give that some thought.
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:00 am:
And, of course, nothing in SB10 amends the Bible, the Sunday Missle or any other holy book. It is too bad some of these fools are honest enough to admit it
- Anon - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:02 am:
As a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, these kinds of statements make me cringe. I would agree with GoodGrief and RonOglesby except that A. I don’t wish to cede marriage as being the sole providence of the religious, which is an a-historical perspective. B. It stinks of Jim Crow-esque separate but equal bullcrap.
Point B is also exactly why I don’t understand why (and I’m generalizing here) African-Americans can’t seem to get the civil rights connection with SSM. Standing up for your own rights does not make you a champion of civil rights, just like standing up for the freedom of one religion does not make you a champion of religious freedom.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:08 am:
GoodGrief - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:17 am:
- RonOglesby - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 10:20 am:
You’re right, it is done. And the good guys won.
- too obvious - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:16 am:
Dwight Kay now looks like a fool for endorsing Tom Cross. Assuming Kay doesn’t take back that endorsement, he should probably just keep his mouth shut on the gay issue.
- chad - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:19 am:
Leaders of religious institutions need to recognize that they must increasingly focus on moral suasion from the pulpit on these kinds of issues. If you want to exclude gay couples from your churches, you can choose to do so. The processing of abortion, riverboats, civil unions, and now gay marriage issues reflects that non-religious institutions are less willing to use their power structures to assert what is, essentially, religious dogma.
A relevant NGO example is the Boy Scouts, which determined recently to end its 20-year ban on gay youth membership (yes, a gay ban was not historic to that organization, but rather a mid-90’s development). Who made the decision in that case? About 1,500 small-town businessmen who had the voting responsibility to consider that issue – not exactly a bunch of lefty-pinko-wackos.
To my many friends in the ILGOP, your future is really on the line as a relevant Illinois political party. Do what the BSA small businessmen did and get practical. Follow Obie, Uncle Jack and their friends and you will seep further into history with the Illinois Whig Party.
Compliments to David Harris, who gave one of the most considered speech all day on the matter. While opposing the bill, he effectively called for respect on all sides.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:30 am:
Whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:34 am:
- too obvious -,
It is only bad if Dwight Kay or to others IF they believe that all in the ILGOP must agree 100% of the time.
If it’s a muust for Kay or his supporters, then they will flake off Cross anyway. Being a Reagan Rule Republican means taking into consideration all they have in common, that counters what little they do not.
- Sir Reel - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:43 am:
I always thought “religious freedom” meant freedom to practice any religion. To some of the opponents, it seems to mean freedom to discriminate and prevent some in our society from obtaining the legal and financial benefits marriage provides.
I wonder if the opponents would support eliminating all the legal and financial benefits of marriage so that it could become a strictly religious issue? None of them discussed anything like this in their comments.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 11:49 am:
“Those couples will not ever be truly married in God’s eyes”
And that’s a problem for government why?
Not sure why Rep. Flowers thinks that is relevant.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 12:45 pm:
I’m glad I don’t believe in a God who would discriminate like that.
- Sigh - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:06 pm:
Will an elected judge be able to decline to officiate at a SSM ceremony if to do so violates his or her religious beliefs?
- Gerry - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:31 pm:
Some of you just don’t get it on the religious liberties part of this do you? Yeah the churches are protected and will not be forced to perform a same sex ceremony but what about the religious liberty of an individual? It doesn’t protect an individual’s religious liberty. This is what I’m talking about where the real problem with SB 10 is. There are Christian business owners out there who have said no to providing their services for a same sex ceremony because it goes against their faith and they’re being sued for it! That is not only wrong but unconstitutional. They should have the right to say no to providing for a same sex ceremony if it goes against their religious beliefs and they shouldn’t have to be forced into doing something that goes against their beliefs. If any of you don’t believe this just go look it up. There’s a bed and breakfast owner here in Illinois, a photographer studio owner in Arizona, and a florist in Washington.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:33 pm:
Gerry,
They couldn’t discriminate before and they can’t now.
Nothing has changed.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:34 pm:
By the way Gerry, those places also have to serve interracial couples, whether they like it or not.
- BigRed Rightwinger - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:40 pm:
OW, I don’t quite understand your attack on Rep. Morrison for bringing up polyamory.
SB10 strips marriage from its procreative role and makes it about the State affirming the love and commitment of people. The proponents of SB10 argue that it is discriminatory not to provide the same rights and privileges to same sex people as heterosexuals. Why is it not wrong to deny the same rights and privileges to 3 or more people who are in love and in a committed relationship? It is discriminatory. If marriage is about love and commitment what rational reason is there to limit it to two people?
Please enlighten me. Your post seems to be more about politics than principle.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:42 pm:
Strips marriage from its procreative role?
You realize, of course, that under current law people in their 80s can marry?
- MrJM - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:46 pm:
Were they able to decline to administer the death penalty because doing so violated his or her religious beliefs? Are infantry soldiers able to decline firearms training because doing so violates his religious beliefs? Can a government meat inspector convert to Jainism and then refused to do her job because it violates her religious beliefs?
If you don’t want to do your government job, then quit and get another job.
– MrJM
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 1:50 pm:
- BigRed Rightwinger -,
When Utah wanted to join the Union, they had to outlaw polygamy.
Fifteen states now have SSM, and they are still in the Union.
“One of the conditions for granting Utah statehood was that a ban on polygamy be written into the state constitution. This was a condition required of other western states that were admitted into the Union later. Statehood was officially granted on January 4, 1896.”
Precendent. the legal aspect of a state in the Union recognizing Polygamy is not goig to be possible.
Polygamy is aganst the Law, prevented a state from joining the Union, and the mere fact that this Dopey idea is on the table shows a lack of understanding of where we are in history, where we were, and where we are going … and not going.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:10 pm:
–Will an elected judge be able to decline to officiate at a SSM ceremony if to do so violates his or her religious beliefs? ==
Boy, that’s a tough one. Did this hypothetical judge swear an oath to uphold the laws of Illinois and the United States?
Or is this judge enforcing Sharia law?
- ChicagoR - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:11 pm:
I just don’t understand why those so upset about the supposed “loss of religious liberties” here aren’t out screaming for religious exceptions to all our other laws. There are (or were at the time of passage our civil rights laws) certainly those whose religions don’t agree with serving individuals of other races or religions. But we don’t have religious exceptions for businesses from those laws.
- catrike - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:14 pm:
So proud to live in Illinois today. The anti gay arguments sound more hollow each repeating.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
==Some of you just don’t get it on the religious liberties part of this do you?==
No, we get it. You don’t. Why should a business owner be allowed to discriminate against gay people? Should we have a checklist people must fill out when they go into a business to make sure that their life and actions are OK with the business owner? Your religious liberties are NOT being violated. Enough with that nonsense. If you operate a business then you don’t get to pick and choose which people you want to serve. If you can’t operate your business without discriminating then you shouldn’t be able to operate a business at all.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:37 pm:
==Find something to believe in dude.==
I think they have. The right of a gay couple to get married. At least they have a view, unlike you.
- A guy... - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:39 pm:
Demo, I have 2 views that I’ve given darn near equal weight. I catch up to you at the next Mensa meeting.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:42 pm:
==I catch up to you at the next Mensa meeting. ==
Thanks for keeping it classy. Arrogance is an ugly thing.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:46 pm:
@A guy:
I seem to recall somebody saying this . . . “Occasionally, you drop a cheapie.”
Who would that have been?
- A guy... - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:49 pm:
You were correct to point out my cheapie. Apologies.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:55 pm:
~ but what about the religious liberty of an individual?~
What is it in this law that prevents you from remaining a bigot? Nothing. It just means two consenting adults are allowed to marry each other without having to worry about whether or not you approve.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 2:58 pm:
@A guy:
All is well. I’m a big boy. lol
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 3:00 pm:
Gerry: We get your argument — we’ve heard it a million times, (with the same three cases always cited). And we’ve considered it from many angles.
You retain your rights to practice your own religion, provided it doesn’t infringe on the legal rights of others. Nothing has changed impacting your religious rights.
You cannot illegally discriminate, which was the case before this bill was passed.
That’s called a country of laws.
- Jaded - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 4:40 pm:
Business owners will be OK. If they don’t want to do the wedding they can just be busy on that day or even better, jack the bid up a couple extra grand. If the couple wants to pay the extra cash subcontract and have a nice day. Win, Win, Win.
- liberal muse - Wednesday, Nov 6, 13 @ 5:40 pm:
Separation of church and state is a pillar on which this country was founded. A belief that stemmed from our forefathers fleet to avoid religious persecution. Today, we are a melting pot of people, ideas, politics and religious beliefs. To say that the bible defines marriage as one man and one woman we are not only refusing to acknowledge separation of church and state, we are also refusing to acknowledge any group of people whose faith may not involve the Christian bible. Politics works far better without the intrusion of religion and religion works far better without the intrusion of politics.
- Gerry - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:15 am:
@Demoralized, So in other words what you’re saying is a Christian business owner should just forget about their strongly held Christian beliefs, values, and morals and be forced to give in and provide for a ceremony that is not only immoral but goes against everything they believe in just because they have a business and if they don’t they should have one at all? If that’s really what you think then you are a complete fascist and care nothing for the First Amendment. This is nothing at all like the segregation days and refusing service to someone because of their skin color which one has no control over, but a ceremony of 2 people of the same sex in a lifestyle that they knowingly entered into and CHOSE on their own free will is vastly different and not at all comparable to one’s color. In that case those business owners should have every right to say no and they should not be forced to drop their beliefs just because they run a business. That’s what you so called “progressives” do is pressure people who don’t agree with you and back them into a corner. I hear all these anti bullying campaigns all the time which are put on by people like you but the funny truth is so called “progressives” are the biggest bullies out there. Everything that you “progressives” accuse us conservative Christians of are the same things that you guys do on a regular basis. You call us discriminative and intolerant bigots all the time but yet you guys are the biggest ones of them all. You so called “progressives” are nothing but fascist hypocrites.
- Gerry - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:47 am:
@WalkingFool Yeah and I’ve heard your side’s repugnant arguments a million times too so what of it? Myself personally, no I’m not a business owner but I feel for those Christians who are that have to deal with this crap. In regards to those 3 cases, I’m sure there’s several more out there that I just don’t know about. But this isn’t just about Christian business owners, this will affect all Christians in general. Another concerning fact is how children of Christians will be taught in schools(at least public ones anyway) about this. In states where gay “marriage” has already been legalized gay teachers and plenty of “progressive” ones as well have started using their classroom as a platform to push their views on kids as young as kindergarten! They’re teaching kids that homosexuality is a normal genetic trait and that any kind of conservative view is hateful and bigoted. So you’re really telling me that nothing has changed? That’s a bunch of crap right there and its a lot of people on your side that are doing plenty of infringing on other’s beliefs and pushing their own, and that can even be discrimination too if their telling kids that everyone who has conservative views is hateful and bigoted. If you don’t believe me on any of this then go look it up for yourself. David Parker is the best example to start with, the man who was technically arrested for “trespassing” when really people just didn’t like that he was opposing his son being taught homosexuality in his grade school. Of course I’m sure many on your side either deny or disclaim that. That same kind of stuff will happen here in Illinois, I guarantee it. So it goes far more deep than just a Christian owning a business and on top of that, anybody who tells Christian business owners that they can’t let their faith be a part of their business and let it be a part of how they run their business is very discriminatory and bigoted. People like you tell us to be tolerant towards gays and their views well where is your tolerance for Christians and theirs. Again its “progressive” liberal hypocrisy.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 7:41 am:
Gerry, see you in church.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 8:16 am:
- Gerry -,
With your “Lifestyle Choice” argument, and the “everyone who is not of the ‘Christian’ ideal is bigoted towards Christians” follow up…
I am shocked your argument didn’t have more sway…
Or am I?
Probably not.
- Gerry - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 10:00 am:
@Oswego Willy, What all do you want to know? Tell me and I will go further. For the time being its very simple, people who live gay made that decision on their own to go through with it. All this talk about it being genetic and the whole “born that way” stuff is garbage. They do not have to live that lifestyle if they don’t want to but they do because that’s what they want not because some gene or force is making them. As for the bigotry towards Christians its very true. “Progressives” like you are very bigoted and intolerant towards Christians. They have no tolerance for their beliefs and they think any kind of opposition they have towards homosexuality is hate when its not the case at all. Every opposition you face you spin it around and turn it into hate when really its you guys who are hateful. The whole Chick Fil A thing last year is a perfect example. The CEO simply says he’s not for gay marriage, nothing hateful at all there but left wing “progressive” liberals cry hate when there was none and they try bullying him into a corner and try to ruin him and his business. Mayors of San Francisco, Boston, and Emmanuel of Chicago pretty much forbid him from building a franchise there. That is Christian bigotry at its finest.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 10:13 am:
Gerry, when did you decide to be heterosexual?
Also, the Chick Fil A at State and Lake gets really busy around noon. Try to get there early.