Wednesday, May 18, 2016
JoeMyGod . com news articles and comments
304 comments
JoeMyGod
Login
1
Recommend
⤤ Share
Sort by Best
Avatar
Join the discussion…
Media preview placeholder
Avatar
bkmn • 2 days ago
Wrong. If you are in a public position you serve all of the public. Period.
115 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Gustav2 > bkmn • 2 days ago
Then Protestants can refuse services to Roman Catholics?
52 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GayOldLady > Gustav2 • 2 days ago
Nothing would make the point better, but religion is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- Federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin."
I think it's time for a Civil Rights Act of 2016 that adds gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity.
11 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Duck > GayOldLady • 2 days ago
But, what the Pope is advocating here is "conscientious objector" status for ALL laws effectively.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
PlumDumpling > Duck • 2 days ago
No. Pope Frankie is arguing for special privileges for Catholics.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Claudette Gosney > PlumDumpling • a day ago
"my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr".....!jk174e
two days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month's payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day...with weekly payouts..it's realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 Dollars...
Learn. More right Here
!jk174e
:➽:➽:
➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsExplorer\GetPay-Hour$98....
.✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸::::::!jk174e...
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GayOldLady > Duck • a day ago
You're right.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Richard Rush > GayOldLady • 2 days ago
But, with or without adding other categories, the religion category should be removed because religion is a choice, whereas all the other categories are innate characteristics.
PS: And furthermore, the CRA of 1964 does NOT include the category of "bigot" for protection against discrimination. So, if I had a business, I should be able to refuse service to bigots as a matter of conscience. A bigot may or may not be religious, but I would be discriminating against them based on their bigotry, not based on their religion.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
PlumDumpling > Richard Rush • 2 days ago
No. We have had religious war in this country.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GC > GayOldLady • 2 days ago
...it's time for a Civil Rights Act... that adds gender [identity and expression], sexual orientation, sexual identity.
Amen!
All the more reason to VOTE this fall, and help like-minded folks register, get necessary IDs, etc.! A Democratic majority Senate and/or House would greatly increase the chances of those overdue improvements to the Civil Rights Act (1) actually reaching the floor, (2) passing, and (3) not being used as an opportunity to move backwards and gut the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And, of course, a Democratic president would greatly increase the chances of that good amendment being signed, not vetoed.
(BTW, I happened to find this NPR article about how the inclusion of "sex" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have been a poison pill intended to doom its passage. Good thing that didn't happen!
"How A Poison Pill Worded As 'Sex' Gave Birth To Transgender Rights"http://www.npr.org/2016/05/15/... )
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JIM W > GC • a day ago
We can only hope that if Hillary is the nominee, that Bernie's supporters will come together and support the party nominee. I am afraid that it won't happen.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > GayOldLady • a day ago
and anti religion protection.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
CCleverly > GayOldLady • a day ago
You forgot 'sex'.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GayOldLady > CCleverly • a day ago
Sex is the one thing I will never forget! :-)
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bob Conti > Gustav2 • 2 days ago
No Prot Soup for You, Father O'Brian!
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
S1AMER > Gustav2 • 2 days ago
Yep.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JIM W > Gustav2 • a day ago
Catholics refuse service to Protestants. When a non-catholic marries a catholic, the service won't be allowed, unless you (A) convert to catholicism, or (B) agree to raise all the children catholic.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal > bkmn • 2 days ago
Whenever this nonsense comes up, I tell them to STFU and accept responsibility and consequences for their religious lifestyle choices.
I certainly am probably not cut out to be a firefighter, but you don't see me shrieking about how persecuted I am because I am not allowed to serve as a firefighter under my own terms and conditions.
34 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MB > vorpal • 2 days ago
Black fur and all of that heat ? Well it appears you have already done the math for that equation, my sexy young dancin' genius ;-)
Thumbnail
10 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal > MB • 2 days ago
Tsk, tsk... how am I supposed to get any work done when you're posting such porn-fodder on the JMGs?
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MB > vorpal • 2 days ago
Porn-fodder, HERE on JMG?? Me ?????
Thumbnail
7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bad Tom > MB • 2 days ago
That's the after porn-fodder pix.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
bkmn > vorpal • 2 days ago
Exactly. If you are bothered by blood you don't become a surgeon.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
crewman > bkmn • 2 days ago
Right on! If they aren't willing to do the civic duties required of their position they should opt out of that position (i.e. find another job they are willing to do.)
22 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Chris Baker > bkmn • 2 days ago
They are not 'celebrating' the marriage, or even approving of it, they are just performing an official, government duty. Like getting a driver's license, or registering a property deed. The government official is verifying and validating a legal contract.
I wonder if someone had a religious objection to a Catholic Church buying a certain piece of property, they could refuse to accept/file/whatever the property deed.
20 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Soren456 > Chris Baker • 2 days ago
He uses "celebrate" as a religious term—priests "celebrate" Mass, which means that they conduct it; they also "celebrate" funerals.
In that sense, applied to public officials conducting a civil marriage ceremony, it's not correct, because the proceedings lack a religious component.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
John30013 > Chris Baker • 2 days ago
I think "celebrating" refers to judges and others who are empowered (and in some cases may be required) to perform marriages--not just clerks who record paperwork.
That said, they are still public servants, and their personal beliefs cannot be used to deny access to a citizen's civil rights.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Chris Baker > John30013 • 2 days ago
Yes, I understand what you are saying, but they are not necessarily "celebrating," they are an official, doing their required duties as a state official (just like the clerk giving you an eye test at the DMV, or the bailiff swearing you in at court). A clergy person could be considered "celebrating" because he/she has a choice in the matter and it is a more extensive service. A judge/official simply says "Do you agree to marry each other? OK, great, you are now married according to the state. Sign here, don't let the door hit you on the butt as you leave." The judge/official is a neutral party, formalizing a legal arrangement for the state.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GuestStop > bkmn • 2 days ago
BINGO! Got it in one.
18 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MarkOH > bkmn • 2 days ago
Exactly. The man in the white dress is wrong.
13 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
PlumDumpling > MarkOH • a day ago
Give him a break. He could be Cardinal Burke.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
heimaey > bkmn • 2 days ago
They can quit their job if they want.
13 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
StraightGrandmother > heimaey • 2 days ago
Yup, nobody has a gun to their heads forcing them to hold job whatever. If they cannot reconcile their civil service job with their religious beliefs, why then there's the door.
13 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
LovesIrony > bkmn • 2 days ago
They can "opt-out" by resigning or not taking the job in the first place.
7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ninja0980 > bkmn • 2 days ago
Bingo, if they can't do the job due to religious beliefs, quit and find another one.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
PlumDumpling > bkmn • 2 days ago
Correct, Depriving others is not religious conscientious objection, Gandhi says it the best:
"I have also called it love-force or soul-force. . . I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and compassion. For what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on oneself." - Mohandas Gandhi.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TampaZeke > bkmn • 2 days ago
The Poop's argument is vacuous on it's face. Catholics and other religious people already have the right to opt out of performing gay marriages. They've ALWAYS had that right because they have the right get jobs doing any one of the THOUSANDS of jobs that don't require a person to marry gay couples or any other couples that offends their religious beliefs. They can even hold public service jobs that don't require marrying people. They could be garbage collectors or road construction crew members or file clerks or lifeguards at the public pool, etc.
I have a question for the Pope. Can I, or anyone, become a Catholic priest but refuse to perform the rite of the Eucharist? Could I be a priest but refuse to take confession or perform baptisms? If not, WHY NOT? And don't dare tell me that it is an integral requirement of the job.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > TampaZeke • a day ago
But you could be a priest and refuse to live by your vow of celibacy. That one happens all the time.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TampaZeke > McSwagg • 17 hours ago
Not without being fired if you're found out by his Poopyness.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Doug105 > bkmn • 2 days ago
Clear he just misspoke.
Catholic Public Officials Should Be Allowed To Opt-Out Of Public Office.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > bkmn • a day ago
Italy is a vastly overwhelmingly catholic country. The pope's proposed policy would give the RCC an effective veto over any secular government law they disagreed with. This is disingenuous. Truly a wolf in sheep's disguise.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Turtle73 • 2 days ago
Absolutely they can. They can abstain from performing same-sex civil marriages any time they like.
All they have to do is quit their jobs. It's as easy as that.
48 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Chris Baker > Turtle73 • 2 days ago
Like a bartender who refuses to serve people alcohol. If you can't do your job, then you need to find one you can do.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GuestStop • 2 days ago
Funny, I think everyone should be able to opt out of your bullshit brainwashing and children should be able to opt out of being molesting by your friends. That's just my opinion, though.
39 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BudClark > GuestStop • 2 days ago
Small children should NOT be subjected to RELIGIOUS BRAINWASHING!
24 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > BudClark • 2 days ago
It's one of the original deflections: We have to recruit kids because we can't reproduce (the fuck?), yet they, in truth, are the ones doing the recruiting because by the age of 8 kids would be able to see through the pig shit and reject the church, possible even religion. But we do the recruiting.
10 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
bambinoitaliano > BudClark • 2 days ago
And sexual abuse. If I have children, beside teaching them be aware of strangers. Priests and any religious group will be included in that category.
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GC > BudClark • 2 days ago
Anyone know who came up with this quote?
"Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one.
It's fine to be proud of it.
But please don't wave it around in public.
And DO NOT try to shove it down my children's throats."
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jerry > GuestStop • a day ago
Just watched "Spotlight" on DVD...it's still shocking to see just how widespread the molesting went within the RCC, and how many thousands upon thousands of children were affected.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
freshacconci • 2 days ago
No they shouldn't. This is a secular society. We follow secular rules. Be religious in your home life but leave it out of the public sphere when it impacts on others. That's like a vegan opting out of killing animals in a slaughterhouse. If your job conflicts with your convictions, you get another job.
31 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Tigernan Quinn • 2 days ago
I've never understood where this whole "the Pope likes us!" crap came from - he's spent all last year reminding people that we are a threat to the existence of a stable society, and then threw us one "eh, who am I to judge" and people went nuts. He's the same as any Pope; the Church is our enemy.
29 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Houndentenor > Tigernan Quinn • 2 days ago
Because people read headlines and not the articles. And the US media in NYC has a lot of lapsed Catholics in it who are desperate for a progressive pope and cling to any scrap of decency that comes out of his mouth no matter how much other garbage they have to ignore so the scraps fit that narrative.
12 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ninja0980 > Tigernan Quinn • 2 days ago
Because the tune he was singing sounded so nice and different, people didn't bother to read between the lines to see what he was singing wasn't new at all, it was simply redone in a different style to sound better.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
CottonBlimp > Tigernan Quinn • a day ago
Americans have been raised with too much religious propaganda to want to accept that the church is the enemy. So even educated, liberal people who should and do know better jump at the excuse not to have to care about the RCC's ongoing history of homophobia and child rape.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bob Right > Tigernan Quinn • 2 days ago
I think we are eager there might be change, so that is what we first hear when listening. But honestly I don't understand how anyone can straddle the fence to this degree, especially while wearing that robe!
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jean-Marc in Canada • 2 days ago
NO, Catholics have no religious rights while acting as an arm of the state. If they can't accept that, they need to find new employment. Period. End. Of. Discussion. Seriously, this should not even be a debate.
27 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Curieux Bleu > Jean-Marc in Canada • 2 days ago
Unfortunately there is a really BIG Catholic problem over at the Supreme Court of the United States, although one of those guys recently stepped down ...
Possibly due to the vast shortage of "qualified" white male Catholic republican men willing to step up and volunteer for the replacement, the Senate has, in its wisdom deferred the issue.
But if someone who passed the bar exam and was from Opus Dei or the Catholic League, if that someone WERE available, well of course they would be prompt in giving consent!
The Senate's problem here is that Obama has proved intransigent in insisting on someone who is known to be fair and impartial, but without the proper religious inspiration. They are hoping Mr. Trump will be able to provide the solution, G'bless their craven little "hearts".
Cuz, the Constitution ... don'cha know?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Xuuths > Curieux Bleu • 2 days ago
Stepped down? Interesting way to phrase "died"...
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jerry > Xuuths • a day ago
Thanks Obama! And Scalia's not just merely dead, he's really quite sincerely dead.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Soren456 > Curieux Bleu • 2 days ago
LOL. I don't think the Senate is holding things up waiting for a candidate of the right religion.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
The Sentinel • 2 days ago
Perfect timing for the International Day Against Homophobia And Transphobia! and a gentle reminder to tell your friends and family who exclaim "I love this Pope!" to go fuck themselves.
22 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
WebSlinger • 2 days ago
Thumbnail
17 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mommie Dammit • 2 days ago
I'll just leave this right here...
Thumbnail
16 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
ExGayTherapyKills • 2 days ago
Children should be allowed to opt-out of performing sex on Catholic priest.
16 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ross • 2 days ago
The Pope would not DARE to state that a Catholic public official could refuse to marry a mixed-race couple, a Jewish couple, or an Aftrican-America couple.
But queers?
Sure, why not.
And he doesn't even recognize how appalling this is.
16 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > Ross • 2 days ago
He does that is the problem.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Skokieguy [Larry] • 2 days ago
Very serious, related issue. In Illinois Advocate (a large religious based medical provider) is taking over the clinics in Walgreen's.
http://news.walgreens.com/pres...
I find it very disturbing that it is not possible for some people to receive healthcare that is not administered by a religiously affiliated institution. Under my HMO, I have not been able to find a non-affiliated provider.
How can an LGBT person feel they will receive quality, unbiased care when there are no choices left? And while the fundies scream about their comfort in the bathroom because the woman in the next stall might have different genitalia (which they will never know or see and is irrelevant), how about my comfort to see a doctor or have a medical procedure down without Jesus on the wall in every friggin' exam room?
15 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ninja0980 > Skokieguy [Larry] • 2 days ago
Same for women, who in many places can't get the options of birth control or an abortion because the hospital won't allow.
If I need medical care, I shouldn't have to meet someone religious requirements to get it, especially if I'm sick or dying.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Skokieguy [Larry] > Ninja0980 • 2 days ago
And for some time now, pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for things they don't like. Contraception was the driving issue, but I'm sure there are probably fundie assholes out there that have refused to dispense HIV meds.
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
djcoastermark > Skokieguy [Larry] • 2 days ago
That is very scary.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > Skokieguy [Larry] • 2 days ago
Or a cross on the neck of the one you need to ask help from, No religious symbols in public please.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ed Burrow • 2 days ago
Nope. That's not how this works. At all.
Fuck off pope.
Fuck off religion.
Just Fuck off.
15 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bluto > Ed Burrow • 2 days ago
That needs a few more fucks. Lemme assist if I may; Go fucking fuck yourself fucking pope fucktard fuckface, You're a filthy fucking fuckstain on fucking humanity, you fucking fuckity fuckwad.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BudClark > Ed Burrow • 2 days ago
Most of the West has got it right: the SECULAR ceremony at city hall is required; the RELIGIOUS ceremony comes second ... it's held in church, temple, whatever, and is TOTALLY optional.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > Ed Burrow • 2 days ago
Amen !
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Gustav2 • 2 days ago
Good Gawd. The Roman Church's position has always been all Civil Marriages are not 'real marriages' so what is the big deal?
Does this mean the RCC will recognize Civil Marriages? Fat chance, they don't recognize Protestant church marriages.
Edit: this is really about Italy, Have these faithful Italian Roman Catholic civil sevants ever preformed a civil marriage for divorcees?
15 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
lymis > Gustav2 • 2 days ago
Since a civil remarriage for divorcees doesn't have any religious status, it isn't any of the Church's business, even if the officials are Catholic. They're welcome to toss the newlyweds out of the church, but not the official.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
George Waite > Gustav2 • a day ago
"The Roman Church" -as opposed to the Florentine or Neapolitan Church?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
bryan • 2 days ago
The Pope also appears to be getting back to the catholic church's traditional values of covering up for pedophiles :
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/po...
14 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
The_Wretched > bryan • 2 days ago
I keep hearing from the RCC that they have cleaned up and are working hard etc, yadda yadda, but the stories about ever newer cover-ups keep coming out.
8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Blake Jordan • 2 days ago
They can just resign from their job, self-constructed problem resolved!!!
14 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Chuck Anziulewicz • 2 days ago
Sorry, but if you are being paid by the taxpayers to perform marriage ceremonies or process marriage licenses for couples who are legally eligible to marry, you do NOT get to turn away couples with whom you have theological disagreements. You are free to start your own church; then you can turn away whomever you like. But I will NOT have my tax dollars supporting public officials who discriminate against me.
13 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Yalma Cuder-Zicci • 2 days ago
How does the Catholic Church deal with conscientious objection within its own organization? Hmmm? What happens to priests who marry same sex couples because denying it would go against his conscience? Or a priest who has sex because he sees that as his human right?
13 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
CanuckDon > Yalma Cuder-Zicci • 2 days ago
I would think those words "conscientious objection" are a major whoops on his part. He's basically admitting that it's the conscience at work with all of these beliefs that they've been pushing forever....so the conscience makes one believe in the big sky fairy because there's no reality there to prove it otherwise. And everyone just has to go along with it.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
The_Wretched > Yalma Cuder-Zicci • 2 days ago
They excommunicate the priest....unless it's child abuse in which case they pay them extra and give them assignments where the local population won't or can't complain about the abuse.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jeffg166 > Yalma Cuder-Zicci • 2 days ago
Nothing to see here move along.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Duck > Yalma Cuder-Zicci • 2 days ago
They argue in court against paying child support because the woman should have insisted the priest wear a condom.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jmdintpa • 2 days ago
She was right on the money , even back then.
Thumbnail
12 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ed Burrow > Jmdintpa • 2 days ago
gosh, remember how much controversy that created?
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Dobby > Ed Burrow • 2 days ago
I'm glad she was found safe in Chicago. I hope she's okay.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal • 2 days ago
I have a conscientious objection to having to tolerate hearing and reading this asswipe's bullshit. I demand accommodation immediately!
12 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > vorpal • 2 days ago
Please for you to list your demands and someone will get back to you shortly.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal > Ragnar Lothbrok • 2 days ago
Is it my birthday again already???
There is nothing short about my list of demands, but this would be a good start:
Thumbnail
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MB > vorpal • 2 days ago
Does someone need some birthday wishes ???
Thumbnail
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok > vorpal • 2 days ago
Ok. Please watch your mail box. Remember, wishes can not be undone.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal > Ragnar Lothbrok • 2 days ago
=scoff, scoff=
I'm pretty sure that there's nothing that you could dish out that I couldn't take.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Dobby • 2 days ago
Christ: What an asshole.
12 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jay George > Dobby • 2 days ago
I think I'm going to put your comments on auto-like from now on. :D
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Larry Gist > Dobby • 2 days ago
I think you meant a comma and not a period.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Dobby > Larry Gist • 2 days ago
For emphasis, I changed it to a colon.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mommie Dammit > Larry Gist • 2 days ago
Maybe... maybe not.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BudClark > Mommie Dammit • 2 days ago
How do you say "Depends" in Latin?
"pannolino?"
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mark > Larry Gist • 2 days ago
I hate having periods....
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jeffg166 > Dobby • 2 days ago
That what he said last night.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
bryan • 2 days ago
Actually it is gay couples who should be able to opt out of having christian fundamentalism imposed on them.
12 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
bambinoitaliano • 2 days ago
He is preaching the same thing as the frc, nom and all other American hate groups. They are all profiting from the same agenda.
Thumbnail
12 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rebecca Gardner • 2 days ago
“Once a law is approved, the state should be respectful of consciences"
WTF? Do people even think before they open their pie holes anymore? That makes no sense. Oh, hi everyone, it's illegal to murder someone now but before we continue with this law let's be respectful of the psychopaths in the room. We need to hear their objections to this law.
No! Sorry dress wearing, imaginary friend believing, cult leader guy...
Thumbnail
17 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Raybob > Rebecca Gardner • 2 days ago
I know, right? I've got a whole *passel* (that's "a lot of" in Southern speak) of laws I object to, based on my conscience and religious belief. Number one objection is letting the Church get away without being taxed.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
oikos • 2 days ago
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
11 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
DJ John Bear • 2 days ago
Who said anything about "celebrating" a same-sex marriage?? The issue is performing your job and issuing the licenses, Catholic or not.
10 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
customartist > DJ John Bear • 2 days ago
I don't want to "celebrate" the church by paying taxes which pay for the roads and bridges that Religious people drive on, while They pay no taxes
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
The Milkman • 2 days ago
Not sure why anyone is surprised. Pope Sunshine is nothing more than a creation of the Vatican PR department. He is just as bigoted and hateful as the rest of them, he just smiles while he does it.
He should stop meddling in the secular affairs of state and start paying more attention to all those lawsuits from the children his priests keep raping.
10 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BearEyes > The Milkman • 2 days ago
agreed - better spin, better PR.
same old sh*t
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > The Milkman • 2 days ago
Jesus told them to rape children so it's OK.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Robincho > The Milkman • 2 days ago
Don't forget, Maledict von Ratzass isn't dead yet...
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ninja0980 > The Milkman • 2 days ago
PR that way too many people bought when his history showed him to be anything but Mr. Sunshine.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr • 2 days ago
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion. If public officials are allowed to opt out of doing paperwork for gay couples, can they also opt out of doing paperwork for black couples? Interracial couples? Interfaith couples? Are they willing to take pay cuts for not performing their full duties?
If my conscience dictates I can't do paper work for Jew, Muslims, or Catholics, is that still okay? If you get paid with public money, do your fucking jobs and service the public. ALL of the public, not just the ones you approve of. No one gives a crap it you approve or celebrate. This is about civil rights and outside your purview in everyway. Tend to your sheeple and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
10 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mark • 2 days ago
It's fucking civil marriage you asshole.
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Gindy51 • 2 days ago
Fuck you and the donkey you rode in on, Francis.
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Todd20036 > Gindy51 • 2 days ago
Personally, given a choice, I'd take the donkey. At least it is supposed to act like a jack ass.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mommie Dammit > Todd20036 • 2 days ago
More useful, too!
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jay Silversmith > Mommie Dammit • 2 days ago
Somehow I interpreted that a salacious and kinky. Well done!!!
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok • 2 days ago
Catholic boys should not be obliged to being molested, Francis, so STFU.
8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
tcinsf • 2 days ago
Can't or won't do your job as a civil servant, QUIT and get a job with the church. period.
8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BudClark > tcinsf • 2 days ago
Serving as a WITNESS to a civil marriage is not at ALL the same as being the Minister of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
To this DAY, the COUPLE is the MINISTER of the Sacrament. Ask any Roman Catholic priest. He is there to WITNESS ONLY.
And anyway, it wasn't till the Council of Trent (around A.D. 1550 that they recognized Matrimony as a Sacrament at ALL, to come up with the Mystic Number of "Seven Sacraments."
Before THAT, couples married themselves at home, or on the church steps; if they could read and write, they MIGHT wander into the sacristy and register it in the Register, but not always, and it WASN'T required. Records were kept ONLY of royal and dynastic weddings to keep the Line of Succession and inheritance of property "straight."
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
tcinsf > BudClark • 2 days ago
I'm sure you're right, and don't take this the wrong way, but I really don't care. Civil marriage is just that, Civil, a function of the State which our constitution separates from the Church. If someone, Catholic or not, is going to perform a STATE function, then the Church has no say in how its performed. If the individual can't perform a STATE function, then he or she should quit.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Todd20036 • 2 days ago
Ah, the kindler, gentler, reformed pope. Right?
Man, he even fooled some people on these forums.
8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rex > Todd20036 • 2 days ago
Is the Pope Catholic?
No one should ever be fooled into thinking the Pope would be supportive of the LGBT community in any way.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > Todd20036 • 2 days ago
The christians gays on here are fools
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
biki • 2 days ago
Oh! So if a vegan was hired by a steakhouse, they should be excused from carrying meat to their customers? Oh, then a pacifist working in a gun shop wouldn't have to sell ammo, guns holsters or targets to the stores customers! What a fabulous loophole! Get yourself hired on in a shop where it violates your "sincerely held beliefs" and never ever need to lift a finger again, but still receive a full salary!
7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Tor > biki • 2 days ago
It's ridiculous. The liquor store in my mother's town is owned by Mormons.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
customartist > Tor • 2 days ago
Just a point of interest:
There are literal churches next to strip clubs in Myrtle Beach. I shit you not.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Tor > customartist • a day ago
Gotta do something after church.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > customartist • 2 days ago
They say to hookers while you're on your knees you might as well pray. Swallow the Jeebus juice don't spit.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
biki > customartist • 2 days ago
Lovely isn't it?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
biki > Tor • 2 days ago
Of course it's ridiculous! Their whole damned argument is ridiculous!
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
olandp • 2 days ago
If your religion prevents you from performing your job, get another job that does not conflict with your chosen religious views.
7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rex • 2 days ago
If something is in your job description, you do your job.
If you object on the grounds of personal beliefs, you get another job.
7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
customartist • 2 days ago
"Who am I to judge" is in direct conflict with "Catholic public officials should be able to not only judge, but to then subject secular tax payers to said religious judgements"
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
douglas • 2 days ago
Meanwhile in Canada today the Trudeau government introduced transgender rights legislation and the Mayor of Toronto is holding a day long conference on combating homophobia and transphobia. Trudeau urged all Canadians to help fight homophobia. Suck that Francis!!!
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > douglas • 2 days ago
Canada is such a wonderful country, USA not so much.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
George Waite > rickhfx • a day ago
Why does Ontario still give taxpayer money to religious groups to fund parochial/private schools? What about the separation of church in state in Canada?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > George Waite • a day ago
Because the God followers have power in numbers. Sad but true. Why do fools need a magic entity to follow? Now that's the question.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
George Waite > rickhfx • a day ago
But Canada is "progressive". Sh*t, even Mississippi doesn't give tax money to parochial/private schools!
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
thesunnysideofthestreet • 2 days ago
"Catholic Public Officials Should Be Allowed To Opt-Out Of Performing Same-Sex Marriages"
They can already - by opting out of working as public officials.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
biki > thesunnysideofthestreet • 2 days ago
Bravo!
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
OUTinMinnesota • 2 days ago
I can't quite hear you.
And it's likely I'll continue being unable to hear you while the Catholic church remains exempt from paying taxes.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ninja0980 • 2 days ago
Just another reminder that this pope is no ally of ours and never was.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Lazycrockett • 2 days ago
The Pope Sucks. Shame Bernie.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BudClark > Lazycrockett • 2 days ago
Depends on whether his teeth come out or not. I presume you mean "Frankie," not "Bernie."
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Todd20036 > BudClark • 2 days ago
No, he meant Bernie. Bernie visited the Popel
Bernie didn't even visit the AIDS activists until public pressure forced him to after he cancelled without any reason.
But Bern visited the pope and expected that to stand out in the primaries against Hillary.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
StraightGrandmother • 2 days ago
We all need to bookmark this story for future reference.
When the church starts paying the paychecks of the Civil Servents let me know. Until then
DO.YOUR.PAID.BY.THE.PUBLIC.JOB
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
david fairfield • 2 days ago
Same old story with the pope. However, ,saying that he has sent "mixed" signals" is far too kind. And please let's not forget how he jet setted around the world specifically to sign declarations against marriage AND how he continues to stigmatize gay youth by allowing hatred to be spread throughout the parishes AND that he has referred to the gay community as "disordered".
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > david fairfield • a day ago
His signals were never mixed. The viewers were severely myopic.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
customartist • 2 days ago
Should Gay public officials be able to deny services to Catholics, or whomever other citizens that they may disagree with?
Oh of course not! Only the RELIGIOUS should have this special privilege!
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Cary Chauvet • 2 days ago
"Public officials who are Catholic.." are required under the law to represent all peoples whether the old fart likes it or not. We can always deny the Catholic Church its coveted tax exempt status and banish the religion from the United States.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
George Waite > Cary Chauvet • a day ago
You can't banish a religion-it's unconstitutional; you don't even bother to pretend to be consistent when you praise the elderly virgin lesbian Irish/German Americans in pant suits (aka "The Nuns on the Bus") or Stephen Colbert's pet Jesuit.
You can't even manage to get the US government to stop sending an ambassador (also tax funded) to the Vatican City, a "country" smaller than Central Park.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Stormfinder • 2 days ago
If you can't do you job, get another job. Problem solved. Random citizens don't need arrogant public officials throwing their bigotry at them. This Pope is a Grade A asshole. Can't believe how many millions of people are falling for his crap.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
lymis • 2 days ago
A religious accommodation is something like being allowed to wear a yarmulke that doesn't create a safety issue, bring your own kosher lunch instead of eating in the cafeteria, or being allowed to skip the office Christmas party if you're a Seventh Day Adventist.
Similarly, public, especially government jobs, shouldn't be slyly crafted to force people to perform unnecessary, specifically religious or sectarian duties as part of the job, like leading or participating in prayers or wearing religious symbols.
But religious accommodation should have nothing to do with choosing not to do significant portions of the actual job you signed up to do. If you can't do the basic job, get a different one.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
lymis • 2 days ago
No, Frank, Catholic officials should be allowed to opt out of performing Catholic sacramental marriages that they disapprove of. The civil ones are none of the Church's business, and the sacramental ones shouldn't be being scheduled by the government as part of any official's jobs.
Of course, that would only apply to people who happen to be both priests AND civil clerks who perform religious services on the government dime, so there shouldn't be a lot of conflict.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > lymis • a day ago
The pope is arguing that everyday catholic civil servants (non-clergy) be allowed to opt out. He's actually calling for an effective Vatican veto of any secular Italian law the RCC objects to.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
justmeeeee • 2 days ago
How's about the cathlik church NOT be permitted to opt out on paying taxes. Yeah, that's the ticket!
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Guest • 2 days ago
I have a conscientious objection to the Catholic church
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ross > Guest • 2 days ago
I have a moral objection to the Catholic church
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Dobby • 2 days ago
#TaxTheChurches
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Palto • 2 days ago
Enough is enough. Tax these mother-effing churches.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
2patricius2 • 2 days ago
So I guess Catholic public officials should also be able to opt out of officiating at re-marriages, or at the marriages of Jews, etc.
Catholic public officials are paid salaries by the public taxpayers (many of them LGBT). They are not paid out of the pope's private coffers. So they should do their jobs or be fired.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > 2patricius2 • 2 days ago
But the won't and don't have to. Religion is such fun.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BudClark • 2 days ago
Pope Francis: legalize mutually consensual same-sex marriage and quite fucking around. It was in the Rituale in the 5th century AD!
Or haven't you read Boswell?
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
abel > BudClark • 3 hours ago
My guess would be no. I remember that when Boswell's book first appeared, there were many "experts" questioning his findings, but they seem to have gained greater acceptance in the years since. Can't believe that book came out so long ago. (1980).
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MrSkippy • 2 days ago
Sorry no. When you sign your job docs you are promising to perform your job duties.
That doesn't mean "the ones you like and/or agree with" it means ALL. OF. THEM.
Grandpa taught me a long time ago: "They don't pay you like it, they pay you to DO it."
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
DaveMiller135 • 2 days ago
If we were talking about the religious going after everything their book objects to, that would be one (still bad) thing. Since this is only ever aimed at gay people, it's just discrimination dressed in a shiny gold dress.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
CanuckDon • 2 days ago
I will never understand why the human race allowed the religious-minded...the "conscientious"-minded as the Pope dares to call it now...to rule society. Does the Pope now admit that religion is just a mind-altered state and nothing else?
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
That_Looks_Delicious • 2 days ago
Any conscientious objection should be pre-employment (or pre-deployment in the case of troops). If somebody really can't perform the functions of their job because of their religious beliefs, it is incumbent on them to find another job. It should never be at the expense of the public that is paying their salaries.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
zeddy303 • 2 days ago
Cool pope, not so cool after all.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Friday • 2 days ago
You don't get to be a 'conscientious objector' and still get a rank, gun, and combat pay, Pope-guy.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Akrontru • 2 days ago
So regardless of one's country's laws one is to comply only with the Vatican. And these fucks control hospitals, schools, and adoption mills--all of which receive government funds.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx > Akrontru • 2 days ago
Yes, sick isn't it?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > Akrontru • a day ago
That has been the Vatican dogma for centuries.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
billbear1961 • 2 days ago
A conscientious objector refuses to HARM people--you want people to be able to use religion as an excuse to do just THAT, to HARM others, to deny their neighbours their CIVIL RIGHTS, you truly VILE hypocrite.
If someone, using his "faith" as an EXCUSE, refuses to serve people of colour or those of another religious faith or those who do not believe in the supernatural, or those who are divorced or guilty of some other act the self-righteous, bigoted FRAUD considers sinful, may he turn THEM away; or is it your contention that only LGBTs may be abused like this, a form of abuse which would ENRAGE you if YOU were mistreated in this way??
Suppose a right-wing Protestant cites his conscience and refuses to serve Catholics, the followers of ANTICHRIST, i.e. YOU--would THAT be OKAY??
"Who am I to judge?"
But you DO, relentlessly, AND you strive to harm LGBTs and their families, you EVIL fraud!
EDIT: Conscience?
Where is YOURS??
Why aren't you turning those in your Church who have raped CHILDREN over to the authorities?!
Why aren't you moving heaven and earth to compensate the victims, MONSTER??
I say, "TAX the churches--ALL of them!!"
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > billbear1961 • a day ago
"Who am I to judge", says Pope Francis.
(Previously unreleased photo taken from behind the pope when he made this statement.)
Thumbnail
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
George Waite > billbear1961 • a day ago
Even the storefront churches for Latinos/African Americans; what happened to "supporting the marginalized"?
I know you'd feel bad about taxing the "Progressive" churches/congregations, even though they've got billions in assets and can well afford it.
What about the Vatican Embassy in Washington, DC? Close it down?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
billbear1961 > George Waite • a day ago
Except for what they can PROVE goes to charity, all of their assets should be TAXED.
There is nothing in the Constitution which grants them tax-exempt status--NOTHING.
It's long since TIME that their freeloading--which costs the republic BILLIONS in lost revenue, which WE must cough up ourselves to pay THEIR share--came to an END.
Is that CLEAR enough for you?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
George Waite > billbear1961 • a day ago
no YOU didn't use enough CAPS!
"CAPS-for when you have to TYPE your gay accent!"
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
StSean • 2 days ago
if i did that at my job (which is a state human services job), asking people what their religion is before I can provide services, i'd be fired, as well i should be.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
HZ81 • 2 days ago
If your religion precludes you from doing your job, you're not fit for that job.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Skokieguy [Larry] • 2 days ago
Religion is a choice. You make the choice, you accept the consequences. You are not a public servant if you are not serving all of the public.
If you choose to be religious and want to not serve all the public, then get a job in a church, a mosque or other religious institution that has been legally exempted from treating all people equally and fairly.
Stop ramming your beliefs down our throats. Oh, and can you stop molesting children?
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
douglas • 2 days ago
If you are a public official serving the public your beliefs are your own and should not interfere with your job and who you serve. If you can't follow those simple rules then find another job.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ninja0980 • 2 days ago
Remember that Bernie flew to Rome to suck up to this POS in a failed attempt to win NY.
Pope Francis might be great on other issues but at the end of the day, he stills thinks LGBT citizens, women etc. have no rights and that the Catholic Church should be able to impose its will on a secular society.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Elsewhere1010 • 2 days ago
POPE REWRITES BIBLE, NOW READS
DO NOT RENDER UNTO CAESAR THAT WHICH IS CAESAR'S!!
GAY PRIESTS CONFUSED, FILM AT 11
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Houndentenor • 2 days ago
OR they can look for other jobs where this issue won't come up.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MBear • 2 days ago
fuck the pope's mother
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
SilasMarner > MBear • 2 days ago
Somebody already has and he was the unfortunate result.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BearEyes • 2 days ago
if you're hired to perform a public duty/function in a public setting, do your effin' job!
When you create private "religious" exemptions to a public, secular job, it means you're doing it wrong.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Gaymurcan • 2 days ago
Frank, take your highly presumptuous, deeply illegal criminal cult and ~Shove It.~
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
The_Wretched • 2 days ago
If the priests are in public office or serving as part of the government, then too bad, they need to do their job for all people. If their conscience doesn't allow them to do their jobs, they can resign.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > The_Wretched • a day ago
The pope's comments do not refer to priests by to everyday catholic believers.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Richard B • 2 days ago
If religious public officials do not want to serve the entire public, they should opt out of public service and get employed at a church...
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Paige Turner • 2 days ago
"Old Virgin Man in a dress and a funny hat doesn't think his cult should have to marry gay people but thinks that its OK to cover up decades of sexual abuse of children".
Hypocrite.
Fuck off Frank.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mommie Dammit > Paige Turner • 2 days ago
BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA!!!! "Virgin"!, you really think this asshat is still a virgin. BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
skyweaver • 2 days ago
I am remembering a story I read years ago about a Catholic gentleman who stood during the entire mass in protest, didn't sit down once. He did this after reading about the church's patronizing response to some women who had a desire to enter the priesthood and were dismissed out of hand by the church. He thought that was terrible and if I remember, he had a daughter whom he said would have been horrified if she'd had an earnest desire to serve squashed like that.
This gentleman's protest did not received much welcome as being a conscientious objector. In fact, he was roundly criticized by Rome.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
LADY MABELINE • 2 days ago
You keep your bible Frank. I'll keep my constitutution. Fair enough?
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
SoCalVet • 2 days ago
Bernie Sanders' bro is an asshole.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JIM W • a day ago
When you have any job, you are responsible to the rules and regulations of your employer. You are welcome to have you religious beliefs, but they MUST be left at the doorstep when you come to work.
Everyone fusses of this poop like he was the greatest things since sliced bread. He's no better than any of the other so called vicars of christ. When one reads about the atrocities that the catholic church has committed throughout history, one can only dismiss catholics as a moronic cult. Sigh..... and to think I spent a year in a Benedictine Monastery trying to pray away my gay. Thankfully, I woke up and leapt over the wall.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Canadian Observer • a day ago
I am waiting for this pope to come forward and say exactly the same thing about conscientious Muslims having the right to opt out of issuing driver's licenses and permits to women. Come on Francis, don't keep me waiting, what is good for Rome is good for Mecca too, right?
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jmax > Canadian Observer • a day ago
"...what is good for Rome is good for Mecca...".
I like that.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
John Masters • 2 days ago
OK, but that means they can't be public officials. There, solved that for you.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Lane • 2 days ago
Sure, as long as they equally opt out of providing service to divorced couples, couples who don't promise to remain in the church, couples who skip services now and then, mix-faith couples, etc, etc.
Oh? Only same-sex couples cause this concern? Then fuck off, goddamned cafeteria Catholic.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GC > Lane • 2 days ago
People who are so committed to those discriminatory religious beliefs already have an option that completely preserves their freedom of religion and freedom of conscience: they can opt out of being public officials. Simple!
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Joann Prinzivalli • 2 days ago
Pope is insane. Catholic priests certainly should be able to refuse to perform a Roman Catholic sacramental marriage ceremony. But is a Catholic priest is also a public official with the duty of solemnizing civil marriages, even that priest should not be allowed to "opt out."
For lay catholics, there should be no "opt out." Performing a civil marriage ceremony on behalf of the government can in no way conflict with a sincerely held religious belief - to claim that a religious belief conflicts with the civil obligation SHOULD be held by courts to be conclusive that the belief is not "sincerely held."
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
coram nobis > Joann Prinzivalli • 2 days ago
I think the Pop meant public officials who happen to be Catholic, not priests or lay church officials. It's one thing under the Establishment clause to require a priest to perform a state function, something else entirely if every county clerk can refuse to do their job. There's always other churches, but only one county clerk's office in any jurisdiction, and if they won't perform a civil marriage or record some other church's wedding, then we've all got a problem.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Joann Prinzivalli > coram nobis • 2 days ago
I agree - but *even* for priests who are public officials, while they can refuse to perform a Catholic sacramental ceremony, they cannot, while wearing their "public official" hat, refuse to perform a civil marriage ceremony.
That was a "special case" - I referred to lay catholics (non priest) in the second paragraph
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
coram nobis > Joann Prinzivalli • a day ago
Yes -- I'm just not sure if there are lay Catholic officiants, deacons, beacons, beedles or whatever they call them, that take part in or preside over certain ceremonies. And maybe La Papa was being deliberately vague. I'll be interested to see what happens in Catholic countries like Ireland where marriage equality is the law of the land as well.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > coram nobis • a day ago
The pope made this statement in the context of Italy's passage of civil marriage equality. Because Italy is overwhelmingly catholic, this would give the RCC an effective veto over any secular law they did not like. Vatican politics can be very devious.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GayOldLady • 2 days ago
Oh, the Pope is pearl clutching over nothing. No one is going to make a Catholic priest perform a gay wedding or civil union. That's especially true in the United States where there are laws that protect organized Religion. Now if a Catholic person takes a job at the courthouse and part of that job is issuing marriage licenses, then he/she better be prepared to do that job, regardless of the sexual orientation of the client, or quit.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > GayOldLady • a day ago
In overwhelmingly catholic Italy, this is a way for the Vatican to impose a de facto veto on any law passed by the secular government of Italy that they do not like. Too many people underestimate Vatican politics.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Brock C • 2 days ago
But by allowing some priests to opt out, isn't he also saying that those priests who "opt in" CAN perform same-sex marriages, thus acknowledging the existence and validity of such marriages? I'm not Catholic or from the US and maybe I'm naive about such matters but to me, the pope's statement is a sort of victory for Catholic gays.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > Brock C • a day ago
The pope is talking about everyday catholic civil servants, not priests. He wants the catholic believing civil servant to be able to effectively veto any secular law the RCC is against. This is not even close to a victory, rather an attempt to impose Vatican control over the secular Italian government.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
John Ruff • 2 days ago
What a piece of shit.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
rickhfx • 2 days ago
The pope is a nut job.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Johnny Wyeknot • 2 days ago
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy would disagree.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > Johnny Wyeknot • a day ago
Imagine the outrage if he had flown to Rome to meet the pope when he was running for President.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Johnny Wyeknot > McSwagg • 17 hours ago
Of course the point is that he knew better.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Kelly Lape • 2 days ago
If your conscience prevents you from performing your duties as a PUBLIC Official. Quit, it's that simple. There are plenty of people willing to the do the job that you find distasteful.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
penpal • 2 days ago
Get another job if you don't want to serve the public.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
PickyPecker • 2 days ago
Thumbnail
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
George Waite > PickyPecker • a day ago
First Church of Elvis the King
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JR • 2 days ago
Public officials who perform marriages are officiating a secular ceremony, not a religious one.
Should Catholic public officials be permitted to refuse to perform marriages for non-Catholics or for mixed-religion, agnostic, or athiestic couples?
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
SoCalGal20 • 2 days ago
Don't be a public official if the duties interfere with your conscience. Not rocket science.
OT: Bernie supporters are now harrassing Nevada Dem chair Roberta Lange with death threats and doxxing her. And the Sanders campaign response was pathetic.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016...
Oh, and Bernie has a rally in the Los Angeles area today.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JustSayin' • 2 days ago
So i object to serving Catholics at the DMV and Marriage License Counter, do I get to opt out as a public official?
I had high hopes for this Pope...not any more
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Enrico Webers • 2 days ago
"Respectful of consciences" - just as the church is always so respectful towards gay people. Or little boys, of course.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
1Truth1 • 2 days ago
Why don't we start with a law that says all Catholic pedophiles MUST be reported to law enforcement by the church. We should protect the children right?
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Nuke The Vatican • a day ago
When has a Catholic judge refused to grant a divorce?
When has a Catholic judge refused to impose capital punishment?
When has a Catholic solider ever refused to fight in a war, or to kill his enemy?
Where are the calls for Catholic government workers to refuse the denial of welfare benefits to the poor, or to refuse to deny shelter to the homeless, or food to the hungry?
Why out of all the more numerous and infinitely more unjust conflicts between public law and Catholic conscience does Marriage Equality merit a papal pronouncment (aka a pap smear)?
Pope, you are exercising some awfully selective hypocrisy, with an edge so sharp that it cuts your credibility to the bone.
Be gone, you son of Satan. We weary of your tiresome prattle.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
With A Red Hot Poker • a day ago
Not interested in anything Bergoglio has to say, especially not until he is able to clean up some of the corruption in the Catholic church, send some of the thousands of pedophile rapist priests to jail, and justly compensate the millions of victims of ritual church rape and abuse.
And as a practical matter, Bergoglio should probably just close his pie hole until he can develop and articulate a coherent, consistent message of social justice. He needs to understand that he cannot simultaneously occupy the moral highground and countenance nay even encourge societal and institutional denial of LGBT rights and dignity.
Catholic "public" officials who cannot perform their duties cannot morally hold their office. They are unfit for the job, and the job is by definition incompatible with their so-called religious beliefs. They should step down if they are unwilling to comply with the requirements of the job without seeking the scoundrel's refuge of "religious beliefs".
The day of atonement draws nigh for all religious bigots, and the long finger that I lift will not be to stop any bloodshed.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
CCleverly • a day ago
"Public officials who are Catholic should not be obliged to celebrate gay marriages or civil unions, Pope Francis said"
So Catholic public officials, from this point onward, will be taxed like the rest of us.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
2amor • a day ago
This guy flip-flops as much as Drumpt
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
zhera • a day ago
They HAVE the option to opt-out. It's called GETTING ANOTHER JOB and MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
Geez. I thought catholics were supposed to be educated and smart, like.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BeccaM • a day ago
No problem, Pope Francis. Just tell these people to quit their jobs as public officials. End of problem and nobody's civil rights are violated.
Absolutely, religious beliefs are a human right. A particular job where you want an exemption from doing some of the duties required by that job is not -- especially when that refusal infringes on the rights of others.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Gerry Fisher • 2 days ago
There's no better way to conscientiously object than to switch careers rather than to perform a given work task.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jomicur • 2 days ago
And does he think anti-papists should be able to opt out of providing services to Catholics?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TheSeer • 2 days ago
Racists should also be granted the right to conscientious objection. /s
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Gay Fordham Prep Grad • 2 days ago
I did not think the church recognized same sex marriage at all. So what's the issue? It's a funny ministerial act that has no validity to your faith .... Or is this a first step in acknowledging it at all, Frank?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > Gay Fordham Prep Grad • a day ago
If a catholic civil servant can 'opt out', then in an overwhelmingly catholic country like Italy, this would give the Vatican a de facto veto over any secular law they did not like.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mark • 2 days ago
I don't care if he does wear a fancy white dress and a beanie cap, he's a close-minded asshole who does nothing but stir buckets of shit everywhere he goes. And then he wanders out on his little balcony and spews hate shit like this - and the ears of every Kim Davis wannabe go fully erect. Meanwhile, over in France, he pulls the local dude in under his skirt to hide him for hiding pedo's. Fuck him and his hate.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
DaveW • 2 days ago
If he is talking about Italy, fine. They made their bed and have to sleep with the child fuckers
But if he means here in the U.S.: fuck him, asshole. keep your cannibal cult out of our laws, keep your stupid opinion to yourself. While you're at it, get your employees out of our country. Your evil cult is not welcome here.
If someone is a JP while on duty that is what they are. They are a JP, not a catholic JP
This simpleton keeps blowing his cover. Had a chance, blew it. The world was buying your PR crap. Dumbass.
I love visiting the church treasuries in the Protestant countries. All that wealth out of reach. Wish the mob would sack
The Vatican and sell the baubles.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
RainbowPhoenix • 2 days ago
The bible says that if their conscience comes into conflict with their job, they should quit their job.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
chris10858 • 2 days ago
I'm not Catholic. Can I refuse to serve Catholics? How about those Jews? Can they be turned away? I'm sure Muslims can be turned away also. And of course, divorcees... you should definitely be able to turn away divorcees since the Catholic Church is against divorce. Pffftt....
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
ceeenbee • 2 days ago
Not unless they are priests, papa.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Reality.Bites > ceeenbee • 2 days ago
Not even then, if they're working in a secular position.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
ceeenbee > Reality.Bites • 2 days ago
Absolutely correct. My apologies, although I don't see many priests working as clerks of court.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MikeinATL • 2 days ago
To this I call bulls*t... a public official needs to serve ALL of the public. If they want to choose otherwise, they need to go work for the church.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BlindBill • 2 days ago
You are correct, comment retracted
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
That_Looks_Delicious > BlindBill • 2 days ago
His comments were made in reference to Italy's new civil union law.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Natty Enquirer • 2 days ago
The time for objection is before you seek and accept public office.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Octavio • 2 days ago
¿Por lo que el Papa tiene que crear un ruido de algo que no es un problema? ¿Cuántos miles de sacerdotes se han visto obligados a realizar matrimonios de parejas del mismo sexo? ¿Ninguna? Eso es lo que sospeché. La Iglesia Católica es tan perseguida. Pobrecitos. A la mierda el Papa y sus sacerdotes pedófilos, también. No tengo tiempo para estas tonterías.
Chau, Pancho.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Cary Chauvet > Octavio • 2 days ago
Si chiama fanatismo per un motivo. La Chiesa cattolica predica odio per una minoranza e deve essere limitato alla Città del Vaticano e non oltre.
Thumbnail
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Octavio > Cary Chauvet • 2 days ago
Abbiamo bisogno di costruire un muro intorno al Vaticano e farli pagare per questo. (Mi scusi, il mio italiano è molto limitata.)
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
halunke > Octavio • 2 days ago
Estoy de acuerdo. Ahora si vamos a ver cuantos vienen a su defensa a lamerle las patas. No que tan progresivo este Papa.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Octavio > halunke • 2 days ago
Gracias mi amigo. Hay que mantenerse firme en contra de este puto culo.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
itsjoe618 • 2 days ago
If we were to consult the Bible, Jesus clearly stated "render unto the Lord what is the Lords and render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers." By his own admission their savior would command them to shut up and do their damn job."Ceaser"pays their salaries, not the Vatican. Why are they disregarding what is plainly stated with no ambiguity whatsoever? Silly Pope Francis, conveniently ignoring scripture when it suits his organization's ends.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Franciscan > itsjoe618 • 2 days ago
I agree that if you can't render up to Caesar, then Caesar may cease paying your salary.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
motordog • 2 days ago
So...should they be able to 'op out' of marrying, say, two people of the Hindu faith? What about two atheists? Two people that enjoy eating steak on Fridays? Two people who are both divorced? Such a slippery slope, Frankie....
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
heimaey • 2 days ago
One step forward two steps back.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
chris james • 2 days ago
Doesn't ISIS have this man's home address...although I suppose one pope-a-dope will be as bad as any other.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
lymis > chris james • 2 days ago
Not true. This one is much better than the last one. Who, admittedly, did not set a high bar. Ex-Nazi former head of the Holy Inquisition. Tough not to be better.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
FunButNutz • 2 days ago
How many Priests actually work as a public justice of the peace?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > FunButNutz • a day ago
He's not talking about priests. He's talking about any catholic person who is in a civil service position.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bob Conti • 2 days ago
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
RaygunsGoZap • 2 days ago
Sure, Pope. Or you could just give them a job facilitating and covering yo child rape. So they're working directly within their values all the time.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
delk • 2 days ago
Wipe your own ass before you try to wipe anybody else's.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rebecca Gardner > delk • 2 days ago
That's the newly updated writing of Matthew 7:5 right? LOL.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
abqdan • 2 days ago
Here's America's message to Pope Francis. Fuck off back to the Vatican where you keep all your pedophile priests and the $65 billion that could be used to help the poor instead of glorifying men in frocks.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hue-Man • 2 days ago
In the same interview with La Croix, Francis continues to support Cardinal Barbarin of Lyon, France, in a pedophile priest cover-up scandal.
In 2007 or 2008, Barbarin learned of the molestations which occurred in 1991 and didn't report the priest to the police because he believed the priest's lies. When the priest was finally charged in June, 2015, he was removed from his post but was moved to other dioceses 40 days later where he had access to more children.http://www.lemonde.fr/les-deco...
Francis: "Based on the information that I have, I believe that Cardinal Barbarin
in Lyon took the necessary measures and that he has matters under
control. He is courageous, creative, a missionary. We now need to await
the outcome of the civil judicial proceedings."http://www.la-croix.com/Religi...
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Claudette Gosney • a day ago
"my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr".....!jk174e
two days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month's payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day...with weekly payouts..it's realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 Dollars...
Learn. More right Here
!jk174e
:➽:➽:
➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsExplorer\GetPay-Hour$98....
.✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸::::::!jk174e....,....
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bomer • a day ago
Fuck you Francis. If you can't do the work, then quit the job. I notice the poop only cares about the state being respectful of the consciences of christians and their having to deal with us icky gay people. Well, what about my conscience? What about my belief that churches should be taxed, especially if they insist on meddling in politics, and if they want to keep their exemptions then they should stick to straight no strings attached charity work and shut the fuck up.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Tim Easton • a day ago
Lordy, what a pathetic bigoted Kim Davis impersonation by an alledgedly-straight guy in a dress yet!
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
WIGuy • a day ago
and all the children molested by catholic priest should be allowed to OPT OUT
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Sporkfighter • a day ago
A better idea: Catholics who won't do a job should find another job.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Balderdashing • a day ago
Sure, they should be allowed to opt out: it's called resigning. There are a number of jobs I've passed up because they conflicted with my ethical beliefs. Who said standing up for your beliefs should be easy?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JCF • a day ago
"...just as we should respect the consciences of other public officials to deny government services to Roman Catholics", he added. Right? Right???
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Baby Dave • a day ago
Only if we get to tax the churches.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
American135 • a day ago
Public officials shouldn't be "solemnizing" anyone's marriage. When I got my driver's license, no one "solemnized" it. Nobody "solemnized" my voter's registration.
Getting legally married can be done anywhere in the USA without anyone "perfoming" a "wedding" ritual. So, a marrying couple who want a ceremony should take care of that themselves.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Religion Equals Cancer > American135 • a day ago
Why are sham "religious beliefs" always used as a pretext for DENYING something to someone?
Why is a gaggle of Catholic whores allowed to deny contraceptive coverage to women in their employ?
What will happen when a public official steps forward to proclaim that his/her religious beliefs prevent him/her from denying equality to a transgenedered person?
What if an IRS official said that his religious beliefs precluded his recognizing the tax-exempt status of a religious charity?
What if a VA official said that her religious beliefs precluded her from denying insurance benefits to war veterans suffering from PTSD?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
American135 > Religion Equals Cancer • a day ago
You seem to have missed the point: nobody should have to MARRY any couple. The couple pays the license fee, fills out the paperwork, the form is notarized to officially verify the identities of the two people contracting the marriage, the notarized form is filed with in a courthouse, and BINGO--the couple is married.
If a couple wants a ceremony, if they want to "exchange vows" and be "married" by an officiating person--a minister, a family member, a friend--that is something they can do on their own. And they can do a ceremony as many times as they want; and they can do a ceremony before they legally marry or after they legally marry or even if they never legally marry at all.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
James • a day ago
Uh, no. Fuck off, Francis.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jack • a day ago
The fact that the Pope said it doesn't mean that it isn't among the stupidest arguments ever made.
As hard as it is to say this, Scalia was right when he pointed out in Smith that allowing each of us to opt out of laws on the basis of "conscience" is an invitation to anarchy.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
NancyP • 2 days ago
The popes have never gotten over the fact that they no longer own all of central Italy.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mark • 2 days ago
I'd love to see a nation planet wide bible burning.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Derek in DC • 2 days ago
Pope: "God isn't thrilled with the whole gay thing... but, hey, they're there, so what are ya gonna do?"
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
SFHarry • 2 days ago
Like if you don't think interracial marriage is okay? Or interfaith marriages should be legal? Or if you are a policeman and you don't want to arrest a child rapist because they are only following the bible or have repented to Jesus? Or if you don't want to sell your home to black people for religious reasons or don't want them living in your neighborhood? Etc. Thanks for the proclamation, idiot.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Stubenville • 2 days ago
So when was your moral compass fixed, Your Holiness? It certainly seemed to be out of order for decades while thousands of children were abused at the hands of the Catholic clergy.
And if their religion interferes in their ability to fulfill their legal duties as a government official, Catholics should resign.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
bob • 2 days ago
Dear Poop , if your public employee catholics can't do their job, they should quit !
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Xuuths • 2 days ago
Sorry, frank, but do your job. If you can't or won't do your job, quit or be fired.
I notice that you fire priests who want to follow their conscience when it conflicts with church teaching. So, that makes you a hypocrite.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Porkie • 2 days ago
Yo Papa! Yo Mama!
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Galvestonian • 2 days ago
WHAT ??? It's oil and water - don't mix and never will, no matter what the holy father says ... Since the church isn't in charge of the government - not like the good old days - his 'requests/demands/statements' are null and void. It's like the POTUS telling the holy father that all officials/clergy of the church should only dress in modern clothing - regular suits, sports coats, dresses (for the women) pants & etc. and get rid of all ecclestical garments. Ain't gonna happen.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Don Blair • 2 days ago
This guy needs to mind his own business.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
−
⚑
Avatar
Bill_Perdue • 2 days ago
Cult priests, ministers, imams and rabbis should not be allowed to 'officiate' at weddings. They're a civil matter.
Arrest cutlist functionaries trying to interfere in civil affairs.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
NYC GUY • 2 days ago
...but Kim Davis is not Catholic. He don't care about her.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
madscntst • 2 days ago
Says the leader of an organization that doesn't allow priests to marry. "the church should be respectful of consciences. Conscientious objection (to celibacy) must be possible on all legal jurisdictions, because it is a human right." Get back to me that happens.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Dobby • 2 days ago
Pope Francis? More like Poop Francis. Or Poop Frank if you're into brevity.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Johnny Wyeknot • 2 days ago
I think the pope is confusing public with pubic.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Carl • 2 days ago
Who cares what this caveman thinks?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Johnny Wyeknot > Carl • 2 days ago
Apparently a lot of people.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
SilasMarner • 2 days ago
Hey pope! How about you opt out of this worldly life. Just sayin
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Also on JoeMyGod
MINNESOTA: Haters Plan Mobile Billboard Campaign Against All 72 …
150 comments •
10 hours ago
Avatar
LADY MABELINE — That truck would be better used if it was utilized to deliver food to food banks and blankets to …
Bernie Sanders Calls For Final Debate With Hillary
502 comments •
7 hours ago
Avatar
Hal — I am getting burned with Bern. This is a Nader trip all over again.
Hillary Declared “Apparent Winner” Of Kentucky Primary
342 comments •
a day ago
Avatar
Michael Smith — Every time Trump suggests Hillary drops out or Bernie runs as an independent, I just imagine a …
POSTED: My Seventh Column For Pride Life
9 comments •
14 hours ago
Avatar
bkmn — Joe, I can't thank you enough for all you do (and have no idea how you find time for everything). I think I can …
Powered by Disqus
✉Subscribe
d Add Disqus to your site
🔒 Privacy
Joe.My.God.
Home
Categories
Blogroll
Archive
About
Contact
Store
New RSS Feed
PopeFrancis2
Pope Francis: Catholic Public Officials Should Be Allowed To Opt-Out Of Performing Same-Sex Marriages
May 17, 2016 Marriage Equality, Religion
Liberty Counsel will be thrilled:
Public officials who are Catholic should not be obliged to celebrate gay marriages or civil unions, Pope Francis said Tuesday, his first public remarks on the issue since same-sex partnerships were legalised in Italy last week.
“Once a law is approved, the state should be respectful of consciences. Conscientious objection must be possible on all legal jurisdictions, because it is a human right,” Francis said in an interview with French Catholic newspaper La Croix.
The comments adds to the history of mixed signals the pope has sent on the issue of homosexuality. Visiting the United States last year, he met Kim Davis, a Kentucky state clerk who was jailed for refusing to register gay marriages because it ran against her Christian beliefs.
But, during the same trip, he also gave an audience to a gay man and his partner. In 2013, Francis famously said “who am I to judge” gay people, and, this year, he refused to publicly endorse a campaign against Italy’s gay unions legislation.
Share
tweet
in
Share
.
Tags Catholic Church civil unions LGBT rights marriage equality Pope Francis Vatican
Previous
Obama Marks International Day Against Homophobia And Transphobia: LGBT Rights Are Human Rights«
Next
Barbra Streisand Announces Summer Tour»
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
You May Like
This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997
The Motley Fool
These Prom Dresses Don't Really Leave Much to The Imagi…
SheKnows
Prison inmate lays claim to Prince's estate
Reuters TV
All You Need to Know About Home Equity Loans on Yahoo Se…
Yahoo
These Gorgeous Female Tennis Players Will Leave …
Viral Guppy
What 'I Dream Of Jeannie' Looks Like Now Is Incredible
EdgeTrends
Like us on Facebook
Advertisement
Read more...
INNdulge Palm Springs Legendary Gay Resort
Clothing is Forever Optional
Naked Men in the Desert
Read more...
Buy a Blogad!
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
.
Explore Joe’s Mighty Tags
2012 elections 2016 elections activism advertising AFA assholery Barack Obama bigotry California Catholic Church celibacy Christianists crackpots crazy people DADT Donald Trump education Florida gay artists GOP hate groups lawsuits LGBT History LGBT rights LGBT youth liars marriage equality Mitt Romney movies New York state NOM NYC pop music Proposition 8 religion Russia scandal SCOTUS Senate silliness sports teabaggers Tea Party television Tony Perkins
© joemygod.com 2016
http://www.joemygod.com/2016/05/17/pope-francis-catholic-public-officials-should-be-allowed-to-opt-out-of-performing-same-sex-marriages/
211 comments
JoeMyGod
Login
1
Recommend
⤤ Share
Sort by Best
Avatar
Join the discussion…
Media preview placeholder
Avatar
Prion • 2 days ago
.,,
Thumbnail
51 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Claudette Gosney > Prion • a day ago
"my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr".....!jk174e
two days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month's payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day...with weekly payouts..it's realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 Dollars...
Learn. More right Here
!jk174e
:➽:➽:
➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsExplorer\GetPay-Hour$98....
.✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸::::::!jk174e....,..........
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Andrea_Rae • 2 days ago
Religion does waaaaaay more damage to children than I ever could.
41 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
ChrisInKansas > Andrea_Rae • 2 days ago
You're just not trying hard enough.
18 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Gustav2 > ChrisInKansas • 2 days ago
Well, it's not her Prime Directive.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Lars De > Andrea_Rae • 2 days ago
Especially when you factor in the rest of Lot's story. Like how his daughter's got him drunk and raped him very shortly after they themselves were offered up to that sex hungry mob. And did they do it out of revenge? No, they did it because there were no other men around that night for a least 7 or 8 miles. That's the only explanation given for their incestuous rape. Nothing about it being wrong, nothing about some form of divine punishment, just normal sibling behavior.
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Nic Peterson > Lars De • 2 days ago
Right, and Lot was supposed to be the good guy in the whole S&G saga. That's why he had a couple of angels in the house warning him to get the heck out of there, because he was the good guy. The Angels were all hanging out, probably trying to help pack or something when the mob showed up and so Lot offers his daughters up, natch. Angels where all like righteous dude! But the mob wanted them some angel tail and I can totally relate, but I digress. Anyhow, they all managed to get the truck out of that gated community before the whole fire and brimstone thing. Which is why I stay out of gated communities, btw.
Lot's daughters deciding throw down with daddy after just running away from an angry, violent all powerful diety and having their mom turned into a table condiment is probably the PTSD talking.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jerry > Lars De • a day ago
Actually the original story was Sumerian, and stated that S & G were cities of great learning, which were collateral damage in wars between the gods. So you can pick and choose which mythology to believe, like any good religion does.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
NancyP > Lars De • 2 days ago
"Raped Lot..." - fat chance, the Bible was written by men and written to blame women for everything. The "original story" was "Lot rapes daughters". This goes on every day today, and a sizable number of people still side with the father in an incest case.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Reality.Bites > Andrea_Rae • 2 days ago
Till now I'd never taken you for a quitter. :(
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Princess Lardass > Andrea_Rae • 2 days ago
Yeah, we know. Look what Religion has done to Perkins. Obama is telling us to treat our fellow human beings like... ...other human beings and Tonette is comparing it to some story about a father offering his daughters to an inhospitable, supposedly sex-hungry mob.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
William > Andrea_Rae • 2 days ago
Do you have a clown suit? Children and my sister are terrified of clowns.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Andrea_Rae > William • 2 days ago
No clown suit, I do have a cheerleader outfit one guy has seen. . . but he was a sexy 49, not 6-12 like the clergy prefer ;)
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
April > Andrea_Rae • 2 days ago
Lying for Jesus
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JT • 2 days ago
Like Lot Surrendered His Virgin Daughters
Wasn't that supposed to be a good thing to your sky daddy?
33 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ed Burrow > JT • 2 days ago
Consistency is not a biblical strong suit.
25 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JT > Ed Burrow • 2 days ago
Nor is it for biblical "interpreters".
7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > JT • 2 days ago
"...we’re going to shove our children out the door in the pursuit of some false promise of temporal peace, and we know how that worked out.” Yes, bible belcher extraordinaire, we do: His virgin daughters got him drunk and fucked him and got pregnant...so they would give birth to their half-siblings. Yeah, that's a lot better.
So you see, children, this is why the bible should not be left in the hands of the scholars. They tend to take the whole story into account, they try to understand the context, and that is no good when you're trying to make a point that is stupid to begin with.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jerry > JT • a day ago
Particularly for the "interpreters" that originally tried to compile that mess...I think a good deal was lost in translation and context.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Doug105 > JT • 2 days ago
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
13 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jimbo65 > JT • 2 days ago
He conveniently leaves out the fact that said daughters basically got their daddy drunk and pulled a train on him to get some babies. Funny how there's no indignation about that.
10 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bob Conti > jimbo65 • 2 days ago
Yeah, I was thinking he probably shouldn't have gone down the Lot road.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JT > jimbo65 • a day ago
Lots of kink the da bahbel.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Steverino > jimbo65 • 2 days ago
Lot's karma.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Duane Dimitrov > JT • 2 days ago
Okay, so.......
This is why Iron Age morality of the Bible is primitive and inferior!
The real story of Sodom is one where:
(1) Disguised angels enter a village,
(2) The local hicks don't like these "travelers" and decide the best course of action is to rape them,
(3) Lot, a villager, says "don't rape these 'travelers,' let's compromise...you can rape my daughters instead," and the villagers agree to this (!!!!), then,
(4) The 'travelers' reveal themselves and say, 'RAWR!!!! We're actually angels and you are all going to die except you and your family, Lot, you can go!'
As a final 'fuck you' to Lot and his family these angels tell them that, once they leave their village, they cannot look back or be turned into a pillar of salt (of all things?)!
So......TELL ME, good Christians...how is this 'morality' story about LGBT people? Are those crickets I hear?
Also...how is this 'morality' story relevant today? To my mind it reads like a primitive, inferior moral lesson born of a culture much less developed than our own! And, as such, it should be ignored and preferably completely discarded!
But that's just me...thinking!
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JT > Duane Dimitrov • a day ago
Yes. Most reputable commentators maintain that it is about the importance of hospitality in those societies, when the lives of travelers depended on it.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
B Snow > Duane Dimitrov • a day ago
"The 'travelers' reveal themselves and say, 'RAWR!!!!"
http://vignette1.wikia.nocooki...
Thumbnail
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Todd20036 > JT • 2 days ago
Lot was a biblical hero. PerKKKins can't even keep his bible stories straight. Lot was allowed to leave Sodom and Gommorhea (sp) because he was so just.
8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JustDucky > JT • 2 days ago
Yep. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is the story of Lot showing hospitality to his guests. ("Here are my virgin daughters. Rape them instead!" is Biblical hospitality.) He's supposed to be the good guy. That's why he got to leave before the cities were destroyed.
Tony would have a really tough time finding Biblical support for the modern moral belief that raping little girls is bad. According to his imaginary friend, that's just another way of getting engaged.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JT > JustDucky • 2 days ago
Poor Tony PerKKKins. He's supposed to believe that the worst fate would be mansex with the guests, so the hetero rape of his daughters would be preferable. Now he's using this as something bad. He's all in a tizzy.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal > JT • 2 days ago
The story of S&G has absolutely zilch to do with homosexuality.
Angels are not humans, and thus, the attempted rape of the angels amounted to bestiality and was in no way even remotely in the ballpark of homosexuality.
8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MB > vorpal • 2 days ago
Angelophiliaghazi !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal > MB • 2 days ago
That's a porn title that rolls right off the tongue :D.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Steverino > vorpal • 2 days ago
Yep, that's what the later comment "going after strange flesh" is about, although the quaint Jacobean phrasing of it is rather amusing.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JT > vorpal • a day ago
Most respectable commentators hold that it is about the importance of hospitality and how grievous a "sin" it was to deny that to strangers whose lives depend on it.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
douglas > vorpal • 2 days ago
Does the story even mention if the angels were male or female or is it just assumed?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal > douglas • 2 days ago
It seems that the inhabitants of Sodom were under the impression that the angels were male. From Genesis 19, NIV:
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Larry in Oklahoma > vorpal • 2 days ago
So this whole concept of homosexuality is NOT some new thing. The Bible DOES acknowledge it. :)
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jyd42 > Larry in Oklahoma • 2 days ago
More like supernaturafilia...
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Dkl > douglas • 2 days ago
Why you think suprernatural creatures would have sexes or any other mortal stuff? Sexes exists only because mortal beings have to procreate physically. Not-physical imiganery beings don't have to procreate, thus they are probably genderless. And if I don't remember entirely wrong, those theologians, who have talked about angels mostly hold that presumption too. Also, as said, even if they had, and they would exist, of course, they're wouldn't humans so it would be as 'homosexual' as having sex with a male dog or a faun. Its about the species, not gender.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Athanasios1 > vorpal • a day ago
Dream on you mentally deranged sexual deviates.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal > Athanasios1 • a day ago
Oh, how utterly adorable! It thinks we care what it thinks!
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bob Conti > JT • 2 days ago
I guess that's what they called hospitality back then.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JCF > JT • a day ago
A good thing to the (primitive!) writers about their sky daddy.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
grada3784 > JT • 2 days ago
Well, Judah knocked up his daughter-in-law.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JT > grada3784 • a day ago
They were a sex hungry lot. Funny that the christers would be so much against sex.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
John Masters > JT • 2 days ago
Lot and his family were saved because he was the only "righteous" man in the town, and that was after offering up his daughters. So, I guess that makes Obama the only righteous man in D.C. I am glad Tony finally acknowledges that.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Prion • 2 days ago
More good news in Canada:
Justin Trudeau to push for transgender rights in Canadahttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Thumbnail
33 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Duane Dimitrov > Prion • 2 days ago
The religious right's answer to that, though, is "But it could be!"
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Pilot Nozzle > Duane Dimitrov • 2 days ago
Close. Their actual answer would be, "But it should be!"
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mihangel apYrs > Prion • a day ago
well it does look like St Peter's (Rome) or St Paul's (London)
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JCF > Mihangel apYrs • a day ago
Its design is based on Sir Christopher Wren's St Paul's.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mihangel apYrs > JCF • a day ago
thank you for that info: it's obvious they look alike, but I didn't know the provenance of the Capitol building
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
delk • 2 days ago
"We’re talking about our children emotionally being scarred.”
Somehow I suspect that Tony has done far more emotional scarring in children than any chance bathroom encounter.
20 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > delk • 2 days ago
You noticed that too. When he starts in on that shit, and I'm sorry to repeat this, I think of Dan Savage's damning truth: "[The FRC] argue that the gay lifestyle is sick and sinful and dangerous and they point to the suicide rate, and then they turn around and do everything in their power to make sure that suicide rate does not come down and to drive it up. Tony Perkins sits on a pile of dead gay kids every day when he goes to work — and he calls himself a Christian. I don’t understand how real Christians let that little fucker get away with that."
12 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JCF > delk • a day ago
DuggarDuggarDuggarDuggarDuggarDuggarDuggarDuggarDuggarDuggarDuggarDuggarDuggaDuggaDuggar...rr
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Herald > delk • 2 days ago
HB2 for just one example makes it quite ok to scar children.
"Furthermore, there is no championing of family in taking away the rights
of localities to protect our minors in the workplace or in limiting
flexibility for better minimum wages for our families. There is no
championing of family in taking away their rights to sue an employer
that has treated them wrongly because of the family member’s race,
religion, color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap whatever a
conservative might think of other categories not included in the
protections we used to have. I have seen many “conservatives” thank
McCrory online for House Bill 2 because they say it supports God’s will.
A Bill that takes away remedies for religious discrimination is not
godly. It is ungodly."
There is a lot more here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JW Swift > delk • 2 days ago
"We’re talking about our children emotionally being scarred.”
Yeah, that was my first thought, too. I was raised in only a semi-religious household, yet a LOT of my "emotional scarring" (self-worth issues over being gay, shame regarding sex to the point that it's often difficult to actually enjoy it, etc.) have been due to the religion in my upbringing.
That being said, how the fuck DARE you, Tony, to use that as an argument about a group of people trying to mind their own business and just live their lives as they see fit, and claim that somehow THEY are going to "emotionally scar" children more than your religion has done!
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Prion • 2 days ago
...
Thumbnail
14 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
barracks9 > Prion • 2 days ago
I'll take 1 from Column A and 3 from Column B. Thanks!
7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Todd20036 > Prion • 2 days ago
I'll take lust, and maybe poppers.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
madknits • 2 days ago
But Lot was a righteous man. It says so right in Genesis.
13 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Porkie > madknits • 2 days ago
As they are all righteous, those that duggar their daughters.
8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > Porkie • 2 days ago
Come on, now. Be fair. They got him drunk first. I think it may be the first biblical allusion to "God, I was so drunk last night I don't remember a thing." I'm not sure about that, though.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Prion • 2 days ago
.,.
Thumbnail
12 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JT > Prion • 2 days ago
"Sky Daddy tells me to kill you and do every other kind of evil, so that makes it right, doesn't it?"
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal > JT • 2 days ago
If Sky Daddy told you to do it, it is by definition good... even if it involves eating raw baby fresh off the bone.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MB > vorpal • 2 days ago
I prefer mine slow roasted, with a a spicy BBQ rub.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
vorpal > MB • 2 days ago
Is that BBQ rub sky daddy approved, MB?
If not, I'll give you something* to rub that I guarantee is!
* My soft furry belly, of course. What did you think I meant???
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rebecca Gardner • 2 days ago
see more
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
biki > Rebecca Gardner • 2 days ago
Some of those men in your post make my skin crawl. How on earth did they ever win anyone's confidence that they are men of gawd?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
lymis • 2 days ago
Um, Tony? Either you're really crap at reading your Bible, or you've chosen a bizarre Bible story to make your point.
Lot was the ONLY righteous and upright man in Sodom, so righteous that God sent angels there to protect him from the divine retribution that was scheduled for the rest of the city, and to warn him to get his family out.
Whatever we may feel today about his choice of offering his daughters instead of allowing the crowd to gang-rape God's messengers, God saw it as a righteous choice, and arranged to save both Lot and his daughters from harm. (Lot's wife, not so much, but not because of the "virgins for everybody!" issue.)
So, odd metaphor, because you're casting Obama as the only righteous man in the city, and all of his detractors as vile sinners that God is planning to wipe from the face of the earth.
Not that I'd personally disagree with that beyond the inherent hyperbole, but really. You have to get better at this shit. You're just looking like more of an idiot than usual.
22 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ernest Endevor > lymis • 2 days ago
After Lot and his daughters reach safety the girls get him drunk and fuck him- not at the same time, that would be gross, they take turns - so they can have babies. So their baby-daddy is literally their daddy. We never hear about that part of the Lot story, however.
12 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > Ernest Endevor • 2 days ago
It certainly is inconvenient. "And what shall we make of that, Dr. Freud?"
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Dramphooey > lymis • 2 days ago
Apologetics really have to twist themselves to explain why Lot was declared "righteous" by the Bible. However, Tony's use of this story indicates he--a supposed Christian who declares it holy writ--doesn't know anything about the Bible--not even one of its best known stories.
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
popebuck1 > Dramphooey • 2 days ago
Funny, you'd think the Sodom story would be one Bible passage they'd have completely down pat, they spend so much time talking about it.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Frostbite > lymis • 2 days ago
Uhh, you're assuming his listeners have actually read the bible for themselves and not just listening to Tony's made-up version to actually be able to challenge him. Readin' and stuffs is hard and they gots their stories to watch on the teevee.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Gustav2 > Frostbite • 2 days ago
So what you are saying is Tony knows people who self-identify as Evangelical never read their Bibles or go to church?
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > Gustav2 • 2 days ago
As astonishing as that may sound.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Larry Gist > lymis • 2 days ago
This goes to show that these people can take any verse in their "bi-bull" and twist it around to mean anything they want it to mean.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
oikos • 2 days ago
Thumbnail
8 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Denis E. > oikos • 2 days ago
Exactly. Family values.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > oikos • 2 days ago
...banging his own daughters because no one else was going to do it.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
oikos > David Walker • 2 days ago
LOL
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
StillALiberal • 2 days ago
Errr..But I thought Lot was the only "Godly Man" in the whole Sodom and Gomorrah story, that is what Christians like Perkins have always preached, now he's the bad guy and he's like Obama ? Is Lot the good guy or the bad guy now - Christianity is so confusing..
7 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jean-Marc in Canada • 2 days ago
Oh please.......
Thumbnail
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ross • 2 days ago
Incidents of children being molested in a public bathroom by a trans person: ZERO
Incidents of children being molested by a Church leader: TENS OF THOUSANDS.
Tony states: "“We’re talking about our children. We’re talking about the next generation. We’re talking about our children emotionally being scarred.”
If Tony really gave a fuck about the welfare of children, he would be advocating that they never be allowed near a church.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Blake Jordan • 2 days ago
He is even confused about the bible... fcking idiot!!!
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
olandp • 2 days ago
But Toni, wasn't Lot the only virtuous man on earth when he offered up his virgin daughters? If Obama is like Lot that means that he is virtuous, and by opposing him you are the mob of heathens.
Oh dear.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
chicago dyke • 2 days ago
no, Toni. *this* is violence in bathrooms, and it's people like you who commit it:
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/0...
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > chicago dyke • 2 days ago
Good story. And her video is excellent.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr • 2 days ago
If you are so concerned about children, extend the time limit for sexual abuse claims, police your places of worship, and maybe don't hire pedophiles.
The fact that this guy actually hired a molester doesn't give him any moral ground to stand upon.
9 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
B Snow > Wynter Marie Starr • a day ago
Oh, yes! We should ask Tony how his former spokesman, Josh Duggar, is doing. After all, they're besties, right?
Thumbnail
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Wynter Marie Starr > B Snow • a day ago
Josh doesn't count since he "repented" and asked a made up being to forgive him./s The gall is unbelievable, isn't it?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Cuberly • 2 days ago
Crazy woman with TWELVE kids drags them through Target screaming about hell fire and brimstone and Target's contempt for the children.
Toni, now who exactly is inflicting emotional scarring on their children?
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
KQCA • 2 days ago
“It is wrong to surrender our children to a godless system that this president is promoting,” Perkins said.
My two brothers and my sister and I were physically and sexually assaulted by a "man of God," our born-again evangelical Christian, Republican, Rush Limbau-following, Pat Robertson-loving biological father who is straight and was married to only one woman in his lifetime.
Any "godless system that this president is promoting" pales in comparison to the hell me and my siblings were subjected to throughout our formative years.
Bring it on, bitch. The truth of my life story is your worst nightmare.... and I am telling it.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Traxley Launderette • 2 days ago
I've had sex with an Angel.
And a Manuel. And a Carlos. And a Juan.
Even a Jesus.
All were fantastic.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JW Swift > Traxley Launderette • 2 days ago
I'm jealous.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Traxley Launderette > JW Swift • a day ago
Don't be. Armando was awful.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Brian G • 2 days ago
These would be the same daughters who, later on, got their dad drunk and fucked him so that they could get pregnant? Why is THAT part of the story always forgotten?
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > Brian G • 2 days ago
It does make you wonder how that made the final edit and so many other scrolls were rejected. I guess it's one of those "damned women" moments the bible is so good at.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Carl • 2 days ago
I'm not one to exalt the bible, but as I remember the story, Lot offering up his virgin daughters was apparently a noble gesture. So is Tony Perkins against the "Word of God"? I'm so confused.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
KnownDonorDad • 2 days ago
But Lot is held out as the righteous man. He can't keep the story straight.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
DutchBoy74 • 2 days ago
Don't tell Tony what happened between lot and his daughters after God killed their mother by turning her into a pillar of salt because she dared have empathy for the people or curiosity of God. Women aren't supposed to question, or feel, or think.
But they got their father drunk and shagged him rotten so it wasn't his fault, and they were horny anyways so it's ok. Genesis 19:30-38
http://biblehub.com/nasb/genes...
Someone please ask St. Tony if it's ok to screw your children. The Bible tells me it's ok to fuck your kids as long as you have plausible deniability and blame the woman. You know one of those real Genesis 19 Duggar moments.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
KQCA > DutchBoy74 • 2 days ago
Yes, by evangelical Christian family values, it is perfectly fine to physically and/or sexually assault one's own children. Just ask my born-again Republican Christian father.
He, like Perkins, has no conscience and no guilt because "Jesus covers all mistakes." Jesus is the fall guy for psychopaths.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
biki > DutchBoy74 • 2 days ago
Bellissimo! Totally a perfectly framed rebuttal.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JaniceInToronto • 2 days ago
But Lot was Gods own boy and saved the Angels from being raped.
According to the Bible, he did a good thing by giving his daughters to the crowd to gang rape. So, Tony, what exactly are you saying here, that Lot was a bad man? Apparently your God didn't think so...
Tony, you are -such- an- assshole. Just STFU and go away.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BudClark • 2 days ago
We could strip Tony nekkid, tie him up, and throw him into an active volcano, but I doubt Pele would be pleased, You see, he's DEFINITELY not a virgin.
And he's got (is a ) DICK.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Smith_90125 • 2 days ago
Funny how Perkins was one of Dennis Hastert's supporters....
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
biki > Smith_90125 • 2 days ago
......yes
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Denis E. • 2 days ago
Wasn't this the same Lot who fathered/grandfathered children by his two daughters?
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
SFBruce > Denis E. • 2 days ago
The very same. Lot's family were the only people of Sodom who were spared all that fire and brimstone. Of course, Lot's wife didn't make it far, since she was turned into a pillar of stone for the terrible sin of looking back. What sort of moral this story is supposed to teach us is beyond me.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Reality.Bites > SFBruce • 2 days ago
I thought she was turned into a pillar of salt... I always interpreted it as a warning about hypertension.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
biki > SFBruce • 2 days ago
The moral of this story, from my viewpoint is that women should never question men. They also should refrain from any iota of curiosity.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > Denis E. • 2 days ago
Yeah, but he was drunk at the time.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JustSayin' > David Walker • 2 days ago
The girls roofied him and raped him. If they had cellphones back then it would have uploaded to GodTube.rel
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Denis E. > David Walker • 2 days ago
...or so the 'story' goes
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Hue-Man > Denis E. • 2 days ago
Biblical family values have featured incest since Genesis!
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mike in Texas • 2 days ago
He's hallucinating again ...
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
David Walker > Mike in Texas • 2 days ago
Meds are our friends.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
WebSlinger • 2 days ago
This is what gay people, gay activists and groups that support gays should be pointing out to the American people...
Thumbnail
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rex • 2 days ago
You'd think after reading the Bible as much as Tony he'd understand it. You'd be wrong.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
lymis > Rex • 2 days ago
I've never gotten the impression he's read it. Just that he has a concordance for handy out-of-context quoting.
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mark • 2 days ago
But you don't mind telling that horror story to your young daughters - who now live with the fear that daddy is going to whore them out someday to save his own ass......
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BeccaM • a day ago
What. The. Fuck? Lot tried to surrender his virgin daughters to the would-be angel-raping mob...and he was the only guy there God deemed worth saving! And the supposed Dresden-style firebombing of Sodom and Gomorrah came after the mob said, "Newp. Don't care. Give us the angels for raping now." Finally, as many remember, those daughters repaid their daddy -- who went all hermit-style and kept them on a mountain, alone for years -- by getting him drunk and raping him.
Yeah, nice people. So very much the ones worth saving. Apparently entire towns deserved to be destroyed, down to the last, including infants in cribs, because of one rapey mob. Oh wait, that there wasn't the real reason--
Bonus Bible quote for the day:
"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
-- Ezekiel, 16:49
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JCF > BeccaM • a day ago
"they did not help the poor and needy"
THIS is the (only) relevant lesson from the story of the destruction of S&G.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MikeBx2 • 2 days ago
Perkins literally believes that once there was a mob attempting to have sex with two angels in a house, so the house owner offered his two daughters instead. And because this is his religious belief, he's given prime time on news shows rather than being locked in a padded cell.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alan43 • 2 days ago
Of course PerKKKins doesn't mention the transgender children being emotionally scarres by our current system
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JustSayin' • 2 days ago
Didn't Lots daughters get him drunk in a cave, rape him repeatedly to get pregnant? Yeah i think so..genesis 19:31-35
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Reality.Bites > JustSayin' • 2 days ago
Cuz if there's one thing we know about alcohol, it's how it gives middle-aged men the ability to have sex over and over again, especially when imbibed to the extent they can't even recognize their own daughters or that they just lost their wife, their home and everything in their life except their daughters and a large supply of hooch.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
coram nobis > Reality.Bites • 2 days ago
Yes, and that's another thing. They flee the city, the daughters have sex for two successive nights with him and "he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up". (Gen. 19:33 et seq). If he was so mis en bouteille to forget that he schtupped his daughter then it's doubtful he was able to raise his apostle to a blessed resurrection to begin with, but even so: that must have been quite a supply of wine they carried out of the city.
You'd think that if your town was about to go up in a big fireball you'd grab other stuff to flee with, and not the weight and bulk of a few liters of cheap wine, but then again, you and I may not be as religious.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Friday > JustSayin' • 2 days ago
That's the family values upbringing we know so well. I forget if they succeeded in this attempt, but they sure did try. Guess they assumed their God had killed everyone on the planet but them, even if kind of in a hurry to jump to that conclusion.
Whole story doesn't make a ton of sense in general, that way, but then again it makes more sense in a lot of ways if you consider ancient hospitality traditions and maybe the original story wasn't saying they wanted to 'know' those angels in the 'Biblical sense' (That being "Knowing=Schlonging Someone/thing.") If they were a notoriously inhospitable and paranoid town, it seems more likely that a mob of angry prominent townspeople wanted to interrogate/abuse the strangers than take them to gay clubs and party or something. In salt-trading cultures to this day it'd bring horrid shame on Lot (and thus his daughters, they only existing in terms of his status there) if he allowed the guest-rights of his roof-tree to be violated, basically, his daughters would likely be disgraced anyway, so he was trying to *shame* the crowd not expect them to actually go 'Oh, good enough' and take the daughters away for, err, gay sexytime?. :)
Really they turned this into anti-gay propaganda , despite their biggest prophets saying that's not what they myth was *about* because ironically they needed something to blame scapegoats rather than greed and xenophobia for. Just like the Righties claim that somehow 9/11 was a smiting from their God that's the fault of gays, feminists, Pagans, and now trans people today. When of course it's all kinds of straight people that behave badly in the story.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > Friday • a day ago
I always thought the 'pillar of salt' thing was a primitive way to explain the large salt deposits that are found in the Dead Sea Valley.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Friday > McSwagg • 14 hours ago
The whole thing was apparently cribbed from folk tales about a couple of cities that lived by being middlemen for *the salt trade.* What else would you even have cities in in that area for. No one likes a middleman, and salt merchants were unpopular about on the level of tax collectors back then. Think Las Vegas.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > Friday • 13 hours ago
This is interesting and I'd like to learn more. Do you have a source you could point me to? Thanks!
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Friday > McSwagg • 12 hours ago
That's ....a good question, some documentary (I want to guess it was a 'Secrets of the Dead' episode) made a reasonable case for the theory, owing to the actual salt-pillar formations in the region and the salt trade and usual tensions between caravan people and the people at trading cities.
Also I used to hang out with a rabbi or two and that's kind of where it got pointed out that the story makes a lot more sense if you figure on something *like* Pagan or Bedouin hospitality customs: the idea the Gods or representatives of Gods concerned with such go around testing people's *hospitality* is a very common one, and Christian prophets in the same book seem to agree with that assessment, not the anti-gay propaganda. :)
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
McSwagg > Friday • 4 hours ago
Thanks for the info. I'll research further.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
biki > JustSayin' • 2 days ago
Could a story ring any more untrue?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jerry Hinnant • 2 days ago
Please Queen Tonya go clutch your pearls elsewhere and save your drama for your Mama cause we have grown weary of your BS!
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mikey • 2 days ago
PerKKKins' retelling of the story of lot also casts transgender people as God's angels.
He really didn't think through very carefully his use of metaphors, did he.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
WebSlinger • 2 days ago
Thumbnail
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
GuestStop • 2 days ago
Thumbnail
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
ceeenbee • 2 days ago
Is perKKKins referring to lot, who was blessed by god with fortunes and long life? I this the same lot who offered up his virgin daughters to be raped by villagers in order to be hospitable to his guests? Is this per chance the same lot who who's virgin daughters got drunk and subsequently raped so they could have offspring? Is this the same lot whose wife was murdered and turned into a pillar of salt for having the temerity to look back at the genocide of god on Sodom and Gomorrah?
What wonderful role models for us all.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JustSayin' > ceeenbee • 2 days ago
Those visitors the Sodomites wanted to get to "know" in the biblical sense were angels. That means they were not human. Sex with living creatures that are not human is called beastiality. So in reality God destroyed those citites because the citizens were wanting to fuck animals. So that fractured fairy tale goes, not a gay thing in the whole story.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Reality.Bites > JustSayin' • 2 days ago
Wouldn't that also apply to Mary and you-know-who?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Baby Dave • 2 days ago
Thumbnail
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Sam_Handwich • 2 days ago
virgins are too much work
4 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Paula • a day ago
Tony, there is a big difference between surrendering your daughters and offering them up.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BeccaM > Paula • a day ago
Like I commented below, Perkins can't even get the citation right. First of all, under Biblical law, women weren't really people but property (lovely, huh?). Lot's "sacrifice" of his property (i.e., virgin daughters) was deemed in the Bible to be admirable because he was supposedly motivated by the whole reason S&G were destroyed: The failure of the people in those towns to take care of guests, travelers, and the poor and to protect them from harm.
And of course as the story goes, the mob didn't want the daughters, they were all rape-minded for those angel-guests.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
grada3784 • 2 days ago
Except Lot's daughters were not surrendered. They were so pissed off at that that they raped their father.
I suspect that's what Perkins really wants.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jomicur • 2 days ago
Tell us, Tony, is hanging out with white supremacy groups a "Genesis moment" too?
Thumbnail
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Scott Wyant • 2 days ago
New headline : Tony Perkins Suggests Lot Erred on Angles - vs - Daughters Decision
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Tammy Rainey • 2 days ago
all other considerations aside - has TP forgotten that Lot was the one guy God spared in that story? Just sayin'...
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
John Masters • 2 days ago
So, let's see, Lot was saved because he was the only righteous man in the town...which means, offering up his virgin daughters was surely what God thought was right (or at least, had no objection), so maybe Tony's right, I guess Obama's the only righteous man in Washington. Thanks for finally recognizing that Tony.
Oh, and BTW, there's more to that story. I believe Lot's daughters got him passed out drunk later, and had sex with him. Do you tell that part of the story in Sunday School classes?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
RainbowPhoenix • 2 days ago
Apparently he missed the part where Lot's surrender of his daughters was supposed to be a good thing, as evidenced by the fact that he was still considered the only righteous man in Sodom even after pulling that.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
KQCA • 2 days ago
If we want to protect our children from predators, keep them away from churches.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Galvestonian • 2 days ago
'children emotionally being scarred' --- wait until some really buff FtoM transgender walks into the bathroom/restroom that matches his birth certificate. A lot of these guys are more masculine than me (and I consider myself masculine) and when a fully transitioned MtoF walks into a bathroom/restroom that matches her birth certificate I can just see a whole new level of violence and clusterfuck. WHAT in the new hell are these frickin' retards doing ???
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
edrex • 2 days ago
I remember my Genesis 19 moment. I blamed it on the beer.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
coram nobis > edrex • 2 days ago
The Archangel Michelob?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Michael Rush • 2 days ago
She's getting increasingly desperate .
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Barry S G • 2 days ago
Tony seems to have forgotten that Lot's daughters screwed their own father. Yep, Lot and his daughters are great examples.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Friday • 2 days ago
Seems to me Perkins is the one that wants to expose our trans people to attacks angry mobs. Or anyone that might be 'mistaken' for one.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
John T • 2 days ago
There are people who believe in the literal truth of an ancient fairy tale about angels who came to earth for an orgy before they destroyed the whole city because they weren't good enough hosts. No surprise that the same people will believe made-up fantasies about transgender women raping children in public bathrooms. Religion is why we can't have nice things.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Chuck • 2 days ago
Really? His defense is remind us that one of the supposedly only godly men in the city offered up his 2 virgin daughters to be gang raped? #ChristianValues
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
biki > Chuck • 2 days ago
I remembered my shock and horror the first time reading the story of Lot. Why would it be ok to protect two unknown visitors but throw his own flesh and blood daughters to the ravaging wolves of the town? And then it hit me, because females in the Big Book Of Sky Father are considered worthless. At that point, around 13-15 I was done with xtianity.
2 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
The_Wretched • 2 days ago
Lot was on the list of righteous men. Their god approved of Lot turning over his daughters to the mob. Tony, read your damn bible.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Reality.Bites • 2 days ago
And yet, Lot is considered a righteous man in the bible - in fact the only one in all of Sodom and Gommorah.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
JustSayin' > Reality.Bites • 2 days ago
Kiddie diddling is a christian tradition
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ninja0980 • 2 days ago
Never heard of the story of Lot but then again, I outgrew fairy tales a long time ago.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
bambinoitaliano • 2 days ago
You mean like the duggars surrender their daughters to their son for molestations? And these are god fearing people in bed with the FRC endorse and stand by Tony PerKKKin.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ragnar Lothbrok • 2 days ago
Tony, we know your birth parents named you Lot.
Why did you change it ?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TampaZeke • 2 days ago
Wow, that simile doesn't work on SO many levels. It doesn't even make any sense in the context of the fable of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah. Since Lot was supposed to be the good guy in that story, are we to believe that Perkins now sees Obama as the good guy in this fight? Not even when his hell freezes over!
The hate has seriously addled Perkins' brain. He can't even keep his fairy tales straight anymore.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Stogiebear • 2 days ago
That evil, evil, Kenyan socialist non-white Lot. Shoving his daughters out the door of his house to be pass-around party bottoms for the men of the town of Sodom instead of keeping them inside and under his own roof where they'd be safe from any kind of untoward sexual action.
What's that? That's not how it happened? Never mind.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
mikeinrkfd • 2 days ago
MS Perkins, no matter how you try to frame it, it's never about the children.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
barracks9 > mikeinrkfd • 2 days ago
He is, eternally, Helen Lovejoy.
5 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
shellback > barracks9 • 2 days ago
I understand Helen is at bible camp learning how to be more judgemental.
ps - How are the bow ties coming along?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
barracks9 > shellback • 2 days ago
Very well, thanks for asking. Just a wee bit all-consuming for the next couple weeks. I did take a break last night and whipped up three ties for a dear friend of mine in Edinburgh who decided he needed something original (he chose some gorgeous flocked damask taffeta in three different colors) to attend a number of galas this summer, including the Glyndebourne Festival. Very excited about this.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
shellback > barracks9 • 2 days ago
Where DO you get your energy?
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Tigernan Quinn • 2 days ago
I thought Lot did NOT surrender his daughters, he just offered them. And even that wording has schools of debate about what the original author intended by that. To help them? Serve them? There are a lot of possibilities in the whole "sent his daughters out to them" context, filtered through thousands of years and many languages. Also, nobody existed.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Porkie • 2 days ago
What ?....He kinda.... got drunk an fucked 'em?....
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
lymis > Porkie • 2 days ago
That's not fair. THEY got him drunk, because they thought they were the only three people left alive in the world, and figured they had to repopulate. Of course, focusing on getting pregnant before sorting out things like where to live and what to eat or, you know, actually finding out whether everyone else is dead, doesn't speak well to their mental stability. But then, God had just rescued their Mom only to turn her into a pillar of salt for looking back on the devastation, so that'll screw with your head.
6 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
popebuck1 > lymis • 2 days ago
Getting and keeping the women pregnant is one of the Old Testament God's chief concerns. Let His chosen people wander in the desert for 40 years before they find the promised land? Sure, no problem. King Onan refuses to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law as directed? Instant death! Priorities, man.
1 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Joann Prinzivalli • 2 days ago
Tony "Lot" Perkins is salivating at the idea of trans children and teens being shoved out that door into the hands of a ravening mob of FRC pedophiles. He is the one sending his cisgender heterosexual male pervert voyeur minions into ladies' rooms at Target and other places, claiming "gender identity" as a shield for their perversion.
We really need to call on state legislators to enact laws that make it clear that anyone doing this and claiming "gender identity" as their defense, will be required to subject themselves to a full course of treatment for their claimed status - electrolysis, testosterone suppressors, lots of estrogen, and, of course, surgery. And if their BMI is too high for a full GRS, they can still tolerate an orchie.
In Iran, they allow gay men to choose GRS in lieu of being stoned to death in a soccer stadium (in addition to allowing for real trans folk to get proper treatment). Maybe straight cis men in the US might want a taste of this kind of "justice."
Please note I am *not* justifying what the Iranians do to gay men with Khomeini's transgender-affirming Fatwa - but for ste straight cis perverts in the US who claim gender identity as an excuse to peep in wmen's restrooms, this would be real justice.
3 △ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Claudette Gosney • a day ago
"my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr".....!jk174e
two days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month's payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day...with weekly payouts..it's realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 Dollars...
Learn. More right Here
!jk174e
:➽:➽:
➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsExplorer\GetPay-Hour$98....
.✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸✸::::::!jk174e....,........
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Marti386 • a day ago
“This is a Lot moment where we’re going to decide whether or not we’re
going to shove our children out the door in the pursuit of some false
promise of temporal peace, and we know how that worked out.”
Actually, we don't know how that "worked out", Tony. Because it never happened.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bear Millotts • a day ago
Um, poor ole Tony needs to re-read his bible.
Is he saying that Obama is a righteous man?
Because Lot was the only righteous man in town and his action of offering up his daughters to be raped to protect the two angels was considered righteous.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Moby D • a day ago
Wait, he used the Lot story line? Has he actually read that story? Lololol
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
James • a day ago
Lot's daughters weren't virgins for long, anyway: he fucked them both himself.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ray • a day ago
The way I heard it, they weren't virgins after daddy got his hand on them.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
ExGayTherapyKills • a day ago
Catholics surrender their virgin children to the Catholic Church priest.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
2amor • a day ago
Seems to me Tony Perkins just cherry picked the shit out of this story.... And that surprised who?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mihangel apYrs • a day ago
wasn't Lot the one that subsequently was got drunk by his daughters and then fucked the wanton sluts?
Don't think BO has done that yet
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
zhera • a day ago
Can't help but notice that PerKKKins isn't saying anything negative about how Lot got his daughters preggers. Because that was God's will, or something?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
M Jackson • 2 days ago
As is rhetoric spins further off the rails, Tony should reflect on how many children have been emotionally scarred by all of his hard work.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
TheSeer • 2 days ago
Tony Perkins is just disgusting. Not scary anymore, just pathetic and disgusting.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Duck • 2 days ago
As I have said before, and will undoubtedly say again, if one's view point about the story of Lot somehow objects to the same-sex nature of the (presumed) attempted gang rape while not condemning the offered gang rape of Lot's daughters, one's moral compass is so broken that I am not sure such compass ever existed.
Also, as others here have pointed out, I don't think casting the President in the role of the "only righteous man" is quite what Mr. Perkins was going for here. His metaphor fails.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
jm2 • 2 days ago
is someone going to tell Perkins that Lot's daughters seduced their father by getting him high and then having his babies?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MB • 2 days ago
The very SAME Genesis 19 where Lot's "emotionally scarred" daughters were impregnated by him ??
THAT Genesis 19 ??
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Such a loving God.......
~ God orders Moses to kill every Midianite woman who was no longer a virgin. (many of these women would obviously have been pregnant) (Numbers 31:15-18)
~ God promises to destroy the infants of Samaria and rip open the stomachs of pregnant women.
... The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. (Hosea 13:16)
~ God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah to be ripped open.
... At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)
~ God commands the killing of infants and nursing babies.
... Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (1 Samuel 15:3)
~ God repays your enemies by destroying their babies.
... Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us. He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalms 137:8-9)
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Derek in DC • 2 days ago
Eventually I'll make a GIF of myself pointing and laughing. Unless Tony suddenly realizes how pointless he is and stops saying stupid stuff, I'm sure I'd use it a lot.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
coram nobis • 2 days ago
Spoiler: Lot and his family leave the city and Genesis 19 ends with his two daughters getting Lot drunk and having sex with him, and both get pregnant. As a lesson in sexual ethics, Genesis 19 is a bit opaque.
But I always hate it when someone tells a joke and leaves off the punch line like Perky just did, don't you?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Cuberly • 2 days ago
Oh, btw Toni. Your history is showing.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/0...
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
2karmanot • 2 days ago
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Larry in Oklahoma • 2 days ago
Lot is NOT someone to look up to and be proud of. Yeah, he offered his daughters to the men if they would just leave him alone. Although it was described as Lot being the innocent victim, he got drunk and had sex with his two daughters. The Bible conveniently describes it as two consecutive nights with each daughter and this only happened one time with each, which I highly doubt. And each of the the daughter's kid went on to be national leaders / rulers. Not one time was Lot ever condemned by The Lord for fornication. This whole story is all about a family gone wild.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Rob Spangler • 2 days ago
Lot was born 4000 years ago and may or may not have existed. No proof right... Were they still riding dinosaurs then Princess Tonette? Klansman quoting scripture and using it to harm people. Nothing changes with the American Taliban.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Richard B • 2 days ago
Tony's howls of outrage are getting so regular and shrill.
- maybe his end is near?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Friday > Richard B • 2 days ago
Might not be expecting much of a tax return this year.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
−
⚑
Avatar
popebuck1 • 2 days ago
Um, did he miss that Lot was supposed to be the HERO of that story?
According to their God's judgment, Lot was the one and only righteous man in all of Sodom! And part of that estimation was his willingness to sacrifice his own daughters to be raped by an angry mob, rather than yield up his guests. Just like Perkins and his flock are willing to throw trans kids, along with anyone presenting in any way gender-nonconforming (like the woman who sold her hair to cancer patients and then was attacked in a restroom for being "trans"), to satisfy their God's directives.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Stev84 • 2 days ago
I thought Lot is the hero in the story and offering his daughters to be raped is a virtue?
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
shellback • 2 days ago
Using a book of fairy tales to make a point. tch, tch, tch.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Butch • 2 days ago
I would guess that your children are emotionally scarred simply by virtue of being your children, Tony old chap.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
heimaey • 2 days ago
I heard Lot did that a lot.
△ ▽
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Also on JoeMyGod
AFA Radio Shrieker Sandy Rios: Possibly Lesbian Hillary Clinton …
196 comments •
10 hours ago
Avatar
Porkie — Shhh...Don't tell anyone, but.......Sandy is D.I.V.O.R.C.E.D. So the baby Jesus won't recognise her …
Bernie Sanders Calls For Final Debate With Hillary
532 comments •
7 hours ago
Avatar
Hal — I am getting burned with Bern. This is a Nader trip all over again.
Ben Shapiro: Anti-Semites Worship Donald Trump
147 comments •
9 hours ago
Avatar
Gustav2 — Criticizing Israel is not anti-semetic in itself.
Hillary Clinton: End The Criminalization Of HIV [VIDEO]
128 comments •
9 hours ago
Avatar
Wayne — #ImWithHer
Powered by Disqus
✉Subscribe
d Add Disqus to your site
🔒 Privacy
Joe.My.God.
Rocket Fuel
Home
Categories
Blogroll
Archive
About
Contact
Store
New RSS Feed
TonyPerkins2015LS1-660x330
Tony Perkins: Obama Is Surrendering Children Like Lot Surrendered His Virgin Daughters [AUDIO]
May 17, 2016 Duggar, Hate Groups, Religion
Hate group leader Tony Perkins says that Obama’s transgender rights directives remind him of the Sodom & Gomorrah story about Lot’s daughters. Brian Tashman reports at Right Wing Watch:
“We’re talking about our children,” he said. “We’re talking about the next generation. We’re talking about our children emotionally being scarred.”
Perkins then compared the situation to the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which Lot responds to a mob that wants to have sex with two angels that are inside his house by unsuccessfully offering up his two virgin daughters instead.
“I think this is a Genesis 19 moment,” he said. “This is a Lot moment where we’re going to decide whether or not we’re going to shove our children out the door in the pursuit of some false promise of temporal peace, and we know how that worked out.”
“It is wrong to surrender our children to a godless system that this president is promoting,” he said.
Share
in
Share
.
Tags adultery Ashley Madison Christianists David Duke hate groups incest Josh Duggar KKK molestation porn religion Tony Perkins white supremacists
Previous
Trump Vows To Rescind Obama’s Pro-Trans Directives«
Next
Obama Marks International Day Against Homophobia And Transphobia: LGBT Rights Are Human Rights»
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
You May Like
35 Ads From The 1970's That Would Be Banned Today
My Daily Viral
21 Wedding Dresses That Should Have Never Happened!
AfternoonSpecial
Her Dress Dropped Jaws At The 2015 Met Gala
StyleBistro
These Real Titanic Photos Will Leave You Speechless
BlitzLift
Only 1 In 50 Americans Can Name These Iconic Wome…
Topix Offbeat
If You Owe Less Than $625k, Use Obama's Once-In-A…
LowerMyBills
Like us on Facebook
Advertisement
Read more...
INNdulge Palm Springs Legendary Gay Resort
Clothing is Forever Optional
Naked Men in the Desert
Read more...
Buy a Blogad!
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
.
Explore Joe’s Mighty Tags
2012 elections 2016 elections activism advertising AFA assholery Barack Obama bigotry California Catholic Church celibacy Christianists crackpots crazy people DADT Donald Trump education Florida gay artists GOP hate groups lawsuits LGBT History LGBT rights LGBT youth liars marriage equality Mitt Romney movies New York state NOM NYC pop music Proposition 8 religion Russia scandal SCOTUS Senate silliness sports teabaggers Tea Party television Tony Perkins
© joemygod.com 2016
http://www.joemygod.com/2016/05/17/tony-perkins-obama-is-surrendering-children-like-lot-surrendered-his-virgin-daughters-audio/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment