User Profile: HarryPotter


Member Since: January 23, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • [-15] July 1, 2015 at 2:51pm

    He was just discrimibating and telling a group of people they weren’t welcome around him based on who they love. But no, he’s not hateful at all.

    Responses (5) +
  • [-7] July 1, 2015 at 2:34pm

    Gay marriage was just as much of a change as interracial marriage was. If you have the right to marry your partner and the government recognizes that relationship, but gay or interracial couples are banned from it, that is not equality.

  • [-1] July 1, 2015 at 2:29pm

    The only point here is that she was hired to do a job and isn’t doing it. Plain and simple.

  • [-5] July 1, 2015 at 1:57pm

    This nation can’t have been built from the hard work of people like her because she isn’t doing work. She is refusing to do her job. Most Christians have no issue with gay marriage, and don’t have any issue providing them with a marriage license. The anti-gay Christians largely are smart enough to find jobs that don’t require they legally fill out marriage certificates which they would not be comfortable doing.

    Also, the evil was when the government was engaged in discrimination, taking away the rights of its citizens. fortunately, that time is now behind us.

  • July 1, 2015 at 1:15pm

    She is of course welcome to believe whatever she wishes. But she is refusing to do her job. What if you or I refused to do our job? Would we be fired? Or would we just have to say something about our religious beliefs and be able to kick up our feel with impunity?

    The Constitution allows for religious beliefs and freedoms, but she is not forced to work there. If her beliefs forbade her from marrying interracial couples, or interfaith couples, that wouldn’t matter either.

  • July 1, 2015 at 1:06pm

    Exactly Louie.

    Also, when using protection, which is recommended for gay and straight people, risk of disease drops to near zero. Plus, while gays have higher rates of some STDs, straights have higher rates of others. So if you want to have a conversation Infinite, that’s fine, but I’ll be bringing facts.

  • [-12] July 1, 2015 at 12:29pm

    Facebook is a company that very publicly supports gay marriage and equality for gay people. If you want to go on there and say that gay couples don’t deserve the same rights as you, go ahead, by don’t expect sympathy from me or facebook.

    Responses (5) +
  • [32] July 1, 2015 at 12:24pm

    So she can’t do her job, what she is paid to do, because of her beliefs? Sorry, if you refuse to do your job, you need to get a new one.

    Responses (19) +
  • [-1] June 30, 2015 at 3:37pm

    Um, how has the word “love” changed? Gay couples love one another just as much as straight couples do.

    Is your relationship about lust and control? That sounds sad. My relationship with my boyfriend is about love. Gay couples love one another just as much as straight couples. And please look up how polling is done.

  • [92] June 30, 2015 at 3:23pm

    Those laws are from Exodus. Leviticus has the weirder laws, like no eating shellfish or no shaving.

    Again, not that ANY of that has any bearing on US law…

  • [-14] June 30, 2015 at 2:45pm

    I’m not embarrassed. 60%of Americans arent embarrassed, we are proud. Love wins!

    Responses (9) +
  • [1] June 30, 2015 at 2:37pm

    I agree that it wasn’t needed. It sounds like nothing has changed from the tweets.

  • June 30, 2015 at 2:36pm

    Well the newspaper owners and editors will decide what is racist or homophobic and they will only print what they want. They have that right. But if someone said that interracial couples were sinful, shouldn’t be able to marry, etc, would you consider that just debate, or would you not want that in your paper?

  • June 30, 2015 at 2:33pm

    I admit, I didn’t see it when I first read the book, but after I went back, it is pretty obvious. And it really doesn’t make any difference.

  • [-12] June 30, 2015 at 2:03pm

    It did look really cool. I wish I could have seen it in person.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] June 30, 2015 at 2:02pm

    True, I only skimmed like half of this article. Anything by Matt is so long and so, well stupid, that it’s not even worth my time to read it through. I just made this post to show what his arguments sound like.

  • [-2] June 30, 2015 at 2:00pm

    I have engaged this topic, at length, in a very substantive manner. If you have any actual arguments, I will be glad to counter them. My point was just to show how stupid these arguments sound.

  • [-4] June 30, 2015 at 12:36pm

    That’s not what he said at all. They won’t print racist, sexist, or homophobic letters. But they will print opinions on the SC decision that oppose the ruling.

  • [-10] June 30, 2015 at 12:14pm

    So they won’t print hateful letters. They will print thoughtful debate from either side. What is the issue here?

    Responses (3) +
  • [-3] June 30, 2015 at 10:37am

    Bolton and blaze:
    Did either of you actually read the ruling? Have either of you read the 14th amendment? It is unconstitutional to vote away the civil rights of any citizen.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love