home
RSS
September 17th, 2012
07:55 AM ET

Gay couple sues church over axed sale

(CNN)–A gay couple in Massachusetts is suing a Roman Catholic diocese for allegedly refusing to sell property to them.  CNN Affiliate WCVB reports.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (253 Responses)
  1. Taco Passion

    If any group deserves to be disriminated against, it is the religious fvcktards. Without these science/logic hating sheep, we would have flying cars and a cure for cancer by now. These people make the world a worse place.

    September 17, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • old ben

      True.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
  2. Tim Tebow

    How many children has the priest butt fvcked?

    September 17, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • Duh

      You mean, "How many children has the priest Tebow'd"

      September 17, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
  3. Marc Biron

    Church – Marriage is between a man and woman.
    Gay Couple – We want to buy your property and live on it in direct violation of your worldview.
    Church – No
    Gay Couple – (Suprised and offended)

    September 17, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Topher

      Yeah, pretty much.

      September 17, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      But the Catholics don't like it when they are explicity discriminated against and supported laws stopping said discrimination. They want their cake and eat it too.

      September 17, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • midwest rail

      That's possibly the dumbest argument ever seen here. Well done.

      September 17, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • RCH

      Are you serious. It's private land, the can sell it to whom ever that like or not like!
      I'm straight and proud of it!!!!!!

      September 17, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Good for you, RCH. That's completely irrelevant to the law, however.

      September 17, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      A Church from not too long ago: We don't support the rights of interracial couples
      Interracial Couple: we want to purchase property that you own in a civil legal transaction
      Church: No
      The rest of the world: The Church is backwards and bigotted.

      ------------–

      Why do believers accept certain bigotry but not others?

      September 17, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • derp

      Me–I think black people are inferior and they should not be allowed to eat at my restaurant.
      Black people – We want to eat in your restaurant in direct violation of your worldview.
      Me – No
      Black people – (Suprised and offended)

      September 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Topher

      Did I miss this in the story? Was an agreement reached and THEN the church backed out?

      September 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • Topher

      derp

      Not the same situation whatsoever.

      September 17, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @Topher – in what way is derp wrong?

      September 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • midwest rail

      @ Topher – yes.

      September 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • Topher

      Being gay isn't a civil rights issue.

      September 17, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • sam stone

      rch: how can you be proud of something in which you had no choice?

      September 17, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • sam stone

      topher: marriage is a civil rights issue

      September 17, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Topher

      Please explain.

      September 17, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • sam stone

      topher: the supreme court held in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that marriage is a civil right

      September 17, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • thecollegeadmissionsguru

      @ Topher, well first off NO church has the legal right to issue a marriage license, that is the domain of the state or civil authority (Hence CIVIC issue) Anyone (except our gay friends in most states) can go to a courthouse and purchase a license and have a judge perform the ceremony, no preacher, priest, or godly fellow needed, and POOF you are married.

      September 17, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • Topher

      I'm not sure I see what that has to do with this case or whether it is the same to discriminate against blacks.

      September 17, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • sam stone

      the court held that denying interracial couples the right to marry violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment

      September 17, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • sam stone

      topher: if it is a CIVIL RIGHT, then it applies to all citizens. as far as this case, it doesn't really apply because they weren't seeking to get married, just buy property

      September 17, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
    • Topher

      It isn't the same as being prejudiced against blacks because you are born black and that's not something that can be changed. It's just who they are. There isn't anything wrong with that. For gay people, it's a matter of an action that is found to be immoral by a lot of people. See the difference?

      I think these two men have every right to purchase a property, but the property owner should have the right to reject that offer based on anything he wants ... even something as little as the buyer's hair color. While it is still in the seller's possession, he should have the right to sell or do whatever he sees fit to do with it.

      September 17, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
    • midwest rail

      The church entered into an agreement and only after they found out the buyer was a gay couple did they decide not to sell. They admitted as much in an e-mail.

      September 17, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • sam stone

      topher: puttting aside for the moment the probability that people are BORN gay, how does other people's view of their behavior as immoral effect their CIVIL RIGHTS? you choose to be christian....does that mean you should have lesser civil rights than others? of course it doesn't. i feel that people who cheat on their spouses are immoral. does that mean that they should have lesser rights than i? nope. how about drunks, liars, obese? nope.

      September 17, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • sam stone

      "I think these two men have every right to purchase a property, but the property owner should have the right to reject that offer based on anything he wants ... even something as little as the buyer's hair color"

      not according to the law of the land

      September 17, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • Topher

      Then maybe the law should be changed.

      Let's say I've lived in my house for 40 years and have taken good care of it and love my neighbors, but as I'm getting older it is just too much for me now. So I put it up for sale. The only offer that comes in is from a young punk who you KNOW isn't going to care for the place and will be a burden to my neighbors. You're telling me I have to sell to him?

      September 17, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher: Then get all your buddies together and get the federal law repealed. Until then, it stands

      September 17, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
    • sam stone

      topher: what has people's choice got to do with their civil rights?

      September 18, 2012 at 6:13 am |
    • sam stone

      i suspect you won't answer, or spew out some biblical hoo ha....that is what religious bigots do....and you, slur, are a religious bigot

      September 18, 2012 at 6:15 am |
    • derp

      "It isn't the same as being prejudiced against blacks because you are born black and that's not something that can be changed. It's just who they are. There isn't anything wrong with that. For gay people, it's a matter of an action that is found to be immoral by a lot of people. See the difference?"

      There is no difference.

      You are basing your argument on the incorrect presumption that human se xu al orientation is a choice. It is not. Every credible scientist, doctor, or psychiatrist disagrees with you. Se xu al orientation is as innate as skin color.

      However, you are actually born atheist. You have to chose to be religious. Religion is more of a choice than is human se xu ality. I find your choice of religion to be completely immoral. I see no redeeming quality in your faith, and I see immeasurable detriment to society in your beliefs. If anything, I should be able to discriminate against you for unquestioningly believing in an iron age myth that has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

      Being gay is not a choice, being christian is.

      Personally, I find you exponentially more reprehensible than any ho mo se xual I know.

      September 18, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • sam stone

      Topher: Come out and play, if it you dare.....

      What has a person's morality got to do with their civil rights?

      September 18, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • sam stone

      This is exactly why religious fvcktards like Topher should never hold public office. He wants to restrict people's CIVIL RIGHTS because he feels they are immoral.

      September 18, 2012 at 10:29 am |
  4. Reality

    More than likely said diocese is selling this property to pay off all the legal bills from all the pedophilia cases but said diocese has the gall to sit in judgement of others?? Give us a break!!!!

    Then there is this:

    o "Abrahamics" like the members of said diocese believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.

    To wit:

    1. The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:

    “ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "

    2. "Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8

    3. See also the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”

    September 17, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      It still doesn't change the fact that the church owns the property and should not be compelled to do something with it if they don't want to.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • ....

      BULL SH IT ALERT

      September 17, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • ....

      ASIDE FROM BEING BULL SHI, OH DARN, MOMS CALLIN FROM NEXT TRAILER, I HAVE TO GO PUT THE TRASH OUT.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Rational,

      They were not compelled to do something with it they didn't want to. They wanted to sell it, they are not allowed to enter into an angreement and then recind said agreement based on blatent discrimination. Usually people and organizations can get around this by coming up with a secondary excuse not to sell, they got caught doing so.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
  5. Bootyfunk

    the church is caught. accidentally sent an email to the g.ay couple explaining that they wouldn't sell them the property BECAUSE THEY'RE G.AY. lol, idiots. gotta watch hitting that 'reply to all' button. i hope this couple sues the cr@p out of that h.omophobic church.

    September 17, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • old ben

      Lol. Good to know BF. This will surely get interesting. Religious tards are their own worst enemy a good deal of the time.

      September 17, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • pervert alert

      They both look like they got a mouthful of something bad. Perversion isn't a right its a crime. Qu eers the folks who gave the world AIDS.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • pervert alert

      Also, qu eers – oh crap my momma won't leave me alone. I have to go over to her trailer and do my chores. Sheez.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • pervert alert

      i might live poor but i'm smart enough to know that qu eer is an evil sin, always has been always will be. Qu eers the folks who gave the world AIDS.

      September 17, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      Hollywood could make a mint on this idea – Stephen King, too. It would be a sequel to Carrie – and pervert alert here could play the son of what would be Carrie's mama's sister, who is even more evangelically unhinged than Carrie's mama ever was. Perfect fit, no?

      September 17, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • nope

      @truth be trolled
      no

      September 17, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • snopes says

      nope to nope

      September 17, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • .

      "i might live poor but i'm smart enough to know that qu eer is an evil sin, always has been always will be. Qu eers the folks who gave the world AIDS."

      Until recently, the origins of the HIV-2 virus had remained relatively unexplored. HIV-2 is thought to come from the SIV in Sooty Mangabeys rather than chimpanzees, but the crossover to humans is believed to have happened in a similar way (i.e. through the butchering and consumption of monkey meat). It is far rarer, significantly less infectious and progresses more slowly to AIDS than HIV-1. As a result, it infects far fewer people, and is mainly confined to a few countries in West Africa.

      In May 2003, a group of Belgian researchers published a report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. By analysing samples of the two different subtypes of HIV-2 (A and B) taken from infected individuals and SIV samples taken from sooty mangabeys, Dr Vandamme concluded that subtype A had passed into humans around 1940 and subtype B in 1945 (plus or minus 16 years or so). Her team of researchers also discovered that the virus had originated in Guinea-Bissau and that its spread was most likely precipitated by the independence war that took place in the country between 1963 and 1974 (Guinea-Bissau is a former Portuguese colony). Her theory was backed up by the fact that the first European cases of HIV-2 were discovered among Portuguese veterans of the war, many of whom had received blood transfusions or unsterile injections following injury, or had possibly had relationships with local women.

      Given the evidence we have already looked at, it seems highly likely that Africa was indeed the continent where the transfer of HIV to humans first occurred (monkeys from Asia and South America have never been found to have SIVs that could cause HIV in humans). In May 2006, the same group of researchers who first identified the Pan troglodytes troglodytes strain of SIVcpz, announced that they had narrowed down the location of this particular strain to wild chimpanzees found in the forests of Southern Cameroon . By analysing 599 samples of chimp droppings (P. T. troglodytes are a highly endangered and thus protected species that cannot be killed or captured for testing), the researchers were able to obtain 34 specimens that reacted to a standard HIV DNA test, 12 of which gave results that were virtually indistinguishable from the reactions created by human HIV. The researchers therefore concluded that the chimpanzees found in this area were highly likely the origin of both the pandemic Group M of HIV-1 and of the far rarer Group N. The exact origins of Group O however remain unknown.

      HIV Group N principally affects people living in South-central Cameroon, so it is not difficult to see how this outbreak started. Group M, the group that has caused the worldwide pandemic, was however first identified in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Repub lic of Con go. It is not entirely clear how it transferred from Cameroon to Kinshasa, but the most likely explanation is that an infected individual travelled south down the San gha river that runs through Southern Cam eroon to the River Con go and then on to Kin shasa, where the Group M epidemic probably began.

      Just as we do not know exactly who spread the virus from Cam eroon to Kin shasa, how the virus spread from Africa to America is also not entirely clear. However, recent evidence suggests that the virus may have arrived via the Cari bbean island of H aiti.

      September 17, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • pervert alert

      @.
      Bull sh it !

      September 17, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • midwest rail

      It's always a good day when we get to be treated to the raving delusions and inanities of the pervert.

      September 17, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
  6. Christian

    In my opinion, someone should have the right to not close a sale to a person or couple based on any reason. They own the property, they should decide who it goes to.

    September 17, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      then you'd be right at home going back in time 200 years. then you could tell people that because they're asian or black they can't move into a house in your neighborhood. go back in time and take the rest of the bigots with you.

      September 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Christian

      I forgot to mention that my best friend is bise.xual, so please don't make me out to be a ho.mophobic. I just think that when you own something, you should have the refuse the sale if you're concerned about where it's going.

      September 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • sam stone

      We have laws against that, Christian

      September 17, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • Christian

      Sorry, I'm not familiar with property laws. It's not my field of knowledge.

      September 17, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Christian

      If they didn't blatantly tell them the reason why couldn't they have just said "we decided to go with another client"? It seems this is only the church making it's own problems. But once again, I'm not familiar with property laws so I wouldn't know.

      September 17, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Christian,

      So if I own a gas station I should have the right to not sell anything to specific segments of the populaton? Is that the country we want to live in?

      September 17, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • derp

      " I just think that when you own something, you should have the refuse the sale if you're concerned about where it's going"

      Since I own all of the food in my restaurant, and since I am a little concerned about it going to black people, I am going to put up signs..."No Blacks Allowed".

      Glad to see you have my back.

      September 17, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Truth

      If I own a well on a lonely stretch of desert and sell water from the only store for miles and a gay couple dying of thirst comes staggering in, what are my options as a Christian? What are my options as an American? The way Rational Libertarian and Christian think, I should have the right to say "Sorry pardner, your'e just bum outa luck" and let them die right there just outside my property line, I mean, I wouldn't want to have to clean up after a couple dead gays now would I...

      It's all well and good to think "States Rights" like Rational Libertarian, and for the most part he's right. But when it comes to the collective health of our nation, a group of States with common ideals, then we cannot have such a selfish and lazy view of the federal government which should be a beacon of civility, reason and equality, otherwise we are not "The United States of America" but would be "The Indivdual States of North America". And how it works when we are truely United is that we do not discriminate against anyone EXCEPT those who would discriminate against others. Here is a brief example of what I mean:

      Announcement: Party today where everyone is invited and everyone gets one cupcake.
      Person 1 – "Yay, these are good cupcakes"
      Person 2 – "Yeah, but i really don't think Jerry should be eating one, look at how fat he is"
      Person 1 – "You are right, let's take a vote todeny Jerry a cupcake"
      Person 2 "Yeah, then it's democraticly decided, everyone gets a cupcake but Jerry"
      Jerry – Hey, wheres my cupcake? The announcement said everyone gets one..."
      Person 1 – "Sorry Jerry, but it's for your own good, you don't need one"
      Jerry – "But thats not fair"
      Person 2 – "Sure it is Jerry, we all took a vote so it's democratic"
      Jerry – "But democratic doesn't mean fair"
      Person 1 – "It does now, we just voted to change the definition of democratic to mean fair."
      Jerry – "Arrrghhh!! I'm going to the 12 bosses and have them make a ruling"
      12 Bosses – "Jerry is right, you must give him a cupcake"
      Person 1 & 2 – "But thats not fair!! We voted and decided Jerry shouldn't get one, now you are discriminating against everyone who doesn't think Jerry should have a cupcake!!"
      12 Bosses – "No, you are the only ones discriminating here, period. You cannot redefine words and make things up and lie about Jerry's weight in some attempt to change yourself from a "fat bigot" to "normal".
      Person 1 & 2 – "Waaaahhh!! Waaahhh!! Activist Bosses!! Waaaahhhhh!!"

      September 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      It's nothing to do with states' rights or democracy. It's about individual rights.

      And yes derp, nobody should force you to serve anybody at your restaurant if you don't want to.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Truth

      I do understand where you are coming from Rational L. You think that the market will decide who eats at the racist restaurant. However, if we had just kept that policy in force back in the 1950's and hadn't worked for civil rights, we would still have plenty of disgusting bigots growing up making new bigots as if there wasn;t anything wrong with breeding the hate of another human. I wonder how long it might have taken to even get this far in the fight against bigotry if we had not passed federal law's against discrimination. Would women have a vote? Would children still be working 16 hr work days in factorys? Would blacks not be able to vote or get loans or function as regular members of society if we let the big business and the markets decide? Proportionally, since the founding of our nation the white populace has owned and controled a super majority of the gross domestic product, and still maintain a large financial edge over immigrants and people of color. Should we keep rewarding those who may only be the ancestors of the slave owners and plantation owners, but still live off the "old money" and property rights that were inherited from past generations of white supremecists? The very idea is just disgusting to real Americans who believe in hard work and true equality.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      First of all, if a black restaurant owner didn't want to serve white people, I'd still think it was his business and nobody else's.

      Second, regarding women's suffrage, that is the government, not a private individual/organization. The government has to treat each citizen equally. Actually, your mention of slavery is the same. How you can equate what's going on here with slavery and suffrage is baffling.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      "And yes derp, nobody should force you to serve anybody at your restaurant if you don't want to."

      Yet if I said christians couldnt eat at my restaurant, they would be all up in arms, claiming persecution.

      September 17, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      i agree i don't want to serve a christian because their christian and in my opinion it is immoral i shouldn't have to serve them, government should not be allowed to tell privet business what to do, even if what they want is a horrible business decisiveness
      like me not selling to 80% the populous.

      September 17, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • Sam Yaza

      i forgot to mention i am a b!s3x4@l, and all though i stand with my LGBT bothers and/or sisters on many issues, on this one they shouldn't have tried to buy church land. you knew they would do this,

      September 17, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
  7. truth be trolled

    Once again we see that only this kind of "trickle-down" actually works:

    Idiot generates to:

    "Athesim is Not Healthy . . ." who degenerates to his other name:
    "truth be told" who degenerates to his other name:
    "captain america" who degenerates to his other name:
    "Ronald Regonzo" who degenerates to his other name:
    "just sayin" who degenerates to his other name:
    "WOW" – and many more.

    September 17, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • Jerry Fallswell

      And beyond your paranoia your proof is .... ? Tin foil hat a little too tight?

      September 17, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
  8. Lewis Keseberg

    The powers-that-be in the diocese should just drink some more jesus-blood and chill out.

    September 17, 2012 at 11:52 am |
  9. WOW

    The legal reason for non sale of property: Chancellor Thomas Sullivan says the church dropped out of negotiations because of concerns about Fairbanks' and Beret's ability to finance the purchase

    September 17, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • Rogue

      Your views have not changed just because this particular case turns out to be non-news, right?
      You still think people should be allowed to sell bombs to Muslims, right? You really are quite stupid.

      September 17, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • Rogue

      Oops! I am getting you mixed up with "rational libertarian" the idiot. Sorry my bad.

      September 17, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • Primewonk

      And of course, we all know that these hômophobic nutters would never lie, right?

      September 17, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • WOW

      @Rog: You mad bro? When did I say anything about bombs? All I am stating is this is a legal case where the law should be followed. I am not stating at all that I like every law on the books be it local, state or nation but for now the law is the law. Rogue, as most regulars that post know all too well some of my Christian views since I am a Christian, too many people attempt to read too much into this issue of selling the home. It is a transaction between two parties and the reason for not selling does not fall outside the law hence the gay couple should move on.

      September 17, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • WOW

      @Prime: And it has been shown that gays lie.

      http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-21/justice/justice_nebraska-hate-crime_1_vigil-investigation-victims-of-anti-gay-violence

      September 17, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      WOW, you stated they should "move on" before you even knew the facts about the sale. You think anyone who is being unfairly treated under law should just "move on". Why? If they want to bring a suit, what's it to you?

      September 17, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • WOW

      @Rog: K, we are good.

      September 17, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, I see. You're just a hom0phobic azzhole.

      September 17, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • WOW

      @Tom: same thing can be said to you... What is it to you if someone does not wish to sell their home for what ever reason they wish be it even if they have changed their mind to sell it.

      This isssue is based on the gay couple saying they have this email that has not been provided for us, or as of yet. Without the email being established to be fact and confirmed to be valid it would be my opinion that their claim is not valid.

      September 17, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • Primewonk

      Sorry WOW, just more lies.

      This is from the Boston Globe – " Sullivan’s e-mail to the church’s broker, which was accidentally forwarded to Beret as part of a long e-mail chain, said: “I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop. Because of the potentiality of gay marriages there, something you shared with us yesterday, we are not interested in going forward with these buyers. I think they’re shaky anyway. So, just tell them that we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. "

      Of course, the Catholic nutters now claim their leaked email is taken out of context.

      September 17, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Primewonk nails it–you're just a liar, WOW. Same sh!t, different day. You wouldn't have a thing to say about this if the couple weren't gay and you know it.

      September 17, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And I see your writing skills have failed to improve. You can't write a coherent sentence to save your life, WOW.

      September 17, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
  10. derp

    "Qu eers the people who gave the world AIDS"

    African hetero's who engage in bestiality gave humans aids.

    September 17, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Captain Canuck

      @derp
      Actually, tribesmen who mishandled bush meat are the most likely candidates to have introduced HIV to the world. HIV is a mutated variant of Simian Immunodeficiency Syndrome.

      September 17, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • derp

      "HIV is a mutated variant of Simian Immunodeficiency Syndrome"

      Exactly, and if you bone a monkey........

      September 17, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Captain Canuck

      @derp
      Occam's Razor, sir.
      The unsafe handling of bush meat (ie: wild monkeys killed and eaten by the tribe) is far more prevalent that beastiality.
      If someone gets salmonella, do you assume they got it by phukking a pig?

      September 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • pervert alert

      Ground zero AIDS = one very sick Canadian qu eer from Montreal with hundreds of unnatural contacts both human and animal. Qu eers will accept any theory that hides the blame of their disgusting perversions, but the rest of the world, the 99 % who are normal know that qu eers are the people who gave the world AIDS.

      September 17, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Hi there Cap'n Sayin Atheism Isn't an Angry Pervert Rangerfield.

      You're referencing the case of Gaetan Dugas, a sociopathic flight attendant from Quebec who spread HIV/AIDS to an unkown, though high, number of people during his travels. Your assertion regarding his beastiality is totally unfounded. He bragged about how many men he'd bedded and had no shame whatsoever about any of his predilections – so one can assume that if he enjoyed f'ing monkeys, he would have admitted it.

      The first doc/umented HIV/AIDS patient in North America was an American named Robert rayford.
      His death in 1969 baffled doctors of the time and his true cause of death wasn't determined until the late eighties.
      However – he never travelled outside of the midwestern United States and never had a blood transfusion, meaning that the disease was present in the USA before he contracted it in the mid sixties.

      A recent serological survey showed that human infections by SIV are not rare in Central Africa: the percentage of people showing evidence of current or past SIV infection was 2.3% among the general population of Cameroon, 7.8% in villages where bushmeat is hunted or used, and 17.1% in the most exposed people of these villages (IE: butchers)

      September 17, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • derp

      "If someone gets salmonella, do you assume they got it by phukking a pig?"

      If someone makes a ridiculous joke about AIDS being a result of human monkey relations do you assume they are serious?

      September 17, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
  11. Bad Dog No No

    Lemme axe you a question. Since a third-party middleman is well able to hide the personal details of the eventual buyer, why should it be any different for the seller if they know those personal details?

    September 17, 2012 at 10:54 am |
  12. Portland tony

    As usual, the blogs author left out that this was a proposed commercial sale of a 44 room abandoned retreat that the buyers were going to restore for commercial gain. They also failed to mention that after offering $1M they changed their offer to $550K and then offered to buy a subsection of the property. This was strickly a business deal that fell through. Although the church handled it badly..I'm sure the courts will side with the church!

    September 17, 2012 at 10:51 am |
    • Bad Dog No No

      Details, details! Why should CNN worry about details like that when they can be deliberately misleading?

      September 17, 2012 at 10:56 am |
  13. pervert alert

    Why would anyone want a couple of perverts in their neighborhood any way? Qu eers the folks who gave the world AIDS

    September 17, 2012 at 10:43 am |
    • TROLL ALERT

      Every time you feed it a bridge, carrying a truck full of kola bears, collapses.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • Jerry Fallswell

      A truckload of Koala bears is a small price to pay for truths such as atheism is not healthy for children and other living things has posted.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • pervert alert

      Why would anyone want a couple of qu eers, oh wait, moms calling from next trailer, I have to put the trash out.

      September 17, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • religion; a way to control the weak minded

      "A truckload of Koala bears is a small price to pay for truths such as atheism is not healthy for children and other living things has posted."

      Do you get paid to troll or do you just troll while you are at work? Or are you unemployed living at mommy's house, blogging on CNN in between masturbation sessions from your moms lane bryant catalog?

      September 17, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
    • .

      Why would anyone want a couple of perverts in their neighborhood any way? Qu eers the folks who gave the world AIDS

      Until recently, the origins of the HIV-2 virus had remained relatively unexplored. HIV-2 is thought to come from the SIV in Sooty Mangabeys rather than chimpanzees, but the crossover to humans is believed to have happened in a similar way (i.e. through the butchering and consumption of monkey meat). It is far rarer, significantly less infectious and progresses more slowly to AIDS than HIV-1. As a result, it infects far fewer people, and is mainly confined to a few countries in West Africa.

      In May 2003, a group of Belgian researchers published a report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. By analysing samples of the two different subtypes of HIV-2 (A and B) taken from infected individuals and SIV samples taken from sooty mangabeys, Dr Vandamme concluded that subtype A had passed into humans around 1940 and subtype B in 1945 (plus or minus 16 years or so). Her team of researchers also discovered that the virus had originated in Guinea-Bissau and that its spread was most likely precipitated by the independence war that took place in the country between 1963 and 1974 (Guinea-Bissau is a former Portuguese colony). Her theory was backed up by the fact that the first European cases of HIV-2 were discovered among Portuguese veterans of the war, many of whom had received blood transfusions or unsterile injections following injury, or had possibly had relationships with local women.

      Given the evidence we have already looked at, it seems highly likely that Africa was indeed the continent where the transfer of HIV to humans first occurred (monkeys from Asia and South America have never been found to have SIVs that could cause HIV in humans). In May 2006, the same group of researchers who first identified the Pan troglodytes troglodytes strain of SIVcpz, announced that they had narrowed down the location of this particular strain to wild chimpanzees found in the forests of Southern Cameroon . By analysing 599 samples of chimp droppings (P. T. troglodytes are a highly endangered and thus protected species that cannot be killed or captured for testing), the researchers were able to obtain 34 specimens that reacted to a standard HIV DNA test, 12 of which gave results that were virtually indistinguishable from the reactions created by human HIV. The researchers therefore concluded that the chimpanzees found in this area were highly likely the origin of both the pandemic Group M of HIV-1 and of the far rarer Group N. The exact origins of Group O however remain unknown.

      HIV Group N principally affects people living in South-central Cameroon, so it is not difficult to see how this outbreak started. Group M, the group that has caused the worldwide pandemic, was however first identified in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Repub lic of Con go. It is not entirely clear how it transferred from Cameroon to Kinshasa, but the most likely explanation is that an infected individual travelled south down the San gha river that runs through Southern Cam eroon to the River Con go and then on to Kin shasa, where the Group M epidemic probably began.

      Just as we do not know exactly who spread the virus from Cam eroon to Kin shasa, how the virus spread from Africa to America is also not entirely clear. However, recent evidence suggests that the virus may have arrived via the Cari bbean island of H aiti.

      September 17, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
  14. Primewonk

    Massachusetts enacted a pretty substantial anti-discrimination law back in 89 that includes sèxual oriention. It also contains sections specific to buying, selling, renting, leasing property.

    September 17, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • WOW

      @Prime: Can you get us a link?

      September 17, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Primewonk

      Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 151B

      September 17, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • truth be trolled

      @WOW. There's your sign!

      September 17, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • WOW

      Yep, appears to be against the law in that state based on se x ual orientation. So let us review the reason given to back out of the sale.

      September 17, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • WOW

      It appears that this is all based on an email the gay couple claim they got that said the Chancellor did not wish to sell to them because of the fear that there would be gay parties at the house but in fact the reason given is: "Chancellor Thomas Sullivan says the church dropped out of negotiations because of concerns about Fairbanks' and Beret's ability to finance the purchase"

      September 17, 2012 at 11:22 am |
  15. Atheism is Great for Kids and Grown-Ups Too!

    It's really best for all people including children to have an agnostic approach to god, and an atheistic approach to all religion. It keeps things simple for kids, and lets them be all that they can be. They just need to be taught that some things, like all religion, were just made up by salesmen and politicians from long ago. (Yes, charlatan folklore and spam started long before the Bible; what would make you think they hadn't?) And they need to be taught that other things, like God, we really don't know a damn thing about.

    Atheists have strong minds and don't need a religion. Many religious folk have the best intentions. But too often, religious folk run and hide their misdeeds within their religion (and by doing so, they disserve society). And too often, religious folk are easily offended when someone mocks their make-believe characters – and, as we can see they can get really CRAZY!

    Although there are many religious folk with good intentions – some selflessly helping others, religions and religious organizations are, as a whole, just big old clubs – each trying to out do each other and inspiring hate and division (often disguised as love) along the way. The problem is that people too easily buy into religion and don't realize how unfounded it all is. And when they buy into it, they buy into a lot of really old, really weird tenets that are nothing but harmful for the human species.

    Of course Islam is a crazy religion. But look at Christianity. Just look at all the things that Christians argue about amongst themselves today – abortion, men's and women's roles in the church, celibacy, contraception, acceptance of gays, etc. Most of these issues have their roots in the conflicted, unfounded tenets of early Christianity. Non-Mormons harp on Joseph Smith these days. But we really don't have any more proof at all to believe that Paul, the self-proclaimed "apostle" was anything more than an ordinary man who needed to make up religious "sales literature" to survive and spread his own personal beliefs. And yet a good chunk of the NT is attributed to Paul and accepted by many Christians. And a lot of what he wrote about has to do with many of the issues I mentioned above that have Christians fighting amongst themselves hundreds of years later. I don't buy any of it.

    Get a good cup of tea, and sit down and collect your thoughts. If you find it helpful to pray to a god (something you know nothing about), fine. But it is really healthier for the mind to leave behind all the characters that people over the centuries have invented or given powers to, for which there is little or no foundation. Because with those invented characters and powers – that's where division and hate join the little party in your mind. That's where, in your mind, you are inheriting the division and hate from ordinary politicians, lobbyists and salesmen from long ago.

    mama kindless

    September 17, 2012 at 10:05 am |
  16. Witchdoctor

    Of course it is the governments business. Just as it is the governemtns business to end housing discrimination against black buyers who, not all that long ago, had the same arguments used against them when they wanted to buy housing in all white neighborhoods. It is racist, and the argument makesyou a racist.

    September 17, 2012 at 9:08 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      If somebody doesn't want to sell their house to a black person, it's their business.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Then, RL, you also think it's fine to deny employment to someone based on race?

      September 17, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • WOW

      They have the right to do as they wish in the sell of their home. They are not a company seeking employment nor are they a lending and/or insurance group.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:20 am |
    • mama kindless

      I'm with Tom Tom on this one. Discrimination is discrimination.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • Rogue

      Oo Ee Oo Ah Ah

      September 17, 2012 at 9:43 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Yes Tom. If a private business owner doesn't want to employ someone because they are (insert whatever you like here), it's the employer's business.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • mama kindless

      Well I am still glad that this couple is at least exposing the bigoted church for who they are – even if they don't stand a chance in court.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • WOW

      @Mom: It is showing how this gay couple is just complaining. I am sure they will be able to find another house to buy however they wish to just complain. This is my opinion only but it seems that more and more gays are using the "gay card" when they don't get things the way they want or someone says something they don't like.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The law says otherwise, I think. Discrimination based on race is not legal. You have the right to disagree, RL, but the decision is not up to you. This will be decided in a court of law.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Insert the word "black" in place of "gay" and see how that works for you.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Primewonk

      In Massachusetts, you CANNOT discriminate in buying or selling property based on sèxual orientation. Even if you are a church.

      The sick thing is that there are so many of you supporting the hômophobic cretins in the church.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I realize it's not my decision, but it shouldn't be the decision of a court either. Courts and governments should not dictate who a private individual/organization has to sell their property to.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • WOW

      @Tom: insert any word(s) for GAY card such as Chistian, Atheist, Asian, red head, blue eyed, martian... Makes no difference to me... I am making the point that they need to move on.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Rogue

      @WOW
      Yeah, just like all those black people need to just "move on" and not fight back against the KKK.
      Like all Christians just need to "move on" when Muslims kill them in a foreign country.

      You want everyone to ignore your crimes? Then don't do them. Very simple. Wow.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Is that your mentality? A private organization making its own decision with regards to what it does with its own property is the same as murder?

      September 17, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • Rogue

      A criminal act is a criminal act no matter the result.
      You want people who are treated like crap to just "move on" and ignore what was done to them?
      You suck big time.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @WOW, who cares if you think they 'need to move on'? If someone believes he is being treated unfairly under the law, he has every right to complain. If you were denied employment because of race, would you simply "move on"?

      September 17, 2012 at 11:48 am |
  17. AvdBerg

    The above subject story is a good example how distorted things have become in society with the media industry as the main culprit.

    The local media, including CNN, Fox and your local TV stations and newspapers are a very important element of social and political behavior, as society is shaped by what it sees, hears and reads and it is conditioned by the events that influence the mind of every person. You reap what you sow.

    To allow anyone to be directed by public opinion is dangerous because most public opinion is the view of the media. If the media does not like something, their bias taints information getting to the public, and this forms public opinion. Public opinion is never based on research and facts. The public uses the media for its sole source of information and for this reason social behavior will continue to deteriorate and wax worse and worse (2 Timothy 3:13).

    For a better understanding of the role of the media we invite you to read the articles ‘Influence of the Media’ and ‘CNN Belief Blog – Sign of the Times’, listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca

    The media does not provide accurate information on ‘Religion’ as it continues to ignore the truth and the history of deceptions (John 14:17). They only report how they want you to hear things. They have created the big chasm that now exists without offering any solutions.

    Consider the truth about Mormonism, Judaism, Evangelicals, Christianity and Islam and all other religions and ask yourself the following question.

    Are so-called Mormons, Israelites, Evangelicals and Muslims and all those that call themselves ‘Christians’ followers of the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, or do they follow after an image of a false god and a false Christ (Matthew 24:24; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Gal. 4:8)?

    For a better understanding of the history of Mormonism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam and its spread throughout the world, we invite you to read the articles ‘The Mystery Babylon’, ‘Can Christianity or Any Other Religion Save You?’, ‘World History and Developments in the Middle East’ and ‘Clash of Civilizations’, listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca

    Mitt Romney’s faith does not stand in the teachings of Christ but rather in an image of the spirit and the god of this world and a false Christ (Matthew 24:24; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Gal. 4:8).

    For a better understanding of the history of the Mormon Church and Mitt Romney’s quest for the Presidency of the USA, we invite you to read the articles ‘Mormon Church – Cult and Spiritual Harlot’ and ‘Barack Obama – President of the United States of America’, listed on our website.

    All of the other pages and articles listed on our website explain how and by whom this whole world has been deceived as confirmed in Revelation 12:9.

    September 17, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • WASP

      @avg: and you sighting scripture of a book that atheists don't recognize accomplishes exactly what?

      this case is a matter of the real world, not fairyland. god can't make his followers truly follow the teaching of jesus, so what does sighting human words truly do?

      September 17, 2012 at 9:30 am |
    • WOW

      @Wasp: The person selling their home has the right to do as they feel with the sell of THEIR home even if they feel for no other reason than they changed their mind not to sell it. That gay couple needs to get over themselves and find another house to buy instead of complaining. I am sure they will find someone else willing to sell to them.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:53 am |
    • derp

      "The person selling their home has the right to do as they feel with the sell of THEIR home even if they feel for no other reason than they changed their mind not to sell it. That gay couple needs to get over themselves and find another house to buy instead of complaining. I am sure they will find someone else willing to sell to them"

      Great, now my neighbors and and I don't have to feel bad about refusing to sell our homes to Jews. Those complaining Jews will just have to get over it.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      They should just have to get over it. I want Bill Gates to give me all his money, but I recognize that it is his wealth to do with as he wishes.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • Bad Dog No No

      So who the hell is saying Bill Gates should give us his money? What the hell is wrong with you?

      September 17, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • TROLL ALERT

      This poster is a well known lying TROLL on this site. Don't bother checking out their site they are trying to sell their book to support their cult!

      September 17, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
  18. WOW

    "Red-lining" does not have anything to do with the owners right to pull his property off the market for any reason he wants but it does deal with lending and/or insurance groups that discriminate.

    September 17, 2012 at 9:02 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You're correct–that is the meaning of 'red-lining'.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:06 am |
    • Truth

      Redlining comes from an early insurance practice of circling undesirable insurance risk areas such as poor or racialy diverse communitys with a red line on their maps and choosing not to insure any risks or increasing rates on risks within the "red line" areas' and was banned in the 1970's.

      The above case has nothing to do with red lining, it hs everything to do with s e x.ual discrimination. Much like you cannot refuse service to someone because they are black or female, you cannot refuse service to someone based upon their s.e.xual orientation. It is a crime regardless of whether your bigoted Christian minds think so, I don't really care for bigots opinions.

      September 17, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
  19. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    September 17, 2012 at 8:54 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Children are born atheist. They remain atheist for the first years of their lives. They have to be deliberately infected with the notions of religion in order to believe and to even know what prayer is.

      September 17, 2012 at 8:59 am |
    • WOW

      Atheism is a mental health issue and they need to be hospitalized.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I'd say children are born non-theists rather than atheists, although I suppose it's a matter of semantics. If you'd define atheism as the rejection of belief in deities, then children are born non-theists. However, if you define atheism as a lack of belief in deities, then I suppose children are born atheists.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • AvdBerg

      Not if they are in vain (Matthew 15:9).

      http://WWW.AWORLDDECEIVED.CA

      September 17, 2012 at 9:06 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. The degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is 0.0. To help you understand the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements, I will access my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE). Using my IEE module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is: "TOTAL FAIL, DUDE".

      I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:

      I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
      by the Alzheimer's Disease Society

      September 17, 2012 at 9:43 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "WOW", but your assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. The degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is 0.0. To help you understand the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements, I will access my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE). Using my IEE module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is: "TOTAL FAIL, DUDE".

      September 17, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • SPA Knight

      Scripture states that we are created in God's image meaning we are spiritual beings with a longing for a loving relationship with our creator. If of course one does not accept scripture as the word of God and only relies on a belief system that is limited to scientific facts, then this argument is lost on them because they are unable to relate. The attempt to explain theological concepts using science is like trying to define how to experience love by using a cookbook.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • just sayin

      Children come direct from the throne of God,with an inner knowledge of God, are given the opportunity in this life to choose God in love and return to God to enjoy the eternity God has prepared for them. Woe to the fool that would deny a child eternal life. God bless

      September 17, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      And we should believe "scripture" because?

      September 17, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • Jerry Fallswell

      It is the Word of God.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • Bad Dog No No

      No, it's not "the word of god" at all. In fact, you can't even prove it has anything to do with any god since none of them exist.

      September 17, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Children are born with no knowledge of anything. Are you proposing that we never expose children to art, music, math, language, literature, law or ethics? If the standard for truth is that we acquire it without education, I'm afraid we'll have to abandon rather a large portion of civilization.

      September 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
  20. Rational Libertarian

    So what? Surely you should be allowed to sell or not sell property to anybody you want to sell it to.

    September 17, 2012 at 8:17 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Guess you never heard of "red-lining"? It's illegal. That's what this amounts to.

      September 17, 2012 at 8:41 am |
    • Portland tony

      That depends......for example, You can't, at a public sale, refuse to sell something simply because of the race, ethnicity or religious beliefs of the buyer. You can refuse the sale by taking off the market. I assume as the purchase was being finalized, the church backed out because the buyers a gay couple ....But who knows at this point?

      September 17, 2012 at 8:50 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I'm not sure which legislation makes this illegal, but if such legislation exists, it must be unconst.itutional. What somebody does with their own property is not the government's concern.

      September 17, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • Topher

      Totally agree, Rational.

      September 17, 2012 at 8:52 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Of course you do, Gopher.

      September 17, 2012 at 8:56 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Topher

      For the complete opposite reasons I imagine.

      September 17, 2012 at 8:57 am |
    • Topher

      Oh, I don't know. I just think it's none of the government's business.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, really, Gopher? But it's the government's business to tell women what they can or cannot do with their bodies and the contents thereof?

      You're all for small government, all right. So small it can get inside someone's uterus.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • WASP

      @R.L. hmmm let's put this situation differently; me and my wife are a mixed couple if by chance we were to go through a third party to buy a home and upon finding out my wife is hispanic or dark complected the owner refused to sell based off that fact then yes it is illegal and the law governing such action is consti-tional seeing based on our pigmentation they refused to sell. you can't do anything today that would harm a person based on creed, color, ethic background, country of origin, s e xual orientation............... it's all covered by discrimination in the law.
      thus these people have a right to sue seeing they were discriminated against because they are gay.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • WOW

      @Wasp: Please direct us to this discrimination law you are refering to. How about a web address?

      September 17, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      It's my right to discriminate against anybody I want to, and I'll fight the law tooth and nail for it. I'm beginning to understand why somebody would live in a compound away from today's big government America.

      September 17, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • Rogue

      Selling something includes by necessity the fact that you are giving up all ownership interest in the thing to be sold.

      When you give up your interest in the thing you are selling, you are abdicating all rights and appurtenances relating to what you are selling and cannot sell anything in ways that will violate any law.

      If you are going to give up all interest in a thing, you have no legal standing to try and retain any interest beyond the sale.

      If the sale is private, the terms are private but must remain legal. If the sale is public, the terms of sale must also remain legal.

      What is sold is not the issue here, nor should the private concerns of the buyers be considered, but only whether or not the sale or refusal to sell be in violation of any law.

      The Equal Protections clause of the 14th Amendment command every State to enforce equal protections under the law within that state. Equality under the law is one of the most basic American values enshrined within the Constltution.

      I question the fact that any religious instltution is allowed to own property of any sort. A religion is not a person just as any corporate body is not a person and should not have any rights to own property or deal as a human being might do.

      The RCC should have all it's property in the U.S. confiscated. It has no right to own property in the United States under the Constltution.
      Freedom of religion does not include freedom to violate our laws or infringe upon our rights to equality under the law, so the RCC should remove all of its subversive criminal activities from our country.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, RL, it is not, in fact, your right to deny someone else his or her rights, and discrimination does just that.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Since when are private individuals responsible for giving or taking the rights of others?

      September 17, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Rogue

      "Rational" Libertarian, if you want protection under the laws of these United States, you are also required to follow them.

      Idiot.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Resorting to ad hominems I see. How mature. Also, the laws of today's United States are nothing like the laws enacted in 1787.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • WOW

      @Rogue: Just what part of the 14th ammendment are you refering to because I am not seeing what you see.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • Rogue

      @WOW
      "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      Look it up. We are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Equality under the law is the only thing we have that everyone should be able to support, yet we have people here (no names) who want the freedom to treat people in a criminal manner based upon non-rational personal values.

      September 17, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • pervert alert

      except perversion is a crime. Qu eers the people who gave the world AIDS

      September 17, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Truth

      "So what? Surely you should be allowed to sell or not sell property to anybody you want to sell it to."

      If I have a business where I sell knick knacks and a black person walks in and wants to buy something, should I have the right to say "Um, nah, I don't much like the color of your skin so I won't sell you this knick knack."

      Illegal, and rightly so.

      If I own a property and put it up for sale and a buyer shows up who happens to be black and I say "Um, nah, I don't much like the color of your skin so I have decided not to sell my property to you."

      Illegal, and rightly so.

      If I own a property and put it up for sale and a buyer shows up who happens to be gay and I say "Um, nah, I don't much like where you put your p e n i s so i have decided not to sell my property to you."

      Illegal, and rightly so.

      You may not know your a bigot, but if you think the top two should be illegal, but the 3rd should be okay, then you are a bigot and a shame to America.

      September 17, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I think the first two should be legal, and if caring about individual freedom is bigoted, then bigot me up baby.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Truth

      "I think the first two should be legal, and if caring about individual freedom is bigoted, then bigot me up baby."

      Then maybe you should go form "The Divided States of America" where you can discriminate all you want, or move to Texas and work hard to secede, but it doesn't sound like you want to be part of "The UNITED State of America". Maybe you can rename Texas "Whitesville" after you secede, or maybe "NoNlgg3rs Please" so all the bigots can get together and feel safe from the evil son's of Cain you have been worrying about coming to take your white women away for all these years.

      The only thing we as Americans should not tolerate is Intolerance.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Topher

      Also, being black and being gay are not the same things. Stop trying to make this a civil rights issue.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Wow Truth, is that your resonse? Please point out where I said anything which would indicate that I'm a racist, or that I have any religious inclination.

      September 17, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Truth

      "Please point out where I said anything which would indicate that I'm a racist"

      "I think the first two should be legal,"

      I will agree, that just saying that people should have the right to deny service based on race is not itself racist, it's just stupid. I agree with you only so far as we are all entltled to our own opinions, racist or not. And I know what you are saying, that as a libertarian you believe in individual rights, not that you are a racist. My point is that if you want pure "individual rights" then why have a Federal Government at all? Why not secede so everyone can do their own thing? Oh, thats right, you want the benefits of being in a collective group with common interests such as defense and monetary regulation so not just anyone can print money, but you don't want the restrictions that come along with that such as being nice to other members of the collective. You want to take the defense spending and accept the national defense where a black man can serve in the military and lay down his life for your restaurant, but you don't want a country where that same black an can come home from wat and eat at your establishment. You are claiming individual rights but hiding the racism behind the skirt of freedom.

      September 17, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Truth

      Ultimately one must acknowledge that if you have decided it's in the best interest of everyone to have certain rules that all people in the same country live by, thereby limiting what had been unlimited individual freedom, you are agreeing to give up your unlimited individual freedoms for a broader general freedom for all so that everyone gets to do "most" things, but not anything and everything they want.

      You don't have to let gay's or blacks enter your private residence because we allow for the most freedom when it comes to an individuals privacy and in their homes and bedrooms. But once you turn your home into a public business meaning you have obtained a business license and offered your services to the public, displaying your signs to the public, advertising your business to the public which then gives the public the impression of available services, you no longer can deny access to your home based on specific criteria decided upon by the courts and are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, s.ex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age. You can choose not to serve someone because they aren't wearing shoes, or a shirt or for any other reason than those, because the customer can get some shoes, get a shirt, bathe, do whatever it is you require in order meet your requirements for service, but they cannot change who they are as an individual, because that would be treading on someone elses freedoms, someone who saw your ad and now has an expectation of services only to be denied because of their skin color or se.x.ual preference.

      Now if you want to start a private club, not open to the public which is by private invite only, and you want to deny membership to blacks, gays, latinos or people with lazy eyes, then you are more than welcome to in America. I live quite close to a golf course that has been standing by it's private member rules of no blacks, and even lost it's spot on a well known Pro golf tour because of it, but it has not changed policy yet as Augusta just did recently. There is nothing illegal about it and the market worked well in deciding since it no longer gets the revenue from a major tour because of it's deeply held racist beliefs, but there's nothing illegal about being a racist or a bigot, it's only illegal when you offer services or offer something for sale to the public, like a house, then change your mind after the fact based solely on your prejudice.

      September 17, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      @Topher – "Also, being black and being gay are not the same things. Stop trying to make this a civil rights issue."

      Please explain why they are not the same things.

      September 17, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • Rogue

      @Truth
      Well said!
      You are wasting your talents on this go-slow board. You should be in charge of something. "Run for office" I tell people like you, but nobody ever does and all we get are the dregs running for office. Are you scared of the good you might do?
      Don't be.

      September 18, 2012 at 12:09 am |
    • sam stone

      RL: Not according to the laws of the land, it's not

      September 18, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Also, being black and being gay are not the same things. Stop trying to make this a civil rights issue.

      What, Gopher, gays don't have civil rights?

      Is it because you feel they are immoral.....

      come on, boy, speak up and at least take ownership of your bigotry....

      September 18, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • sam stone

      Gopher is a coward in addition to being a bigot. But, he can sure vomit out bible quotes...Jeebus must have a chubby waiting for Gopher's silky mouth

      September 18, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
1 2
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.