He's solemnly assured the public that there's nothing wrong with the size of any of his body parts. So do not tweet any of the like or he may call you a loser.

and I have _not_ downvoted you for stating your opinion. I _never_ do that.

This has nothing to do with me being for or against freedom of religion, I think religion is for suckers, and priests are scammers, and I believe churches should not have any government subsidization at all. But I respect most laws, and I don't want priests to be punished for publicly stating they're imbeciles. Having said that: Chakun made up the plot of the priest who'd have to suffer consequences for not wedding a gay couple. I called him a homophobe for inventing this scenario and implying the priest might not have the choice to follow his belief anymore, that's maybe a bit fiery. I have the informed opinion though, that a priest, being part of a registered church, won't have to be afraid of any consequences here, given the legal position of religious belief in america. And then I backed this very opinion up by stating that not even the judge who refused to wed an atheist couple would have to expect legal consequences. How is that a 180° turn?

Please guys, how hard is it to google that sort of shit to find out its a hoax? http://www.snopes.com/goes-around-litigates-around/

Hm.. it does'nt say anywhere this judge needs to be afraid of actual consequences, even though is is paid by the "government" and is clearly breaking federal law, even the constitution. That makes it even less likely that a priest will have to be afraid of legal consequences for refusing a gay wedding. Which is what this is about. You could've informed yourself on the subject a little better, and not just take some pub talk for granted. and start arguing from that.

@rwby_rose - look at who's his running mate. By endorsing someone as your potengtial vice president, you kind of endorse what this person stands for, don't you?

Aaaand: another straw man here. I never said anything remotely like "well it hasn't happened yet so that means it can't happen". And the "hypothetical" idea of "the government" (" " because you know there are laws and judges and shit, right?) trying to force a priest (NOT the "minister" in a commercial wedding shack) to wed a gay couple is pretty hard to imagine actually once you get informed on the subject.

Nope. European time here, on my commute, at my desk now. Actually you seem to be the one commenting this at 3 am.

That's why I put "argue" in quotation marks.

You know that this does not happen, right?

Bullshit: the starting argument is that racism does exist. People "argue" against that by stating that "people" define racism as disagreement with "some sort of a minority". W§hich is a strawman, cause hardly anyone does that.

Dude, what the hell you're on? You make up the "hypothetical" priest and that grandiose scenario of the Gay Grooms of Babylon coming for him, and I'M the bigot?

Uhm... you came back nearly three days after my last comment.

"It was a hypothetical. " - you spelled "I pulled it out of my ass" wrong.

I've been searching quite a lot for this "priest" who was sentenced for his "belief" and all I found was commercial wedding chapels refusing a commercial service to gays, where that was unlawful. Anything to back up your sad story?

Woah... you have an extra ps4 just and only for that Swiss holiday resort of yours? Man, real jet set style, not like those peasants who have to carry their only ps4 around like the peasants they are. And what, got yourself new ski gear, too? That's what Kanye would do. .
.
Man, you're like some character from Zoolander...

Well, it was pretty obvious you were onto some homophobe bullshit rant.

You mean like in "I hate that my mum marries a man who isn't my daddy and I don't want to be there"?

"The more science is uncovered, the more evidence of design there is." Bullshit. Give me one (1) example that deseves the attribute "scientific".
.
And as to that "leading developer" of the string theory: innit funny with bible thumpers? The overwhelming majority of scientists who are atheists are just nothing against that handful who believe in god.
.
Too bad you got fooled: here's an actual christian scientist debunking that Michio Kaku story: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14864

That doesn't make any sense. The more science understands, the less reason is there to assume the existence of any higher power.