23 votes

Millionaire gays sue church to perform gay "wedding"

"Oh, come on, you're such a bigot. That kind of thing will never happen."

Further proof that the gay "rights" movement is not about rights, it's about forcing everyone to not only tolerate, but actively support, their choices.


I would also like to remind everyone that a gay person can literally do everything a straight person can do. There is not a single right they don't have - they want to, instead, FORCE people to accept their "lifestyle," at the expense of freedom of religion and freedom of speech if need be.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

its in england

not in U.S. as of yet
coming soon to a city near you

Quote from article:

-Drewitt-Barlow is not pleased with the law, and said, “As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

Dude is a spoiled brat who happens to be gay.
Also taking place in the UK not US.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

Makes you just want to run out and start a business

Risk all your capital.

Then get the life drained out of you and everything you build, tied up in a legal battle.

Win or lose, you are bled.

I'm so sick of the gay 2%

I would hope the church has the ability to counter-sue.

But the gay agenda is in full swing, it all political and nothing to do with sexual preference.

Time to put our foot down and instill some common sense, where everyone has a right to what they believe.

Cyril's picture

Analyzed, explained, predictable, predicted

As I've recalled before, all weddings ought to be gay, anyway - that is: cheerful!

Yes, I have a thing for etymology ;p

More seriously, this goes so much farther than people's views on this or that sort of personal preferences - for, this has been analyzed, explained, and was predictable, and predicted:


If this shouldn't be seen as common knowledge by now, I have no idea what else could be.

The government involvement being only half of the story, btw.

To continue the experience of legal plunder, there must be sustained demand for it in the first place - originating from the people themselves.

The idea behind phrases such as "catch 22" or "vicious circles" comes to mind.

(And yet again, I only keep repeating myself like a broken record.)


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Do some gay people use

Do some gay people use government force for their own ends? Of course they do. But of course vastly more straight people (just by numbers alone) do the very same thing.

Most people in general love government force, that's what we're fighting against. So yeah - you're right but I don't think it helps you build argument that all gay people are like that in order to (probably) justify your insane anti-gay views.

The Media focuses on Iran & Russia for not being pro-gay

But really only a handful of countries allow gay marriage.

Most of Africa disallows it I think, Serbia, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Turkey, Syria, hell in Israel not only do they ban gay marriage, they don't even allow interfaith marriages, Jews have to attend purity classes as to not mix with the goyim.

The media tries to push this PC pure image on us, ignoring the fact that most of the world rejects it.

This pretty much exposes the anti-gay attacks on Russia and Iran as propaganda crap.

Forcing Jews, Muslims & Christians to adhere to this PC crap is utter nonsense.

None of those countries are

None of those countries are exactly ones that USA should strive to emulate. Obviously.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I'm not happy with litigious crap like this either

But the comments on that article look like something straight outta Stormfront, and the way you insist that these people represent the entire movement is rather vile.

More downvotes please

I need an accurate metric on how much homophobia nests on this site.

Yeah, becuase we know stormfront will allow gay marriage..

And just come to terms with who has to perform it. I've heard of rose-colored glasses but you must be wearing the Elton John edition.

When I posted this yesterday

The actual liberty-leaning comments on there weren't as numerous. To copy the examples from yesterday at this point would only be cherrypicking.

A great number of people there apparently don't even understand the very operative fact in the story; it's in the UK. I guarantee NCforPaul missed that fact when he posted the article here. Freedom of speech? The UK has probably the strictest laws concerning speech in all the western world. Freedom of religion? It's the state's church.

Let's suppose I did cherrypick though. Suppose I went and found the worst comment there. Would it be fair of me to take that comment from a site called The Libertarian Republic and use it to paint your words along with all language of all people supporting the liberty movement as homophobic? Is it fair for some jackhole working on cable news to take those Ron Paul newsletters we're all so sick of hearing about and call YOU a racist because of their content? How is it any more fair to take these litigious clowns as representative of anyone other than themselves in order to smear an entire group of people?

It's not. I think you know that, but there's other people here who don't. There's some folks who swear they don't want the state enforcing any number of things. So long as one of those things is a ban on gay marriage, they're totally content with state enforcement.

I don't want any church to be forced to do something it doesn't want to do. If a church doesn't want to marry you, find one that will. If a baker doesn't want to make you a cake, find one that will. If a photographer doesn't want to take your pictures, find one that will. Every time a story like this airs, it's probably followed by a torrent of calls into the station from companies that actually want that business, and that's awesome, that's the free market at work. That's why I said I hate litigation like this.

To say "a gay person can literally do everything a straight person can do" when it comes to the law, that's bullshit. Rights aren't given, they're inherent. When the state takes a right away from one person but not the other, that's an injustice. "A colored person can literally do everything a white person can do in 1950" unless it's eat at the same table, use the cleaner bathrooms, get that excellent teacher in school. So yeah, a gay man can marry a woman too, haha you're so fucking clever NCforPaul. Can that man marry the person they're in love with? No.

Getting the state out of marriage is a fantastic goal, one that'll likely take decades. In the meantime, how about we stop giving some individuals the separate-but-equal treatment?

I agree with you.

But I did read ALL of the comments and I didn't see one thing that seemed even remotely hateful. That was all I meant.

Okay. For shits and giggles, here's a quick troll of the waters

One person likens this to being raped and clearly says he finds gay people repulsive yet says he has no animosity towards them? Seems legit.

Another calls them deviants and says their morality is twisted. The one reply to it hinges on a stereotype.

Following shortly after that we've got "fairy loons", comparing gay marriage to children playing house. He further calls it unnatural and disgusting. He probably doesn't have any animosity either.

I doubt the guy calling them vile perverts is doing so based on their lawsuit, but I'll give you that it's rather tame compared to...

Another person prefacing his slippery slope with them being "AIDs-loving" and calling them mentally ill.

Maybe the guy saying that if gay people continue suing for rights there will be backlash is merely pointing out possible unforeseen consequences. Maybe he's getting nooses ready for a lynching.

Ignorance breeds hate. Is anyone there directly advocating violence? No. If none of these appear to be even remotely hateful words to you however, then we'll just have to disagree.

If your church incorporated under 501C3

Then yes, you can be made to comply with performing a gay wedding. You are a non-profit corporation, owned by the state and not a "church". This is not a violation of the first ammendment. If you want to know more about this google Dr. Greg Dixon. He has many amazing stories to tell.

Yeah, I remember that, was a good post Fonz

I think a lot of us knew where this was headed.

As a gay man myself, I

As a gay man myself, I completely disagree with the Drewitt-Barlows and their ridiculous lawsuit.

This is the kind of crap that gives gay people a bad name and reputation.

Just like the case of the gay couple suing a photographer because she refused to do business with them based on her own personal beliefs...find another photographer, ladies!

Find a different church, lads! Haven't these guys heard of the Anglicans or Episcopalians?

The comment at the end of the article really irked me...

“As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

He's not, "getting what I want," so he's using his money to buy what he wants with complete disregard for the law or anyone else besides himself and his mate.

How selfish can one couple get?

This situation combined with the wedding photographer incident makes me think of African Americans suing the KKK for denial of membership, Christians suing the Church of Satan in order to become members, Jewish rabbis suing the Muslim Brotherhood for lack of entry, Lucifer suing Christ because God won't let him back in His Kingdom, Catholic priests suing gays for being denied entry into their bars on Hollywood Blvd, and democrat mothers suing republicans because their daughters had an abortion.

If I go to a coffee shop, and the owner of the business decided not to serve me simply because of the way I was dressed....I wouldn't sue the guy, I'd go to another business and buy a different cup of coffee.

The Drewitt-Barlows need to get their heads out of each other's ass because they are completely full of themselves.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

TwelveOhOne's picture

+1 for awkward image in final sentence

And fully agree with penultimate paragraph: discrimination should lead to, and only lead to, loss of customers. And word-of-mouth, meaning permanent loss of customers.

Kinda like that silly statist, James Kirchick. (That wikipedia page looks editable.)

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)


The liberal immoral agenda is meant to separate us from God so Marxism can be fully implemented.

Just as Atheism and Marxism are a required marriage for each to flourish, so are faith and liberty. The founders were very clear about this but the godless refuse to accept this.

Therefore, they are not here to help us in our cause of liberty. They admit this. They hate Rand and by extension, the Liberty Movement. They just want to opt out and not even try to turn this ship around. They will wish they did when the boot comes down on their necks by their gay loving Marxist Atheist brothers-in-arms.

Now attacking the 1st Amendment.

If the Judicial branch of the State decides that religious institutions must marry homosexuals, then the State would be establishing religion. This is in violation of the 1st and obviously the most important Amendment to the Constitution by the founding fathers.

Religious Institutions receive money donated to them voluntarily.
Likewise States should only continue to operate via donations.
Currently the State steals money from individuals and corporations.

I would not expect it to be imposed upon religious institutions

because one can get married at a courthouse which is a government institution. Apparently, judges possess the same power to marry as clergy in Christian nations.

On the other hand, if a church is receiving a federal benefit under a federally privileged tax status ... isn't it a public place prohibited from discriminating based on race, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc.?

I didn't vote for the Civil Rights act, nor am I a some kind of Rand Paul who says they would have voted for it. I am a Ron Paul kind of guy who opposes it because it infringes upon private property. So which Christians passed it because there had to be some Christians who voted for it in a nation of Christians where politicians are elected by Christian majorities.

I expect religious institutions will be forced to comply.

The government institution wants nothing more than to control religious institutions. That is the reason for the 1st Amendment. Tax status and Marriage are simply ways for the government to establish a religion. Marriage should not and never should have been legalized. Marriage should be free from government regulation.

As for a religious institutions receiving a federal benefit by privileged tax status; I don't believe any property owner or business should be required to pay taxes. Money for the State should be donated by individuals and corporations providing no privileged tax status to anyone. If one State does not provide good services to individuals that a competing State should overcome the existing State.

As for the Civil Rights Act, how is it possible to prohibit discrimination of individuals based on race, religion, age, sex, physical handicap or sexual orientation? For example, should a prostitute where prostitution is legal, have the right to deny service to a client based on race, religion, age, sex, physical handicap or sexual orientation? What if he or she receives federal services or benefits such as subsidized health care, food stamps or other government programs?

The solution is to limit the authority of the federal government, limit the authority of the State, limit the authority of local governments and liberate individualism.


RE: limiting authority

I advocate competition in justice and currency which is not a state monopoly on violence over a given geographical territory. Yet, I do not live in that world because I am surrounded by people who are unwilling to trust in their fellow man and demand a state to regulate virtually everything.

Should I rise up and defend people from a state if they have only ever condoned and/or supported its tyrannies? I think not. I never knew them.

Competition in justice?

Like, two court houses side by side offering more justice for less money? Year end justice BLOWOUT! For just $299 down and $199 a month you can walk away with this fantastic justice package! A trial, a lawyer, a stenographer, epert witnesses, a judge, a jury, a verdict, and, if you act now, this one of a kind judge action figure with gavel swinging action!


I think, I really do think, I need more coffee.

Considering the alternative is injustice ...

that doesn't sound so bad. Actually it sounds almost affordable compared to what one must pay for injustice.


Your doubletalk is quite amazing

then the next big push

will be to push pedophilia as normal. I have noticed on some libertarian sites people making comments about how all humans are sexual creatures, and in all honesty this is a very big turn off. 5 year olds are not sexual creatures period.
First they will sue the churches until they more or less go underground but they will be pushing pedophilia next.

What sites, wraith13?

What sites, wraith13?

A couple is two.
A few is three.
I think "some" is about four.


Tell me what four Libertarian web sites with comments as you say?

Maybe you're the pedophile? Maybe you have Googled for pedophilia?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Are you referrring to pedophilia sanctioned by any church?

But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. -1 Corinthians 7:36

Such as churches marrying any teenage girls to men?