You realize atheists don't believe your god exists in the first place to have rights, don't you?

It's called hypocrisy. To lay down rules for others that you are unwilling to follow yourself makes you a hypocrite. To call an action moral when you do it and immoral when others do it is similarly hypocrisy.

Do we now get to act like children and air every Christian comment that is bigoted or uncouth?

Is there any sort of point to creating a debate with no sides just to air your grievances in public? All it does is highlight your own immaturity.

One person banning a member now equates to all atheists lacking logic?

Also, I don't think we should be relying on the logic of people who can't even figure out how to use an apostrophe.

It is not discrimination to not allow murderers to murder. If you knew the actual definition of the word, you'd know it is the "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of things, especially according to race, sex, or age". Since NO ONE is allowed to murder, there is no discrimination.

Discrimination does not mean "you can't do absolutely everything you want".

The Butterfly Effect is a subset of chaos theory referring to the behavior of variables in a complex system such as weather. It does not, no matter what you've seen on TV or in movies, have anything to do with societal interaction.

Name one way gay marriage affects anyone else negatively.

As for your ridiculous claim that two people of the same sex cannot logically be married, you have no rational or logical support for such a claim therefore it is dismissed. Marriage is just a legal and civil arrangement- gender is irrelevant.

It most certainly is not. Gay marriage is legal in many places worldwide, and a rapidly growing number of US states.

Actually if the Christians read their own bible, they'd know that in both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew Jesus is quoted as saying that the "law" (i.e. the Old Testament) is still completely in affect and that he did not "come to change a letter" of it.

As someone who lives in Rochester (which Greece is a suburb of), NY, I actually know some of the people involved in this case.

The issue definitely needs to be heard- encroachment of religion into our government (Protestant Christianity to be specific) is far more pervasive than people realize.

The problem is not necessarily that they open the Town Meetings with a prayer- previous high court decisions have determined opening a government meeting with a prayer is Constitutional (Congress does it) as long as those prayers do not endorse a particular religion over others. In other words, the Town of Greece would not be in this position if they had attempted to provide any sort of diversity in their opening meetings. Yet, out of years of opening prayers only FOUR were not highly sectarian (i.e. not nondenominational) Christian prayers.

In addition, the women who brought the suit attempted to go a non-litigious route and were not only rebuffed but publicly scolded at the following meetings!

As this is happening in my own city, I can comment here:

The issue is not actually that prayer is OCCURRING before these Town Meetings, but that all but four of the prayers have been Christian. Previous rulings on government meetings have determined that opening with a prayer is not unconstitutional, as long as no endorsement of any one religion is prominent. Therefore, it would be fine if they had attempted to provide a diversity of religious views or even accept petitions as to who would provide the prayer. Yet they did not.

This is just utter stupidity.

Murder is a violation of civil rights to start- the right of a person under the law to life. Therefore it is not discrimination to prevent murder. Just like it is not discrimination to prevent theft or rape. I don't think you even know what discrimination IS.

Gay marriage affects no one but the two people involved. You are simply trying to prevent two people from forming a legal relationship based on nothing but their sexuality, which is no different than the idiots who tried to prevent interracial marriage in the sixties, and the twits who try to prevent women from holding certain jobs just because they're women.

This whole mess is pure sophistry.

For starters, the reason you don't say people who are asymptomatic, apolitical, and asexual don't believe in those things is because those root words aren't about belief. A person who is asymptomatic lacks symptoms, just like a person who is an atheist lacks theism.

Second, if an person believes a god exists, he or she isn't an atheist BY DEFINITION. Theism doesn't require WORSHIP of said gods- just belief in one or more. And trying to claim that existing only in the minds of believers counts as the existence of a god is so nonsensical as to be dismissed- it's you trying to redefine terms to suit yourself.

Third, anti-theists aren't necessarily atheists to start. Many believe in gods and just don't find them worthy of worship- that means they aren't atheist.

Fourth, it is nonsensical in the extreme to claim that one cannot be an atheist unless one believes a god exists "in some manner". You are again trying to pretend that imaginary is somehow equivalent to existence. Your false equivocation fallacy- trying to exchange two different meanings of the word "exist" as though they are the same- is obvious to anyone.