Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[Mertex]

It was not.

It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.

You still don't get it, do you.....? It was going against the Civil Rights Act.....maybe you better go read it again.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act which passed Congress on a voted of 533-3 and was signed by Clinton.

(a) Findings The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

(a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | LII / Legal Information Institute

Sounds terrible, doesn't it. Funny that the Civil Rights lawyers didn't think it violated the CRA.

By the way, next time that idiot Jones mentions Smith, tell him to read this post.

And how does it go against the CRA? I'm sure in your twisted and bewildered mind it does.....

And I'm not your messenger...if you want to tell Jones something, do it yourself....

 

[AntiParty]

Show me where the Bible tells us to use Religious unions use Government law to prevent a sin. The American based Christianity I know openly talks about FREE WILL, not FORCED RELIGION. Also, the Government we live under talks about Freedom of Religion, not forced religion perspectives.

The end of times talk about lot's of gays in the bible. It's not a greater sin, but it's there more dominantly.

So what we see today is a lot of people trying to control destiny by CONTROLLING GAYS to ensure the world will never end.

So we have a group of people that were taught, "Do not judge or be judged" openly and using law to judge others because they are scared.

I'll note that it never said that gays triggered the end of times. It only stated that more gays would be around. Gays weren't really an issue at all. Hate and anger were the real reasons for the end of times.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was not.

It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.

You still don't get it, do you.....? It was going against the Civil Rights Act.....maybe you better go read it again.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act which passed Congress on a voted of 533-3 and was signed by Clinton.

(a) Findings The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

(a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | LII / Legal Information Institute

Sounds terrible, doesn't it. Funny that the Civil Rights lawyers didn't think it violated the CRA.

By the way, next time that idiot Jones mentions Smith, tell him to read this post.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Supreme Court ruled that the RFRA was un-Constitutional, where Congress lacks the authority to determine what is nor is not a right:

(b) In imposing RFRA's requirements on the States, Congress relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, which, inter alia, guarantees that no State shall make or enforce any law depriving any person of "life, liberty, [*508] or property, without due process of law," or denying any person the "equal protection of the laws," § 1, and empowers Congress "to enforce" those guarantees by "appropriate legislation," § 5. Respondent Archbishop and the United States contend that RFRA is permissible enforcement legislation under § 5. Although Congress certainly can enact legislation enforcing the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, see, e. g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303, its § 5 power "to enforce" is only preventive or "remedial," [***632] South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 326. The Amendment's design and § 5's text are inconsistent with any suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters [**2159] the Free Exercise Clause's meaning cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is.

Only the Supreme Court may determine what constitutes a right pursuant to the 14th Amendment, not Congress – and the RFRA was invalidated accordingly.

Consequently, Employment Division v. Smith remains relevant, on point case law with regard to the fact that public accommodations laws, or any law perceived to ‘infringe upon’ religious liberty, are valid and Constitutional, where the primary focus of such laws do not seek to place an undue burden on religious expression. SB 1062 would be likewise un-Constitutional, seeking to invalidate measures such as in Tucson which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations predicated on sexual orientation, measures that are Constitutional per Smith.

Indeed, Smith was cited as recently as last December by a judge in Colorado upholding that state’s public accommodations law prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples, among other classes of persons, in a case involving a business owner’s refusal so sell a wedding cake to gay patrons based on ‘religious objections’:

[T]he Supreme Court has held that “activities of individuals, even when religiously based, are often subject to regulation by the States in the exercise of their undoubted power to promote the health, safety, and general welfare.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 220. To excuse all religiously-motivated conduct from state control would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990). Thus, for example, the Court has upheld a law prohibiting religious-based polygamy, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879); upheld a law restricting religious-based child labor, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944); upheld a Sunday closing law that adversely affected Jewish businesses, Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961); upheld the government’s right to collect Social Security taxes from an Amish employer despite claims that it violated his religious principles, United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982); and upheld denial of unemployment compensation to persons who were fired for the religious use of peyote, Employment Division v. Smith, supra.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

Again, these notions of ‘religious liberty’ or ‘religious objections’ with regard to accommodating gay patrons is merely a façade behind which those seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties hide, having nothing to do with a concerns involving ‘religious expression,’ and everything to do with hatred of homosexuals.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You still don't get it, do you.....? It was going against the Civil Rights Act.....maybe you better go read it again.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act which passed Congress on a voted of 533-3 and was signed by Clinton.

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | LII / Legal Information Institute

Sounds terrible, doesn't it. Funny that the Civil Rights lawyers didn't think it violated the CRA.

By the way, next time that idiot Jones mentions Smith, tell him to read this post.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Supreme Court ruled that the RFRA was un-Constitutional, where Congress lacks the authority to determine what is nor is not a right:

(b) In imposing RFRA's requirements on the States, Congress relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, which, inter alia, guarantees that no State shall make or enforce any law depriving any person of "life, liberty, [*508] or property, without due process of law," or denying any person the "equal protection of the laws," § 1, and empowers Congress "to enforce" those guarantees by "appropriate legislation," § 5. Respondent Archbishop and the United States contend that RFRA is permissible enforcement legislation under § 5. Although Congress certainly can enact legislation enforcing the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, see, e. g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303, its § 5 power "to enforce" is only preventive or "remedial," [***632] South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 326. The Amendment's design and § 5's text are inconsistent with any suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters [**2159] the Free Exercise Clause's meaning cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is.

Only the Supreme Court may determine what constitutes a right pursuant to the 14th Amendment, not Congress – and the RFRA was invalidated accordingly.

Consequently, Employment Division v. Smith remains relevant, on point case law with regard to the fact that public accommodations laws, or any law perceived to ‘infringe upon’ religious liberty, are valid and Constitutional, where the primary focus of such laws do not seek to place an undue burden on religious expression. SB 1062 would be likewise un-Constitutional, seeking to invalidate measures such as in Tucson which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations predicated on sexual orientation, measures that are Constitutional per Smith.

Indeed, Smith was cited as recently as last December by a judge in Colorado upholding that state’s public accommodations law prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples, among other classes of persons, in a case involving a business owner’s refusal so sell a wedding cake to gay patrons based on ‘religious objections’:

[T]he Supreme Court has held that “activities of individuals, even when religiously based, are often subject to regulation by the States in the exercise of their undoubted power to promote the health, safety, and general welfare.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 220. To excuse all religiously-motivated conduct from state control would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990). Thus, for example, the Court has upheld a law prohibiting religious-based polygamy, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879); upheld a law restricting religious-based child labor, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944); upheld a Sunday closing law that adversely affected Jewish businesses, Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961); upheld the government’s right to collect Social Security taxes from an Amish employer despite claims that it violated his religious principles, United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982); and upheld denial of unemployment compensation to persons who were fired for the religious use of peyote, Employment Division v. Smith, supra.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

Again, these notions of ‘religious liberty’ or ‘religious objections’ with regard to accommodating gay patrons is merely a façade behind which those seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties hide, having nothing to do with a concerns involving ‘religious expression,’ and everything to do with hatred of homosexuals.

 

[Seawytch]

1. Queers actively try to recruit children to adopt their sick, perverted lifestyle > HARM.

2. No heterosexual wants to share a shower with a queer. > HARM.

3. No heterosexual football player wants to be grabbed and tackled by any queer > HARM.

4. Few heterosexuals are not disgusted by the sight to 2 guys kissing each on the lips (or worse) > HARM.

5. Queers have spread AIDS. Only 2% of US population is queer, yet they account for 61% of AIDS > HARM. ("Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections." Center for Disease Control)

6. "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual.

7. Relatives of homosexuals are hurt emotionally by the loved ones being queer. > HARM

8. Breast cancer is higher among lesbians and bisexual women than heterosexual women. > HARM

9. The incidence of domestic violence is almost twice as high among queer "men" as it is among heterosexual men. > HARM

This is a significant but still only partial list.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I trust you on all of that. How would you deal with the "queer" problem?

For starters, they be banned from all teaching positions, all coaching, all clergy, all public official jobs, and anything dealing with kids.

Secondly, SSM would be banned in all 50 states. All employment, housing, public accomodations, adoption, and hate crimes laws protecting queers would be repealed.

Open displays of homosexuality would be banned.

Queers would be banned from the military, all contact sports (tennis might be OK).

All media communication supporting homosexuality would be banned as violations of US Code 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy)

Sodomy would be banned.

All homosexual activity private or public would be banned.

Well...with 17 states and the District of Columbia properly recognizing the rights enumerated in the Constitution and allowing gays to legally marry...life must really suck for you.

Good.

 

[Geaux4it]

Queers raise queers or otherwise known as future liberal democrats. Look at the lezbo on American Idol who was.. yep.. you guessed it, adopted by 2 carpet munchers and looked how she turned out.

Gays have the rights up the gazoo (no pun intended) yet you don't have the right to privacy etc

-Geaux

 

[GibsonSG]

Queers raise queers or otherwise known as future liberal democrats. Look at the lezbo on American Idol who was.. yep.. you guessed it, adopted by 2 carpet munchers and looked how she turned out.

Gays have the rights up the gazoo (no pun intended) yet you don't have the right to privacy etc

-Geaux

Heteros should stop giving birth to gay people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Queers raise queers or otherwise known as future liberal democrats. Look at the lezbo on American Idol who was.. yep.. you guessed it, adopted by 2 carpet munchers and looked how she turned out.

Gays have the rights up the gazoo (no pun intended) yet you don't have the right to privacy etc

-Geaux

Dick Cheney - Husband - Heterosexual

Lynne Cheney - Wife - Heterosexual

Elizabeth - Daughter - Heterosexual

Mary - Daughter - Lesbian

Terry Wahls - Mother - Lesbian

Jackie Reger - Mother - Lesbian

Zacharia Wahls - Son - Heterosexual



*********************************************


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q]Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube[/ame]


The above video is to Zack Whals addressing the Iowa Legislature about being raised by two Moms.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
Of course I value the religious freedom granted to me by The United States Constitution and proudly.
But I value MORE GREATLY the DIGNITY that God gave to all creation equally.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
Of course I value the religious freedom granted to me by The United States Constitution and proudly.
But I value MORE GREATLY the DIGNITY that God gave to all creation equally.

As a person with a brain, I get a headache reading the drivel that comes out of your keyboard.

 

[Gadawg73]

As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
Of course I value the religious freedom granted to me by The United States Constitution and proudly.
But I value MORE GREATLY the DIGNITY that God gave to all creation equally.

As a person with a brain, I get a headache reading the drivel that comes out of your keyboard.

Anyone with a brain does not force themselves to read what gives them headaches.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
Of course I value the religious freedom granted to me by The United States Constitution and proudly.
But I value MORE GREATLY the DIGNITY that God gave to all creation equally.

As a person with a brain, I get a headache reading the drivel that comes out of your keyboard.

Anyone with a brain does not force themselves to read what gives them headaches.

Which is why I stopped reading after 2 words.

 

[Gadawg73]

as a person with a brain, i get a headache reading the drivel that comes out of your keyboard.

anyone with a brain does not force themselves to read what gives them headaches.

which is why i stopped reading after 2 words.

lol,
you lie!!!

 

[protectionist]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I trust you on all of that. How would you deal with the "queer" problem?

For starters, they be banned from all teaching positions, all coaching, all clergy, all public official jobs, and anything dealing with kids.

Secondly, SSM would be banned in all 50 states. All employment, housing, public accomodations, adoption, and hate crimes laws protecting queers would be repealed.

Open displays of homosexuality would be banned.

Queers would be banned from the military, all contact sports (tennis might be OK).

All media communication supporting homosexuality would be banned as violations of US Code 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy)

Sodomy would be banned.

All homosexual activity private or public would be banned.

Well...with 17 states and the District of Columbia properly recognizing the rights enumerated in the Constitution and allowing gays to legally marry...life must really suck for you.

Good.

Not at all. When 33 states properly recognize the rights enumerated in the Constitution, and DISallow queers from legally marrying (including my home state)...does that make life really suck for you ?

 

[protectionist]

Queers raise queers or otherwise known as future liberal democrats. Look at the lezbo on American Idol who was.. yep.. you guessed it, adopted by 2 carpet munchers and looked how she turned out.

Gays have the rights up the gazoo (no pun intended) yet you don't have the right to privacy etc

-Geaux

Heteros should stop giving birth to gay people.

Weakest (and silliest) coverup to homosexual recruitment I've ever seen.

 

[protectionist]

As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
Of course I value the religious freedom granted to me by The United States Constitution and proudly.
But I value MORE GREATLY the DIGNITY that God gave to all creation equally.

Classifications of foreigners, outsiders, and non-religious do not constitute contrary-to-nature, perverse behavior.

 

[protectionist]

As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
Of course I value the religious freedom granted to me by The United States Constitution and proudly.
But I value MORE GREATLY the DIGNITY that God gave to all creation equally.

As a person with a brain, I get a headache reading the drivel that comes out of your keyboard.

The trick is to read only one of the last 3 sentences where the "point" is being made, the rest being only supportive talk of what is not much of a point anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

For starters, they be banned from all teaching positions, all coaching, all clergy, all public official jobs, and anything dealing with kids.

Secondly, SSM would be banned in all 50 states. All employment, housing, public accomodations, adoption, and hate crimes laws protecting queers would be repealed.

Open displays of homosexuality would be banned.

Queers would be banned from the military, all contact sports (tennis might be OK).

All media communication supporting homosexuality would be banned as violations of US Code 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy)

Sodomy would be banned.

All homosexual activity private or public would be banned.

Well...with 17 states and the District of Columbia properly recognizing the rights enumerated in the Constitution and allowing gays to legally marry...life must really suck for you.

Good.

Not at all. When 33 states properly recognize the rights enumerated in the Constitution, and DISallow queers from legally marrying (including my home state)...does that make life really suck for you ?

Where does the Constitution "disallow" civil marriage? Oh, it doesn't...you just couldn't figure out how to be clever all on your own.

A sad pathetic homophobe.


I think they need "It gets worse" videos for old homophobes.

 

[Gadawg73]

As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
Of course I value the religious freedom granted to me by The United States Constitution and proudly.
But I value MORE GREATLY the DIGNITY that God gave to all creation equally.

Classifications of foreigners, outsiders, and non-religious do not constitute contrary-to-nature, perverse behavior.

You are non Christian if you believe Jesus did not love and dine with gay folks.
We already knew you are a bigot.

 

[bravoactual]

As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
Of course I value the religious freedom granted to me by The United States Constitution and proudly.
But I value MORE GREATLY the DIGNITY that God gave to all creation equally.

Then, it is up to you as a Christian to confront those people who corrupt your faith. Standing one the side lines and bitching never works. It is up to you to own your faith and to act out of your faith to defend it.

You are I suspect what my Grand Father (Graduated from the Methodist Seminary in Stuttgart Arkansas in 1922 and preached his last sermon in 1985) used to call a "Christian in the Pew".

It is up to YOU to defend your faith, if you allow by your inaction or by your silence to corrupt your faith you are just as equally equally guilty because you choose to nothing.