Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[Seawytch]

I have which is why I know Jesus would not approve of the anti gay bakers, florists, photographers, etc.

I will accept that you have "read" it (though I truly don't believe that), but it's clear you most assuredly didn't understand what you were reading.

Quote Jesus being anti gay.

The Bible is very clear, in several cases, about Christianity's position on homosexuality.

For you to try to conflate that to a "hatred of gays" is simplistic on your part. Christians don't hate gays, they hate homosexuality. If you can't figure out the difference, YOU are the one with the problem.

Why should we take deists seriously about morals, if they cannot follow, Ten simple Commandments, from a God?

Particularly the commandment about lying.

Or the fact that Jesus was very clear about what he thought of divorce.

 

[pwjohn]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

There's no need for you to worry your little mind over this issue. Nobody is forcing you to marry samesex against your will are they ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheists are no moral or ethical than theists.

 

[danielpalos]

I have which is why I know Jesus would not approve of the anti gay bakers, florists, photographers, etc.

I will accept that you have "read" it (though I truly don't believe that), but it's clear you most assuredly didn't understand what you were reading.

Quote Jesus being anti gay.

The Bible is very clear, in several cases, about Christianity's position on homosexuality.

For you to try to conflate that to a "hatred of gays" is simplistic on your part. Christians don't hate gays, they hate homosexuality. If you can't figure out the difference, YOU are the one with the problem.

Why should we take deists seriously about morals, if they cannot follow, Ten simple Commandments, from a God?

Particularly the commandment about lying.

We have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge, but no antihypocrisy laws on the books; conspiracy or coincidence?

 

[Synthaholic]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

Why do heterosexual people need to marry each other?

There's your answer.

 

[Kondor3]

Christians passive refusal to promote homosexuality is not protected Constitutionally in the public forum.

True.

Time to change the Constitution to force sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) back into the shadows again.

That way, the courts can't say chit about it.

 

[postman]

.

Time to change the Constitution to force sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) back into the shadows again.

That way, the courts can't say chit about it.

Be careful what you wish for. Because one persons sexual deviancy may fall under the government axe, such as fellatio and cunnilingus. Which in many states used to be illegal even for married couples.

 

[mdk]

Christians passive refusal to promote homosexuality is not protected Constitutionally in the public forum.

True.

Time to change the Constitution to force sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) back into the shadows again.

That way, the courts can't say chit about it.

Let us know when you get your hands on a Monkey's Paw.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christians passive refusal to promote homosexuality is not protected Constitutionally in the public forum.

True. Time to change the Constitution to force sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) back into the shadows again. That way, the courts can't say chit about it.

You can continue with that false hope.

 

[danielpalos]

.

Time to change the Constitution to force sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) back into the shadows again.

That way, the courts can't say chit about it.

Be careful what you wish for. Because one persons sexual deviancy may fall under the government axe, such as fellatio and cunnilingus. Which in many states used to be illegal even for married couples.

Yet, there are no laws against the abomination of hypocrisy unto a Lord.

 

[Spare_change]

Christians passive refusal to promote homosexuality is not protected Constitutionally in the public forum.

Do you agree that Christians' refusal to promote homosexuality is a function of their religion?

Do you agree that the Constitution, Amendment 1, says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."?

 

[Spare_change]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Boo fucking hoo.

I doubt Barronelle Stutzman cares whether the flowers she sells to men are going to a mistress, or lead to premarital sex.

That's the nice thing about opinions ....

 

[danielpalos]

Christians passive refusal to promote homosexuality is not protected Constitutionally in the public forum.

Do you agree that Christians' refusal to promote homosexuality is a function of their religion?

Do you agree that the Constitution, Amendment 1, says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."?

refusing to promote and intolerance of fellow citizens are two distinct issues.

 

[Spare_change]

Christians passive refusal to promote homosexuality is not protected Constitutionally in the public forum.

Do you agree that Christians' refusal to promote homosexuality is a function of their religion?

Do you agree that the Constitution, Amendment 1, says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."?

refusing to promote and intolerance of fellow citizens are two distinct issues.

You failed to answer the questions ... but we expect deflection.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The questions above by Spare are immaterial to the discussion.

 

[Seawytch]

Christians passive refusal to promote homosexuality is not protected Constitutionally in the public forum.

Do you agree that Christians' refusal to promote homosexuality is a function of their religion?

Do you agree that the Constitution, Amendment 1, says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."?

If you are in business, you must abide by the law of the land, not your religion. If your religion is in conflict with laws governing business, then it's time to look for a new business venture that doesn't conflict with your personal beliefs.

A Christian's refusal to "promote interracial marriage" is also a function of their religion. Why don't racist bigots get to use the bible?

 

[danielpalos]

Christians passive refusal to promote homosexuality is not protected Constitutionally in the public forum.

Do you agree that Christians' refusal to promote homosexuality is a function of their religion?

Do you agree that the Constitution, Amendment 1, says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."?

refusing to promote and intolerance of fellow citizens are two distinct issues.

You failed to answer the questions ... but we expect deflection.

you only have a fallacy of false Cause, if you don't distinguish. how moral is that from a, sublime Truth (value) perspective.

 

[bendog]

Christians passive refusal to promote homosexuality is not protected Constitutionally in the public forum.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle that is nothing but a diminishing return…

Hah! You don't think they can do the deed when survival is on the line! HA LOL

 

[Spare_change]

The questions above by Spare are immaterial to the discussion.

Actually, they aren't .... the government is interfering in the practice of religion. It is determining that some religious practices are acceptable and some are not.

It's no more difficult than that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is no more difficult than you can't use your religious beliefs in a public space to limit the civil liberties of others.

Not difficult at all.