Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[danielpalos]

Our system of government will not make Christianity illegal though liberals want to. What they can do is whittle away at the practices of Christianity. They can uphold limits on wearing a cross, and force Christians to violate their faith. Once the faith has been violated so many times, the faith itself becomes empty and gutted.

dear, we have more than Ten simple Commandments from a God.

Only the Incorrigibles on Nexus 6, with Zardoz, do that.

 

[Timmy]

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

Making flowers for gays doesn't violate Christianity.

She is a fake Christian using religion to justify her bigotry .

 

[Seawytch]

Why would they take this case when they refused to hear the Elaine Photography case?

Soon.....very soon.....

Alito was alive when the SCOTUS did not hear Elaine Photography. Why would this be different?

Just wait and see my little fascist friend.....

So you got nothin', just as I suspected.

I don't blame you for being upset the SCOTUS will be conservative for a generation or two.....

You're still not explaining why this case would go before the SCOTUS when they, prior to Scalia's death, refused to hear the Elaine Photography case. What gives this case more merit than that one?

And if Public Accommodation laws (brought to you by the Federal Government since the 60s) are "fascist", why aren't y'all demanding they be challenged instead of going after state and local law?

 

[Rustic]

I really don't care about the views of the person i am buying product from, but at the same time I'm not gonna force them to sell to me. That's as childish as you can get.

 

[owebo]

Soon.....very soon.....

Alito was alive when the SCOTUS did not hear Elaine Photography. Why would this be different?

Just wait and see my little fascist friend.....

So you got nothin', just as I suspected.

I don't blame you for being upset the SCOTUS will be conservative for a generation or two.....

You're still not explaining why this case would go before the SCOTUS when they, prior to Scalia's death, refused to hear the Elaine Photography case. What gives this case more merit than that one?

And if Public Accommodation laws (brought to you by the Federal Government since the 60s) are "fascist", why aren't y'all demanding they be challenged instead of going after state and local law?

1A....

 

[danielpalos]

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

Making flowers for gays doesn't violate Christianity.

She is a fake Christian using religion to justify her bigotry .

why do alleged practitioners of the teachings of Jesus the Christ, complain on a for-profit basis?

 

[Seawytch]

Alito was alive when the SCOTUS did not hear Elaine Photography. Why would this be different?

Just wait and see my little fascist friend.....

So you got nothin', just as I suspected.

I don't blame you for being upset the SCOTUS will be conservative for a generation or two.....

You're still not explaining why this case would go before the SCOTUS when they, prior to Scalia's death, refused to hear the Elaine Photography case. What gives this case more merit than that one?

And if Public Accommodation laws (brought to you by the Federal Government since the 60s) are "fascist", why aren't y'all demanding they be challenged instead of going after state and local law?

1A....

That's not an answer. You're not answering because you have none.

 

[danielpalos]

I really don't care about the views of the person i am buying product from, but at the same time I'm not gonna force them to sell to me. That's as childish as you can get.

should we be concerned about bakers practicing "bakers' morals" with bakers' dozens?

 

[danielpalos]

Alito was alive when the SCOTUS did not hear Elaine Photography. Why would this be different?

Just wait and see my little fascist friend.....

So you got nothin', just as I suspected.

I don't blame you for being upset the SCOTUS will be conservative for a generation or two.....

You're still not explaining why this case would go before the SCOTUS when they, prior to Scalia's death, refused to hear the Elaine Photography case. What gives this case more merit than that one?

And if Public Accommodation laws (brought to you by the Federal Government since the 60s) are "fascist", why aren't y'all demanding they be challenged instead of going after state and local law?

1A....

what about it? Public accommodation laws don't discriminate based on Religion.

 

[norwegen]

Our system of government will not make Christianity illegal though liberals want to. What they can do is whittle away at the practices of Christianity. They can uphold limits on wearing a cross, and force Christians to violate their faith. Once the faith has been violated so many times, the faith itself becomes empty and gutted.

Liberals don't even believe the federal government endorses Christianity. Their heads must explode when they learn that the Congress hires chaplains, observes a Christian holiday, and suspended mail delivery on Sundays.

Hence the social hostilities, but some day, even the government will shun the faith, as it has begun to do.

 

[danielpalos]

Our system of government will not make Christianity illegal though liberals want to. What they can do is whittle away at the practices of Christianity. They can uphold limits on wearing a cross, and force Christians to violate their faith. Once the faith has been violated so many times, the faith itself becomes empty and gutted.

Liberals don't even believe the federal government endorses Christianity. Their heads must explode when they learn that the Congress hires chaplains, observes a Christian holiday, and suspended mail delivery on Sundays.

Hence the social hostilities, but some day, even the government will shun the faith, as it has begun to do.

would this even be a problem, if deists could be trusted with Ten simple Commandments, from a God.

 

[Spare_change]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus taught Christians to obey the law.

To obey "... just and fair laws ..."

 

[Spare_change]

Just wait and see my little fascist friend.....

So you got nothin', just as I suspected.

I don't blame you for being upset the SCOTUS will be conservative for a generation or two.....

You're still not explaining why this case would go before the SCOTUS when they, prior to Scalia's death, refused to hear the Elaine Photography case. What gives this case more merit than that one?

And if Public Accommodation laws (brought to you by the Federal Government since the 60s) are "fascist", why aren't y'all demanding they be challenged instead of going after state and local law?

1A....

what about it? Public accommodation laws don't discriminate based on Religion.

Actually, they do .....

A law that demands that a Christian doctor perform an abortion, for example, is discrimination based on religion. A law that demands that a Christian make a floral arrangement for celebration of a gay wedding, in the Christian's opinion, is discrimination based on religion.

 

[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

Bigotry against homosexuality is a form of Faith?

What about, the abomination of hypocrisy? Or, would most Persons of Faith, have to go, not-for-the-profit-of-lucre in public accommodations?

What you choose to label bigotry is, by others, called a tenet of faith. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But then .... if you're right, and they call it bigotry, what right does the government have to ban it?

 

[Seawytch]

So you got nothin', just as I suspected.

I don't blame you for being upset the SCOTUS will be conservative for a generation or two.....

You're still not explaining why this case would go before the SCOTUS when they, prior to Scalia's death, refused to hear the Elaine Photography case. What gives this case more merit than that one?

And if Public Accommodation laws (brought to you by the Federal Government since the 60s) are "fascist", why aren't y'all demanding they be challenged instead of going after state and local law?

1A....

what about it? Public accommodation laws don't discriminate based on Religion.

Actually, they do .....

A law that demands that a Christian doctor perform an abortion, for example, is discrimination based on religion. A law that demands that a Christian make a floral arrangement for celebration of a gay wedding, in the Christian's opinion, is discrimination based on religion.

Actually laws that protect Christians from discrimination are FEDERAL laws. Laws that protect gays from discrimination are state and local laws. Either go after the granddaddy of Public Accommodation laws, Title II of the Civil Rights Act, or STFU.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

For the same reason opposite sex people marry each other. What is there to work out, exactly?

 

[danielpalos]

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

It is not about Faith in public accommodations under our form of Capitalism; it is about profit and loss.

 

[danielpalos]

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

do you also care about what others make/have?

 

[danielpalos]

You mean to tell me the homos couldn't find a homo florist?

have you ever tried doing business with anyone who doesn't participate in the abomination of hypocrisy, to some extent?

 

[danielpalos]

Our system of government will not make Christianity illegal though liberals want to. What they can do is whittle away at the practices of Christianity. They can uphold limits on wearing a cross, and force Christians to violate their faith. Once the faith has been violated so many times, the faith itself becomes empty and gutted.

dear; it would mean more, if we were not in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles.