Oh SNAP! Hannity & Fox News Throw Down the Gauntlet. Gagged Bakers Tell All.

[Syriusly]

Romans 13:1

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.

Acts 5:29

But Peter and the Apostles answered saying, "We must obey God rather than men."

What to do- what to do- when the Bible actually provides conflicting instructions?

Romans says all authority comes from God- so by obeying the authorities you are doing God's bidding.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And indeed he did!

They wouldn't eat meat because it was dedicated to idols. That's why Christians won't participate in a ceremony they believe violates God's laws.

Not to be argumentative- but I can't find a thing in David about them refusing to eat meat.

Maybe because there is no such book in the Bible.

I meant Daniel- here is a link

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL

I have a Bible, but thank you. And the stories in the book of Daniel I've known since I was a wee lad.

Hint: the incident of them not eating meat occurred in the first chapter, before their Jewish names were changed.

Ah thank you.

3 The king told Ashpenaz, his chief chamberlain, to bring in some of the Israelites of royal blood and of the nobility, 4 young men without any defect, handsome, intelligent and wise, quick to learn, and prudent in judgment, such as could take their place in the king's palace; they were to be taught the language and literature of the Chaldeans; 5 after three years' training they were to enter the king's service. The king allotted them a daily portion of food and wine from the royal table. 6 Among these were men of Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. 7 The chief chamberlain changed their names: Daniel to Belteshazzar, Hananiah to Shadrach, Mishael to Meshach, and Azariah to Abednego.

8 But Daniel was resolved not to defile himself with the king's food or wine; so he begged the chief chamberlain to spare him this defilement

Not seeing anything about the food being dedicated to idols. This appears to be a reference to Jewish dietary laws.

Not really. It was common practice in pagan nations to sacrifice to idols. Such meat was a premium amenity reserved only for the king and those in his favor. The Jews abstained from all meat, not just certain kinds, because they knew the meat to be dedicated to idols.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Romans 13:1

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.

Acts 5:29

But Peter and the Apostles answered saying, "We must obey God rather than men."

What to do- what to do- when the Bible actually provides conflicting instructions?

Romans says all authority comes from God- so by obeying the authorities you are doing God's bidding.

We obey every law and ordinance of man unless it conflicts with God's law.

Like I said.

 

[Syriusly]

Romans 13:1

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.

Acts 5:29

But Peter and the Apostles answered saying, "We must obey God rather than men."

What to do- what to do- when the Bible actually provides conflicting instructions?

Romans says all authority comes from God- so by obeying the authorities you are doing God's bidding.

We obey every law and ordinance of man unless it conflicts with God's law.

Like I said.

But Romans said that authority comes from God- how can authority conflict with God?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Romans 13:1

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.

Acts 5:29

But Peter and the Apostles answered saying, "We must obey God rather than men."

What to do- what to do- when the Bible actually provides conflicting instructions?

Romans says all authority comes from God- so by obeying the authorities you are doing God's bidding.

We obey every law and ordinance of man unless it conflicts with God's law.

Like I said.

But Romans said that authority comes from God- how can authority conflict with God?

God sets up authorities and tears them down. This was told to King Darius in explanation for the strange message on the wall written by the hand of God. Because God appoints authority, we are advised to obey that authority as we obey God, so long as that authority doesn't conflict with God.

 

[JoeB131]

Liberal logic..............Apply to put up a Nativity scene at a park to show their views............DENIED.............
BUT it's just FINE AND DANDY to allow nudist to run through Stark Assed Naked...................and they don't see a problem with it...............

Um, no, those nudists would be charged with indecent exposure.

The VFW gave the Cross to the Gov't.............for a MEMORIAL.................It was on PRIVATE LAND until that point..................and wasn't a problem until the Joes of the world found it OFFENSIVE.................the VFW offered to move it to PRIVATE LAND.............but that wasn't enough for the ACLU.............THEY DEMANDED IT DESTROYED.

actually, the ACLU proposed the following.

The American Civil Liberties Union proposed ways to resolve the situation:

• The cross may be dismantled.
• The cross may be sold to a third party and physically transferred off the public land. An Episcopal church, located within a few hundred feet from the present location of the cross, has agreed to place it on its property.
• The government may hold an auction and sell the parcel of the land with the cross to the highest bidder. However, the government is not allowed to give any preference to those buyers who are interested in preserving the cross. An auction such as this was the subject of Proposition K in 2004,[4] which failed 40% to 59%.

Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

God sets up authorities and tears them down. This was told to King Darius in explanation for the strange message on the wall written by the hand of God. Because God appoints authority, we are advised to obey that authority as we obey God, so long as that authority doesn't conflict with God.

I think you are a little confused. King Darius of Persia didn't get the "Writing on the Wall", it was King Belshazzar's of Babylon.

Jesus, do you Funditards not even know you own fairy tales?

 

[JoeB131]

Now see....this is a funny statement coming from the cult of LGBT who just a few days back had the Whitehouse slathered in rainbow lighting just hours after the Ruling on gay marriage (the one soon to be overturned) handed down.

Not sure where you are getting this "Cult of LGBT". I suspect they live right next door to Mac's "PC Police".

These are the same faithful cultists who decry (and rightly so) genital mutliation of girls by muslims; who turn around in the same breath and applaud Oregon state funding for genital mutliation of minors ("gender reassignment surgery"), while the post-op statistics for suicide remain at the same level of grimness as pre-op.

Not really a fan of gender reassignment surgery, I think it's bunk science. I also know they don't do it randomly. It takes an awful lot to get a doctor to do it.

No religious symbols on public land eh? Then what was the rainbow banner doing on the Whitehouse? And will the logs at the Whitehouse show that this display was set up and tested before the Ruling came down? (There's a whole other thread on that here:

yes, we know the gay marriage thing makes you crazy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

h it...............

The VFW gave the Cross to the Gov't.............for a MEMORIAL.................It was on PRIVATE LAND until that point..................and wasn't a problem until the Joes of the world found it OFFENSIVE.................the VFW offered to move it to PRIVATE LAND.............but that wasn't enough for the ACLU.............THEY DEMANDED IT DESTROYED.

Assuming you are talking about the Mt. Soledad Cross in San Diego, you should learn it's history before commending. The land nor the cross were donated by the VFW. The land and original cross were donated by Cyrus Yawkey. The current cross was not donated by the VFW, it was erected by the Mt. Soledad Association.

• The first cross was erected in 1913, prior to WWI, WWII, or the Korean War.

• The cross was replaced multiple times between 1913 and 1954

• The Mt. Soledad Association itself said the purpose of the 1954 cross was to replace the previous crosses (The crosses were to commemorate wars that hadn’t occurred yet?)

• The Mt. Soledad Association itself in it’s dedication bulletin noted that the cross was dedicated to ““Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” not to war veterans.

• Only one news article between April 17, 1954 and the 1989 lawsuit described the cross as a war memorial. No other references to it as a war memorial were found.

• There is no evidence that the City planed the cross as a war memorial prior to its construction

• Construction and dedication were planned and did occur to allow the dedication to be conducted on Easter Sunday, 1954. Not Memorial Day, not Veterans Day, or any other day to honor veterans.

• Every year between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, the Mt. Soledad Association sponsored religious Easter sunrise services.

• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Memorial Day.

• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Veterans Day.

• No plaque or sign was ever in existence at the cross between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, indicating that the cross was a memorial to war dead.

• Regarding the Mt. Soledad Assc. – “Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promotion of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.”

• No one plague, not one sign, not one brick in the present "war memorial" wall now surrounding the cross was placed until after the City lost the suit.

• Prior to the lawsuit travel guides, maps, phone directories, and even government publications referred to the cross as the “Soledad Easter Cross”.​

If you would like to read the History of the Cross of the case decision, it can be found in: Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT

[FROM COURT DOCUMENTS]D. The Mt. Soledad Cross

The Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Soledad is subject to the same constitutional infirmities to which the Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Helix is subject. Like its Mt. Helix counterpart, the Mt. Soledad cross is a powerful sectarian symbol, the religious effect of which is evidenced by the uses to which it has been put as the backdrop of Christian sectarian events, such as weddings, baptisms and Easter sunrise services. Its commanding presence and nightly illumination at the very summit of Mt. Soledad render it the focal point of the public park in which it stands – so much so that it may be said, as between the Latin cross and the park, it is not clear which is meant to adorn which. No comparable symbols of other religions are present to moderate the cross’ sectarian message. Nor is the cross’ sectarian significance mitigated by its history. In fact, to the contrary, history belies and reinforces the sectarian significance of the Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Soledad.

The City contends that is permits the cross to stand in order to commemorate the lives and sacrifices of fallen soldiers. “It is obvious,” asserts counsel for the City, “that a cross used as a war memorial has lots its religious symbolization and has become resymbolized to take on a new commemorative secular meaning.” Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement, November 13, 1990, at 11. Obvious though this may seem to counsel for the City, however, it is equally obvious to this court that “even if one strains to view the [cross] in the context of a war memorial, [its] primary effect is to give the impression that only Christians . . . are being honored.” Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 235. See also Declaration of Rabbi Michael Sternfield; Libin, above n. 26.

More troubling that the City’s characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a secular memorial, however, is its characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a memorial at all. Whereas Cyrus Yawkey’s deed corroborates the genuineness of the commemorative objective attending the cross on Mt. Helix, no corresponding evidence corroborates the genuineness of the alleged commemorative objective which the City advances in support of the cross on Mt. Soledad. In fact to the contrary, the evidence indicates that the city’s purported commemorative objective is a pretext.

The numerous declarations, news articles, book excerpts, and other exhibits submitted by the parties reveal only one occasion between the erection of the cross on Mt. Soledad and the filing of this lawsuit on which the cross site has ever been recognized as a war memorial. That occasion was the cross’ dedication on April 17, 1954, when the San Diego Union reported that the cross “is meant to be a lasting memorial to the dead of the two world was and the Korean fighting.” With the exception of this single newspaper report, there is no evidence that prior to this lawsuit the City intended the cross to serve as a memorial.

Correspondence between the City and the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, which the city authorized to build and maintain the cross, together with newspaper accounts from 1954 indicated that the cross was intended to replace predecessor crosses which had once been the scene of Easter sunrise services but had since been vandalized or fallen into disrepair. Clearly these predecessor crosses, which date as far back as 1913, could not have been erected as memorials to the dead of two world wars and the Korean fighting, all of which occurred after 1913. Nevertheless, the fact that non-commemorative crosses once stood on a site where citizens subsequently chose to erect a new cross should not by itself defeat the genuineness of the new cross’ purported commemorative purpose.

News accounts reveal further indications of a religious purpose. Several such accounts indicate, for example, that a ceremony dedicating the cross occurred, as planned, on Easter Sunday 1954. Although Memorial Day occurs just 6 weeks after Easter, the Memorial Association evidently preferred to schedule the cross’ completion and dedication for the day of the Resurrection. Although it could have selected any of innumerable different symbols, including many different types of crosses, in order to commemorate fallen soldiers of all faiths, the Memorial Association selected the configuration of the Latin cross, the type of cross on which biblical and historical accounts indicate that Jesus Christ, on the morning marked by Easter, was crucified.

City records, correspondence and news articles indicate, moreover, that every Easter without fail since 1954, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association has sponsored an Easter sunrise service at the site of the cross. There is no record of the Association, the City or any other organization having sponsored a memorial service or ceremony at the site of the cross on Memorial Day, Veterans Day or any other day between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed. Also during the period between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed, no plaque or sign existed to indicate to visitors that the cross was intended to commemorate our country’s war dead. As plaintiffs observe, there was “no way for a visitor to know that on April 18, 1954, someone stood beside the Cross and described it as a veterans memorial.”

In light of this evidence, it is not surprising that numerous travel guides, road maps, the Yellow Pages telephone directory and even the federal government publications refer to the structure atop Mt. Soledad as the “Soledad Easter Cross.” Eveb the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association itself appears to have lost sight of the purported purpose for which it erected the cross. Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promoton of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.

Faced with this battery of evidence, it is difficult to conclude that the commemorative objective advanced by the City is anything other than pretext. The court, therefore, finds that insofar as the disposition of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross, the City has impermissibly exhibited (if not exercised) preference. The City’s conduct, consequently, in unconstitutional, and the is directed that, if it truly wishes to honor the war dead, then it should do so other than with the Latin cross which iit has permitted to stand atop Mt. Soledad. Cf. Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 234 (“because the county can effectively recognize its war dead without resourt to the use of these religious symbols, it must do so”).​

>>>>


Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT

Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134

Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406

Jewish War Veterans v. Rumsfeld, US District Court Complaint Dtd 8/24/2006

Paulson v. Abdulnour, Superior Court of California, Dtd 10/7/2005

 

[Silhouette]

They're taking down every Christian monument in the country, really?

 

[Silhouette]

Well, one thing's for darn sure. All this removal of beloved local icons representing faith or Christianity or any oldschool value system at all is sure going to get a lot of votes in 2016 for the GOP. It's that old visercal-reaction. Idiot dems are cutting their own throats again.

UPDATE

The Kleins remain blessedly defiant:

"We were just running our business the best we could - following the Lord's example," Melissa said. "I'm just blown away by the ruling. They are punishing us for not participating in the wedding." According to Starnes, the Kleins have also accused the BOLI of ordering them not to speak publicly about the case. Aaron indicated that he would "refuse to comply" with the order. "When my constitutional freedoms have been violated by the state I'm going to speak out," Aaron said. "That's the way it is." - Oregon Orders Christian Bakers to Pay 135 000 for Refusing to Bake Gay Wedding Cake For Lesbian Couple Gospelherald.com

And plan to appeal:

“I would appeal to everybody in the state of Oregon,” Aaron said on The Lars Larson Show Wednesday. “Understand that this is the way things operate. We need to institute change, take the government to task for violating our constitutional freedoms at whatever level they are doing it.” If they do not pay, more than $25,000 in penalties and interest will be added. The Kleins plan to file a challenge to the ruling with the Oregon Court of Appeals. Aaron told Larson they intend to file a stay with a decision to be made in the next 30 days. Speaking to IJReview in an article published Wednesday, Aaron made an appeal to anyone who has Christian values. “It’s time for Christians in this country to stand up for their religious rights, which are being trampled on by the government,” he said. “They should be very disturbed by this ruling.” Bakers Who Refused Lesbian Wedding Just Sent Out This Challenge To Christians In America Blogging Citizen Journalism

 

[JoeB131]

Well, one thing's for darn sure. All this removal of beloved local icons representing faith or Christianity or any oldschool value system at all is sure going to get a lot of votes in 2016 for the GOP. It's that old visercal-reaction. Idiot dems are cutting their own throats again.

Guy, the homophobes didn't vote for Obama in 2012. You guys have just as many votes in 2016 as you have in 2012. Probably less.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I hope they got paid for the interview. Their bigotry cost them quite the hefty fee after all.

Try being consistent with that position.....say for when the Muslim cab driver or check out clerk refuses to serve a Christian or Jew because they are carrying alcohol or pork

 

[TheOldSchool]

I hope they got paid for the interview. Their bigotry cost them quite the hefty fee after all.

Try being consistent with that position.....say for when the Muslim cab driver or check out clerk refuses to serve a Christian or Jew because they are carrying alcohol or pork

When has that happened?

 

[LeftofLeft]

I hope they got paid for the interview. Their bigotry cost them quite the hefty fee after all.

Try being consistent with that position.....say for when the Muslim cab driver or check out clerk refuses to serve a Christian or Jew because they are carrying alcohol or pork

When has that happened?

Minneapolis airport cab driver and Target checkout clerk.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I hope they got paid for the interview. Their bigotry cost them quite the hefty fee after all.

Try being consistent with that position.....say for when the Muslim cab driver or check out clerk refuses to serve a Christian or Jew because they are carrying alcohol or pork

When has that happened?

Minneapolis airport cab driver and Target checkout clerk.

The Target clerks would find someone to do it. They did not send a customer away from the business. And Target moved them away from the registers anyways because it doesn't matter.

As for the cab drivers, whatever company they work for needs to do something about them. Not sure it's worth a lawsuit though, as people of all kinds drink alcohol. So they're discriminating against people who drink alcohol? I'm not sure that's a thing. If I were their boss I'd tell them to do it or take a hike. Same if I were the owner of Target.

 

[Silhouette]

Also there is the question of the depth of a sin. For instance, for a jew to serve pork is a venial sin. It doesn't send them to hell for eternity. For a Christian to promote the homosexual culture to take over the normal one (marriage as the hub of any culture) is a mortal sin that comes with a promise of soul-death. So the motivation for a Christian to deny doing that comes with much higher stakes.