Pro-Christian Legislation vs. Anti-Christian Legislation

[Evangelical]

no, you're doing enough for all of us. they're charging them $175/yr for a space that they rent out for public events. they probably should have been taxed for the space all along. get back to me when something actually justifies your bullshit.

Sorry but you cannot justify a breech of the Constitution or its principles based on the amount of the infraction.

i must have missed the exact amendment that justifies discriminatory boardwalk rentals. could you be an angel and post a link?

A church can deny the use of its facilities for any purpose it deems immoral, such as gay marriages.

Don't try to argue your way out of this one idiot...you're on the losing end.

 

[del]

Sorry but you cannot justify a breech of the Constitution or its principles based on the amount of the infraction.

i must have missed the exact amendment that justifies discriminatory boardwalk rentals. could you be an angel and post a link?

A church can deny the use of its facilities for any purpose it deems immoral, such as gay marriages.

Don't try to argue your way out of this one idiot...you're on the losing end.

a church can, a summer camp can't. the facility is a camp, not a sanctuary.

keep swinging.

 

[Evangelical]

i must have missed the exact amendment that justifies discriminatory boardwalk rentals. could you be an angel and post a link?

A church can deny the use of its facilities for any purpose it deems immoral, such as gay marriages.

Don't try to argue your way out of this one idiot...you're on the losing end.

a church can, a summer camp can't. the facility is a camp, not a sanctuary.

keep swinging.

It's a church facility, so you're wrong.

 

[del]

A church can deny the use of its facilities for any purpose it deems immoral, such as gay marriages.

Don't try to argue your way out of this one idiot...you're on the losing end.

a church can, a summer camp can't. the facility is a camp, not a sanctuary.

keep swinging.

It's a church facility, so you're wrong.

they've accepted public funds for its upkeep, and applied for more.


try again.

 

[AllieBaba]

If the public donates to a known CHristian organization then they have the right..or should have the right....to administer their program according to their Christian beliefs.

 

[Evangelical]

a church can, a summer camp can't. the facility is a camp, not a sanctuary.

keep swinging.

It's a church facility, so you're wrong.

they've accepted public funds for its upkeep, and applied for more.


try again.

That doesn't matter, by precedent, a church can accept any amount of public funds the legislature is willing to give, and still pay no taxes.

 

[AllieBaba]

Foster Care Ministries Forced to Accept Homosexual Foster Parents
(This is in Australia)

"The Uniting Church in Australia has been told by the New South Wales (NSW) Administrative Decisions Tribunal that its foster care agencies, including Wesley Dalmar Child and Family Care, against whom the original case was brought, cannot refuse to accept homosexuals as foster carers.

Wesley Dalmar (part of Wesley Mission) has been ordered to pay $5,000 to each of the two homosexuals who brought the case against them for not accepting them as foster carers."
OpenHeaven.com - Foster Care Ministries Forced to Accepted Homosexual Foster Parents

"Under an agreement with New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights, eHarmony will create a same-sex dating Web site — "Compatible Partners" — and pay $50,000 in administrative costs.

Eric McKinley, who filed a "discrimination" complaint against eHarmony three years ago, gets $5,000 under the settlement.

The new site and eHarmony will maintain individual matching pools and registration information. As a result, users of the two sites cannot be paired.

So-called "nondiscrimination" laws — like the one in play in New Jersey — could force more businesses like eHarmony to cave to the gay agenda."
CitizenLink: eHarmony Forced to Match Homosexual Couples

eharmony ain't a church, and australia is a sovereign nation that is not the u.s.

good effort, though.
for you

True, but I didn't really need to make a point that had already been made quite effectively. So I imagine by the time you read mine you'd already eaten that shit.

Have some salsa, it might help.

 

[RahnRehfeldt]

I just read Erwin Lutzer's book on anti-christian legislation. It is pervasively paranoid and fallacious fear mongering. Thank you for your piece. Rahn Rehfeldt, Chicago

 

[OODA_Loop]

Bible based law over Sharia any day.

 

[RahnRehfeldt]

Foster care services should be prevented from discriminating against persons seeking to be foster parents. The policy should be established by sound social and psychological principles, not by businesses with prejudicial agendas. The criteria should connect to the foster parents being loving, caring, providing, fostering. Policies should not be sectarian. Rahn Rehfeldt, Chicago

 

[OODA_Loop]

Wiping your ass with your hand is not a sound social or psychological principal.

Least round here.

 

[RahnRehfeldt]

The whole gay marriage thing has me stymied.

Honestly, I don't think the state should have anything to do with who does and who doesn't get married. But the state is involved, for record (and taxation) purposes.

On the other hand, I really resent the redefinition of the core of our civilization..the traditional family. I honestly don't care if gays get the same tax breaks as traditional couples, I don't care if they get married. But I think they should call it by a different name. And I DON'T want it presented to my children as an acceptable lifestyle.....if that means we don't get to discuss traditional marriage in school either, I think I'm okay with that. Does it get discussed anymore, anyway???

I have only one problem with the "call it something else" idea, which is why I always propose they separate the religious aspect from the legal aspect completely, because in the laws it makes it unequal, and one thing I want (though it may not seem like it) is complete equality for all who obey the law. So if the law said everyone was in a civil union, then let the churches or what-not call it marriage if they want (or hand-fasting, or whatever) as long as the laws themselves call it all the same name, it's all good.

The definition of words, ideas, concepts does not belong to partisan groups exclusively. The definition of "marriage" and its cognates belong to people to use as they will and to get accepted even when some people object. Too bad (for you)! That's the way language works...generally. Rahn Rehfeldt, Chicago

 

[RahnRehfeldt]

How many different times and ways can you argue the gay marriage subject? Why not just post a link to all of the other threads you have on the exact same subject, just under a different label? People should quit giving any attention to your Christian bashing threads, all they are is a ruse to argue gay marriage. Just make a 'Gay Marriage' thread and put it all in there already.

Indeed! "Christians" of various ilk have their priorities, but none of them related to Jesus' judgment articulated in Matthew 25.31-46. Jesus' criteria are plain and clear, and most "Christians" have not a clue, meanwhile making their priorities gay bashing and keeping aborted foetuses from going to heaven. Rahn Rehfeldt, Chicago