Religious Freedom One Step Closer To SCOTUS

Science is always wrong. It only knows something until it learns something else.
That is one of the stupidest comments I have ever seen here or anywhere else for that matter.View attachment 223385
Tell us about black holes. They've been settled science that every cosmotologist has used for the past 40 years.

Gravitational pull so strong that not even light can escape.

Or can it?

lol tool.
All Is Lava

It's an eruption back into the universe this universe came from. The Big Bang was a reverse Black Hole.
Can no light escape from black holes, as a scientific certainty claimed for 40 years?
The Terms Quantum Quacks Assert Beg the Question

"Escape" implies that it is driven to come out, when it is actually driven into going in the opposite direction. The Big Squeeze is an impossible concentration of particles, so the Postclassical mythological fallacy starts from there.
Your argument is with a dead scientist who was man enough to admit to the biggest blunder of his scientific career. :)
 
Dude, you don't understand what he's saying. I linked to a very simple explaination the first time you brought it up. I suggest you go read it. You are just making a fool of yourself.
I understand some light can escape gray holes after it couldn't for 40 years and Hawking admitted he was wrong, lady.

haha.
No, you don't. You didn't read it, you don't understand it, and you aren't willing to even try.

Also I'm not female.

You may be setting records for being wrong.
Speaking of being wrong, I'm not a dude.

And which part of "admittted he was wrong" don't you understand?

lol
My apologies for the "dude" thing.

Read your own link. No light is escaping the event horizon. The theory is the event horizon my be more of a grey area than a line.

Some energy (not light) can escape black holes. My link in my first post on the subject explains how. I'm not going to try to explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principal on this dinky phone keyboard though. The typos would be of epic proportions.
I see. Would "admitting to "the biggest blunder of his scientific career" be more pleasing to your ear?

He was dead wrong and was man enough to admit it. Are you?
Stephen Hawking admits the biggest blunder of his scientific career
Woody-Allen Nerds

If Hawking looked like Brad Pitt, no one would pay any attention to his weirdo sensationalism.
 
I understand some light can escape gray holes after it couldn't for 40 years and Hawking admitted he was wrong, lady.

haha.
No, you don't. You didn't read it, you don't understand it, and you aren't willing to even try.

Also I'm not female.

You may be setting records for being wrong.
Speaking of being wrong, I'm not a dude.

And which part of "admittted he was wrong" don't you understand?

lol
My apologies for the "dude" thing.

Read your own link. No light is escaping the event horizon. The theory is the event horizon my be more of a grey area than a line.

Some energy (not light) can escape black holes. My link in my first post on the subject explains how. I'm not going to try to explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principal on this dinky phone keyboard though. The typos would be of epic proportions.
I see. Would "admitting to "the biggest blunder of his scientific career" be more pleasing to your ear?

He was dead wrong and was man enough to admit it. Are you?
Stephen Hawking admits the biggest blunder of his scientific career
Woody-Allen Nerds

If Hawking looked like Brad Pitt, no one would pay any attention to his weirdo sensationalism.
And if my uncle had tits he'd be your uncle.

Look, it's not my argument to make. It's you vs. Hawking. There are plenty more links if you need them to learn how real men can admit to their mistakes. :)
 
Let's do this once and for all and end the nonsense.

“That’s a nice little Human Rights Act you got there. Be a shame if some high-level Court struck it down as unconstitutional…”

:rolleyes:

brett-kavanaugh--326x245.jpg


T
he State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

That’s why the Larsens have challenged this law in court. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to protect the Larsens’ freedom to create films consistently with their faith.

The wedding films that the Larsens want to create are a unique product – aimed at changing hearts and minds about marriage and helping people to understand the beauty of marriage as God designed it. And the Larsens would be personally involved in each step of the process.

Before the wedding, the Larsens plan to meet with and get to know the engaged couple. They will capture the story of the couple – learning as much as possible about their relationship, what marriage means to them, and their vision for the future.

On the wedding day, the Larsens plan to capture video footage of the wedding ceremony itself and put together a video on-site for the reception. Combining music, footage from the wedding itself, and audio of the couple talking about marriage, the Larsens will put together a unique video to show at the wedding reception. Through the video, the Larsens want to communicate the beauty of marriage to those who attend.

After the wedding, the Larsens plan to create a lengthier wedding film for the couple to emphasize the beauty of marriage. They also will publish the videos to a wider audience to proclaim God’s design for marriage.

But the Larsens have held off on entering the wedding industry for fear of violating the Minnesota law. They could face severe fines and even jail time if they offer these types of films consistent with their religious beliefs.

It’s clear that the videos they produce are speech. The question is: Does the government have the power to force individuals to tell stories that contradict their beliefs – pushing them out of the marketplace if they refuse?

It should concern us all if that answer is “yes.”

The State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

So, if I make a religion that hates black people, allows for ritual sacrifices of unwilling Democrats, then it's all going to be perfectly legal?
As I said...the Pandora's Box opening is gonna be awesome!
 
Let's do this once and for all and end the nonsense.

“That’s a nice little Human Rights Act you got there. Be a shame if some high-level Court struck it down as unconstitutional…”

:rolleyes:

brett-kavanaugh--326x245.jpg


T
he State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

That’s why the Larsens have challenged this law in court. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to protect the Larsens’ freedom to create films consistently with their faith.

The wedding films that the Larsens want to create are a unique product – aimed at changing hearts and minds about marriage and helping people to understand the beauty of marriage as God designed it. And the Larsens would be personally involved in each step of the process.

Before the wedding, the Larsens plan to meet with and get to know the engaged couple. They will capture the story of the couple – learning as much as possible about their relationship, what marriage means to them, and their vision for the future.

On the wedding day, the Larsens plan to capture video footage of the wedding ceremony itself and put together a video on-site for the reception. Combining music, footage from the wedding itself, and audio of the couple talking about marriage, the Larsens will put together a unique video to show at the wedding reception. Through the video, the Larsens want to communicate the beauty of marriage to those who attend.

After the wedding, the Larsens plan to create a lengthier wedding film for the couple to emphasize the beauty of marriage. They also will publish the videos to a wider audience to proclaim God’s design for marriage.

But the Larsens have held off on entering the wedding industry for fear of violating the Minnesota law. They could face severe fines and even jail time if they offer these types of films consistent with their religious beliefs.

It’s clear that the videos they produce are speech. The question is: Does the government have the power to force individuals to tell stories that contradict their beliefs – pushing them out of the marketplace if they refuse?

It should concern us all if that answer is “yes.”

The State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

So, if I make a religion that hates black people, allows for ritual sacrifices of unwilling Democrats, then it's all going to be perfectly legal?
As I said...the Pandora's Box opening is gonna be awesome!

Only religions authorized by the state will receive the special protections.
 
Let's do this once and for all and end the nonsense.

“That’s a nice little Human Rights Act you got there. Be a shame if some high-level Court struck it down as unconstitutional…”

:rolleyes:

brett-kavanaugh--326x245.jpg


T
he State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

That’s why the Larsens have challenged this law in court. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to protect the Larsens’ freedom to create films consistently with their faith.

The wedding films that the Larsens want to create are a unique product – aimed at changing hearts and minds about marriage and helping people to understand the beauty of marriage as God designed it. And the Larsens would be personally involved in each step of the process.

Before the wedding, the Larsens plan to meet with and get to know the engaged couple. They will capture the story of the couple – learning as much as possible about their relationship, what marriage means to them, and their vision for the future.

On the wedding day, the Larsens plan to capture video footage of the wedding ceremony itself and put together a video on-site for the reception. Combining music, footage from the wedding itself, and audio of the couple talking about marriage, the Larsens will put together a unique video to show at the wedding reception. Through the video, the Larsens want to communicate the beauty of marriage to those who attend.

After the wedding, the Larsens plan to create a lengthier wedding film for the couple to emphasize the beauty of marriage. They also will publish the videos to a wider audience to proclaim God’s design for marriage.

But the Larsens have held off on entering the wedding industry for fear of violating the Minnesota law. They could face severe fines and even jail time if they offer these types of films consistent with their religious beliefs.

It’s clear that the videos they produce are speech. The question is: Does the government have the power to force individuals to tell stories that contradict their beliefs – pushing them out of the marketplace if they refuse?

It should concern us all if that answer is “yes.”

The State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

So, if I make a religion that hates black people, allows for ritual sacrifices of unwilling Democrats, then it's all going to be perfectly legal?
As I said...the Pandora's Box opening is gonna be awesome!
It’s actually going to be VERY bad for the Democrats.

“Moderate Muslims” will show their true colors and Christians will be able to destroy the “radical Christian” narrative at the same time.
 
Dude, you don't understand what he's saying. I linked to a very simple explaination the first time you brought it up. I suggest you go read it. You are just making a fool of yourself.
I understand some light can escape gray holes after it couldn't for 40 years and Hawking admitted he was wrong, lady.

haha.
No, you don't. You didn't read it, you don't understand it, and you aren't willing to even try.

Also I'm not female.

You may be setting records for being wrong.
Speaking of being wrong, I'm not a dude.

And which part of "admittted he was wrong" don't you understand?

lol
My apologies for the "dude" thing.

Read your own link. No light is escaping the event horizon. The theory is the event horizon my be more of a grey area than a line.

Some energy (not light) can escape black holes. My link in my first post on the subject explains how. I'm not going to try to explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principal on this dinky phone keyboard though. The typos would be of epic proportions.
I see. Would "admitting to "the biggest blunder of his scientific career" be more pleasing to your ear?

He was dead wrong and was man enough to admit it. Are you?
Stephen Hawking admits the biggest blunder of his scientific career
Lol, he wasn't dead wrong.

I'm gonna stop right here, I don't think I will be able to get through to you.
 
I understand some light can escape gray holes after it couldn't for 40 years and Hawking admitted he was wrong, lady.

haha.
No, you don't. You didn't read it, you don't understand it, and you aren't willing to even try.

Also I'm not female.

You may be setting records for being wrong.
Speaking of being wrong, I'm not a dude.

And which part of "admittted he was wrong" don't you understand?

lol
My apologies for the "dude" thing.

Read your own link. No light is escaping the event horizon. The theory is the event horizon my be more of a grey area than a line.

Some energy (not light) can escape black holes. My link in my first post on the subject explains how. I'm not going to try to explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principal on this dinky phone keyboard though. The typos would be of epic proportions.
I see. Would "admitting to "the biggest blunder of his scientific career" be more pleasing to your ear?

He was dead wrong and was man enough to admit it. Are you?
Stephen Hawking admits the biggest blunder of his scientific career
Lol, he wasn't dead wrong.

I'm gonna stop right here, I don't think I will be able to get through to you.
You can even watch Hawking admit how wrong he was.

Not that it will get through to you. :)

 
No, you don't. You didn't read it, you don't understand it, and you aren't willing to even try.

Also I'm not female.

You may be setting records for being wrong.
Speaking of being wrong, I'm not a dude.

And which part of "admittted he was wrong" don't you understand?

lol
My apologies for the "dude" thing.

Read your own link. No light is escaping the event horizon. The theory is the event horizon my be more of a grey area than a line.

Some energy (not light) can escape black holes. My link in my first post on the subject explains how. I'm not going to try to explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principal on this dinky phone keyboard though. The typos would be of epic proportions.
I see. Would "admitting to "the biggest blunder of his scientific career" be more pleasing to your ear?

He was dead wrong and was man enough to admit it. Are you?
Stephen Hawking admits the biggest blunder of his scientific career
Lol, he wasn't dead wrong.

I'm gonna stop right here, I don't think I will be able to get through to you.
You can even watch Hawking admit how wrong he was.

Not that it will get through to you. :)


Have a nice day!
 
Speaking of being wrong, I'm not a dude.

And which part of "admittted he was wrong" don't you understand?

lol
My apologies for the "dude" thing.

Read your own link. No light is escaping the event horizon. The theory is the event horizon my be more of a grey area than a line.

Some energy (not light) can escape black holes. My link in my first post on the subject explains how. I'm not going to try to explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principal on this dinky phone keyboard though. The typos would be of epic proportions.
I see. Would "admitting to "the biggest blunder of his scientific career" be more pleasing to your ear?

He was dead wrong and was man enough to admit it. Are you?
Stephen Hawking admits the biggest blunder of his scientific career
Lol, he wasn't dead wrong.

I'm gonna stop right here, I don't think I will be able to get through to you.
You can even watch Hawking admit how wrong he was.

Not that it will get through to you. :)


Have a nice day!

They're all nice, thanks! :)
 
Let's do this once and for all and end the nonsense.

“That’s a nice little Human Rights Act you got there. Be a shame if some high-level Court struck it down as unconstitutional…”

:rolleyes:

brett-kavanaugh--326x245.jpg


T
he State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

That’s why the Larsens have challenged this law in court. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to protect the Larsens’ freedom to create films consistently with their faith.

The wedding films that the Larsens want to create are a unique product – aimed at changing hearts and minds about marriage and helping people to understand the beauty of marriage as God designed it. And the Larsens would be personally involved in each step of the process.

Before the wedding, the Larsens plan to meet with and get to know the engaged couple. They will capture the story of the couple – learning as much as possible about their relationship, what marriage means to them, and their vision for the future.

On the wedding day, the Larsens plan to capture video footage of the wedding ceremony itself and put together a video on-site for the reception. Combining music, footage from the wedding itself, and audio of the couple talking about marriage, the Larsens will put together a unique video to show at the wedding reception. Through the video, the Larsens want to communicate the beauty of marriage to those who attend.

After the wedding, the Larsens plan to create a lengthier wedding film for the couple to emphasize the beauty of marriage. They also will publish the videos to a wider audience to proclaim God’s design for marriage.

But the Larsens have held off on entering the wedding industry for fear of violating the Minnesota law. They could face severe fines and even jail time if they offer these types of films consistent with their religious beliefs.

It’s clear that the videos they produce are speech. The question is: Does the government have the power to force individuals to tell stories that contradict their beliefs – pushing them out of the marketplace if they refuse?

It should concern us all if that answer is “yes.”

The State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business
Don't start salivating yet. Roberts may well become the new swing vote because he will want to preserve the legitimacy of the court. If laws against discrimination get overturned, it will reflect badly on the legacy of the Roberts Court.
 
Let's do this once and for all and end the nonsense.

“That’s a nice little Human Rights Act you got there. Be a shame if some high-level Court struck it down as unconstitutional…”

:rolleyes:

brett-kavanaugh--326x245.jpg


T
he State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

That’s why the Larsens have challenged this law in court. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to protect the Larsens’ freedom to create films consistently with their faith.

The wedding films that the Larsens want to create are a unique product – aimed at changing hearts and minds about marriage and helping people to understand the beauty of marriage as God designed it. And the Larsens would be personally involved in each step of the process.

Before the wedding, the Larsens plan to meet with and get to know the engaged couple. They will capture the story of the couple – learning as much as possible about their relationship, what marriage means to them, and their vision for the future.

On the wedding day, the Larsens plan to capture video footage of the wedding ceremony itself and put together a video on-site for the reception. Combining music, footage from the wedding itself, and audio of the couple talking about marriage, the Larsens will put together a unique video to show at the wedding reception. Through the video, the Larsens want to communicate the beauty of marriage to those who attend.

After the wedding, the Larsens plan to create a lengthier wedding film for the couple to emphasize the beauty of marriage. They also will publish the videos to a wider audience to proclaim God’s design for marriage.

But the Larsens have held off on entering the wedding industry for fear of violating the Minnesota law. They could face severe fines and even jail time if they offer these types of films consistent with their religious beliefs.

It’s clear that the videos they produce are speech. The question is: Does the government have the power to force individuals to tell stories that contradict their beliefs – pushing them out of the marketplace if they refuse?

It should concern us all if that answer is “yes.”

The State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

So, if I make a religion that hates black people, allows for ritual sacrifices of unwilling Democrats, then it's all going to be perfectly legal?
As I said...the Pandora's Box opening is gonna be awesome!

Only religions authorized by the state will receive the special protections.
I can come up with anything and declare it is part of my religion...just like those bogus christian cake bakers did.
 
Let's do this once and for all and end the nonsense.

“That’s a nice little Human Rights Act you got there. Be a shame if some high-level Court struck it down as unconstitutional…”

:rolleyes:

brett-kavanaugh--326x245.jpg


T
he State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

That’s why the Larsens have challenged this law in court. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to protect the Larsens’ freedom to create films consistently with their faith.

The wedding films that the Larsens want to create are a unique product – aimed at changing hearts and minds about marriage and helping people to understand the beauty of marriage as God designed it. And the Larsens would be personally involved in each step of the process.

Before the wedding, the Larsens plan to meet with and get to know the engaged couple. They will capture the story of the couple – learning as much as possible about their relationship, what marriage means to them, and their vision for the future.

On the wedding day, the Larsens plan to capture video footage of the wedding ceremony itself and put together a video on-site for the reception. Combining music, footage from the wedding itself, and audio of the couple talking about marriage, the Larsens will put together a unique video to show at the wedding reception. Through the video, the Larsens want to communicate the beauty of marriage to those who attend.

After the wedding, the Larsens plan to create a lengthier wedding film for the couple to emphasize the beauty of marriage. They also will publish the videos to a wider audience to proclaim God’s design for marriage.

But the Larsens have held off on entering the wedding industry for fear of violating the Minnesota law. They could face severe fines and even jail time if they offer these types of films consistent with their religious beliefs.

It’s clear that the videos they produce are speech. The question is: Does the government have the power to force individuals to tell stories that contradict their beliefs – pushing them out of the marketplace if they refuse?

It should concern us all if that answer is “yes.”

The State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business


So, these proclaimed 'film maker' folks from St. Cloud hate gays & they hate the State of Minnesota for being a state where the gay community has a few protections that the gay community does NOT have in a majority of other US states.

Well, they will lose their court battle, if they choose to pursue it.
 
Let's do this once and for all and end the nonsense.

“That’s a nice little Human Rights Act you got there. Be a shame if some high-level Court struck it down as unconstitutional…”

:rolleyes:

brett-kavanaugh--326x245.jpg


T
he State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

That’s why the Larsens have challenged this law in court. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to protect the Larsens’ freedom to create films consistently with their faith.

The wedding films that the Larsens want to create are a unique product – aimed at changing hearts and minds about marriage and helping people to understand the beauty of marriage as God designed it. And the Larsens would be personally involved in each step of the process.

Before the wedding, the Larsens plan to meet with and get to know the engaged couple. They will capture the story of the couple – learning as much as possible about their relationship, what marriage means to them, and their vision for the future.

On the wedding day, the Larsens plan to capture video footage of the wedding ceremony itself and put together a video on-site for the reception. Combining music, footage from the wedding itself, and audio of the couple talking about marriage, the Larsens will put together a unique video to show at the wedding reception. Through the video, the Larsens want to communicate the beauty of marriage to those who attend.

After the wedding, the Larsens plan to create a lengthier wedding film for the couple to emphasize the beauty of marriage. They also will publish the videos to a wider audience to proclaim God’s design for marriage.

But the Larsens have held off on entering the wedding industry for fear of violating the Minnesota law. They could face severe fines and even jail time if they offer these types of films consistent with their religious beliefs.

It’s clear that the videos they produce are speech. The question is: Does the government have the power to force individuals to tell stories that contradict their beliefs – pushing them out of the marketplace if they refuse?

It should concern us all if that answer is “yes.”

The State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

So, if I make a religion that hates black people, allows for ritual sacrifices of unwilling Democrats, then it's all going to be perfectly legal?
As I said...the Pandora's Box opening is gonna be awesome!

Only religions authorized by the state will receive the special protections.
I can come up with anything and declare it is part of my religion...just like those bogus christian cake bakers did.
We real Israeli Jews won't bake homo cakes, either.
 
Let's do this once and for all and end the nonsense.

“That’s a nice little Human Rights Act you got there. Be a shame if some high-level Court struck it down as unconstitutional…”

:rolleyes:

brett-kavanaugh--326x245.jpg


T
he State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

That’s why the Larsens have challenged this law in court. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to protect the Larsens’ freedom to create films consistently with their faith.

The wedding films that the Larsens want to create are a unique product – aimed at changing hearts and minds about marriage and helping people to understand the beauty of marriage as God designed it. And the Larsens would be personally involved in each step of the process.

Before the wedding, the Larsens plan to meet with and get to know the engaged couple. They will capture the story of the couple – learning as much as possible about their relationship, what marriage means to them, and their vision for the future.

On the wedding day, the Larsens plan to capture video footage of the wedding ceremony itself and put together a video on-site for the reception. Combining music, footage from the wedding itself, and audio of the couple talking about marriage, the Larsens will put together a unique video to show at the wedding reception. Through the video, the Larsens want to communicate the beauty of marriage to those who attend.

After the wedding, the Larsens plan to create a lengthier wedding film for the couple to emphasize the beauty of marriage. They also will publish the videos to a wider audience to proclaim God’s design for marriage.

But the Larsens have held off on entering the wedding industry for fear of violating the Minnesota law. They could face severe fines and even jail time if they offer these types of films consistent with their religious beliefs.

It’s clear that the videos they produce are speech. The question is: Does the government have the power to force individuals to tell stories that contradict their beliefs – pushing them out of the marketplace if they refuse?

It should concern us all if that answer is “yes.”

The State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

So, if I make a religion that hates black people, allows for ritual sacrifices of unwilling Democrats, then it's all going to be perfectly legal?
As I said...the Pandora's Box opening is gonna be awesome!

Only religions authorized by the state will receive the special protections.
I can come up with anything and declare it is part of my religion...just like those bogus christian cake bakers did.

Not quite. Your religion has to be recognized by the state before they'll grant that exemption. That's a real problem with the way we've twisted freedom of religion. If we interpret the First Amendment as granting special freedom in the name of religion, then the state has to decide which religions are legitimate and which aren't. Which is exactly what the First was supposed to prevent.
 
That is one of the stupidest comments I have ever seen here or anywhere else for that matter.View attachment 223385
Tell us about black holes. They've been settled science that every cosmotologist has used for the past 40 years.

Gravitational pull so strong that not even light can escape.

Or can it?

lol tool.
All Is Lava

It's an eruption back into the universe this universe came from. The Big Bang was a reverse Black Hole.
Can no light escape from black holes, as a scientific certainty claimed for 40 years?
The Terms Quantum Quacks Assert Beg the Question

"Escape" implies that it is driven to come out, when it is actually driven into going in the opposite direction. The Big Squeeze is an impossible concentration of particles, so the Postclassical mythological fallacy starts from there.
Your argument is with a dead scientist who was man enough to admit to the biggest blunder of his scientific career. :)
All Fiction, No Science

No, it's not. It's with Georges Lemaitre, who in 1927 proposed the impossible singularity that led to the Big Bang fantasy.
 
Let's do this once and for all and end the nonsense.

“That’s a nice little Human Rights Act you got there. Be a shame if some high-level Court struck it down as unconstitutional…”

:rolleyes:

brett-kavanaugh--326x245.jpg


T
he State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business

That’s why the Larsens have challenged this law in court. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to protect the Larsens’ freedom to create films consistently with their faith.

The wedding films that the Larsens want to create are a unique product – aimed at changing hearts and minds about marriage and helping people to understand the beauty of marriage as God designed it. And the Larsens would be personally involved in each step of the process.

Before the wedding, the Larsens plan to meet with and get to know the engaged couple. They will capture the story of the couple – learning as much as possible about their relationship, what marriage means to them, and their vision for the future.

On the wedding day, the Larsens plan to capture video footage of the wedding ceremony itself and put together a video on-site for the reception. Combining music, footage from the wedding itself, and audio of the couple talking about marriage, the Larsens will put together a unique video to show at the wedding reception. Through the video, the Larsens want to communicate the beauty of marriage to those who attend.

After the wedding, the Larsens plan to create a lengthier wedding film for the couple to emphasize the beauty of marriage. They also will publish the videos to a wider audience to proclaim God’s design for marriage.

But the Larsens have held off on entering the wedding industry for fear of violating the Minnesota law. They could face severe fines and even jail time if they offer these types of films consistent with their religious beliefs.

It’s clear that the videos they produce are speech. The question is: Does the government have the power to force individuals to tell stories that contradict their beliefs – pushing them out of the marketplace if they refuse?

It should concern us all if that answer is “yes.”

The State Is Keeping These Filmmakers from Expanding Their Business
Look at you promoting Sharia law. Who woulda thunk it?
 
No, you don't. You didn't read it, you don't understand it, and you aren't willing to even try.

Also I'm not female.

You may be setting records for being wrong.
Speaking of being wrong, I'm not a dude.

And which part of "admittted he was wrong" don't you understand?

lol
My apologies for the "dude" thing.

Read your own link. No light is escaping the event horizon. The theory is the event horizon my be more of a grey area than a line.

Some energy (not light) can escape black holes. My link in my first post on the subject explains how. I'm not going to try to explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principal on this dinky phone keyboard though. The typos would be of epic proportions.
I see. Would "admitting to "the biggest blunder of his scientific career" be more pleasing to your ear?

He was dead wrong and was man enough to admit it. Are you?
Stephen Hawking admits the biggest blunder of his scientific career
Woody-Allen Nerds

If Hawking looked like Brad Pitt, no one would pay any attention to his weirdo sensationalism.
And if my uncle had tits he'd be your uncle.

Look, it's not my argument to make. It's you vs. Hawking. There are plenty more links if you need them to learn how real men can admit to their mistakes. :)
Authoritarian Irrationalism

You constantly miss the point as you frantically defend Deep Science's freakish heroes.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top