Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[PaintMyHouse]

No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still wrong!

ROFL! Only a libturd could claim that reality is "wrong."

Actually, reality in thirty seven states says it's wrong. And soon, the law of the land for the entire nation will say it's wrong too.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still wrong!

ROFL! Only a libturd could claim that reality is "wrong."

Actually, reality in thirty seven states says it's wrong. And soon, the law of the land for the entire nation will say it's wrong too.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Give it a rest, you lost, and actually, that's just fucking in most cases.

 

[danielpalos]

No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still wrong!

ROFL! Only a libturd could claim that reality is "wrong."

Actually, reality in thirty seven states says it's wrong. And soon, the law of the land for the entire nation will say it's wrong too.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still wrong!

ROFL! Only a libturd could claim that reality is "wrong."

Actually, reality in thirty seven states says it's wrong. And soon, the law of the land for the entire nation will say it's wrong too.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

A marriage Contract applies to Persons exercising their natural rights.

 

[Moonglow]

ROFL! Only a libturd could claim that reality is "wrong."

Actually, reality in thirty seven states says it's wrong. And soon, the law of the land for the entire nation will say it's wrong too.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

ROFL! Only a libturd could claim that reality is "wrong."

Actually, reality in thirty seven states says it's wrong. And soon, the law of the land for the entire nation will say it's wrong too.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

A marriage Contract applies to Persons exercising their natural rights.

What was it called before marriage?

 

[danielpalos]

It may depend on ideology.

 

[Plasmaball]

They had the freedom to pick their damn job, so, do it.

Who put you or the queers in charge of deciding what their job is?

They picked thier job, dumbass.

Again, you don't get to decide what the responsibilities of their jobs are, dumbass.

Yes, we do. Capitalism is regulated. Time to grow up now pee boy.

Yes, we have become a fascist country due to the likes of you.

then leave. Seriously leave and shut the fuck up already. Put up or shut up.

 

[Plasmaball]

hey a cut and paste.

 

[danielpalos]

Why nothing but ideology for your Cause, Person on the Right?

Everyone knows that only infidels, protestants, and renegades, have a problem with the concept of natural rights and Individual Liberty.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Actually, reality in thirty seven states says it's wrong. And soon, the law of the land for the entire nation will say it's wrong too.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Actually, reality in thirty seven states says it's wrong. And soon, the law of the land for the entire nation will say it's wrong too.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

A marriage Contract applies to Persons exercising their natural rights.

What was it called before marriage?

"IT" You're asking what was The Joining of ONE Man and ONE Woman called before it was called MARRIAGE?

Depends upon the language I guess, but whatever the word was, "IT" described MARRIAGE.

 

[Moonglow]

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

A marriage Contract applies to Persons exercising their natural rights.

What was it called before marriage?

"IT" You're asking what was The Joining of ONE Man and ONE Woman called before it was called MARRIAGE?

Depends upon the language I guess, but whatever the word was, "IT" described MARRIAGE.

Eh, bend 'em over and have a nap...marriage is only around for the legal benefit of women, whom men have screwed over for centuries, yet they still put up with you brutes...I'm so old even the gheys won't touch me......ahhhhhhh.....Now suck it up Buttercup and clinch those cheeks, time to get married and get yer ball-n-chain....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

A marriage Contract applies to Persons exercising their natural rights.

What was it called before marriage?

"IT" You're asking what was The Joining of ONE Man and ONE Woman called before it was called MARRIAGE?

Depends upon the language I guess, but whatever the word was, "IT" described MARRIAGE.

Adam and Eve weren't married, dumbass. Just fucking in the Garden like the rest of God's creations.

 

[Moonglow]

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

A marriage Contract applies to Persons exercising their natural rights.

What was it called before marriage?

"IT" You're asking what was The Joining of ONE Man and ONE Woman called before it was called MARRIAGE?

Depends upon the language I guess, but whatever the word was, "IT" described MARRIAGE.

Adam and Eve weren't married, dumbass. Just fucking in the Garden like the rest of God's creations.

Lilian would occasionally show up for a three way...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a civil contract.

Churches may sanctify marriages, but the state licenses the marriage. So, in the eyes of thirty seven states, marriage is the Union of two consenting adults where no previous next of kin relationships exists.

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

What was it called before marriage?

"IT" You're asking what was The Joining of ONE Man and ONE Woman called before it was called MARRIAGE?

Depends upon the language I guess, but whatever the word was, "IT" described MARRIAGE.

Eh, bend 'em over and have a nap...marriage is only around for the legal benefit of women, whom men have screwed over for centuries...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted....

Here's how that concession went down folks:

What was it called before marriage?

"IT" You're asking what was The Joining of ONE Man and ONE Woman called before it was called MARRIAGE?

Depends upon the language I guess, but whatever the word was, "IT" described MARRIAGE.

Eh, bend 'em over and have a nap...marriage is only around for the legal benefit of women, whom men have screwed over for centuries,

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The article in the link in the OP was written by gays. No Christian must ever participate in a gay wedding. It isn't enough to advertise that you specialize in normal weddings but then serve gays when they demand it "to protect yourself legally" (read the whole article). The punishment from Jude 1 doesn't have gray areas. You either refuse to enable a cultural homosexual takeover (using the core of all culture-marriage) or you spend eternity in the Pit of Fire.

I disagree. True Christians adhere to the teachings of Christ. Wedding vendors do not participate in wedding ceremonies. Baking, photographing, catering are not sacramental rites or rituals. They are the services such vendors are in business for.

Perhaps, if a vendor fears for the status of their immortal soul by baking wedding cakes, they should morally vet each and every customer to assure no sinners ask for their services. Should 'Christian' vendors provide a wedding cake for a adulterer? What if a customer failed to remember the sabbath and keep it holy? Maybe there is a customer who regularly takes the Lord's name in vain. These are sins enumerated in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality.

Face it. Wedding vendors who refuse to provide the exact same service to homosexual couples as they provide for heterosexual couples are afraid of marriage equality. Why? Ignorance, suspicion, reliance on wicked stereotypes, open bigotry. Is that the way Christ commanded us to treat one another?

Face, it... A vendor: who is providing a service TO a wedding, is by any reasonable definition participating IN the wedding.

Just as a W h o r e house Piano Player, is participating IN the debauched services of the aforementioned house; “When you raid a whorehouse, take the piano player, too, because no one is entirely innocent”.

The Reader should understand that the reasoning being advanced by the above noted would-be 'contributor', is a presentation of the same mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy... wherein the disorder precludes the individual from being able to discern truth from that which is not true.

It is a form of madness, which is apparently contagious and more than likely it is the reason that for the whole of human existence, that homosexuals have been banned from open participation in the culture.

Think of it this way:

We're chronically being advised that Homosexuals have been present in humanity since the very beginning.

This would be since before Religion, before law and before all facets of civilization.

Now... if Homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder; meaning that homosexuals are 'just like everyone else, who just happen desire sexual gratification with those of their own gender, then HOW DID THE HOMOSEXUALS COME TO BE CLOSETED?

Doesn't it serve reason, that if the community was not threatened by homosexual behavior, that homosexuals would be universally accepted? That as Religion came to pass, homosexuality would be noted as something akin to a third form of gender, and noted merely for its 'special' attributes?

Yet... it was not accepted, and at EVERY POINT in human history where homosexuality has become openly expressed, the society which so accepted the behavior COLLAPSED?

Where are the societies which have been prosperously sustained for thousands of years with homosexuality being an open element of such?

They do not exist? There's a reason for that... . And I submit that the reason is that such is a mental disorder and it is destructive to the viability of the community.

 

[Moonglow]

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

A marriage Contract applies to Persons exercising their natural rights.

What was it called before marriage?

"IT" You're asking what was The Joining of ONE Man and ONE Woman called before it was called MARRIAGE?

Depends upon the language I guess, but whatever the word was, "IT" described MARRIAGE.

Eh, bend 'em over and have a nap...marriage is only around for the legal benefit of women, whom men have screwed over for centuries, yet they still put up with you brutes...I'm so old even the gheys won't touch me......ahhhhhhh.....Now suck it up Buttercup and clinch those cheeks, time to get married and get yer ball-n-chain....

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted....

The only reason for marriage, was for the financial benefit of females, it was considered a contract, you could be sued for not marrying also...called breach of contract...

 

[Moonglow]

The article in the link in the OP was written by gays. No Christian must ever participate in a gay wedding. It isn't enough to advertise that you specialize in normal weddings but then serve gays when they demand it "to protect yourself legally" (read the whole article). The punishment from Jude 1 doesn't have gray areas. You either refuse to enable a cultural homosexual takeover (using the core of all culture-marriage) or you spend eternity in the Pit of Fire.

I disagree. True Christians adhere to the teachings of Christ. Wedding vendors do not participate in wedding ceremonies. Baking, photographing, catering are not sacramental rites or rituals. They are the services such vendors are in business for.

Perhaps, if a vendor fears for the status of their immortal soul by baking wedding cakes, they should morally vet each and every customer to assure no sinners ask for their services. Should 'Christian' vendors provide a wedding cake for a adulterer? What if a customer failed to remember the sabbath and keep it holy? Maybe there is a customer who regularly takes the Lord's name in vain. These are sins enumerated in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality.

Face it. Wedding vendors who refuse to provide the exact same service to homosexual couples as they provide for heterosexual couples are afraid of marriage equality. Why? Ignorance, suspicion, reliance on wicked stereotypes, open bigotry. Is that the way Christ commanded us to treat one another?

Face, it... A vendor: who is providing a service TO a wedding, is by any reasonable definition participating IN the wedding.

Just as a W h o r e house Piano Player, is participating IN the debauched services of the aforementioned house; “When you raid a whorehouse, take the piano player, too, because no one is entirely innocent”.

The Reader should understand that the reasoning being advanced by the above noted would-be 'contributor', is a presentation of the same mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy... wherein the disorder precludes the individual from being able to discern truth from that which is not true.

It is a form of madness, which is apparently contagious and more than likely it is the reason that for the whole of human existence, that homosexuals have been banned from open participation in the culture.

Think of it this way:

We're chronically being advised that Homosexuals have been present in humanity since the very beginning.

This would be since before Religion, before law and before all facets of civilization.

Now... if Homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder; meaning that homosexuals are 'just like everyone else, who just happen desire sexual gratification with those of their own gender, then HOW DID THE HOMOSEXUALS COME TO BE CLOSETED?

Doesn't it serve reason, that if the community was not threatened by homosexual behavior, that homosexuals would be universally accepted? That as Religion came to pass, homosexuality would be noted as something akin to a third form of gender, and noted merely for its 'special' attributes?

Yet... it was not accepted, and at EVERY POINT in human history where homosexuality has become openly expressed, the society which so accepted the behavior COLLAPSED?

Where are the societies which have been prosperously sustained for thousands of years with homosexuality being an open element of such?

They do not exist? There's a reason for that... . And I submit that the reason is that such is a mental disorder and it is destructive to the viability of the community.

And the viability of those civilized will want to kill to have their way...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A marriage Contract applies to Persons exercising their natural rights.

What was it called before marriage?

"IT" You're asking what was The Joining of ONE Man and ONE Woman called before it was called MARRIAGE?

Depends upon the language I guess, but whatever the word was, "IT" described MARRIAGE.

Eh, bend 'em over and have a nap...marriage is only around for the legal benefit of women, whom men have screwed over for centuries, yet they still put up with you brutes...I'm so old even the gheys won't touch me......ahhhhhhh.....Now suck it up Buttercup and clinch those cheeks, time to get married and get yer ball-n-chain....

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted....

The only reason for marriage, was for the financial benefit of females, it was considered a contract, you could be sued for not marrying also...called breach of contract...

ROFLMNAO!

How cool is it that it's now refuted itself three times and still has absolutely NO CLUE that it is done so?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

“In other words, bend over and take it up the ass. That's the kind of freedom loving attitude we've come to expect from the likes of you.”

No.

Conduct yourself like a professional business owner and serve your patrons accordingly, by following necessary and proper regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

This is a non-issue, a ridiculous 'controversy' the consequence of the social right and their ignorance of, or contempt for, the Constitution and its case law.

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still wrong!

ROFL! Only a libturd could claim that reality is "wrong."

Actually, reality in thirty seven states says it's wrong. And soon, the law of the land for the entire nation will say it's wrong too.

A law saying "pi = 3.5" doesn't make it true.

That's correct, but if that's the law either follow it or don't bitch when you get nailed Bripiss.

So what do you do when the engine you designed based pi = 3.5 doesn't work? How do you follow a law that says pi = 3.5?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

BRIPAT9643 SAID:

“In other words, bend over and take it up the ass. That's the kind of freedom loving attitude we've come to expect from the likes of you.”

No.

Conduct yourself like a professional business owner and serve your patrons accordingly, by following necessary and proper regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

This is a non-issue, a ridiculous 'controversy' the consequence of the social right and their ignorance of, or contempt for, the Constitution and its case law.

There's nothing in the code of professional ethics, which requires a business to support ideas which are not only counter to the owners principles, but HOSTILE TO THEM.

To the contrary, principled business ethics require that ownership NOT sustain policy, employees, or serve clientele which run counter to the soundly reasoned, principled understanding held by ownership.

The same holds true for sound individuals and sound governance... as such is the foundation of a concept with which, as a Relativist you will have no understanding, but which remains essential to viability nonetheless and that is: integrity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A wedding cake. Something so simple, something part and parcel of a bakerie's menu. Something provided without a political thought to every heterosexual couple. But, given the advent of marriage equality,...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still wrong!

ROFL! Only a libturd could claim that reality is "wrong."

Like Earth is warming?