AZ court orders wedding invitation designers to serve LGBTP crowd

[WinterBorn]

So yuou consider murder of a LEO to be less of a crime than being gay? LMAO!! You are a sick puppy. I doubt you are anything more than an internet badass, but you are still sick.

You cannot murder an immoral individual, since theyre not human. Any LEO enforcing immoral laws has no more Morality than the homosexual. There's no difference between them.

If America is ever to become the Last Bastion of Human Decency, as it was intended to be, we will need to begin putting Morality ahead of everything else.

The Unites States of America was never intended to be the "Last Bastion of Human Decency" (whatever the hell THAT means). It was meant to be the last bastion of a free society. But you want to decide what is decent and what is not. You say you are not religious, and yet you hate gays like a good southern baptist. Here is the thing, you don't get to decide for everyone else. Period. I know many gay men & women who are more than decent, they are good people. They are faithful and loving to their spouse or partner, respectful of others, volunteer in the community and are generally upstanding members of society. But you claim they are not even human because of who they love. That is far more immoral than someone being in love with someone of the same gender.

 

[Anathema]

The Unites States of America was never intended to be the "Last Bastion of Human Decency" (whatever the hell THAT means). It was meant to be the last bastion of a free society.

My family was here wgen this nation was founded. Not everyone was interested in founding a Free Society. Many, including my family, preferred different type of Society. A caste system based on Merit and Morality. That' why some of them went @South in 1861 to fight for the proper side of the Civil War.

...You want to decide what is decent and what is not. You say you are not religious, and yet you hate gays like a good southern baptist. Here is the thing, you don't get to decide for everyone else.

The decisions are not mine. They are Universal concepts realized and documented in the original human societies thousands of years ago. They are not based on religious folly, but in whst us best and proper to preserve human society.

I know many gay men & women who are more than decent, they are good people. They are faithful and loving to their spouse or partner, respectful of others, volunteer in the community and are generally upstanding members of society. But you claim they are not even human because of who they love. That is far more immoral than someone being in love with someone of the same gender.

Love doesn't exist. It never has. Its a means to ignore what should be done in favor of what people want to do. That's not Morality. It's selfishness.

 

[Silhouette]

I think the only question that matters here is whether or not gays must suspend their own belief system and values and be forced to accommodate Christians likewise. Must a gay graphic designer in AZ print a billboard for a Christian customer that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

It's the same thing. It's repugnant to the gay's value system to do so, yet if a Christian finds gay marriage repugnant (and forbidden by God via Jude 1 of the New Testament under threat of eternal damnation), he is forced to suspend his values to accommodate the gay? Both must be forced to suspend their values or neither of them must. That is the only legal way. If not, then the government has created law that recognizes one set of values over another; which is forbidden. That is a form of establishing a state-promoted religion. Es ist verboten.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Unites States of America was never intended to be the "Last Bastion of Human Decency" (whatever the hell THAT means). It was meant to be the last bastion of a free society.

My family was here wgen this nation was founded. Not everyone was interested in founding a Free Society. Many, including my family, preferred different type of Society. A caste system based on Merit and Morality. That' why some of them went @South in 1861 to fight for the proper side of the Civil War.

...You want to decide what is decent and what is not. You say you are not religious, and yet you hate gays like a good southern baptist. Here is the thing, you don't get to decide for everyone else.

The decisions are not mine. They are Universal concepts realized and documented in the original human societies thousands of years ago. They are not based on religious folly, but in whst us best and proper to preserve human society.

I know many gay men & women who are more than decent, they are good people. They are faithful and loving to their spouse or partner, respectful of others, volunteer in the community and are generally upstanding members of society. But you claim they are not even human because of who they love. That is far more immoral than someone being in love with someone of the same gender.

Love doesn't exist. It never has. Its a means to ignore what should be done in favor of what people want to do. That's not Morality. It's selfishness.

If your family wanted something different than a free society, you lost. Tough shit. And what you call the "proper side" of the Civil War was the side fighting so that one human could own another. There is nothing more immoral and indecent than that.

The anger and hostility you project are far more dangerous to human society than two men or two women being in love.

If you believe that Love does not exist, you are more pitiful than I thought. Your ideas that life is about suffering is masochistic.

 

[WinterBorn]

I think the only question that matters here is whether or not gays must suspend their own belief system and values and be forced to accommodate Christians likewise. Must a gay graphic designer in AZ print a billboard for a Christian customer that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

It's the same thing. It's repugnant to the gay's value system to do so, yet if a Christian finds gay marriage repugnant (and forbidden by God via Jude 1 of the New Testament under threat of eternal damnation), he is forced to suspend his values to accommodate the gay? Both must be forced to suspend their values or neither of them must. That is the only legal way. If not, then the government has created law that recognizes one set of values over another; which is forbidden. That is a form of establishing a state-promoted religion. Es ist verboten.

Actually, your analogy is inaccurate. Having gay designers, literally, malign themselves is not the same as expecting a business to produce the same sort of product they do for others. Now, having gay designers design a program for a Christian event or decorate a church would be more accurate.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If that's what the OWNER wants, then so be it. THINK, white-hating racist.

I think we're seeing eye to eye here. And a Christian hating homosexual? What of him? Should he be forced to print a billboard at his graphic design business that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

I'm saying business owners should be allowed to refuse service to any customer. So the answer to your question is NO

 

[WinterBorn]

If that's what the OWNER wants, then so be it. THINK, white-hating racist.

I think we're seeing eye to eye here. And a Christian hating homosexual? What of him? Should he be forced to print a billboard at his graphic design business that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

I'm saying business owners should be allowed to refuse service to any customer. So the answer to your question is NO

Be sure and tell Sil how the actions of 0.6% of the homosexual population is proof of the actions of all homosexuals. (I forget, is that "all" an actual all, or just 95%?)

 

[Silhouette]

I think the only question that matters here is whether or not gays must suspend their own belief system and values and be forced to accommodate Christians likewise. Must a gay graphic designer in AZ print a billboard for a Christian customer that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

It's the same thing. It's repugnant to the gay's value system to do so, yet if a Christian finds gay marriage repugnant (and forbidden by God via Jude 1 of the New Testament under threat of eternal damnation), he is forced to suspend his values to accommodate the gay? Both must be forced to suspend their values or neither of them must. That is the only legal way. If not, then the government has created law that recognizes one set of values over another; which is forbidden. That is a form of establishing a state-promoted religion. Es ist verboten.

Actually, your analogy is inaccurate. Having gay designers, literally, malign themselves is not the same as expecting a business to produce the same sort of product they do for others. Now, having gay designers design a program for a Christian event or decorate a church would be more accurate.

A Christian is forbidden via Jude 1 of the New Testament to promote homosexuality in any way shape or form under promise of eternal soul damnation for defiance. Asking them to make a "gay wedding cake" (the epitome of that forbidden thing) is not just asking them to malign their puny ego, it's asking them to malign their soul for eternity. You don't get to pick and choose what a Christian can say, think or celebrate.

If a Christian wants to have a billboard printed that says what they know in their heart/faith "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", then the gay designer MUST print it according to PA laws. Otherwise, you have the State stepping in and telling Christians what they can and cannot practice in their faith. That is the State establishing/promoting one set of edicts over another...and...ES IST VERBOTEN.

 

[Syriusly]

I think the only question that matters here is whether or not gays must suspend their own belief system and values and be forced to accommodate Christians likewise. Must a gay graphic designer in AZ print a billboard for a Christian customer that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

It's the same thing. It's repugnant to the gay's value system to do so, yet if a Christian finds gay marriage repugnant (and forbidden by God via Jude 1 of the New Testament under threat of eternal damnation), he is forced to suspend his values to accommodate the gay? Both must be forced to suspend their values or neither of them must. That is the only legal way. If not, then the government has created law that recognizes one set of values over another; which is forbidden. That is a form of establishing a state-promoted religion. Es ist verboten.

Actually, your analogy is inaccurate. Having gay designers, literally, malign themselves is not the same as expecting a business to produce the same sort of product they do for others. Now, having gay designers design a program for a Christian event or decorate a church would be more accurate.

A Christian is forbidden via Jude 1 of the New Testament to promote homosexuality in any way shape .

Nowhere in Jude 1 does it say any such thing.

However- Christians are instructed in the New Testament to follow the law

Romans 13:1-7New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.