Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Can't read? I read quite well thank you.
>>> By the way, the fact that someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something does not mean you condone it.
I agree with this statement. What makes you think your statement is any different than my explanation of why baking a cake for gays does not condone the activities of gays? How is your apparent agreement of my statement of the difference between producing and using an indication that I can't read?
Are you saying that the gays were holding a gun to their heads? Didn't you just post that no one threatened the bakers? Are you really this stupid?
Although I understand from your posts that this is a rhetorical question, are you really this retarded?
Adam did not have a mom because he was created by God and beasts are not people who can read and comprehend what the Lord's word is and if premarital sex is what you mean by "sex on the fly", the Lord does not condone such a thing and if plural marriages were allowed at one point, the Lord must have changed his mind about that specific issue, but never once was his mind changed about same gender relationships. Why do you think that the Lord decided to "start over" by having a 40 days and 40 nights rain happen?If man was made first... who was his mom? Additionally, if that was the only plan / scheme devised by god, then why are there some beasts that do not require a male/female pair to propagate? Further, why allow for sex on the fly if god only blesses long term marriages between a man and one woman? Still further, why did god permit plural marriages in the old times but now only permits marriage between one man and one woman?
God bless you always!!!
Holly
The baker bakes in his kitchen. The farmer farms on his farm. But they both sell in the public market place. You forgive the farmer of selling their goods to a baker that bakes cakes for gay weddings. Then you judge the baker of sinning by selling the goods "baked" and assembled at a gay wedding. You would have been ok with this baker baking the cake that went to the gay wedding if a non-gay wedding planner did the purchase and assembled the cake for the baker? What is wrong with you that you associate baking and selling cakes to gays as performing and condoning gay sex acts?
I pay my taxes does that mean I "condone" and enable Obama? Your taxes paid for the road that leads to the location where the gays got married. Does that mean you condoned and enabled sin? How can you let your income be used to enable gay sin?
You're pretty dense for a Christian, RKM. Although you are Christian in name only perhaps, since you don't mind putting down your faith. You're incredibly naive. Like I said, the farmer has no choice, he works for his sole benefit. He bears no burden of having his conscience violated. This couple on the other hand... well I've explained it ad nauseam. You are also ranting. You are upset because I have clearly demonstrated that homosexuality as a practice is contemptible in the sight of God.
Drawing up hypothetical scenarios to support your argument makes you desperate. All of them are non sequiturs.
The farmer has no choice, but the baker does. The farmer works for his sole benefit (yeah that's christian), but the baker works for the benefit of all (except baking cakes for gay marriages or other sinful gatherings). ROFL What planet do you live on?
Are you saying that the gays were holding a gun to their heads? Didn't you just post that no one threatened the bakers? Are you really this stupid?
Although I understand from your posts that this is a rhetorical question, are you really this retarded?
I have explained, in detail, and through multiple posts, the difference between baking a cake, and having someone buy it, and writing a special sentiment on it. I can even prove to you that you don't believe the retarded crap that the baker is not responsible for the words they put on a cake if you want me to.
Would you like me to prove to you that you are a lying sack of shit?
Are you really this retarded?
Wow. Thus ends your argument. Namecalling heralds the death of any argument.
He called me stupid. I'll respond to that in kind if and when I feel like it. Don't like it why don't you go back and edit your name calling.
You're pretty dense for a Christian, RKM. Although you are Christian in name only perhaps, since you don't mind putting down your faith. You're incredibly naive. Like I said, the farmer has no choice, he works for his sole benefit. He bears no burden of having his conscience violated. This couple on the other hand... well I've explained it ad nauseam. You are also ranting. You are upset because I have clearly demonstrated that homosexuality as a practice is contemptible in the sight of God.
Drawing up hypothetical scenarios to support your argument makes you desperate. All of them are non sequiturs.
The farmer has no choice, but the baker does. The farmer works for his sole benefit (yeah that's christian), but the baker works for the benefit of all (except baking cakes for gay marriages or other sinful gatherings). ROFL What planet do you live on?
Resorting to petty insults now?
One has no control, the other does. It's quite simplistic for well framed minds.
Although I understand from your posts that this is a rhetorical question, are you really this retarded?
I have explained, in detail, and through multiple posts, the difference between baking a cake, and having someone buy it, and writing a special sentiment on it. I can even prove to you that you don't believe the retarded crap that the baker is not responsible for the words they put on a cake if you want me to.
Would you like me to prove to you that you are a lying sack of shit?
Why would I want you to prove that I believe the baker is responsible for the words they put on a cake, when clearly I do not believe the baker is responsible for the words they would have had to put on the cake for this wedding? I believe there may be some culpability of the baker if the message is non-fictional hate speech, but I'm not sure on the letter of the law wrt. calligraphers who do work for someone that has authored hate speech.
The farmer has no choice, but the baker does. The farmer works for his sole benefit (yeah that's christian), but the baker works for the benefit of all (except baking cakes for gay marriages or other sinful gatherings). ROFL What planet do you live on?
Resorting to petty insults now?
One has no control, the other does. It's quite simplistic for well framed minds.
You called me dense, desperate, naive, and accused me of putting down my faith, I responded in kind.
Since when do farmers have no control? How does that work?
I have explained, in detail, and through multiple posts, the difference between baking a cake, and having someone buy it, and writing a special sentiment on it. I can even prove to you that you don't believe the retarded crap that the baker is not responsible for the words they put on a cake if you want me to.
Would you like me to prove to you that you are a lying sack of shit?
Why would I want you to prove that I believe the baker is responsible for the words they put on a cake, when clearly I do not believe the baker is responsible for the words they would have had to put on the cake for this wedding? I believe there may be some culpability of the baker if the message is non-fictional hate speech, but I'm not sure on the letter of the law wrt. calligraphers who do work for someone that has authored hate speech.
See the slippery slope you embark on? In order to condemn one man, you must condemn those who indirectly or unknowingly contributed to his "evil" act. Yes, your slippery slope argument is a failure. Placing culpability where it doesn't belong. Condemning those who deserve none. You may think you're clever, but you're plainly predictable.
I don't know about now, but I guess the Lord changed his mind once back in the earlier days.The Lord changes his mind?
He created Adam from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and I guess that the Lord raised him because the animals wouldn't have been able to do it.How did he create Adam? Was Adam ever a baby? How did Adam eat as a baby? Was he raised by the animals? Angels?
Why would I want you to prove that I believe the baker is responsible for the words they put on a cake, when clearly I do not believe the baker is responsible for the words they would have had to put on the cake for this wedding? I believe there may be some culpability of the baker if the message is non-fictional hate speech, but I'm not sure on the letter of the law wrt. calligraphers who do work for someone that has authored hate speech.
See the slippery slope you embark on? In order to condemn one man, you must condemn those who indirectly or unknowingly contributed to his "evil" act. Yes, your slippery slope argument is a failure. Placing culpability where it doesn't belong. Condemning those who deserve none. You may think you're clever, but you're plainly predictable.
I did not make a slippery slope argument, you did. Neither did I condemn anyone, well except Obama, but that's another thread. Where did this accusation come from?
What do you have against someone being predictable on this matter? Do you see your position as unpredictable?
Am I cleaver? dunno no more or less than the next guy....
They don't get to dictate where the corn or the grain they grow goes once they sell it to distributors. Where it goes, nobody knows. The ingredients in that cake are given out for general use. The farmer has no control over where it is distributed. Lots of people would starve if farmers had your mindset. Once he gives it away he has no control over where it goes. I know because my grandmother was a farmers daughter from 1947 until she graduated in 1960. I know more about these things, RKM.
You imply culpability where none exists. You cannot live with the error your argument presents.
They don't get to dictate where the corn or the grain they grow goes once they sell it to distributors. Where it goes, nobody knows. The ingredients in that cake are given out for general use. The farmer has no control over where it is distributed. Lots of people would starve if farmers had your mindset. Once he gives it away he has no control over where it goes. I know because my grandmother was a farmers daughter from 1947 until she graduated in 1960. I know more about these things, RKM.
You imply culpability where none exists. You cannot live with the error your argument presents.
I see so you meant to say some farmers only use distributors and are clueless as to what the food is used for. You realize of course that only some distributors distributed to this baker right? You realize that some farmers are in fact distributors right? You realize that some farmers bake cakes right?
Maybe you don't know "everything?"
From the dust is not how, it's a partial list of contents. We all are all primarily comprised the dust of the ground and water. Why wouldn't the animals have been able to do it? Don't animals have babies too?I don't know about now, but I guess the Lord changed his mind once back in the earlier days.The Lord changes his mind?
He created Adam from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and I guess that the Lord raised him because the animals wouldn't have been able to do it.How did he create Adam? Was Adam ever a baby? How did Adam eat as a baby? Was he raised by the animals? Angels?
God bless you two always!!!
Holly
They don't get to dictate where the corn or the grain they grow goes once they sell it to distributors. Where it goes, nobody knows. The ingredients in that cake are given out for general use. The farmer has no control over where it is distributed. Lots of people would starve if farmers had your mindset. Once he gives it away he has no control over where it goes. I know because my grandmother was a farmers daughter from 1947 until she graduated in 1960. I know more about these things, RKM.
You imply culpability where none exists. You cannot live with the error your argument presents.
I see so you meant to say some farmers only use distributors and are clueless as to what the food is used for. You realize of course that only some distributors distributed to this baker right? You realize that some farmers are in fact distributors right? You realize that some farmers bake cakes right?
Maybe you don't know "everything?"
You realize you're speculating, right?
I'm not the one claiming discrimination against providing goods that are used at gay marriage ceremonies is a requirement to be a good christian. You are. You are the one arguing it's ok to not discriminate against gays if a middle man is involved.They don't get to dictate where the corn or the grain they grow goes once they sell it to distributors. Where it goes, nobody knows. The ingredients in that cake are given out for general use. The farmer has no control over where it is distributed. Lots of people would starve if farmers had your mindset. Once he gives it away he has no control over where it goes. I know because my grandmother was a farmers daughter from 1947 until she graduated in 1960. I know more about these things, RKM.
You imply culpability where none exists. You cannot live with the error your argument presents.
I see so you meant to say some farmers only use distributors and are clueless as to what the food is used for. You realize of course that only some distributors distributed to this baker right? You realize that some farmers are in fact distributors right? You realize that some farmers bake cakes right?
Maybe you don't know "everything?"
You realize you're speculating, right?
Should these unwitting farmers slash distributors be punished too? Just for inadvertently having their crops sold to and refined into the ingredients these bakers used? I figured as much.
The dust is the only thing mentioned in the Lord's word when man was created.From the dust is not how, it's a partial list of contents. We all are all primarily comprised the dust of the ground and water. Why wouldn't the animals have been able to do it? Don't animals have babies too?
Although I understand from your posts that this is a rhetorical question, are you really this retarded?
I have explained, in detail, and through multiple posts, the difference between baking a cake, and having someone buy it, and writing a special sentiment on it. I can even prove to you that you don't believe the retarded crap that the baker is not responsible for the words they put on a cake if you want me to.
Would you like me to prove to you that you are a lying sack of shit?
Why would I want you to prove that I believe the baker is responsible for the words they put on a cake, when clearly I do not believe the baker is responsible for the words they would have had to put on the cake for this wedding? I believe there may be some culpability of the baker if the message is non-fictional hate speech, but I'm not sure on the letter of the law wrt. calligraphers who do work for someone that has authored hate speech.
Sure. The editors job is to edit. One task in editing is to ensure the message is factual and is not false/slanderous etc.The people that write Obama's speeches aren't responsible for what they wrote because they were following orders.
John Woo wasn't responsible for the memo he wrote that condoned torture because he was following orders.
I have some advice for you, shut the fuck up. The "I was only following orders" shtick didn't work in the past, and it won't work now.
How ignorant does one have to be to not know the difference between writing a condolence and performing the task of calligraphy for the writer to put the writer's words on paper or cake? The editor of a speech is not the same as the author of a speech. The person who transfers the edited speech to the teleprompter may not be the same person that edited and/or authored the speech. Further the person who reads the speech may not be the author of the speech. Still further, the author, editors, and calligraphers who transfer a message to a cake may not "condone" the message. The people who work on the cake most likely have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MESSAGE, let alone condone it.
Editors have been held legally liable for articles they didn't fact check. Can you explain that given the fact that they didn't actually write them?
You are responsible for everything you do, even if you are only following orders. Unless you can explain why someone who does something under orders is not responsible for their actions, take that advice I gave you.
