Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality

[bodecea]

He can say it all he wants....just like columnist can say "Christian churches 'must be made' to affirm inter-racial marriages." Doesn't make it legally happen.

Your church can continue to reject people for marriage....just like they do right now. The law can't and shouldn't touch them.

Do you agree that force should be used to make Churches celebrate homosexuality?

We have already seen that the law is shit upon when it suits the left. Bakers are forced into involuntary servitude in complete disregard of the 13th. Laws are only meaningful if our rulers are constrained by them.

Absolutely not. They make their own rules.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Good grief, it's not only the homos now it's "climate-change deniers". You idiot left loons would be wise to relax.

Another call to arrest climate “deniers”

Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker, has added his voice to the growing list of greens, who demand a brutal authoritarian response to the vexing problem of people who have a different opinion.

According to Weinstein;

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.

Another call to arrest climate deniers Watts Up With That

A 'growing list', huh? How many people are on this 'growing list'. And will I need more than one hand to count them?

Sigh, another loon who can't stay on point

 

[BULLDOG]

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Full Definition of SEDITION
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Sedition - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority:
Wouldn't that include every right wing rally?

Name one.

The first that comes to mind is a woman's right to have an abortion. That right was given to her by Roe V Wade. There are literally hundreds of other examples of right wingers inciting resistance to lawful authority. Look them up.

That's your example of anti government rallies inciting violence? I would have thought you would at least try to cite the neo nazi rallies in North Idaho in the 1980's, which would have had some merit, but apparently you really can't come up with anything on your own. Sad.

So now you want to add the requirement of violence when it wasn't in the definition? Does that mean I can add the requirements of funny hats and misspelled signs? Quit trying to dodge the subject.

 

[bodecea]

Oh come now jeremiah, if anyone should be a fan of changing biblical interpretation it ought to be you. Your faith is based on it.

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.

I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.

Religion is flexible, generally reflecting the values of the people practicing it.

The Puritans executed for adultery and sodomy

The Founders for just sodomy.

Modern Christians for neither.

Unless God changed his mind, clearly Christian did.

The Catholic Church is not flexible and will never compromise her teachings even if Christ should tarry another 2000 years. We don't rely on individual interpretation of the Bible to have its meaning changed like lawyers change the meaning of the law.

In 2000 years, do you really think this is the first time we've been besieged by popular tides pressuring us to change?

The Catholic church has compromised "her" teachings innumerable times over the last 2000 years. It's quite foolish of you to deny that.

 

[Skylar]

He can say it all he wants....just like columnist can say "Christian churches 'must be made' to affirm inter-racial marriages." Doesn't make it legally happen.

Your church can continue to reject people for marriage....just like they do right now. The law can't and shouldn't touch them.

Do you agree that force should be used to make Churches celebrate homosexuality?

We have already seen that the law is shit upon when it suits the left. Bakers are forced into involuntary servitude in complete disregard of the 13th. Laws are only meaningful if our rulers are constrained by them.

Name one time anyone but a right winger said anything about making churches celebrate homosexuality. A bakery is not a church.

A bakery is not the government either and isn't constrained by the Constitution as government is.

So business don't have to abide by the constitution? What ever you say silly.

No they don't. And you're an ass if you don't know the Constitution only applies to government.

Businesses, however, do have to follow the State laws that regulate commerce. And PA laws are just such requirements.

 

[Skylar]

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.

I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.

Religion is flexible, generally reflecting the values of the people practicing it.

The Puritans executed for adultery and sodomy

The Founders for just sodomy.

Modern Christians for neither.

Unless God changed his mind, clearly Christian did.

The Catholic Church is not flexible and will never compromise her teachings even if Christ should tarry another 2000 years. We don't rely on individual interpretation of the Bible to have its meaning changed like lawyers change the meaning of the law.

In 2000 years, do you really think this is the first time we've been besieged by popular tides pressuring us to change?

The Catholic church has compromised "her" teachings innumerable times over the last 2000 years. It's quite foolish of you to deny that.

Oh, Mikey gets that. I cited a mere handful of examples of changes in church doctrine. And he quietly let the subject drop.

 

[BULLDOG]

He can say it all he wants....just like columnist can say "Christian churches 'must be made' to affirm inter-racial marriages." Doesn't make it legally happen.

Your church can continue to reject people for marriage....just like they do right now. The law can't and shouldn't touch them.

Do you agree that force should be used to make Churches celebrate homosexuality?

We have already seen that the law is shit upon when it suits the left. Bakers are forced into involuntary servitude in complete disregard of the 13th. Laws are only meaningful if our rulers are constrained by them.

Name one time anyone but a right winger said anything about making churches celebrate homosexuality. A bakery is not a church.

A bakery is not the government either and isn't constrained by the Constitution as government is.

So business don't have to abide by the constitution? What ever you say silly.

No they don't. And you're an ass if you don't know the Constitution only applies to government.

If you say so, but doesn't that make your claim of the bakery's constitutional rights just so much bullshit?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Holding Christians to the same laws that everyone else is held to isn't 'persecuting them'.

That's true.

Are you planning to do that any time soon?

 

[bodecea]

Good grief, it's not only the homos now it's "climate-change deniers". You idiot left loons would be wise to relax.

Another call to arrest climate “deniers”

Adam Weinstein, of the Gawker, has added his voice to the growing list of greens, who demand a brutal authoritarian response to the vexing problem of people who have a different opinion.

According to Weinstein;

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars.

Another call to arrest climate deniers Watts Up With That

A 'growing list', huh? How many people are on this 'growing list'. And will I need more than one hand to count them?

I think people like SassyIrish should live near the shore.

 

[koshergrl]

When did she try to suppress the writer?

Oh yeah, she didn't.

However, the writer is calling for action by the state, against churches.

Which is of course illegal and unconstitutional.

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Please, show us where the writer called for government action.

What I said is that the writer called for government action against churches by the government. I did not say that a "call for government action" was sedition, you loons.

What is sedition is calling for the people to rebel against our Constitution and our government, to restrict freedom of religion.

Please, show us where "the writer called for government action against churches by the government."

"Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry" Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

What do you suppose that means? How does one *make* church leaders take "homosexuality off the sin list"?

Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch

 

[Uncensored2008]

Heart of Atlanta Motel tried the 13th Amendment angle.

Didn't work.

Awww.

9-0 SCOTUS ruling.

Was that the Dred Scott ruling?

Oh no, just the equivalent of it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I did dumbass

I guess reading comprehension is too much to hope for,,,

 

[Uncensored2008]

Businesses, however, do have to follow the State laws that regulate commerce. And PA laws are just such requirements.

Can state laws violate the United States Constitution?

 

[bodecea]

PA laws aren't slavery or 'involuntary servitude'. Its basic standards of commerce. If you're going to do do business with the public, you're required to treat your customers fairly and equally.

If your religion makes your job impossible, find another job.

When one man is force through threat of government violence, to serve another against his will - that is the definition of "involuntary servitude."

That you of the left have utter contempt for civil rights does not alter reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh come now jeremiah, if anyone should be a fan of changing biblical interpretation it ought to be you. Your faith is based on it.

What the hell do you mean by that?

I mean jeremiah is more thsn happy to edit the bible when it suitd his needs, his protestant faith is based on such an edit. Further, jeri is more than happy to rewrite history to support his beliefs, i cant see why he would have a problem with churches simply reexamining their treatment of homosexuals

Yes, I see your point now and since Protestants reject Sacred Tradition and have a malleable belief system they will eventually succumb to homosexual pressure. Most people don't perceive this fatal weakness that caused Protestants to abandon all opposition to contraception in the 20th century. This laid the groundwork and makes almost certain the day they will cave in to other forms of sexual immorality.

I have to give you props for making this point. They really have no defense against it.

Religion is flexible, generally reflecting the values of the people practicing it.

The Puritans executed for adultery and sodomy

The Founders for just sodomy.

Modern Christians for neither.

Unless God changed his mind, clearly Christian did.

The Catholic Church is not flexible and will never compromise her teachings even if Christ should tarry another 2000 years. We don't rely on individual interpretation of the Bible to have its meaning changed like lawyers change the meaning of the law.

In 2000 years, do you really think this is the first time we've been besieged by popular tides pressuring us to change?

Oh, that's right: you have the civil government burn homosexuals at the stake. Oh . . . wait.

 

[ogibillm]

No, the writer is not. It would certainly be unconstitutional, but the writer did not call for government action in the piece.

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Please, show us where the writer called for government action.

What I said is that the writer called for government action against churches by the government. I did not say that a "call for government action" was sedition, you loons.

What is sedition is calling for the people to rebel against our Constitution and our government, to restrict freedom of religion.

Please, show us where "the writer called for government action against churches by the government."

"Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry" Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

What do you suppose that means? How does one *make* church leaders take "homosexuality off the sin list"?

Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch

Public pressure. Gay church members and their families. Others working in the respective churches to make the change.

Seems pretty obvious.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Churches and their doctrines change all the time because the social construct supporting society changes with time. Blacks get the same rights as everyone else, Mormon missionaries are not murdered in the South, Puritans don't hang Quakers, and so forth.

Far right social conservative Christians are not treated any differently in public commerce than anyone else. Nor should they be.

 

[koshergrl]

No, what the writer is calling for is that the people move unconstitutionally to restrict the rights of the American people...in direct opposition to freedoms our government is supposed to protect.

In other words, sedition.

Please, show us where the writer called for government action.

What I said is that the writer called for government action against churches by the government. I did not say that a "call for government action" was sedition, you loons.

What is sedition is calling for the people to rebel against our Constitution and our government, to restrict freedom of religion.

Please, show us where "the writer called for government action against churches by the government."

"Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to LGBT people by what it calls “religion-based bigotry" Gold says: "..... church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

What do you suppose that means? How does one *make* church leaders take "homosexuality off the sin list"?

Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch

Public pressure. Gay church members and their families. Others working in the respective churches to make the change.

Seems pretty obvious.

They're talking about forcing the churches to alter the bible, and penalizing them if they don't. They're talking about criminalizing faith.

Even if they weren't talking about giving the state that authority (which is of course what they're talking about and what Faith in America is all about) they are still encouraging people to commit a CRIME. They are talking about forcing the church to alter their beliefs. Not asking the church. MAKING them.

 

[koshergrl]

Faith in America:

"We can no longer allow certain groups or individuals to promote equality as somehow in conflict with faith" < calling for suppression of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion

"..for too long we have allowed innocent young people to suffer great harm at the hands of certain religious teaching that works to put that stamp of religious and moral disapproval on their very being"..< calls for churches to no longer be *allowed* to discuss their faith.

Connecting the Dots of Religion-based Bigotry s History Faith in America

 

[JakeStarkey]

Second stupidest comment of the day, "They're talking about forcing the churches to alter the bible, and penalizing them if they don't. They're talking about criminalizing faith." No one is doing any such thing, dear. Too stupid.

Private belief and private association for religious purposes are clearly protected by the 1st Amendment.