Christians Aren't Required By Law Now To Go To Hell Forever In Arizona!

[Silhouette]

Governor Bonefinger has not signed this into law and has given every indication she will veto it.

A good chunk of Arizona's economy relies on tourism. There will be a big boycott of Arizona if something like this is passed. I could see the NFL taking the Super Bowl away from them which would be a huge hit to their economy. It happened in the 90's over MLK Day.

People who go to the superbowl...who view it...who are into it big time...hmmm..let's see...which demographic would they fit into?

 

[Katzndogz]

No one is proposing that gays not be served in any business. What is proposed is a protection for businesses who refuse to participate in gay activities like weddings.

 

[JimH52]

I don't think the Governator will sign it and even if she/he does, the Supreme Court will eventually slam it. But not before there are hundreds of very expensive law suits over this very dogmatic bill.

I am a Christian and will stand by my faith. Even if I do not approve of someone's lifestyle, belief, or sexual orientation, it does not give me authority or reason to provide them a lesser degree of service or respect than any other person. This bill will not stand and it will never become law.

 

[Silhouette]

No one is proposing that gays not be served in any business. What is proposed is a protection for businesses who refuse to participate in gay activities like weddings.

Exactly. The price in the Bible for enabling the idea of something like a "gay marriage" is eternal death of the soul in the Pit of Fire. I didn't write the book, but I think I know the reasoning behind why it is so adamant about that one point on homosexuality.

If you accept that the world is here to test souls, to temper them and to bring those souls heavenward or hellbound, depending on their performance, blending the matrix these souls are tested in would be among the top ten deadliest sins. And that sin would be tampering with the matrix.

If you talk to liberals about if they support diversity, they instantly say 'yes'. Ask them about cultural diversity across the world and should it be preserved at all costs. They will say "yes, it helps people learn about differences and stimulates growth and change in the observer of a different culture.

Then you ask them if they believe this same theory should be applied to the sexes. ie: should there be different standards for males vs females. Then the answer is "no". Yet males and females are different, it is genetic and their differences cause each other's genderless spirit to grow from a standpoint of observation and interaction with each other.

Gays make the mistake of thinking that because a spirit they like is born in the same gender, they then should have sex with it. This is wrong. For how will spirits of affinity ever learn to just love each other solely as friends? This and many other lessons born from the distinct male/distinct female matrix are dissolved when homosexuality demands to be not just accepted, but eventually as in Sodom, the norm. If you don't believe me that this is the end game, just study Ancient Greece or for a more contemporary admission: http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/341681-white-cis-male-gay-privilege.html

Random sin is bad, like murder, rape etc But to incorporate a mortal sin as a cultural value stands to harm the most people over time than any individual sin ever could dream to do. So this is why I understand Jude 1 and why christians MUST abide. To not do so is to commit the unthinkable crime: tampering with God's plan in the most significant way possible.

 

[Katzndogz]

The difference is, respecting the right of someone else to commit a sin because they have the freedom to do so, and being forced to commit that sin yourself. The solution is to contract out participation. The photographer does the studio photos, and subcontracts out the wedding photos. The baker bakes the cake, and sub contracts out the delivery and construction.

 

[Silhouette]

The difference is, respecting the right of someone else to commit a sin because they have the freedom to do so, and being forced to commit that sin yourself. The solution is to contract out participation. The photographer does the studio photos, and subcontracts out the wedding photos. The baker bakes the cake, and sub contracts out the delivery and construction.

This is precisely why the 1st has to apply. The LGBT crowd is heatedly involved right now trying to belittle other parts of the Bible, lesser sins and weird laws of the Old Testament to gloss over the severity of the warnings in Jude 1 particularly about the danger and crime of blending the matrix as Sodom did. A mortal sin is a mortal sin though, and to force the faithful to commit it or go bankrupt from lawsuits is a violation of the Constitution.

There are some theologins in fact who debate Jude 1 as to who is more guilty of sin, the compulsive homosexuals who essentially live unexamined lives, or the good christians who know better, self-examine daily, and who thus being actively choose to not "earnestly contend" for the "common salvation". Many think the latter is the worse of the two mortal sins.

 

[Katzndogz]

I am not going to say that homosexuals are committing a sin. For one thing, the Bible admonishes me to not make that judgment, except for myself. I will not sit in judgment of the sin in someone else's heart. Only God can do that. What I can do is make that judgment for myself. If it is a sin for me to enable or participate in homosexual acts, I will not do so. This includes participating in same sex weddings. Gays are going beyond acceptance all the way to coerced participation and that is wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

I am not going to say that homosexuals are committing a sin. For one thing, the Bible admonishes me to not make that judgment, except for myself. I will not sit in judgment of the sin in someone else's heart. Only God can do that. What I can do is make that judgment for myself. If it is a sin for me to enable or participate in homosexual acts, I will not do so. This includes participating in same sex weddings. Gays are going beyond acceptance all the way to coerced participation and that is wrong.

Well, we agree on the latter part. Everyone commits sin. It's what we DO about that condition that matters. To say that homosexuality isn't a sin against the matrix is enabling though Katzndogz, and here's why: Others hear you say, "I'm not going to say whether "x" is good or bad..." then the smooth lure of the Other Voice chimes in to drown out the rest of your message. ie: you have opened the door just a hairline crack to let in the storm.

What you could say instead to eliminate that type of passive-enabling and to refrain from judgment is to say that your understanding is that homosexuality is wrong, and the enabling of homosexuality is wrong, but that the punishment for that wrong is reserved out of your hands. That sends the message to others that they should earnestly contend for the common salvation without breeding active bigotry, violence and punishment, a la islam for instance, for things that are reserved for God to punish. In Jude 1 it even says that christians should be revulsed at the idea of homosexuality while simultaneously harboring compassion for those actively engaged in it. Much like you would recoil at the sight of a burn victim while you are at the same time changing his bandages and giving him sips of water and plates of food to replenish his strength and heal his scars:...

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

To everyone on the right celebrating this law

Do you support a business refusing to serve the military because their religion opposes war?

Yes

I don't think the Governator will sign it and even if she/he does, the Supreme Court will eventually slam it. But not before there are hundreds of very expensive law suits over this very dogmatic bill.

I am a Christian and will stand by my faith. Even if I do not approve of someone's lifestyle, belief, or sexual orientation, it does not give me authority or reason to provide them a lesser degree of service or respect than any other person. This bill will not stand and it will never become law.

Not surprising if the SC overthrows that law...its headed towards this for a while now. Just like integration etc...states are being forced into things they don't want to do and society continues to roll down hill towards a AWESOME crash at the bottom at break neck speed.

 

[Silhouette]

Not surprising if the SC overthrows that law...its headed towards this for a while now. Just like integration etc...states are being forced into things they don't want to do and society continues to roll down hill towards a AWESOME crash at the bottom at break neck speed.

Except we are talking about behaviors and not race or gender.

That little but very significant detail keeps getting "overlooked". I wonder if SCOTUS is also going to overlook setting a precedent for behaviors as equivalent to race...and where they might draw the line in the future on other behaviors that want special attention?

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

The more crap that they give a "right" to the more crap people will come up with to get more attention...can only imagine where it ends...hope my children go to college then leave the damn country for some place more sane.

 

[Political Junky]

It would be such a pity to see Arizona go bankrupt from the lawsuits and boycotts.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Yeah that worked out so well with the chic fil a boycott eh? LOL...

 

[AceRothstein]

Yeah that worked out so well with the chic fil a boycott eh? LOL...

When the NFL says no more Super Bowls and the NCAA says no more Final Fours, they'll overturn the law.

 

[rightwinger]

This law is DOA

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

This law is DOA

Nice to see the hypocrisy of the left in action again only supporting the "rights" of certain groups. Obviously religious people ain't in that group they will defend. Creeping closer and closer to outright rebellion.

 

[laughinReaper]

Not forcing people to go against their religion is the right move for both parties. Being allowed to practice your religion is a right. Equally important is why would any Gay person want someone who is uncomfortable with their lifestyle providing them services? Do you really want someone taking pics at your nuptials or as in a previous case,baking a wedding cake,who is forced by law to be there? No of course not. You want their A game, you want the pics to be great and the cake to be beautiful. Respect the religious folks right to say no the same way you want those who disagree with your lifestyle to allow you to have a legally recognized union.

 

[Silhouette]

Not forcing people to go against their religion is the right move for both parties. Being allowed to practice your religion is a right. Equally important is why would any Gay person want someone who is uncomfortable with their lifestyle providing them services? Do you really want someone taking pics at your nuptials or as in a previous case,baking a wedding cake,who is forced by law to be there? No of course not. You want their A game, you want the pics to be great and the cake to be beautiful. Respect the religious folks right to say no the same way you want those who disagree with your lifestyle to allow you to have a legally recognized union.

Which makes you wonder if some gay marriages are staged for political expediency?

 

[Jarlaxle]

To everyone on the right celebrating this law

Do you support a business refusing to serve the military because their religion opposes war?

Yes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not surprising if the SC overthrows that law...its headed towards this for a while now. Just like integration etc...states are being forced into things they don't want to do and society continues to roll down hill towards a AWESOME crash at the bottom at break neck speed.

Except we are talking about behaviors and not race or gender.

That little but very significant detail keeps getting "overlooked". I wonder if SCOTUS is also going to overlook setting a precedent for behaviors as equivalent to race...and where they might draw the line in the future on other behaviors that want special attention?

See... this is the problem I see between the struggle of gays, and the struggles of African Americans, the African Americans didn't want attention, they wanted equality. Gays on the other hand want attention, not equality. See what I'm getting at?