Zone1 Equality is downsizing religions, as parent refuse to downsize their love for an LGBTQ+ or female child.

[Jarlaxle]

Sorry kid, you've lost.

Still no citation. As expected. You are as predictable as the sunrise.

I accept your concession.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The secular world has become much more tolerant of those who are different than those built on the teachings of Jesus Christ

Well that is completely wrong.
Jesus, himself, never spoke of it.
What he did speak of was be accepting of others.
Remember, Jesus himself often ate and communed with "sinners", and was chastised for doing so by his enemies.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Still no citation. As expected. You are as predictable as the sunrise.

I accept your concession.

Of course you do, just ask you. Jesus is the entirety of the Word, there i nothing you can do about it.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

New International Version

​

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Of course you do, just ask you. Jesus is the entirety of the Word, there i nothing you can do about it.

(irrelevant quotation removed)

Perhaps you need to work on reading comprehension. One more time: Quote the passage where Jesus (not Paul, not Matthew, not Mark, not John, not Luke, Jesus) condemns homosexuality.

You will not, because you cannot.

 

[rightwinger]

Well that is completely wrong.
Jesus, himself, never spoke of it.
What he did speak of was be accepting of others.
Remember, Jesus himself often ate and communed with "sinners", and was chastised for doing so by his enemies.

Meanwhile…..Those who profess to be ”Christians” refuse to tolerate homosexuals

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well that is completely wrong.
Jesus, himself, never spoke of it.
What he did speak of was be accepting of others.

Um.. that's what tolerance means....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Meanwhile…..Those who profess to be ”Christians” refuse to tolerate homosexuals

Then they are not following Jesus teachings.
Jesus most certainly never said anything that could be remotely construed as shunning others, except false prophets. That is the only specific thing I can think of that Jesus himself directly spoke out against.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Perhaps you need to work on reading comprehension. One more time: Quote the passage where Jesus (not Paul, not Matthew, not Mark, not John, not Luke, Jesus) condemns homosexuality.

You will not, because you cannot.

It doesn't matter, Jesus is the Word , Jesus stands behind it...ALL of it. The Bible condemns it and that does. Your ignorance aside you look pretty bad here. You don't get to pick and choose what you will and won't accept from the Word.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It doesn't matter, Jesus is the Word , Jesus stands behind it...ALL of it. The Bible condemns it and that does. Your ignorance aside you look pretty bad here. You don't get to pick and choose what you will and won't accept from the Word.

That's some impressive tap-dancing. Now...going to actually quote the passage, going to admit you are wrong, or going to keep tap-dancing?

 

[Blues Man]

You need your head examined.



That's ludicrous. By your "logic", you could force a devout Christian to do a custom "HAIL SATAN" mural on a car. You could force a black man to do a scene of a cross-burning. You could force a Jew to do a mural of Hitler.



That might be the stupidest comparison I have ever seen.



Of course: look out for number one-first, last, and always-because NOBODY else will.

We are all "forced" in one way or another to obey the law.
If you don't like public accommodation laws then get them repealed that way you can hang your NO ________________ ALLOWED signs in your business. Just don't get your panties in a twist when you're one of those not allowed

 

[Blues Man]

That would be more accurate. and that custom tie maker should have the right not to participate as well.

That's your view, not the baker's.

You fall for the standard progressive failure, you can't even admit that another viewpoint is valid, thus making your view the only "correct" one, and thus everyone else has to think JUST LIKE YOU or suffer the consequences.

No one believes that the people who make the clothes other people wear are involved in the lives of the people wearing those clothes.

Tell me a a gay gay just ordered a white 4 tiered cake decorated with fresh flowers would your oh so pious baker refuse him service?

I bet the answer is yes because he's a bigot.

 

[HeyNorm]

there is no default human behavior. ALL and I do mean ALL human behavior exists in a continuum. There has always been a percentage of the human population that has been homosexual. There will always be a percentage of the population that is homosexual.

Therefore it is perfectly normal for a percentage of the population to be homosexual.

Dig up all the corpses throughout history and determine:

Which were heterosexual and which were homosexual.

There would be no way to make your claim

Yet we know heterosexuality exist because we exist.

 

[HeyNorm]

That's obvious that many of you do not care about other people.

Care and enabling are two different things entirely

 

[HeyNorm]

No one believes that the people who make the clothes other people wear are involved in the lives of the people wearing those clothes.

Tell me a a gay gay just ordered a white 4 tiered cake decorated with fresh flowers would your oh so pious baker refuse him service?

I bet the answer is yes because he's a bigot.

The baker might make the cake for “the gay”. He would have no idea he was gay in the first place unless the customer told him. Gay has no definable physical attributes. The “gay” might also be marrying someone of the opposite sex, which would likely not harm his spiritual belief.

On the other hand, the baker might refuse to bake a cake for a same sex wedding, regardless of the sexuality of the couple because it is simply a product he doesn’t offer.

It’s really that simple. He is treating all sexes equally as well as all sexualities equally.

So no reason to get all bet out of shape.

 

[Blues Man]

The baker might make the cake for “the gay”. He would have no idea he was gay in the first place unless the customer told him. Gay had no definable physical attributes. The “gay” might also be marrying someone of the opposite sex, which would likely not harm his spiritual belief.

On the other hand, the baker might refuse to bake a cake for a same sex wedding, regardless of the sexuality of the couple because it is simply a product he doesn’t offer.

It’s really that simple. He is treating all sexes equally as well as all sexualities equally.

So no reason to get all bet out of shape.

A cake is a cake is a cake it doesn't matter why a person wants a baker to make a cake. What if the gay couple orders a cake that looks like a "wedding" cake but doesn't mention the word "wedding" at all ? Can the baker still claim a right to refuse for religious reasons?

 

[HeyNorm]

A cake is a cake is a cake it doesn't matter why a person wants a baker to make a cake. What if the gay couple orders a cake that looks like a "wedding" cake but doesn't mention the word "wedding" at all ? Can the baker still claim a right to refuse for religious reasons?

I don’t see why he would object. But I’m not him and not in control of his product line. And how would the baker know they are gay? What is the distinct different physical characteristic?

But then if he did object, as long as the baker refused to make a cake for same sex heterosexual couples? No harm, no foul.

 

[Blues Man]

I don’t see why he would object. But I’m not him and not in control of his product line. And how would the baker know they are gay? What is the distinct different physical characteristic?

But then if he did object, as long as the baker refused to make a cake for same sex heterosexual couples? No harm, no foul.

Let's assume they were holding hands while in the store.

 

[HeyNorm]

Let's assume they were holding hands while in the store.

So? What’s your point?

 

[Blues Man]

So? What’s your point?

My point is the baker would still refuse to bake the cake because the people he was baking it for were homosexual.

religion was never really a factor because there is no scripture that I am ware of and I have asked people to show any scripture where it clearly states that engaging in business of any kind with people who are living sinful lives is in itself a sin.

 

[Mac-7]

My point is the baker would still refuse to bake the cake because the people he was baking it for were homosexual.

religion was never really a factor because there is no scripture that I am ware of and I have asked people to show any scripture where it clearly states that engaging in business of any kind with people who are living sinful lives is in itself a sin.

To my knowledge the Bible does not specifically ban cannibalism

Based on lib logic does that make it ok?