Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[bodecea]

Federal law says it and the Constitution protects the supremacy of federal law in the Supremacy Clause.

So you can't show me the specific location? Got it. Much like when I've asked for the location of where the Constitution says healthcare, food stamps, etc. you couldn't provide it. The 10th Amendment says things like that belong at the State level yet you big government idiots still want them at the federal level.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

That's in the Constitution?

Things ONLY in the Constitution are legal?

Please, not that diversionary argument.

So you agree that something doesn't HAVE to be specifically in the Constitution to be legal. Good, RL. Progress.

 

[Conservative65]

Things you don't like that the Bible addresses. It has to do with you claiming things the Bible says then ignoring it when you don't like. Jesus didn't mention your kind of marriage. Tell me He didn't think it was a valid kind either.

Jesus didn't mention interracial marriage either.....Tell me he didn't think it was a valid kind either.

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

How do you know that? Did he say "only hetero marriages, folks"?

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

 

[Conservative65]

So you can't show me the specific location? Got it. Much like when I've asked for the location of where the Constitution says healthcare, food stamps, etc. you couldn't provide it. The 10th Amendment says things like that belong at the State level yet you big government idiots still want them at the federal level.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

That's in the Constitution?

Things ONLY in the Constitution are legal?

Please, not that diversionary argument.

So you agree that something doesn't HAVE to be specifically in the Constitution to be legal. Good, RL. Progress.

Is that what I said NL? Since that's what you are, you'll never progress.

 

[bodecea]

Jesus didn't mention interracial marriage either.....Tell me he didn't think it was a valid kind either.

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

How do you know that? Did he say "only hetero marriages, folks"?

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

But he doesn't condemn those who are not "a man and a woman", does he? While he DOES condemn those that divorced. Why is that acceptable to christers when Jesus was so very clear in his condemnation?

 

[bodecea]

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

That's in the Constitution?

Things ONLY in the Constitution are legal?

Please, not that diversionary argument.

So you agree that something doesn't HAVE to be specifically in the Constitution to be legal. Good, RL. Progress.

Is that what I said NL? Since that's what you are, you'll never progress.

So....then you say that something HAS to be specifically in the Constitution to be legal. Glad we figured that out clearly, RL.

 

[Conservative65]

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

How do you know that? Did he say "only hetero marriages, folks"?

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

But he doesn't condemn those who are not "a man and a woman", does he? While he DOES condemn those that divorced. Why is that acceptable to christers when Jesus was so very clear in his condemnation?

Sure he does.

 

[Conservative65]

That's in the Constitution?

Things ONLY in the Constitution are legal?

Please, not that diversionary argument.

So you agree that something doesn't HAVE to be specifically in the Constitution to be legal. Good, RL. Progress.

Is that what I said NL? Since that's what you are, you'll never progress.

So....then you say that something HAS to be specifically in the Constitution to be legal. Glad we figured that out clearly, RL.

What we've cleared up is you're nothing more than a troll, n*gger.

 

[bodecea]

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

How do you know that? Did he say "only hetero marriages, folks"?

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

But he doesn't condemn those who are not "a man and a woman", does he? While he DOES condemn those that divorced. Why is that acceptable to christers when Jesus was so very clear in his condemnation?

Sure he does.

No he doesn't unless you can show where he specifically states that homosexual marriages are forbidden...like when he clearly condemns those who divorce.

 

[bodecea]

Things ONLY in the Constitution are legal?

Please, not that diversionary argument.

So you agree that something doesn't HAVE to be specifically in the Constitution to be legal. Good, RL. Progress.

Is that what I said NL? Since that's what you are, you'll never progress.

So....then you say that something HAS to be specifically in the Constitution to be legal. Glad we figured that out clearly, RL.

What we've cleared up is you're nothing more than a troll, n*gger.

Look at you..... So left behind by the world. The best part is you self-identifying as some kind of christian.

 

[RodISHI]

Who said christians are disqualified as judges?

Diane Feinstein and a few other Democrats reportedly made that argument last week about a Catholic Judge up for appointment / confirmation....

So did some posters on here.

 

[Syriusly]

Tough titties. The yokel can peddle his wares plenty of other places.

You mean like the fags could have had somewhere else make their cake?

Or the farmer could have followed the city laws.

You know- like the Bible says.

You do know the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Do you agree with that or are you going to ignore it when it's not what you like to hear?

I do know that the New Testament says that Christians are supposed to follow the law- and Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament.

Of course the New Testament doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination- matter of fact Jesus doesn't even mention homosexuality. He does say that remarriage after divorce- you know like President Trump- is adultery.

Or maybe you are one of those "Old Testament" Christians- who doesn't eat shellfish or cut his beard?

In the same passage about divorce (Matthew 19), Jesus referenced what had been written in Genesis (OT) about a man (MALE) leaving his father/mother and being united with his wife (FEMALE). Even Jesus referenced the OT word of God. That reference doesn't mention a man being united with another man or a woman with another woman.

There are lots of things Jesus didn't mention specifically that I suspect you'd believe are wrong. Since He didn't, are you saying those things are OK to do? Based on your logic, they'd have to be.

I am glad to post all of the relevant parts(why are you so coy about quoting the Bible?)

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”


4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a]">[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b]">[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”


7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”


8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”


10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”


11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

So here Jesus says two relevant things:

1. That marriage is between and man and a woman and
2. That any man who divorces his wife and remarries unless she is cheating on him- is guilty of adultery.

I don't disagree with the Christians who say the Bible says marriage is between a man and woman. But other than the Catholics and a few Protestant sects- none forbid divorce.

More to the point- nowhere does the Bible say that Christians should not sell to either homosexuals- or adulterers like Donald Trump.

Instead- the Bible says specifically that Christians must obey the law.

And the law says that gay couples- and adulterers like Donald Trump can be legally married- and the law in that town says that is a violation of the law to discriminate against Christians or Jews or Muslims or blacks or Mexicans or gay couples that want to get married.

Why do Christians want to ignore the teachings of the New Testament- so that they can refuse to do something the Bible never tells them that they should refuse to do?

And why do those same Christians have no problem providing their services to men marrying their second or third or fourth wives?

 

[Syriusly]

Or the farmer could have followed the city laws.

You know- like the Bible says.

You do know the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Do you agree with that or are you going to ignore it when it's not what you like to hear?

I do know that the New Testament says that Christians are supposed to follow the law- and Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament.

Of course the New Testament doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination- matter of fact Jesus doesn't even mention homosexuality. He does say that remarriage after divorce- you know like President Trump- is adultery.

Or maybe you are one of those "Old Testament" Christians- who doesn't eat shellfish or cut his beard?

In the same passage about divorce (Matthew 19), Jesus referenced what had been written in Genesis (OT) about a man (MALE) leaving his father/mother and being united with his wife (FEMALE). Even Jesus referenced the OT word of God. That reference doesn't mention a man being united with another man or a woman with another woman.

There are lots of things Jesus didn't mention specifically that I suspect you'd believe are wrong. Since He didn't, are you saying those things are OK to do? Based on your logic, they'd have to be.

Wait...you mean Jesus actually talked about Divorce? Jesus himself actually had something to say about Divorce? That's so weird....you'd think we'd be hearing about all these "good Christians" refusing to serve divorced people. How come we don't? There's a LOT more divorced people getting remarried than gay people getting married and yet not a single "god fearing" baker, florist or Farmer has refused to serve them.

Why?

Jesus actually talked about marriage and it being between a man and a woman. How come we keep hearing that Jesus never mentioned marriage when in the same passage about divorce (Matthew 19) he did?

Who said that Jesus never mentioned marriage?

Names please.

 

[bodecea]

Who said christians are disqualified as judges?

Diane Feinstein and a few other Democrats reportedly made that argument last week about a Catholic Judge up for appointment / confirmation....

So did some posters on here.

Would love to see the evidence.

 

[hazlnut]

You mean like the fags could have had somewhere else make their cake?

Or the farmer could have followed the city laws.

You know- like the Bible says.

You do know the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Do you agree with that or are you going to ignore it when it's not what you like to hear?

I do know that the New Testament says that Christians are supposed to follow the law- and Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament.

Of course the New Testament doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination- matter of fact Jesus doesn't even mention homosexuality. He does say that remarriage after divorce- you know like President Trump- is adultery.

Or maybe you are one of those "Old Testament" Christians- who doesn't eat shellfish or cut his beard?

In the same passage about divorce (Matthew 19), Jesus referenced what had been written in Genesis (OT) about a man (MALE) leaving his father/mother and being united with his wife (FEMALE). Even Jesus referenced the OT word of God. That reference doesn't mention a man being united with another man or a woman with another woman.

There are lots of things Jesus didn't mention specifically that I suspect you'd believe are wrong. Since He didn't, are you saying those things are OK to do? Based on your logic, they'd have to be.

I am glad to post all of the relevant parts(why are you so coy about quoting the Bible?)

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”


4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a]">[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b]">[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”


7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”


8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”


10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”


11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

So here Jesus says two relevant things:

1. That marriage is between and man and a woman and
2. That any man who divorces his wife and remarries unless she is cheating on him- is guilty of adultery.

I don't disagree with the Christians who say the Bible says marriage is between a man and woman. But other than the Catholics and a few Protestant sects- none forbid divorce.

More to the point- nowhere does the Bible say that Christians should not sell to either homosexuals- or adulterers like Donald Trump.

Instead- the Bible says specifically that Christians must obey the law.

And the law says that gay couples- and adulterers like Donald Trump can be legally married- and the law in that town says that is a violation of the law to discriminate against Christians or Jews or Muslims or blacks or Mexicans or gay couples that want to get married.

Why do Christians want to ignore the teachings of the New Testament- so that they can refuse to do something the Bible never tells them that they should refuse to do?

And why do those same Christians have no problem providing their services to men marrying their second or third or fourth wives?

Some of these "Christian" bible translations are really wild.

'Certificate of divorce' -- yeah that was a thing back then… duh!

 

[Syriusly]

No, I'm acknowledging he said nothing about gays...but he did mention divorce. Why aren't divorced people being denied service by these "good Christians"?

He also mentioned marriage being between a man and a woman. Why do you ignore that?

And divorce I believe.......Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 19 - New International Version


Why aren't bakers, and farmers and pizza guys refusing to serve divorced/re-married people?

And marriage being between a man and a woman I believe.

Why aren't you supporting those businesses being able to refuse service to them?

As long as they are not breaking PA laws....fine. Don't you think businesses that have a business license should follow the laws they are pledged to follow by getting that license?

So you're OK if businesses deny service to divorced people but not fags? Got it, hypocrite.

God's word is clear about hypocrites, too.

God's word is clear about hypocrites- which once again applies to those Christians who happily marry a man to his second or third wife- but have a problem marrying Bob and Garry.

The Bible's words of course are very clear that Christians are to obey the law

Christians Should Obey the Law
13 All of you must yield to the government rulers. No one rules unless God has given him the power to rule, and no one rules now without that power from God. 2 So those who are against the government are really against what God has commanded. And they will bring punishment on themselves. 3 Those who do right do not have to fear the rulers; only those who do wrong fear them. Do you want to be unafraid of the rulers? Then do what is right, and they will praise you. 4 The ruler is God’s servant to help you. But if you do wrong, then be afraid. He has the power to punish; he is God’s servant to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must yield to the government, not only because you might be punished, but because you know it is right.

6 This is also why you pay taxes. Rulers are working for God and give their time to their work. 7 Pay everyone, then, what you owe. If you owe any kind of tax, pay it. Show respect and honor to them all.

 

[bodecea]

Who said christians are disqualified as judges?

Diane Feinstein and a few other Democrats reportedly made that argument last week about a Catholic Judge up for appointment / confirmation....

So did some posters on here.

Just what I thought.....misrepresenting: Analysis | Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?

And yet some here have no problem with christian sharia, do they?

 

[Syriusly]

That's not what I said at all.....I thought lying was a no no for christians based on the 10 Suggestions.

I guess not.

Then you shouldn't lie when someone calls you out on it, hypocrite.

Where did I lie? You are the one who say I was "OK if businesses deny service to divorced people"...when I said no such thing.

If you're going to lie about lying, why do you even come on here?

Are you and Rustic the same person or did you both go to the same school to become stupid and dishonest?

Are all you NLs the same person or are there just that many of you?

We nation lovers are not all the same person- despite those bigots who would prefer that.

 

[Syriusly]

Then you shouldn't lie when someone calls you out on it, hypocrite.

Where did I lie? You are the one who say I was "OK if businesses deny service to divorced people"...when I said no such thing.

If you're going to lie about lying, why do you even come on here?

Are you and Rustic the same person or did you both go to the same school to become stupid and dishonest?

Are all you NLs the same person or are there just that many of you?

There's that NL fall-back that Con-servative65 uses. A dead giveaway, isn't it?

Nature Lover?

Aren't we all Nature lovers?

LOL

He is such a cowardly asshole.

 

[RodISHI]

Who said christians are disqualified as judges?

Diane Feinstein and a few other Democrats reportedly made that argument last week about a Catholic Judge up for appointment / confirmation....

So did some posters on here.

Would love to see the evidence.

You'll just have to go search it out for yourself as I have no intentions on doing that for you.

 

[easyt65]

Would love to see the evidence.

There was an entire thread on it, last week I believe. If you don't know how to find it on 'usmb' perhaps you know how to use Google?!