Gays are in trouble

[Avatar4321]

GIS and Word arguing... i dont know whether that will be entertaining or just sad.

 

[GreenBean]

Next, they're going to make all the ******* sit in the back of the restaurant.

How Old are you ? Does your mother know you're on a grown ups message board ?

 

[theword]

BOTTOMLINE= DO YOU BELIEVE GOD'S WORD OR SATAN'S LIES????====Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years
revelation 20:1-5

Satan is nothing but the illusions of this world that man believes are real. The language that goes along with trying to explain this world, also known as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", is what deceives man from his true invisible existence in the mind of our Creator.

JESUS says satan is very real!! I think I will believe JESUS!!! and you???

What did Jesus look like?

Can you describe how his voice sounds?

Where did you run into him?

Are you sure that his flesh floated up to heaven and is coming back in a cloud in the sky?

Are you sure that Revelation didn't mean a "cloud" of information instead of cloud in the sky?

 

[GISMYS]

Satan is nothing but the illusions of this world that man believes are real. The language that goes along with trying to explain this world, also known as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", is what deceives man from his true invisible existence in the mind of our Creator.

JESUS says satan is very real!! I think I will believe JESUS!!! and you???

What did Jesus look like?

Can you describe how his voice sounds?

Where did you run into him?

Are you sure that his flesh floated up to heaven and is coming back in a cloud in the sky?

Are you sure that Revelation didn't mean a "cloud" of information instead of cloud in the sky?

anyone can find JESUS in GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD!!!

 

[theword]

GIS and Word arguing... i dont know whether that will be entertaining or just sad.

I don't have to argue. Watch these posts and learn how our Creator handles this poor unbeliever. This person will get very confused soon and will stop trying to argue with Him.

 

[theword]

JESUS says satan is very real!! I think I will believe JESUS!!! and you???

What did Jesus look like?

Can you describe how his voice sounds?

Where did you run into him?

Are you sure that his flesh floated up to heaven and is coming back in a cloud in the sky?

Are you sure that Revelation didn't mean a "cloud" of information instead of cloud in the sky?

anyone can find JESUS in GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD!!!

I've met a lot of atheists who found an English name in the Bible called Jesus but he didn't come out of that book to greet them. That's why they don't believe he's real.

But I do know that God sent all His prophets to write about us saints coming to speak from the invisible Messiah, also known as the Law of God. This is why the first saint said this;

Matthew 5
17: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18: For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
19: Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20: For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

You Christians are still under the Law and that's why you have no idea who our invisible Creator is or the invisible Messiah, God's Law.

 

[The Professor]

They may be able to marry, but they may soon find themselves without a corporate job.
Ariz. Bill Decried As License to Discriminate - NBC News

You think its okay to prevent gay people from gaining work, then? I guess you are happy to pay for their welfare?

I haven't read the entire legislation, just a summation of the law provided by a poster on another thread. However, I am convinced that the law has nothing to do with hiring and firing. It isn't even really about which customers/clients get served or not get served.

The best example I can think of to demonstrate what the law intends is this: A same-sex couple come into a bake shop and ask for a wedding cake with two men holding hands on the top tier. The baker refuses to bake such a cake based upon her religious beliefs against homosexuality. She offers to make them another cake instead, but the couple refuses.

In the above scenario, the baker does not refuse to serve the same-sex couple; instead she refuses to perform an objectionable act (baking the gay-themed cake). The Arizona law would shield the owner from a lawsuit for refusing to bake the requested cake. To be protected by this law the baker would have to prove he/she had a “sincerely held religious belief” against performing the requested service. It is not enough that he/she merely articulates such a belief.

Besides, the legislation has yet to be court-challenged so all we can do is wait and see how it unfolds.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Got a list handy of the sins rating scale (1-10?)

I assume being gay rates a ten. How about murder, does the waitress have to serve the released murderer a cup of coffee?

Here's a list, which ones will cost me a cup of coffee?

1. IDOLATRY — the making of any created thing to be your "god;": finding your ultimate security in, or settings your ultimate love upon, or giving your ultimate allegiance to, any created thing(s), whether material, human, or formal false religious gods; paying homage to, or worshiping idols, attributing divine power to created entities. (Is. 45:18; Ex. 20:3 Dt. 5:7; 6:5,14; 17:2-7; 27:15; Acts 21:25; 1 Cor. 5:11; 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Thes. 1:9; 1 Jn. 5:21; Rev. 2:14,20; 9:20)
2. BLASPHEMY — Attacking or otherwise showing disrespect toward God and His name or character; attributing to other beings GOD's unique divine qualities; profanity in word or deed. (Lv. 24:16; Ex. 20:7; 1Ki. 21:10; Mt. 12:31; Acts 26:11; 1Tim. 1:3; James 2:7)
3. FALSE PROPHECY in the name of the LORD — misusing or misappropriating God's name and authority. (Deu 18:20a; Jer. 20:1-6; 28:11-17)
4. FALSE PROPHETS — Enticing others to practice false religion; apostasy. (Dt. 13:6-12; Mt. 23:15; Acts 13:10)
5. WITCHCRAFT — the practice of witches; occultic magic; ouija boards, astrology, palmistry, necromancy, divination, etc.; also likened to rebellion. (Ex. 22:18; Lv. 19:31; 20:6,27; 1Sam. 15:23)
6. CHILD SACRIFICE TO IDOLS, FALSE GODS (see #1) — basically includes abortion (most of which are done for convenience), or directing them to laws and ideologies contrary to God's word, and which directs them on the path of damnation. (Lv. 18:21; 20:2; Dt. 12:31; 18:10)
7. REBELLION AGAINST PARENTS — Cursing, disrespect, or constant rebellion against parents (except where obedience is required which conflicts with God's laws) (Ex. 20:12; 21:15, 17; cf. Lv, 20:9; Dt. 21:18; 27:16)
8. DISOBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY — Disobedience to just judgments by God-ordained authority. (Dt. 17:9,10a, 11b,12; Josh 1:18; Rm. 13:1-7; 1Pet. 2:13,14)
9. MURDER — premeditated killing with malice; intentional unlawful and or unjust killing of another human; homicide with malicious forethought. (Ex. 21:12-14: Lv. 24:17; Num. 35:31; Dt. 19:11,12; Jn. 8:44; 1 Tim. 1:9; 1 Pet. 4:15; 1 Jn. 3:15)
10. NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE — Death of another caused by one's own negligence. (Ex. 21:29)
11. HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS — sexual activity between persons of the same gender; seeking to join same genders in marriage (cf. here and here (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Rm. 1:26,27; 1 Tim. 1:10)
12. EFFEMINANCY — men unnaturally taking on female characteristics and behavior. (Dt. 22:5; 1 Cor. 6:9)
13. BESTIALITY — sexual relations between humans and animals. (Ex. 22:19; Lv. 18:23; 20:15; Dt. 27:21)
14. ADULTERY — violation of the marriage bed; extramarital sexual relations in heart or actions (includes lusting by pornography). (Lv. 20:10; Dt. 22:23-25; Mk. 7:20-23; Jn. 8:3-5; Gal. 5:19; 1 Cor. 6:9)
15. FORNICATION — sexual intercourse before marriage: also adultery and spiritual unfaithfulness. (Gn. 34; Mt. 19:9; Mk. 7:20-23; Acts 15:20; 21:25; Rm. 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:1,11; 6:13,19; 7:2; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Ths. 4:3; Rev. 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2);

 

[SmedlyButler]

It will not survive litigation, that is damn near a given.

However, there does not need to be a bill in order for an employer to not hire a gay employee. It is pretty damn easy to establish a reason to pass someone up and almost as easy to come up with a reason to fire someone. Anyone with half a brain could easily rid themselves of a gay employee without any trouble.

Of course the same goes for virtually any service that a company does for a gay person so the bill that passed is rather inane at best.

When I was looking into the commerce clause (It was you talking about FCC, Yes?)
I came across this I hadn't been aware of before;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause.....The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, was passed under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up to that point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited application to state actors. The Supreme Court found that Congress had the authority to regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964). It also ruled that the federal civil rights legislation could be used to regulate a restaurant, Ollie’s Barbeque, a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama because, although most of Ollie’s customers were local, the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 274 (1964).

 

[SmedlyButler]

I guess 1 of these 2 "Christians" is going to Hell. I wonder which one?

 

[FA_Q2]

It will not survive litigation, that is damn near a given.

However, there does not need to be a bill in order for an employer to not hire a gay employee. It is pretty damn easy to establish a reason to pass someone up and almost as easy to come up with a reason to fire someone. Anyone with half a brain could easily rid themselves of a gay employee without any trouble.

Of course the same goes for virtually any service that a company does for a gay person so the bill that passed is rather inane at best.

When I was looking into the commerce clause (It was you talking about FCC, Yes?)
I came across this I hadn't been aware of before;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause.....The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, was passed under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up to that point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited application to state actors. The Supreme Court found that Congress had the authority to regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964). It also ruled that the federal civil rights legislation could be used to regulate a restaurant, Ollie’s Barbeque, a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama because, although most of Ollie’s customers were local, the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 274 (1964).

Yes it was me

This is an example of some of the things that I find rather disgusting about how our law operates. Such vapid reasoning is absolutely unacceptable. The abuse that has become of the interstate commerce clause is utterly amazing.

It no longer has any real relation to actual interstate commerce. Its sole purpose was to ensure that one state did not war with another in trade. Even worse – states actually DO war with each other in relation to trade these days by changing and giving special tax or cash incentives to larger companies to move from one state to another. The government is completely broken at this stage.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think that the government has a real interest in protecting our rights and that sometimes might require laws against discrimination. The irony here is that the 14th actually makes sense to apply to that reality whereas the commerce clause does not.

The real loss is that when you change the meaning of these statements so bend the powers of government they begin to mean anything that you want them to. This is why they have successfully used the commerce clause to control NOT engaging in commerce or growing and USING wheat on your own damn property. Words have meaning, it is high time the government started acknowledging that.

 

[LittleNipper]

They may be able to marry, but they may soon find themselves without a corporate job.
Ariz. Bill Decried As License to Discriminate - NBC News

You think its okay to prevent gay people from gaining work, then? I guess you are happy to pay for their welfare?

I haven't read the entire legislation, just a summation of the law provided by a poster on another thread. However, I am convinced that the law has nothing to do with hiring and firing. It isn't even really about which customers/clients get served or not get served.

The best example I can think of to demonstrate what the law intends is this: A same-sex couple come into a bake shop and ask for a wedding cake with two men holding hands on the top tier. The baker refuses to bake such a cake based upon her religious beliefs against homosexuality. She offers to make them another cake instead, but the couple refuses.

In the above scenario, the baker does not refuse to serve the same-sex couple; instead she refuses to perform an objectionable act (baking the gay-themed cake). The Arizona law would shield the owner from a lawsuit for refusing to bake the requested cake. To be protected by this law the baker would have to prove he/she had a “sincerely held religious belief” against performing the requested service. It is not enough that he/she merely articulates such a belief.

Besides, the legislation has yet to be court-challenged so all we can do is wait and see how it unfolds.

Kind of like at the Olympics where couple skaters always means male and female. And Dances With Stars always means male and female ------ even though there must be some gays in the crows....

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

They may be able to marry, but they may soon find themselves without a corporate job.
Ariz. Bill Decried As License to Discriminate - NBC News

You think its okay to prevent gay people from gaining work, then? I guess you are happy to pay for their welfare?

The law, admittedly a clumsy effort, was passed in reaction to other states that allow homosexuals to impose their morality, such as it is, on persons who object to being associated with their degenerate rituals. Folks are fed up with statist loons who think to overthrow natural and constitutional law in the name of tolerance. The statist thugs of political correctness are driving this nation toward a civil war.

 

[Chaussette]

They may be able to marry, but they may soon find themselves without a corporate job.
Ariz. Bill Decried As License to Discriminate - NBC News

You think its okay to prevent gay people from gaining work, then? I guess you are happy to pay for their welfare?

The law, admittedly a clumsy effort, was passed in reaction to other states that allow homosexuals to impose their morality, such as it is, on persons who object to being associated with their degenerate rituals. Folks are fed up with statist loons who think to overthrow natural and constitutional law in the name of tolerance. The statist thugs of political correctness are driving this nation toward a civil war.

A civil war over gay marriage?

I think you've just won the award for most obsessed homophobe on this board, beating even greenbean!!!!!

 

[GreenBean]

You think its okay to prevent gay people from gaining work, then? I guess you are happy to pay for their welfare?

The law, admittedly a clumsy effort, was passed in reaction to other states that allow homosexuals to impose their morality, such as it is, on persons who object to being associated with their degenerate rituals. Folks are fed up with statist loons who think to overthrow natural and constitutional law in the name of tolerance. The statist thugs of political correctness are driving this nation toward a civil war.

A civil war over gay marriage?

I think you've just won the award for most obsessed homophobe on this board, beating even greenbean!!!!!

RAWLINGS: If it's Chausette you are attempting to address, you need to write in a more simplistic manner, unfortunately this sad little fellow only functions on a 5th Grade Level.

I do believe what he failed to comprehend was your statement

The statist thugs of political correctness are driving this nation toward a civil war

Which I agree wholeheartedly with, unfortunately more simple minds such as Chausette and many Liberals are unable to grasp multiple concepts within the same breath hence he thought you were saying Gay Marriage would create a Civil War.

 

[Chaussette]

The law, admittedly a clumsy effort, was passed in reaction to other states that allow homosexuals to impose their morality, such as it is, on persons who object to being associated with their degenerate rituals. Folks are fed up with statist loons who think to overthrow natural and constitutional law in the name of tolerance. The statist thugs of political correctness are driving this nation toward a civil war.

A civil war over gay marriage?

I think you've just won the award for most obsessed homophobe on this board, beating even greenbean!!!!!

RAWLINGS: If it's Chausette you are attempting to address, you need to write in a more simplistic manner, unfortunately this sad little fellow only functions on a 5th Grade Level.

I do believe what he failed to comprehend was your statement

The statist thugs of political correctness are driving this nation toward a civil war

Which I agree wholeheartedly with, unfortunately more simple minds such as Chausette and many Liberals are unable to grasp multiple concepts within the same breath hence he thought you were saying Gay Marriage would create a Civil War.

So beaner, here's a skill-testing question, you only get one chance so pay attention: would you want a civil war over gay marriage?

 

[GreenBean]

A civil war over gay marriage?

I think you've just won the award for most obsessed homophobe on this board, beating even greenbean!!!!!

RAWLINGS: If it's Chausette you are attempting to address, you need to write in a more simplistic manner, unfortunately this sad little fellow only functions on a 5th Grade Level.

I do believe what he failed to comprehend was your statement

The statist thugs of political correctness are driving this nation toward a civil war

Which I agree wholeheartedly with, unfortunately more simple minds such as Chausette and many Liberals are unable to grasp multiple concepts within the same breath hence he thought you were saying Gay Marriage would create a Civil War.

So beaner, here's a skill-testing question, you only get one chance so pay attention: would you want a civil war over gay marriage?

You still no Capisce ?!! Oy Vay - Ay carumba !!! culo de puto !!!


Hey Douchebag, read the relevant posts and then get back to - LMFAO

 

[Newby]

I don't think this applies to hiring/firing people.

If someone doesn't want to do work for gays for moral/religious reasons, do you really imagine that they would what them working for them for the very same reasons? The employer becomes the coconspirator, enabling gays to pursue their immorality when they could employ wholesome moral family type people. I mean there once was a time a man could be fired for cheating on his wife and no one blinked an eye.

Are Christians just as eager about not serving people who worship idols, or people who drink, or people who have straight anal sex, or people who use the word "God" in vein, or people who work on Sunday, or people who don't honor their parents, or people who covet their neighbor's wife, or people who have lied before, or people who are divorced, etc, etc, etc?

Why is it that Christians are only concerned about not serving people who are gay and nothing else listed above? Seems hypocritical.

Well, perhaps if people were asking businesses to create specific goods for celebration of these sins, then yes, they too would be refused service I would imagine. Last time I looked, a guy cheating on his wife doesn't usually throw a party and order a cake to celebrate his infidelity.

 

[Chaussette]

What if a gay black man gets refused service? Does he call the NAACP?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What did Jesus look like?

Can you describe how his voice sounds?

Where did you run into him?

Are you sure that his flesh floated up to heaven and is coming back in a cloud in the sky?

Are you sure that Revelation didn't mean a "cloud" of information instead of cloud in the sky?

anyone can find JESUS in GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD!!!

I've met a lot of atheists who found an English name in the Bible called Jesus but he didn't come out of that book to greet them. That's why they don't believe he's real.

But I do know that God sent all His prophets to write about us saints coming to speak from the invisible Messiah, also known as the Law of God. This is why the first saint said this;

Matthew 5
17: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18: For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
19: Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20: For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

You Christians are still under the Law and that's why you have no idea who our invisible Creator is or the invisible Messiah, God's Law.

Christians are best-defined by how they pick and choose from their own Bibles. If homosexuality is a sin and you're using the Torah, then you must abide by the other 612 commandments, and not just Leviticus 18:22.

If using ANY of Torah's commandments, you must abide by them all. Why I've always felt Christianity was unwise to include a religious text that's compeltely antithetical to their own. Christianity should only be the NT. Not NT and OT because they're mutually exclusive religious systems.

Is a good 7th Day Adventist sites that addresses whether Christians are under Jewish Law or not (they are according to it.)
Are we still under the law? > Sabbath Truth