Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[bendog]

Yes. And I'm not a fan of public accomodations laws, and I still think Goldwater was right the use of the interstate commerce clause to regulate private citizens's refusals to serve people for race religion and color was a protected exercise of const rigjts; But we have people hypothesizing that maybe some transgender high school male just wants a peak inside the girls bathroom, so if That is really an issue, why not put these divorce supporting "Christens" to the test? (-:

Elane Photography (New Mexico)
Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado)
Florist (Washington)
Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon)


None of these were under Federal law, they were under State Public Accommodation laws so interstate commerce and Federal PA laws are not a factor in these cases.


>>>>

Sure. I'm just not a fan of either the federal or state laws. But I also think those who discriminate can be forced to identify themselves and be shunned and shamed by public opinion and private commerce

 

[bendog]

Correct. An impartial Court will review whether or not "gay" constitutes an inborn trait or merely an addictive sex behavior.

No, that's not the starting point as "inborn trait" or "addictive sex behavior" are irrelevant. Just as there being an inborn trait for a white man to like black women or a white man that had a addictive sex behavior to black women was irrelevant in the Loving case.


>>>>

You're arguing with a person who knows as little about Christ's teachings as human sexuality. Just sayin'

 

[Spare_change]

just like your veiled threat.

The implication of a veiled threat is based on you being ignorant of what "protected persons" means.

I've found that many pseudo-Christians resort to tactics like that.

You said - you live with it.

Are you done with your personal attacks, or is recess over?

I never said "you live with it"

You've repeatedly lied and accused me of some how threatening the President for pointing out that thin skinned presidents are not considered protected by any PA law, federal or state. A lying tactic I've seen many times before.......

My apologies ... I misspoke.

You said IT - you live with it.

As for the rest of your whining .... meh!

Prove IT.

Prove that saying : "Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list" is a threat or even a veiled threat.

Prove what? That you said something ? Really?

Your quote clearly indicates that the subject is in danger, since he is not beng "protected". Quit trying to weasel out of it --- at least, have the balls to stand up for what you said.

Or --- as usual --- weasel your way out of it.

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. If you don't have the balls to admit you said it, you damn sure don't have the balls to do it.

 

[Silhouette]

Correct. An impartial Court will review whether or not "gay" constitutes an inborn trait or merely an addictive sex behavior.

No, that's not the starting point as "inborn trait" or "addictive sex behavior" are irrelevant. Just as there being an inborn trait for a white man to like black women or a white man that had a addictive sex behavior to black women was irrelevant in the Loving case.


>>>>

Loving flew because the static requirement of "man and woman" was met by a white man and a black woman. The only other way of saying it didn't fly was to say "a man and woman of different races cannot marry". And since white men had been marrying Native American women for centuries by the time Loving came up, the precedent was set.

& Yes actually, the distinction of a thing being behavioral or not is all about the distinction of whether or not Christians can be forced to promote said behaviors. We aren't talking about race here. And that's an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT distinction when the question is boiled down to the bottom of the pan...

You're arguing with a person who knows as little about Christ's teachings as human sexuality. Just sayin'

It doesn't matter if you're familiar with the New Testament or not. Christians are. And they know it forbids them to conspire, aide or abet the promotion of two people of the same gender lying together in the same bed "as marrieds". Their passive refusal to promote that lifestyle is protected Constitutionally. And those protections don't have GPS coordinates or a time clock. You cannot force a Christian to commit heresy either at home or at work. The market will decide if they refuse to serve homosexual weddings...whether they stay in business or not....Not jack-booted rainbow-armband government thugs beating them into submission..

Bottom line. The 1st Amendment will be dominant to any come-lately PA laws. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Your quote clearly indicates that the subject is in danger, since he is not beng "protected".

Danger? Do you understand what "protected" means in the context of PA laws?

How else could you jump to such an obvious wrong conclusion?

 

[jillian]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

nice way to pretend that you're not a bigot.

if you can't serve everyone, don't work in a service industry, nutter butter.

you freaks would sing a different tune if a muslim working in a restaurant refused to serve pork.

 

[Seawytch]

The implication of a veiled threat is based on you being ignorant of what "protected persons" means.

I've found that many pseudo-Christians resort to tactics like that.

You said - you live with it.

Are you done with your personal attacks, or is recess over?

I never said "you live with it"

You've repeatedly lied and accused me of some how threatening the President for pointing out that thin skinned presidents are not considered protected by any PA law, federal or state. A lying tactic I've seen many times before.......

My apologies ... I misspoke.

You said IT - you live with it.

As for the rest of your whining .... meh!

Prove IT.

Prove that saying : "Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list" is a threat or even a veiled threat.

Prove what? That you said something ? Really?

Your quote clearly indicates that the subject is in danger, since he is not beng "protected". Quit trying to weasel out of it --- at least, have the balls to stand up for what you said.

Or --- as usual --- weasel your way out of it.

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. If you don't have the balls to admit you said it, you damn sure don't have the balls to do it.

Really.

Protected class - Wikipedia

 

[WorldWatcher]

Bottom line. The 1st Amendment will be dominant to any come-lately PA laws. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you.

Public Accommodation laws were already challenged on 1st Amendment principals and lost. Newman v. Piggie Park was a challenge based on religious grounds (1st Amendment), they lost. Elane Photography from New Mexico was challenged on free speech grounds (1st Amendment) they lost.


>>>>

 

[keepitreal]

What religion would that be?
Anyone who affiliated themselves to,
the most common denominations...
wouldn't be able to pass off being a racist
based on beliefs, morals and religious convictions

You're kidding right? Christians wanted religious exemptions from public accommodation laws protecting blacks from discrimination just like they want special little carve outs for them to break laws designed to protect gays from discrimination.

Kidding about what? My response was to....

Title II of the Civil Rights Act protecting blacks (among others) from discriminationwas challenged on "religious freedom" grounds. Those that did not wish to offer equal access to goods and services to blacks on religious grounds did not win at at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a very similar case. They refused. Why would this case be any differen

You said they didn't win on grounds of religious freedom
and I concurred, racism has no place in religion

Neither does homophobia, but both exist in the same religions. Racist believe the Bible backs them up just as much as it backs up homophobes.

Again, my point was racism is racism
Discrimination against blacks, the cruelty and humiliation
they endured and were subjected to, was not by anyone
with religious convictions, sitting in church every week
and treating blacks as shit because of the color of their skin
did not reflect God, it was a reflection of satan

That's YOUR opinion. They think they are just as godly and justified as you believe you are.

other then, by redefining marriage,
redefining decency, redefining perversion,
redefining what is seen and heard on tv or the radio

then rewriting or creating laws to protect
perversion, indecency and moral decay
so values, morals and decency become discriminatory

The definition of marriage hasn't changed, it just accommodates more people now.

Nothing indecent or immoral about consenting adults marrying each other. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'm sorry, I'm anti forcing shit on society
so others can feel better about their perverted lifestyle

Yeah, that's what racists said about interracial marriage. Same bigots, different targets.

You said they didn't win on grounds of religious freedom
and I concurred, racism has no place in religion

Neither does homophobia, but both exist in the same religions. Racist believe the Bible backs them up just as much as it backs up homophobes.

You know what, let's give racism a rest.
The issues of discrimination, sexual orientation,
freedom of religion, anti-gay, homophobes...
gives us plenty to debate without having to
compare it to race and racism, which isn't the topic

The Bible is the source of her faith
and where her religious beliefs originated from.
The Word of God is very clear about homosexuality.

The Word of God is very clear about sexual immorality...
including beastiallity, pornography and cross dressing...
Did you know that?

But, The Word of God is very clear about love,
judging others, submitting to government(laws)
our associations and suffering for God's Glory.

Living a life for God means living according to His Word
Living a life that pleases God and is a testament to Him
Not whether or not, someone feels offended or appalled

So, where does the real problem exist
concerning her and religious beliefs for you?

Do you think she was just using religion
as a scapegoat and hates gay people?

Do you think God is a homophobe
and His Word is wack and out dated?

Do you think the Bible teaches
discriminatory beliefs and advocates intolerance?

Do you think the Bible is a fable and God doesn't exist?

What is it, what do you have a problem with?

BTW...what, are you gay or something?

Again, my point was racism is racism
Discrimination against blacks, the cruelty and humiliation
they endured and were subjected to, was not by anyone
with religious convictions, sitting in church every week
and treating blacks as shit because of the color of their skin
did not reflect God, it was a reflection of satan

That's YOUR opinion. They think they are just as godly and justified as you believe you are.

What's MY opinion? WTF are you trying to get across?
First of all, I am not, nor consider myself, let alone,
think I am, in any way, shape or form, Godly!

Justified? Regarding where I stand
on the issue of same sex marriage
or the issue of discriminatory discrimination?

You don't know my position on the matter...
You just assume to!

Homosexuality is unnatural...period!
I don't care how you slice it or dice it....
It is what it is and no law can change reality

Does that mean I'm anti gay and a homophobe
Um, nope, but, the propaganda to define me
and label me as such does...which is fine with me

What makes my stance unjustified,
and those on the flip side justified?

Of course we have to be wrong,
how else could those eradicate, what little is left
of traditional morals, values and decency

other then, by redefining marriage,
redefining decency, redefining perversion,
redefining what is seen and heard on tv or the radio

then rewriting or creating laws to protect
perversion, indecency and moral decay
so values, morals and decency become discriminatory

The definition of marriage hasn't changed, it just accommodates more people now.

Nothing indecent or immoral about consenting adults marrying each other.
Quite the opposite in fact.

The definition of marriage has changed,
to include homosexual unions....odd though,
same sex is the wording used, hmmm,
guess the gay community thought the word
homosexual had too much negativity attached to it

Of course so many people see nothing
indecent or immoral with homosexuals marrying,
and it was finally made possible to legally attain...

I was 29 when my youngest son was born,
in the 20 years that have passed since then,

I have watched the moral decay of this nation
slowing erode society through indoctrination,
grooming, compromise and victimization propaganda...

Where values, morals and ethics haven't been removed,
they have been replaced, reinvented and redefined

I can not even imagine, nor do I care to,
what the guiding principles of today,
will usher in and establish as equal under the law
and a personal liberty entitled to protection, 20 yrs from now!

I'm sorry, I'm anti forcing shit on society
so others can feel better about their perverted lifestyle

Yeah, that's what racists said about interracial marriage. Same bigots, different targets.

Oh please, stop trying to compare apples to oranges already!

People didn't stay in the closest and continue to now,
for any other reason than shame, those who didn't care, didn't care
As more gays came out, the more that followed.
You can fight the courts to be considered equal under the law,
but, you can't force people to accept what is unnatural.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Discrimination is not in any way part of Christianity.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."

 

[Spare_change]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Discrimination is not in any way part of Christianity.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."

It's interesting how quickly people will jump on the Discrimination Bandwagon in an attempt to shut down serious discussion.

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is also a Christian tenet. The Bible is VERY clear about what it considers to be deviant sexual behavior. To deny a person the right to believe in the tenets of the Bible is just as discriminatory as what you so blithely try to assign to Christians.

How about ... "You can believe as you wish to believe, and I will believe as I wish to believe"? Christians should be just as free to practice their religion as non-believers are free to practice their beliefs.

 

[BlindBoo]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Discrimination is not in any way part of Christianity.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."

It's interesting how quickly people will jump on the Discrimination Bandwagon in an attempt to shut down serious discussion.

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is also a Christian tenet. The Bible is VERY clear about what it considers to be deviant sexual behavior. To deny a person the right to believe in the tenets of the Bible is just as discriminatory as what you so blithely try to assign to Christians.

How about ... "You can believe as you wish to believe, and I will believe as I wish to believe"? Christians should be just as free to practice their religion as non-believers are free to practice their beliefs.

The appropriate punishment for being gay is death isn't it?

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

So no, they shouldn't.

 

[Spare_change]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Discrimination is not in any way part of Christianity.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."

It's interesting how quickly people will jump on the Discrimination Bandwagon in an attempt to shut down serious discussion.

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is also a Christian tenet. The Bible is VERY clear about what it considers to be deviant sexual behavior. To deny a person the right to believe in the tenets of the Bible is just as discriminatory as what you so blithely try to assign to Christians.

How about ... "You can believe as you wish to believe, and I will believe as I wish to believe"? Christians should be just as free to practice their religion as non-believers are free to practice their beliefs.

The appropriate punishment for being gay is death isn't it?

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

So no, they shouldn't.

It's amazing ... every time we try to have an honest and intelligent discussion about an issue, liberals immediately jump to the far extreme.

It would seem it is more important that you stifle serious discussion than it is to convert others to your side.

So be it.

I'm outta here.

 

[BlindBoo]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Discrimination is not in any way part of Christianity.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."

It's interesting how quickly people will jump on the Discrimination Bandwagon in an attempt to shut down serious discussion.

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is also a Christian tenet. The Bible is VERY clear about what it considers to be deviant sexual behavior. To deny a person the right to believe in the tenets of the Bible is just as discriminatory as what you so blithely try to assign to Christians.

How about ... "You can believe as you wish to believe, and I will believe as I wish to believe"? Christians should be just as free to practice their religion as non-believers are free to practice their beliefs.

The appropriate punishment for being gay is death isn't it?

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

So no, they shouldn't.

It's amazing ... every time we try to have an honest and intelligent discussion about an issue, liberals immediately jump to the far extreme.

It would seem it is more important that you stifle serious discussion than it is to convert others to your side.

So be it.

I'm outta here.

It is a direct quote from the Bible.

Are you saying it is not an appropriate punishment?

Assuming you agree where is the line? Somewhere between death and not making floral arrangements for money (or baking cakes I assume) you've drawn a line. Where and why?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trump is a Presbyterian. The Presbyterian faith supports gay marriage.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Discrimination is not in any way part of Christianity.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."

It's interesting how quickly people will jump on the Discrimination Bandwagon in an attempt to shut down serious discussion.

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is also a Christian tenet. The Bible is VERY clear about what it considers to be deviant sexual behavior. To deny a person the right to believe in the tenets of the Bible is just as discriminatory as what you so blithely try to assign to Christians.

How about ... "You can believe as you wish to believe, and I will believe as I wish to believe"? Christians should be just as free to practice their religion as non-believers are free to practice their beliefs.

Jesus was very clear on how to treat others.
Discrimination and rejection were not among them.

 

[Spare_change]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Discrimination is not in any way part of Christianity.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."

It's interesting how quickly people will jump on the Discrimination Bandwagon in an attempt to shut down serious discussion.

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is also a Christian tenet. The Bible is VERY clear about what it considers to be deviant sexual behavior. To deny a person the right to believe in the tenets of the Bible is just as discriminatory as what you so blithely try to assign to Christians.

How about ... "You can believe as you wish to believe, and I will believe as I wish to believe"? Christians should be just as free to practice their religion as non-believers are free to practice their beliefs.

Jesus was very clear on how to treat others.
Discrimination and rejection were not among them.
View attachment 113852

Christians don't hate gays --- they hate homosexuality. Your inability to understand the difference is not our concern.

 

[Seawytch]

You know what, let's give racism a rest.
The issues of discrimination, sexual orientation,
freedom of religion, anti-gay, homophobes...
gives us plenty to debate without having to
compare it to race and racism, which isn't the topic

Discrimination is discrimination which is the topic. Racists tried to use religion to deny equal access to goods and services to blacks. Anti gay bigots try to use religion to do the same to gays. Why should one be allowed when the other is not?

The Bible is the source of her faith
and where her religious beliefs originated from.
The Word of God is very clear about homosexuality.

The Word of God is very clear about sexual immorality...
including beastiallity, pornography and cross dressing...
Did you know that?

To racists, the "word of god" is very clear about keeping the races separated.

Do you think she was just using religion
as a scapegoat and hates gay people?

I don't know about hate, but yes, I think she is scapegoating religion so she can discriminate against gays. Anyone who hides behind their religion in order to discriminate is using religion not practicing it.

Do you think God is a homophobe
and His Word is wack and out dated?

I don't believe Jesus is, no. Yes to the second question.

Do you think the Bible teaches
discriminatory beliefs and advocates intolerance?

I believe that some people interpret it that way, but they're wrong.

Do you think the Bible is a fable and God doesn't exist?

Yes and I don't know.

What is it, what do you have a problem with?

Inequality and injustice.

BTW...what, are you gay or something?

Why does it matter?

Homosexuality is unnatural...period!
I don't care how you slice it or dice it....
It is what it is and no law can change reality

Again, nothing but your opinion.

Does that mean I'm anti gay and a homophobe
Um, nope, but, the propaganda to define me
and label me as such does...which is fine with me

Um, yeah, actually it does make you the dictionary definition of a homophobe.

What makes my stance unjustified,
and those on the flip side justified?

The difference between equality and inequality.

The definition of marriage has changed,
to include homosexual unions....odd though,
same sex is the wording used, hmmm,
guess the gay community thought the word
homosexual had too much negativity attached to it

No the definition did not change anymore than the definition of voting changed when blacks and women were allowed to do it. It still means the same thing.

Of course so many people see nothing
indecent or immoral with homosexuals marrying,
and it was finally made possible to legally attain...

I was 29 when my youngest son was born,
in the 20 years that have passed since then,

I have watched the moral decay of this nation
slowing erode society through indoctrination,
grooming, compromise and victimization propaganda...

Not "so many"...MOST. MOST people see nothing wrong with gays marrying.

You see moral decay and I see freedom and justice for all. I like my worldview better.

Oh please, stop trying to compare apples to oranges already!

People didn't stay in the closest and continue to now,
for any other reason than shame, those who didn't care, didn't care
As more gays came out, the more that followed.
You can fight the courts to be considered equal under the law,
but, you can't force people to accept what is unnatural.

I'm not comparing Apple's and oranges. I'm comparing discrimination to discrimination.

That "unnatural" argument sounds so familiar...

Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

 

[Seawytch]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Discrimination is not in any way part of Christianity.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."

It's interesting how quickly people will jump on the Discrimination Bandwagon in an attempt to shut down serious discussion.

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is also a Christian tenet. The Bible is VERY clear about what it considers to be deviant sexual behavior. To deny a person the right to believe in the tenets of the Bible is just as discriminatory as what you so blithely try to assign to Christians.

How about ... "You can believe as you wish to believe, and I will believe as I wish to believe"? Christians should be just as free to practice their religion as non-believers are free to practice their beliefs.

Jesus was very clear on how to treat others.
Discrimination and rejection were not among them.
View attachment 113852

Christians don't hate gays --- they hate homosexuality. Your inability to understand the difference is not our concern.

Wrong...

 

[Spare_change]

So, why is it okay to discriminate against somebody because of their religion?