Here's why religious restoration acts are repressive

[Immanuel]

No Pharisees today? Are you insane?

Do you know anything at all about the Pharisees? Do you really believe they were a passing phase of humanity? Well, a short lesson for one such as yourself who obviously does not understand what the Pharisees were then and what they are today. The Pharisees were arrogant human beings who took the basic teachings of God's laws and expanded upon them, putting their own beliefs and interpretations of God's law ahead of God's law. An example would be the Sabbath laws.

I'm not insane, you are. You claim Pharasees exist and to prove it you mention arrogant humans today. That would include you with that definition.


<Big steamy pile of manure snipped>

Oh yes, The Pharisees are alive and well feeding off the ignorance of those who will not question their "authority", feeding of the immature who believe that they and they alone are the moral authorities of the times. Things have not changed in the last 2,000 years and they won't in the future either.

Go ahead, Ice Weasel, keep thinking that you are better than everyone else. See where that gets you. By the way, that in a nutshell was a problem of the Pharisees of 2,000 years ago.

Well, my response to your infantile jibberish was

"You made an accusation against the "religious right" then fumbled the ball. That's called bearing false witness. A sin. I'm not aware of Christians determining anyone's sexual orientation prior to doing business with them. The issue only comes up when they are asked to provide a service or goods that they are at odds with, like homosexuality, abortion, racism, etc. There are no Pharisees today and given your idiotic and smug attitude I'm sure any Christian would be better off without your hypocritical prayers."

And you puked up a bunch of nonsense to prove how Pharisees exist today, only you didn't. Words don't mean what you want them to mean. Sounds to me like you became what you hated.

Words only mean what they mean and my words speak for themselves. Your arrogance proves only that you are one of those of whom I speak.

Pharisees are alive and well today. The actions of men like Pat Robertson and James Dobson are perfect examples. Just because you are too ignorant to understand that does not change that fact. Defend yourself all you want, but you are what you are.

If you were worth having any kind of a discussion with, you would have answered my first post with your reasons for feeling I was wrong. But, you seem to be too ignorant to actually come up with any defense of your position.

How about it? Show me where I am wrong. Oh wait, you can't.

I guess this discussion is over and you have obviously lost.

 

[Iceweasel]

No Pharisees today? Are you insane?

Do you know anything at all about the Pharisees? Do you really believe they were a passing phase of humanity? Well, a short lesson for one such as yourself who obviously does not understand what the Pharisees were then and what they are today. The Pharisees were arrogant human beings who took the basic teachings of God's laws and expanded upon them, putting their own beliefs and interpretations of God's law ahead of God's law. An example would be the Sabbath laws.

I'm not insane, you are. You claim Pharasees exist and to prove it you mention arrogant humans today. That would include you with that definition.


<Big steamy pile of manure snipped>

Oh yes, The Pharisees are alive and well feeding off the ignorance of those who will not question their "authority", feeding of the immature who believe that they and they alone are the moral authorities of the times. Things have not changed in the last 2,000 years and they won't in the future either.

Go ahead, Ice Weasel, keep thinking that you are better than everyone else. See where that gets you. By the way, that in a nutshell was a problem of the Pharisees of 2,000 years ago.

Well, my response to your infantile jibberish was

"You made an accusation against the "religious right" then fumbled the ball. That's called bearing false witness. A sin. I'm not aware of Christians determining anyone's sexual orientation prior to doing business with them. The issue only comes up when they are asked to provide a service or goods that they are at odds with, like homosexuality, abortion, racism, etc. There are no Pharisees today and given your idiotic and smug attitude I'm sure any Christian would be better off without your hypocritical prayers."

And you puked up a bunch of nonsense to prove how Pharisees exist today, only you didn't. Words don't mean what you want them to mean. Sounds to me like you became what you hated.

Words only mean what they mean and my words speak for themselves. Your arrogance proves only that you are one of those of whom I speak.

Pharisees are alive and well today. The actions of men like Pat Robertson and James Dobson are perfect examples. Just because you are too ignorant to understand that does not change that fact. Defend yourself all you want, but you are what you are.

If you were worth having any kind of a discussion with, you would have answered my first post with your reasons for feeling I was wrong. But, you seem to be too ignorant to actually come up with any defense of your position.

How about it? Show me where I am wrong. Oh wait, you can't.

I guess this discussion is over and you have obviously lost.

Wrong, asshole. Dobson and Robertson aren't Pharisees. You don't get to define words for everybody else. You're small minded petty smear monger and I got sick of your type in church, quit going and dropped the faith altogether. There's too many like you, you're dishonest and try to twist words to fit your simple beliefs. I originally said to you:

"I'm not aware of Christians determining anyone's sexual orientation prior to doing business with them. The issue only comes up when they are asked to provide a service or goods that they are at odds with, like homosexuality, abortion, racism, etc. There are no Pharisees today..."

So you don't understand the issue and you made a false claim about being a Pharisee that you supported with gibberish. If there were Pharisees today it would be easy enough to find one.

 

[Immanuel]

No Pharisees today? Are you insane?

Do you know anything at all about the Pharisees? Do you really believe they were a passing phase of humanity? Well, a short lesson for one such as yourself who obviously does not understand what the Pharisees were then and what they are today. The Pharisees were arrogant human beings who took the basic teachings of God's laws and expanded upon them, putting their own beliefs and interpretations of God's law ahead of God's law. An example would be the Sabbath laws.

I'm not insane, you are. You claim Pharasees exist and to prove it you mention arrogant humans today. That would include you with that definition.


<Big steamy pile of manure snipped>

Oh yes, The Pharisees are alive and well feeding off the ignorance of those who will not question their "authority", feeding of the immature who believe that they and they alone are the moral authorities of the times. Things have not changed in the last 2,000 years and they won't in the future either.

Go ahead, Ice Weasel, keep thinking that you are better than everyone else. See where that gets you. By the way, that in a nutshell was a problem of the Pharisees of 2,000 years ago.

Well, my response to your infantile jibberish was

"You made an accusation against the "religious right" then fumbled the ball. That's called bearing false witness. A sin. I'm not aware of Christians determining anyone's sexual orientation prior to doing business with them. The issue only comes up when they are asked to provide a service or goods that they are at odds with, like homosexuality, abortion, racism, etc. There are no Pharisees today and given your idiotic and smug attitude I'm sure any Christian would be better off without your hypocritical prayers."

And you puked up a bunch of nonsense to prove how Pharisees exist today, only you didn't. Words don't mean what you want them to mean. Sounds to me like you became what you hated.

Words only mean what they mean and my words speak for themselves. Your arrogance proves only that you are one of those of whom I speak.

Pharisees are alive and well today. The actions of men like Pat Robertson and James Dobson are perfect examples. Just because you are too ignorant to understand that does not change that fact. Defend yourself all you want, but you are what you are.

If you were worth having any kind of a discussion with, you would have answered my first post with your reasons for feeling I was wrong. But, you seem to be too ignorant to actually come up with any defense of your position.

How about it? Show me where I am wrong. Oh wait, you can't.

I guess this discussion is over and you have obviously lost.

Wrong, asshole. Dobson and Robertson aren't Pharisees. You don't get to define words for everybody else. You're small minded petty smear monger and I got sick of your type in church, quit going and dropped the faith altogether. There's too many like you, you're dishonest and try to twist words to fit your simple beliefs. I originally said to you:

"I'm not aware of Christians determining anyone's sexual orientation prior to doing business with them. The issue only comes up when they are asked to provide a service or goods that they are at odds with, like homosexuality, abortion, racism, etc. There are no Pharisees today..."

So you don't understand the issue and you made a false claim about being a Pharisee that you supported with gibberish. If there were Pharisees today it would be easy enough to find one.

Hey idiot. Making the statement "you are wrong", does not prove your point. I think that was taught even in public schools by the end of the First Grade.

Either prove your point by showing why Robertson and Dobson are not Pharisees or sit in the corner and suck your thumb like all the other dunces. I am willing to have an intelligent discussion with you, but so far you have not seemed to care to do so. "I'm right, you're wrong!" doesn't cut it. I have begun my part of the discussion with laying out my argument based on the Word of God. The only basis you have given for your argument comes from a weasel and consists only of "you are wrong". That is not much of an argument.

It is easy enough to find Pharisees today.

Turn on The 700 Club. Watch one segment. You will see them

Pat Robertson s evil twisted view on Gay Marriage

Here is Pat putting himself in God's place declaring that homosexuals are putting us in a downward slide towards all things we consider to be "abhorrent".

Robertson God Will Destroy America Because of Gay Marriage

God will destroy America because of homosexuality.

Two examples of Pat Robertson's arrogance. Those are two examples of the kinds of things that the Pharisees did when they interpreted God's laws and believe me as you said, it would be easy enough to find one. It is extremely easy to find such examples. I didn't even have to try.

I am sorry, that you are so upset that someone who is a Christian (you yourself acted the Pharisee when you condemned me as not being a Christian because I did not agree with you) would happen to disagree with your view on these two men. I really liked James Dobson for a very long time. It is difficult for me to accuse him and his organization of having crossed the line, but it is true. Dobson would have better served the community if he had stayed out of politics. Even further back I enjoyed watching Pat Robertson's show. But, when I really watched, I began to hear the condemnation of sinners (not himself as we say that we are all sinners) but those evil abortionists and those evil homosexuals. I began to try and reconcile his statements with the Word of God and they simply do not agree.

James Dobson blames gays abortion for shootings - Salon.com

Dr. Dobson Explains Remarks at Nat l Day of Prayer Condemning Obama as the Abortion President

Dr. James Dobson insists he will not bow before Obama s wicked abortion mandate News LifeSite

I happen to agree with Dr. Dobson that America has turned its back on God. I do not doubt him in this case at all, but blaming gays and abortion? I would also agree that Obama qualifies as "the abortion President".

Both Dobson and Robertson have declared abortion to be sinful, murder. I can't disagree with them, but in reality, as I pointed out before and you have not proven me wrong, the Bible does not discuss abortion. How then can Dobson and Robertson declare abortion to be mortal sins? How can they condemn homosexuals beyond condemning all sinners? They cannot unless they take on the cloak of the Pharisees.

That being said, who is James Dobson to decide what God thinks? That is the trait of a Pharisee. You Pharisees think you are so much more reliable when it comes to God's Word that we must all take what you say as Gospel and not question it at all.

No Thank You. I trust in God to lead me to where I must be. If Robertson and Dobson are correct then I am convinced that God has shown me what must be taught and that God will guide me away from the errors of Robertson's and Dobson's teachings. These men are nothing more than men and you should begin by reading the Word of God for yourself and stop allowing them to interpret it for you. The Lord will lead you to what is important and away from the traps if you will let him. Not everything these men say is wrong. Even the Pharisee Caiaphas was correct when he declared that "it is better for you that one man die for the people then that the whole nation perish".

These are two prominent men of the Religious Right. But they are not by any stretch of the imagination the worst examples.

The Religious Right preaches hate and discrimination against Gays. Where do you find such preaching in the Gospel? Heck anywhere in the Word of God? Exodus and Leviticus condemn homosexuality among so many other things, many of which I am certain you are guilty of yourself. Condemn gays and you should condemn yourself as well.

The Religious Right has declared abortion to be murder and even some crazy Pharisees such as Paul Hill and Scott Roeder have killed abortionist in the name of God. George Tiller was Lutheran as am I. I think what Tiller did for a profession was disgusting, but did it warrant being murdered over? Maybe, but who makes those decisions? You, Pat Robertson, Dr. Dobson?

I have laid out my case for the fact that I think humanity has not overcome the sins of the Pharisees. Please, I welcome discussion with you on this, but please be more intelligent than replying with, "wrong asshole". I may be wrong, but prove it.

And in reference to your statement that I don't understand the issue. You would be wrong there as well. I fully understand the issue. You want to be righteous in your bigotry. You want to justify your hatred of people that you deem yourself to be morally superior to. You see, I understand the issue very well.

 

[Immanuel]

Oh weasel, I forgot to provide a reference for my statement about Caiaphas. Since you seem to be so unfamiliar with your bible and biblical history, let me help you with that. The reference for that verse is John 11:49-51. It is in reference to Caiaphas, the High Priest, justifying the condemnation of Jesus Christ for the good of the Pharisees. Yes, the Pharisees not the nation of Israel.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Religious Right preaches hate and discrimination against Gays.

That's a lie. Puking up a bunch of bullshit all over the thread isn't going to work. Just because you think someone acts like a Pharisee doesn't mean Pharisees exist today. Have a Sunday school kid explain it to you.

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh weasel, I forgot to provide a reference for my statement about Caiaphas. Since you seem to be so unfamiliar with your bible and biblical history, let me help you with that. The reference for that verse is John 11:49-51. It is in reference to Caiaphas, the High Priest, justifying the condemnation of Jesus Christ for the good of the Pharisees. Yes, the Pharisees not the nation of Israel.

So? You deranged fuckwit, what's that supposed to prove?

 

[Immanuel]

Oh weasel, I forgot to provide a reference for my statement about Caiaphas. Since you seem to be so unfamiliar with your bible and biblical history, let me help you with that. The reference for that verse is John 11:49-51. It is in reference to Caiaphas, the High Priest, justifying the condemnation of Jesus Christ for the good of the Pharisees. Yes, the Pharisees not the nation of Israel.

So? You deranged fuckwit, what's that supposed to prove?

Well, simply trying to instruct you in the proper method of documenting your points... which by the way, you seem not to have any particular point besides, you don't like what I have said about Pat Robertson or James Dobson. You obviously do not have the ability to form an argument of your own so I guess this discussion is over.

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, simply trying to instruct you in the proper method of documenting your points... which by the way, you seem not to have any particular point besides, you don't like what I have said about Pat Robertson or James Dobson. You obviously do not have the ability to form an argument of your own so I guess this discussion is over.

I said you were an asshole and you proved it. Numerous times now. You tried to bury it in bullshit since you're a loser that apparently can't come up with a coherent thought. Attempting to mask it with arrogance might work in your church but not here.

You mentioned how the religious right mistreats homosexuals but you didn't support it with anything other than your hatred for a few men on the right. Are you high?

 

[Immanuel]

Well, simply trying to instruct you in the proper method of documenting your points... which by the way, you seem not to have any particular point besides, you don't like what I have said about Pat Robertson or James Dobson. You obviously do not have the ability to form an argument of your own so I guess this discussion is over.

I said you were an asshole and you proved it. Numerous times now. You tried to bury it in bullshit since you're a loser that apparently can't come up with a coherent thought. Attempting to mask it with arrogance might work in your church but not here.

You mentioned how the religious right mistreats homosexuals but you didn't support it with anything other than your hatred for a few men on the right. Are you high?

Are you going to back up your statements that I am wrong with any kind of proof or continue with your temper tantrum?

Sorry, but I don't have time to indulge you if it is the latter.

Talk about the lack of coherent thought, look at yourself. I have defined Pharisee and shown how the modern day Religious Right are the Pharisees of today. You whine, call me a liar and an asshole, but you don't have the intelligence to defend your position at all.

I have indeed supported my claim of the mistreatment of homosexuals by the Religious Right. I used their very words to do so. I can also point to Indiana's RFRA that was passed just last week which is nothing more than an attempt to mask discrimination in a cloak of morality. I have also opened the door for you to attempt to prove to me that I am incorrect, but you evidently do not possess the ability to form any argument at all. I do not know what else I can do to help you to form any kind of an argument. It is a shame because I had hoped that you would be intelligent enough to prove to me that I am wrong, but evidently, you cannot do so.

Maybe in the near future one of your friends will come along and assist you. I have been wrong in the past and may be wrong now, but you are obviously incapable of proving it. Therefore, I await your betters.

 

[Iceweasel]

Are you going to back up your statements that I am wrong with any kind of proof or continue with your temper tantrum?

Sorry, but I don't have time to indulge you if it is the latter.

You smarmy Christard. YOU made the accusation and I said you're full of it. YOU already provided the proof, all you had was the accusation that the religious right mistreats homosexuals.

Talk about the lack of coherent thought, look at yourself. I have defined Pharisee and shown how the modern day Religious Right are the Pharisees of today. You whine, call me a liar and an asshole, but you don't have the intelligence to defend your position at all.

Wrong. Pharisee means a specific thing not what you want it to mean. Believing doesn't make something true but your head is too far up your ass to see how silly it is.

I have indeed supported my claim of the mistreatment of homosexuals by the Religious Right. I used their very words to do so. I can also point to Indiana's RFRA that was passed just last week which is nothing more than an attempt to mask discrimination in a cloak of morality. I have also opened the door for you to attempt to prove to me that I am incorrect, but you evidently do not possess the ability to form any argument at all. I do not know what else I can do to help you to form any kind of an argument. It is a shame because I had hoped that you would be intelligent enough to prove to me that I am wrong, but evidently, you cannot do so.

Maybe in the near future one of your friends will come along and assist you. I have been wrong in the past and may be wrong now, but you are obviously incapable of proving it. Therefore, I await your betters.

My dogs are your betters. They don't run around pretending to be something they aren't. Saying no to a homosexual event isn't harming anyone unless they are so thin skinned the difference of opinion puts them in a hospital on medication.

And it sounds like you are overdue for your meds. Phoney.

 

[Immanuel]

Are you going to back up your statements that I am wrong with any kind of proof or continue with your temper tantrum?

Sorry, but I don't have time to indulge you if it is the latter.

You smarmy Christard. YOU made the accusation and I said you're full of it. YOU already provided the proof, all you had was the accusation that the religious right mistreats homosexuals.

Talk about the lack of coherent thought, look at yourself. I have defined Pharisee and shown how the modern day Religious Right are the Pharisees of today. You whine, call me a liar and an asshole, but you don't have the intelligence to defend your position at all.

Wrong. Pharisee means a specific thing not what you want it to mean. Believing doesn't make something true but your head is too far up your ass to see how silly it is.

I have indeed supported my claim of the mistreatment of homosexuals by the Religious Right. I used their very words to do so. I can also point to Indiana's RFRA that was passed just last week which is nothing more than an attempt to mask discrimination in a cloak of morality. I have also opened the door for you to attempt to prove to me that I am incorrect, but you evidently do not possess the ability to form any argument at all. I do not know what else I can do to help you to form any kind of an argument. It is a shame because I had hoped that you would be intelligent enough to prove to me that I am wrong, but evidently, you cannot do so.

Maybe in the near future one of your friends will come along and assist you. I have been wrong in the past and may be wrong now, but you are obviously incapable of proving it. Therefore, I await your betters.

My dogs are your betters. They don't run around pretending to be something they aren't. Saying no to a homosexual event isn't harming anyone unless they are so thin skinned the difference of opinion puts them in a hospital on medication.

And it sounds like you are overdue for your meds. Phoney.

You still are not able to defend your position, I see.

RFRA is not about "saying no". It is about discriminating against a class of people. Obviously you support such discrimination. You claim that "saying no to homosexuals is not harming anyone". Therefore, it is evident that you also believe that telling a black person no they cannot eat in a restaurant harms no one. That is despicable! You are despicable!

My statement in the first post I made on this thread stands, "The Religious Right is more closely represented by the Pharisees". That stands. Also for the record, that does not mean The sect, "the Pharisees" exist today. It means you do not behave as a Disciple of Christ rather you behave more like those people who opposed, framed and led Jesus to the Cross. Those men who I mentioned and the rest of you who stand with them are not behaving like Christians. I have proven my point.

If your dogs are my betters, then perhaps you should back away from your computer and allow your mutts to type your replies, because you clearly are not up to my standards nor theirs.

I look forward to hearing from your mutts.

 

[Iceweasel]

Are you going to back up your statements that I am wrong with any kind of proof or continue with your temper tantrum?

Sorry, but I don't have time to indulge you if it is the latter.

You smarmy Christard. YOU made the accusation and I said you're full of it. YOU already provided the proof, all you had was the accusation that the religious right mistreats homosexuals.

Talk about the lack of coherent thought, look at yourself. I have defined Pharisee and shown how the modern day Religious Right are the Pharisees of today. You whine, call me a liar and an asshole, but you don't have the intelligence to defend your position at all.

Wrong. Pharisee means a specific thing not what you want it to mean. Believing doesn't make something true but your head is too far up your ass to see how silly it is.

I have indeed supported my claim of the mistreatment of homosexuals by the Religious Right. I used their very words to do so. I can also point to Indiana's RFRA that was passed just last week which is nothing more than an attempt to mask discrimination in a cloak of morality. I have also opened the door for you to attempt to prove to me that I am incorrect, but you evidently do not possess the ability to form any argument at all. I do not know what else I can do to help you to form any kind of an argument. It is a shame because I had hoped that you would be intelligent enough to prove to me that I am wrong, but evidently, you cannot do so.

Maybe in the near future one of your friends will come along and assist you. I have been wrong in the past and may be wrong now, but you are obviously incapable of proving it. Therefore, I await your betters.

My dogs are your betters. They don't run around pretending to be something they aren't. Saying no to a homosexual event isn't harming anyone unless they are so thin skinned the difference of opinion puts them in a hospital on medication.

And it sounds like you are overdue for your meds. Phoney.

You still are not able to defend your position, I see.

RFRA is not about "saying no". It is about discriminating against a class of people. Obviously you support such discrimination. You claim that "saying no to homosexuals is not harming anyone". Therefore, it is evident that you also believe that telling a black person no they cannot eat in a restaurant harms no one. That is despicable! You are despicable!

My statement in the first post I made on this thread stands, "The Religious Right is more closely represented by the Pharisees". That stands. Also for the record, that does not mean The sect, "the Pharisees" exist today. It means you do not behave as a Disciple of Christ rather you behave more like those people who opposed, framed and led Jesus to the Cross. Those men who I mentioned and the rest of you who stand with them are not behaving like Christians. I have proven my point.

If your dogs are my betters, then perhaps you should back away from your computer and allow your mutts to type your replies, because you clearly are not up to my standards nor theirs.

I look forward to hearing from your mutts.

Nice back peddle. Hahah. Phoney asshole!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Here's why religious restoration acts are repressive"

They're also completely unnecessary.

No one's 'religious liberty' is 'in jeopardy.'

Religion is in no need of 'restoration.'

And 'religious restoration' measures are enacted in bad faith, they're an unwarranted partisan contrivance of the right, intended solely to motivate the GOP base.

 

[Conservative65]

No, baking a cake or arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is not sinful and corrupt. The same sex marriage is sinful and corrupt. Enabling it and participating in it should be voluntary.
Or should we force people who are against capital punishment for religious reasons to prepare the execution room?

A homosexual would be allowed to be a conscientious objector about going to war based on religious freedom yet a bakery can't use that religious freedom to object to enabling something they disagree with. Just another example of special rights for homos.

 

[Immanuel]

Are you going to back up your statements that I am wrong with any kind of proof or continue with your temper tantrum?

Sorry, but I don't have time to indulge you if it is the latter.

You smarmy Christard. YOU made the accusation and I said you're full of it. YOU already provided the proof, all you had was the accusation that the religious right mistreats homosexuals.

Talk about the lack of coherent thought, look at yourself. I have defined Pharisee and shown how the modern day Religious Right are the Pharisees of today. You whine, call me a liar and an asshole, but you don't have the intelligence to defend your position at all.

Wrong. Pharisee means a specific thing not what you want it to mean. Believing doesn't make something true but your head is too far up your ass to see how silly it is.

I have indeed supported my claim of the mistreatment of homosexuals by the Religious Right. I used their very words to do so. I can also point to Indiana's RFRA that was passed just last week which is nothing more than an attempt to mask discrimination in a cloak of morality. I have also opened the door for you to attempt to prove to me that I am incorrect, but you evidently do not possess the ability to form any argument at all. I do not know what else I can do to help you to form any kind of an argument. It is a shame because I had hoped that you would be intelligent enough to prove to me that I am wrong, but evidently, you cannot do so.

Maybe in the near future one of your friends will come along and assist you. I have been wrong in the past and may be wrong now, but you are obviously incapable of proving it. Therefore, I await your betters.

My dogs are your betters. They don't run around pretending to be something they aren't. Saying no to a homosexual event isn't harming anyone unless they are so thin skinned the difference of opinion puts them in a hospital on medication.

And it sounds like you are overdue for your meds. Phoney.

You still are not able to defend your position, I see.

RFRA is not about "saying no". It is about discriminating against a class of people. Obviously you support such discrimination. You claim that "saying no to homosexuals is not harming anyone". Therefore, it is evident that you also believe that telling a black person no they cannot eat in a restaurant harms no one. That is despicable! You are despicable!

My statement in the first post I made on this thread stands, "The Religious Right is more closely represented by the Pharisees". That stands. Also for the record, that does not mean The sect, "the Pharisees" exist today. It means you do not behave as a Disciple of Christ rather you behave more like those people who opposed, framed and led Jesus to the Cross. Those men who I mentioned and the rest of you who stand with them are not behaving like Christians. I have proven my point.

If your dogs are my betters, then perhaps you should back away from your computer and allow your mutts to type your replies, because you clearly are not up to my standards nor theirs.

I look forward to hearing from your mutts.

Nice back peddle. Hahah. Phoney asshole!

Back peddle? No, just clearing up the fact that you lied when you accused me of stating that the Pharisees exist today. Liar.

Time for your mutts to start presenting your arguments for you. They clearly can make up better arguments than you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The baker is not judging the customer unworthy. The baker is not committing a sin himself. A baker might bake a wedding cake for a teacher accused of molesting students and still refuse to deliver a cake to an underage orgy.

You see this as an issue of the merchant judging the customer where he is really judging himself and refusing to commit what that merchant considers a sin.

When the government redefines religion in its own image and decides what beliefs people should have then there is no separation of the church from the state. The state has seized control of religion and dictates what others should believe and what they should do in accordance with that belief.

But the merchants are making that determination with homosexual couples only. Had the merchant sincere concerns about sin, why doesn't that merchant vet each and every customer? That merchant could imperil his soul by selling to other sinners without knowledge! His only concern is disrespecting the gay couple.

Matters of conscience are between the individual and his god. If you are neither party, you don't get a vote, nor do you get to demand to have it justified to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs.

Also, no harm befalls weddings when a merchant refuses to bake them a cake. True fact.

The couple may not have as many options for vendors. They may truly desire the wares of a particular vendor for the quality and value?

But, in the end, the couple is made to feel less than. And there's harm in that.

Sorry, no, frustration of desires is not "harm". Nor does it trump the business owner's right not to cater your wedding because of religious convictions.

 

[Nosmo King]

The baker is not judging the customer unworthy. The baker is not committing a sin himself. A baker might bake a wedding cake for a teacher accused of molesting students and still refuse to deliver a cake to an underage orgy.

You see this as an issue of the merchant judging the customer where he is really judging himself and refusing to commit what that merchant considers a sin.

When the government redefines religion in its own image and decides what beliefs people should have then there is no separation of the church from the state. The state has seized control of religion and dictates what others should believe and what they should do in accordance with that belief.

But the merchants are making that determination with homosexual couples only. Had the merchant sincere concerns about sin, why doesn't that merchant vet each and every customer? That merchant could imperil his soul by selling to other sinners without knowledge! His only concern is disrespecting the gay couple.

Matters of conscience are between the individual and his god. If you are neither party, you don't get a vote, nor do you get to demand to have it justified to you.

But I am therefore supposed to have it lorded over me in commerce. How is that an American virtue?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The baker is not judging the customer unworthy. The baker is not committing a sin himself. A baker might bake a wedding cake for a teacher accused of molesting students and still refuse to deliver a cake to an underage orgy.

You see this as an issue of the merchant judging the customer where he is really judging himself and refusing to commit what that merchant considers a sin.

When the government redefines religion in its own image and decides what beliefs people should have then there is no separation of the church from the state. The state has seized control of religion and dictates what others should believe and what they should do in accordance with that belief.

But the merchants are making that determination with homosexual couples only. Had the merchant sincere concerns about sin, why doesn't that merchant vet each and every customer? That merchant could imperil his soul by selling to other sinners without knowledge! His only concern is disrespecting the gay couple.

Matters of conscience are between the individual and his god. If you are neither party, you don't get a vote, nor do you get to demand to have it justified to you.

But I am therefore supposed to have it lorded over me in commerce. How is that an American virtue?

"Lorded over you"? What the **** are you talking about? How does it relate to the post you allegedly responded to? Make sense, for crying out loud!

 

[Katzndogz]

The baker is not judging the customer unworthy. The baker is not committing a sin himself. A baker might bake a wedding cake for a teacher accused of molesting students and still refuse to deliver a cake to an underage orgy.

You see this as an issue of the merchant judging the customer where he is really judging himself and refusing to commit what that merchant considers a sin.

When the government redefines religion in its own image and decides what beliefs people should have then there is no separation of the church from the state. The state has seized control of religion and dictates what others should believe and what they should do in accordance with that belief.

But the merchants are making that determination with homosexual couples only. Had the merchant sincere concerns about sin, why doesn't that merchant vet each and every customer? That merchant could imperil his soul by selling to other sinners without knowledge! His only concern is disrespecting the gay couple.

Matters of conscience are between the individual and his god. If you are neither party, you don't get a vote, nor do you get to demand to have it justified to you.

But I am therefore supposed to have it lorded over me in commerce. How is that an American virtue?

No one is lording anything over you. No one can without your permission. If you do not like the business practices of an establishment take your business elsewhere. That's the American way.

The Abbey bar and grille is a well known gay bar. There is a sign on the door that if someone does not support same sex marriage they will not be served. Is this discrimination? To my knowledge they have never actually refused to serve anyone.