Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

[Harpy Eagle]

They are just following the biblical mandate to pick the lesser of two evils!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Sometimes that's the only move.

And when that's the case not making the move is worse.

Not sure the Bible can support that theory.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

For you maybe, but as per the 1st amendment, that's up to the individual, or the individual churches/mosques/synagogues/temples/backyard santeria shrines to decide.

Just imagine the impact they could make if they actually followed their sacred text instead of taking the worldly way out.

Just imagine the impact you could make if you bothered to understand beliefs you don't share before pompously attempting to instruct believers about how they should practice them.

Oh, wait. This is you we're talking about, so your impact is always going to be zero.

poor little girl, still outclassed and out educated. you made a bad assumption and now have to make it personal to try and hide your ignorance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.

Don't you?

They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!

There is a lot more poverty in Liberal nations like Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea than in America with free enterprise.

There is a lot healthier middle classes in Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Germany, and the other countries which finished ahead of the USA on the "Best Places to Live in the World" list, all of which have universal health care, more personal freedom than the USA, and better education systems.

You've lived in exactly one of those places, and are piss-stupid into the bargain. So the question always comes back to, "Why do you imagine you have something to offer, or that anyone is interested?"

You'd think by the 465132nd time you were told "No one cares what you think the US is or what it should be", you'd take the damned hint that you're making a fool of yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.

Don't you?

They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!

So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?

And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.

As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT ******* CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.

They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.

You have it backwards. The EVANGELICALS are the ones who shit on the beliefs of others, who denigrate other Christians who don't believe as they do, and who reserve the right to deny service to those they deem unworthy. They ignore Jesus commandment to "Love one another as I have loved you", and his instruction "Judge not lest you be judged" and have determined in their own minds that some sins are worse than others. They have no prohibition on serving second marriages or adulterers, but they draw the line at homosexuals. It makes no theological sense whatsoever. Adultery is prohibited in the 10 Commandments and was punishable by stoning to death in Biblical times. But homosexuality was neither. The obvious logical conclusion is that evangelicals are hiding behind religion to discriminate against gays, just as they hide behind "private religious schools" to ensure their children aren't forced to mix with non-white children at school.

Evangelicals are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against gays and non-whites, and because the Republican agenda lets them control the sexual behaviour of women. That's while they will continue to support Republicans. Racism, misogyny and homophobia. It has nothing to do with religion.

If you actually read some of the cases involving bakers, most of them also don't do halloween cakes, or other things that go against their morals. And it is only recently that they have been forced to do so, because of the SSM thing. You can't ***** about it being the issue when it is what is creating the issue in the first place.

You just can't tolerate others who believe differently than you, and you need to use government force to get your way, like the mewling little coward-**** you are.

You don't get to decide how they follow their religion, and government doesn't either until there there is some compelling, overriding interest.

Human sacrifice would be that, having to go to another baker is not.

Bullshit. If the baker is refusing to bake Halloween cakes, one presumes they wouldn't bake ANY Halloween cakes. The baker is baking wedding cakes for some people and not for others that he deems to be sinners. But he doesn't exclude other sinners either - like adulterers. So if some sinners are OK, why not others? You see how this isn't about religion at all.

Evangelicals are really, really quick to claim that THEIR rights are violated, when in fact it is the evangelicals who are the ones who are violating the rights of others. It is positively amazing how many of the basic tenets of the Christian faith that evangelicals are prepared to violate in order to assert their Constitutional right to hate gays.

"They aren't my beliefs, my laws, or my country, but THIS is how it should work, based on my extensive knowledge of imagining a country I'm not in!"

The only "positively amazing" thing continues to be how leftists think their personal certainty of their own rectitude automatically conveys knowledge and authority on them, instead of just conveying derisive laughter and the occasional glob of spit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!

So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?

And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.

As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT ******* CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.

They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.

You have it backwards. The EVANGELICALS are the ones who shit on the beliefs of others, who denigrate other Christians who don't believe as they do, and who reserve the right to deny service to those they deem unworthy. They ignore Jesus commandment to "Love one another as I have loved you", and his instruction "Judge not lest you be judged" and have determined in their own minds that some sins are worse than others. They have no prohibition on serving second marriages or adulterers, but they draw the line at homosexuals. It makes no theological sense whatsoever. Adultery is prohibited in the 10 Commandments and was punishable by stoning to death in Biblical times. But homosexuality was neither. The obvious logical conclusion is that evangelicals are hiding behind religion to discriminate against gays, just as they hide behind "private religious schools" to ensure their children aren't forced to mix with non-white children at school.

Evangelicals are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against gays and non-whites, and because the Republican agenda lets them control the sexual behaviour of women. That's while they will continue to support Republicans. Racism, misogyny and homophobia. It has nothing to do with religion.

If you actually read some of the cases involving bakers, most of them also don't do halloween cakes, or other things that go against their morals. And it is only recently that they have been forced to do so, because of the SSM thing. You can't ***** about it being the issue when it is what is creating the issue in the first place.

You just can't tolerate others who believe differently than you, and you need to use government force to get your way, like the mewling little coward-**** you are.

You don't get to decide how they follow their religion, and government doesn't either until there there is some compelling, overriding interest.

Human sacrifice would be that, having to go to another baker is not.

Bullshit. If the baker is refusing to bake Halloween cakes, one presumes they wouldn't bake ANY Halloween cakes. The baker is baking wedding cakes for some people and not for others that he deems to be sinners. But he doesn't exclude other sinners either - like adulterers. So if some sinners are OK, why not others? You see how this isn't about religion at all.

Evangelicals are really, really quick to claim that THEIR rights are violated, when in fact it is the evangelicals who are the ones who are violating the rights of others. It is positively amazing how many of the basic tenets of the Christian faith that evangelicals are prepared to violate in order to assert their Constitutional right to hate gays.

Read the case. He doesn't. This is all about religion, but more importantly it's about horrible people like you who need to force others to be like you, think like you, and act like you OR ELSE.

Where in the Constitution does it say a person has a right to a specific cake from a specific baker?

How the hell would she know? She doesn't live in the US; she doesn't even live in a country that think religious freedom is important, let alone observes it in its laws.

 

[busybee01]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

My word for people like this is fake Christians. Being a religious conservative and a Trump supporter is a oxymoron. You cannot be both. Franklin Graham's niece has rebuked Graham for his support of Trump, correctly pointing out you cannot forgive someone who has not admitted to his sins. Morality does not end at abortion. Morality is also compassion for people who are running in fear for their lives. Try remembering the Bible story of the Good Semaritin. Trump has the distinction of being rebuked by Jesus Christ.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?

And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.

As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT ******* CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.

They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.

You have it backwards. The EVANGELICALS are the ones who shit on the beliefs of others, who denigrate other Christians who don't believe as they do, and who reserve the right to deny service to those they deem unworthy. They ignore Jesus commandment to "Love one another as I have loved you", and his instruction "Judge not lest you be judged" and have determined in their own minds that some sins are worse than others. They have no prohibition on serving second marriages or adulterers, but they draw the line at homosexuals. It makes no theological sense whatsoever. Adultery is prohibited in the 10 Commandments and was punishable by stoning to death in Biblical times. But homosexuality was neither. The obvious logical conclusion is that evangelicals are hiding behind religion to discriminate against gays, just as they hide behind "private religious schools" to ensure their children aren't forced to mix with non-white children at school.

Evangelicals are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against gays and non-whites, and because the Republican agenda lets them control the sexual behaviour of women. That's while they will continue to support Republicans. Racism, misogyny and homophobia. It has nothing to do with religion.

If you actually read some of the cases involving bakers, most of them also don't do halloween cakes, or other things that go against their morals. And it is only recently that they have been forced to do so, because of the SSM thing. You can't ***** about it being the issue when it is what is creating the issue in the first place.

You just can't tolerate others who believe differently than you, and you need to use government force to get your way, like the mewling little coward-**** you are.

You don't get to decide how they follow their religion, and government doesn't either until there there is some compelling, overriding interest.

Human sacrifice would be that, having to go to another baker is not.

Bullshit. If the baker is refusing to bake Halloween cakes, one presumes they wouldn't bake ANY Halloween cakes. The baker is baking wedding cakes for some people and not for others that he deems to be sinners. But he doesn't exclude other sinners either - like adulterers. So if some sinners are OK, why not others? You see how this isn't about religion at all.

Evangelicals are really, really quick to claim that THEIR rights are violated, when in fact it is the evangelicals who are the ones who are violating the rights of others. It is positively amazing how many of the basic tenets of the Christian faith that evangelicals are prepared to violate in order to assert their Constitutional right to hate gays.

Read the case. He doesn't. This is all about religion, but more importantly it's about horrible people like you who need to force others to be like you, think like you, and act like you OR ELSE.

Where in the Constitution does it say a person has a right to a specific cake from a specific baker?

Where it says "all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights".

Even the Bible says that Christian should obey the laws of the land. These bigots don't have a leg to stand on - not Constitutionally, and certainly not according to the word in the Bible.

Guess what, foreign "expert": that phrase doesn't appear in our Constitution, which you would know, if it wasn't OUR Constitution, not yours.

And thank you for demonstrating just one of the reasons why nothing you have to say about how the US runs itself has any value whatsoever.

"These bigot don't have a leg to stand on . . . except for laws I can't cite, a culture I know nothing about, and a history that's utterly foreign to me. But damn it, I just KNOW that this is how your country is supposed to work, because I want it to!"

The only reason you're still running your toothless gums is that you have even less shame than you do brains.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

Evangelicals never explain how anything they complain about other people doing or believing affects their own lives, and then scream "persecution!" They are free to choose whatever lifestyle they wish, but it seems that their actual goal is to control the lives and choices of other people. They essentially want to impose a theocracy on the entire country, in complete disregard of the rights of others and the Constitution itself.

Evangelicals are not immune from criticism. They certainly feel free tp criticise others; other people's beliefs, lifestyles, and personal choices.

The fact that they are willing to cause substantial damage to our nation, our security, our reputation, our rights, and our legal system is downright despicable.

We'd be perfectly happy to explain . . . if we could ever get a word in edgewise from ass kittens like you "explaining" our beliefs to US, in between telling us how evil and wrong we are. Or if we thought for a second you were going to listen to us instead of the voices in your head.

Do you really have trouble understanding why religious people have no interest in explaining anything to you, or doing anything other than getting as far away from you as they can?

 

[Montrovant]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

So not even religious beliefs are enough to get people to look past the duopoly?

Not sure how religious beliefs magically give you a third choice.

Religious beliefs are unnecessary to have a third choice. My point was that, even if candidates do things contrary to a person's religious beliefs, most will not look outside the two major parties.

 

[RealDave]

The Republicans could not find someone who was not a mass adulterer who lies every time he opens his mouth and defrauds seniors of their retirement nest eggs and worships a KGB thug.

They could not find an honest, decent man who is also against abortion anywhere in the whoooooooooooooole party!

They had a primary, he won the primary.

Only the Democrats feel the need to rig their primary, but I have a feeling the RINO's and Never Trumpers wish they had rigged the Republican one.

Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.

Superdelegates.

Superdelegates were in the rules. Bernie knew the rules.

It is the Democrat Psrty thast os electing their represntative. Maybe Bernie should have actually been one?

 

[ptbw forever]

A person still retains constitutional rights even if they want to sell something. Nice strawman attempt, but fail.

So Churches can be forced to perform Same sex wedding ceremonies?

A church is not a business knucklehead

A person can hate any group he wants. But once he opens a business, that BUSINESS must comply with local laws

Why does a person automatically lose their constitutional rights when they try to sell something?

Why is free exercise limited only to Churches (in your opinion).

When we tore down your "Whites Only" signs you racist bigoted assfuck.

Too bad you put up “blacks only” signs in their place and forfeited the debate....

Wow, what a stupid comment. I understand you want to defend your racism & bigotry but really, you have to do better than that.

Look up black only dorms and learn something for once you little shit.

 

[Montrovant]

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

It's Constitutional. The Constitution is mute on marriage, and thus it is left to the States. You could try the whole 14th amendment route, but SSM is not equal to opposite sex marriage, as SSM is a recent creation of only the last few decades. It is a new concept.

Dumbshit. The 14th Amendment applies to everyone. If you want a heterosexual marriage, nobody is stopping you. Same-sex marriage does not effect you in any way. I don't lose any sleep over how many times that trump or gingrich have been married. How do the marriages of people you don't know effect you? You people who fret about the lives of people you don't know are just kooks.

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

Same sex marriage is not a concept which began only in the last few decades. It may be rare, but there is evidence of same sex unions as far back as ancient Rome.

As a mainstream legal construct is is only a creation of the past few decades.

The "evidence" isn't about State sanctioning, it's about people buggering others of the same sex, which of course has occurred throughout the millennia.

Even in those cases the relationships were not seen as equal to heterosexual relationships, which had the required ability to procreate, and back then since infant mortality and life spans were so short, procreating had to be done "early and often" to assure enough people in the next generation to continue a given culture/tribe/family/nation etc.

It's about a bit more than "people buggering other of the same sex." I said it was rare, certainly not a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that the concept of same sex marriage is not only from the past few decades, as you stated.

 

[RealDave]

You have it backwards. The EVANGELICALS are the ones who shit on the beliefs of others, who denigrate other Christians who don't believe as they do, and who reserve the right to deny service to those they deem unworthy. They ignore Jesus commandment to "Love one another as I have loved you", and his instruction "Judge not lest you be judged" and have determined in their own minds that some sins are worse than others. They have no prohibition on serving second marriages or adulterers, but they draw the line at homosexuals. It makes no theological sense whatsoever. Adultery is prohibited in the 10 Commandments and was punishable by stoning to death in Biblical times. But homosexuality was neither. The obvious logical conclusion is that evangelicals are hiding behind religion to discriminate against gays, just as they hide behind "private religious schools" to ensure their children aren't forced to mix with non-white children at school.

Evangelicals are using "religious freedom" to discriminate against gays and non-whites, and because the Republican agenda lets them control the sexual behaviour of women. That's while they will continue to support Republicans. Racism, misogyny and homophobia. It has nothing to do with religion.

If you actually read some of the cases involving bakers, most of them also don't do halloween cakes, or other things that go against their morals. And it is only recently that they have been forced to do so, because of the SSM thing. You can't ***** about it being the issue when it is what is creating the issue in the first place.

You just can't tolerate others who believe differently than you, and you need to use government force to get your way, like the mewling little coward-**** you are.

You don't get to decide how they follow their religion, and government doesn't either until there there is some compelling, overriding interest.

Human sacrifice would be that, having to go to another baker is not.

Bullshit. If the baker is refusing to bake Halloween cakes, one presumes they wouldn't bake ANY Halloween cakes. The baker is baking wedding cakes for some people and not for others that he deems to be sinners. But he doesn't exclude other sinners either - like adulterers. So if some sinners are OK, why not others? You see how this isn't about religion at all.

Evangelicals are really, really quick to claim that THEIR rights are violated, when in fact it is the evangelicals who are the ones who are violating the rights of others. It is positively amazing how many of the basic tenets of the Christian faith that evangelicals are prepared to violate in order to assert their Constitutional right to hate gays.

Read the case. He doesn't. This is all about religion, but more importantly it's about horrible people like you who need to force others to be like you, think like you, and act like you OR ELSE.

Where in the Constitution does it say a person has a right to a specific cake from a specific baker?

Where it says "all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights".

Even the Bible says that Christian should obey the laws of the land. These bigots don't have a leg to stand on - not Constitutionally, and certainly not according to the word in the Bible.

Guess what, foreign "expert": that phrase doesn't appear in our Constitution, which you would know, if it wasn't OUR Constitution, not yours.

And thank you for demonstrating just one of the reasons why nothing you have to say about how the US runs itself has any value whatsoever.

"These bigot don't have a leg to stand on . . . except for laws I can't cite, a culture I know nothing about, and a history that's utterly foreign to me. But damn it, I just KNOW that this is how your country is supposed to work, because I want it to!"

The only reason you're still running your toothless gums is that you have even less shame than you do brains.

Jesus said it. That should be enough.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If you actually read some of the cases involving bakers, most of them also don't do halloween cakes, or other things that go against their morals. And it is only recently that they have been forced to do so, because of the SSM thing. You can't ***** about it being the issue when it is what is creating the issue in the first place.

You just can't tolerate others who believe differently than you, and you need to use government force to get your way, like the mewling little coward-**** you are.

You don't get to decide how they follow their religion, and government doesn't either until there there is some compelling, overriding interest.

Human sacrifice would be that, having to go to another baker is not.

Bullshit. If the baker is refusing to bake Halloween cakes, one presumes they wouldn't bake ANY Halloween cakes. The baker is baking wedding cakes for some people and not for others that he deems to be sinners. But he doesn't exclude other sinners either - like adulterers. So if some sinners are OK, why not others? You see how this isn't about religion at all.

Evangelicals are really, really quick to claim that THEIR rights are violated, when in fact it is the evangelicals who are the ones who are violating the rights of others. It is positively amazing how many of the basic tenets of the Christian faith that evangelicals are prepared to violate in order to assert their Constitutional right to hate gays.

Read the case. He doesn't. This is all about religion, but more importantly it's about horrible people like you who need to force others to be like you, think like you, and act like you OR ELSE.

Where in the Constitution does it say a person has a right to a specific cake from a specific baker?

Where it says "all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights".

Even the Bible says that Christian should obey the laws of the land. These bigots don't have a leg to stand on - not Constitutionally, and certainly not according to the word in the Bible.

Guess what, foreign "expert": that phrase doesn't appear in our Constitution, which you would know, if it wasn't OUR Constitution, not yours.

And thank you for demonstrating just one of the reasons why nothing you have to say about how the US runs itself has any value whatsoever.

"These bigot don't have a leg to stand on . . . except for laws I can't cite, a culture I know nothing about, and a history that's utterly foreign to me. But damn it, I just KNOW that this is how your country is supposed to work, because I want it to!"

The only reason you're still running your toothless gums is that you have even less shame than you do brains.

Jesus said it. That should be enough.

it is kind of cute how you think they care what Jesus says.

 

[RealDave]

A church is not a business knucklehead

A person can hate any group he wants. But once he opens a business, that BUSINESS must comply with local laws

Why does a person automatically lose their constitutional rights when they try to sell something?

Why is free exercise limited only to Churches (in your opinion).

When we tore down your "Whites Only" signs you racist bigoted assfuck.

Too bad you put up “blacks only” signs in their place and forfeited the debate....

Wow, what a stupid comment. I understand you want to defend your racism & bigotry but really, you have to do better than that.

Look up black only dorms and learn something for once you little shit.

Really, You are comparing this to the racism of the 50's. Just how ******* stupid are you?

These dorms created a safe place to live away from racist attacks & slurs.

I guess next, you'll feel left out because they wouldn't let you in the women's dorm?

 

[RealDave]

Bullshit. If the baker is refusing to bake Halloween cakes, one presumes they wouldn't bake ANY Halloween cakes. The baker is baking wedding cakes for some people and not for others that he deems to be sinners. But he doesn't exclude other sinners either - like adulterers. So if some sinners are OK, why not others? You see how this isn't about religion at all.

Evangelicals are really, really quick to claim that THEIR rights are violated, when in fact it is the evangelicals who are the ones who are violating the rights of others. It is positively amazing how many of the basic tenets of the Christian faith that evangelicals are prepared to violate in order to assert their Constitutional right to hate gays.

Read the case. He doesn't. This is all about religion, but more importantly it's about horrible people like you who need to force others to be like you, think like you, and act like you OR ELSE.

Where in the Constitution does it say a person has a right to a specific cake from a specific baker?

Where it says "all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights".

Even the Bible says that Christian should obey the laws of the land. These bigots don't have a leg to stand on - not Constitutionally, and certainly not according to the word in the Bible.

Guess what, foreign "expert": that phrase doesn't appear in our Constitution, which you would know, if it wasn't OUR Constitution, not yours.

And thank you for demonstrating just one of the reasons why nothing you have to say about how the US runs itself has any value whatsoever.

"These bigot don't have a leg to stand on . . . except for laws I can't cite, a culture I know nothing about, and a history that's utterly foreign to me. But damn it, I just KNOW that this is how your country is supposed to work, because I want it to!"

The only reason you're still running your toothless gums is that you have even less shame than you do brains.

Jesus said it. That should be enough.

it is kind of cute how you think they care what Jesus says.

Especially the story where Jesus was walking & saw a beggarman . We went up to him, kicked him & told him to get a ******* job & called him a worthless POS.

 

[RealDave]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

You left out "Pretend". You left out Muslims, Hindus, etc as they will not support Trump.

A true Christian would not stand for the lying, disregard fir marriage, cheating, lying, bigotry, hate, greed, stealing of children, opulence, and Trump's overall amorality.

You don't get to decide who is a "True" Christian.

If Christianity says to love your neighbor as yourself, and you spew hate, bigotry & racism, you ain't no Christian.

If you support stealing children at the border you ain't no Christian.

If you worship greed, you ain't no Christian.

 

[Dragonlady]

You’d think that good ol god would strike a few of these liars down once in a while. They ALL know that the “infanticide” charge is absolute BS. It’s a straight up misinformation campaign designed to stir up passion in Trumpland. Why? Because Trump cannot get enough people to be passionate about him.

Fuckers.

No, YOU would think that, because you know even less about God than you do about literally everything else, and yet you feel somehow qualified to speak to how beliefs you don't share should be practiced.

Like I told Moonglow, you should definitely go with, "What you believe is just wrong, so you should stop believing it and caring about it because I said so!" I think that'll be a winning strategy for getting those votes, as will, "You all suck, and you're a bunch of idiots and you don't matter, and WHY AREN'T YOU VOTING FOR US?!"

Let's go with something more Constitutional, shall we, as well as something Biblical, since clearly your ignorance of both is very glaring. There is absolutely NOTHING prohibiting or barring abortion in the Bible, and any references to deaths of the "fruit of the womb" prior to their birth in the ordinary course, indicates that God did not include such losses in His definition of "life", "killing" or "murder".

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to privacy. Nothing is more private or personal than the life altering decision to have a child. This is MY decision and it's based on MY personal religious beliefs, not yours. This is my life, not yours, and you have no legal right to participate in MY personal decisions.

I frankly don't care what YOU believe. It's completely irrelevant to the abortion argument, and YOU don't have a legal leg to stand on. You can howl at the moon until the end of time that it's WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and I just don't ******* care, because it's irrelevant what you believe. No one is forcing you to have an abortion. No one is demanding that you do anything but just leave your loopy, wrong headed religious beliefs out of my LIFE.

All women are legally entitled to privacy in making the decision as to whether or not to have a baby. 14th Amendment. Settled Law!

Now, on to your other fallacy. That it's morally wrong in accordance with the Bible.

Here is Genesis, Chapter 38: Verse 24:

And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

So here we have a Biblical example of a woman being put to death along with her innocent unborn child, simply because the baby was conceived via prostitution. I guess "every life" isn't all that sacred in the eyes of God.

And here is another quote about abortion which shows that the life of the unborn is NOT to be treated as that of the born:

Exodus 21:22 KJV
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

It's a financial matter between the husband and the man who assaulted his wife, as is determined by a judge. It's not a "murder". It's a loss, not a killing.

You don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on, nor a religious leg to stand on, so i fully exoect you go to your back-up strategy which is to insult and fling shit at those who destroy your arguments. So far you've used it to some degree of success with two posters here, but it's not going to work with me, because we've had these little chats before, and they never end well for you.

 

[Dragonlady]

Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.

Don't you?

They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!

There is a lot more poverty in Liberal nations like Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea than in America with free enterprise.

There is a lot healthier middle classes in Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Germany, and the other countries which finished ahead of the USA on the "Best Places to Live in the World" list, all of which have universal health care, more personal freedom than the USA, and better education systems.

You've lived in exactly one of those places, and are piss-stupid into the bargain. So the question always comes back to, "Why do you imagine you have something to offer, or that anyone is interested?"

You'd think by the 465132nd time you were told "No one cares what you think the US is or what it should be", you'd take the damned hint that you're making a fool of yourself.

When you get this angry, it's generally because you've been caught posting ignorant, useless shit again and you have no well reasoned, sensible comeback so you resort to insults. I have also noted that foreign trolls, are the fastest to note that I'm not American. It's a deflection that is very consistent among Russian trolls in particular.

You can't drive me away with rudeness, and my hobby used to be breaking and training horses. You know, taking dumb large animals that outweighed me 10 times over, and bending them to my will without once every yelling at them, hitting them or losing my temper.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You’d think that good ol god would strike a few of these liars down once in a while. They ALL know that the “infanticide” charge is absolute BS. It’s a straight up misinformation campaign designed to stir up passion in Trumpland. Why? Because Trump cannot get enough people to be passionate about him.

Fuckers.

No, YOU would think that, because you know even less about God than you do about literally everything else, and yet you feel somehow qualified to speak to how beliefs you don't share should be practiced.

Like I told Moonglow, you should definitely go with, "What you believe is just wrong, so you should stop believing it and caring about it because I said so!" I think that'll be a winning strategy for getting those votes, as will, "You all suck, and you're a bunch of idiots and you don't matter, and WHY AREN'T YOU VOTING FOR US?!"

You think your votes are needed?

 

[ptbw forever]

Why does a person automatically lose their constitutional rights when they try to sell something?

Why is free exercise limited only to Churches (in your opinion).

When we tore down your "Whites Only" signs you racist bigoted assfuck.

Too bad you put up “blacks only” signs in their place and forfeited the debate....

Wow, what a stupid comment. I understand you want to defend your racism & bigotry but really, you have to do better than that.

Look up black only dorms and learn something for once you little shit.

Really, You are comparing this to the racism of the 50's. Just how ******* stupid are you?

These dorms created a safe place to live away from racist attacks & slurs.

I guess next, you'll feel left out because they wouldn't let you in the women's dorm?

It is segregation dipshit. Do you even how stupid you for supporting that given your supposed position on racism?

What would you say if a white only dorm was made? The fact that black people can pressure campuses into rolling back integration just for them proves that the racism they suffer is nothing. That is privilege beyond privilege.