Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[beagle9]

You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior is either believed or isn't- which is it?

It still comes down to what each of us deems as bad behavior now doesn't it ? So what do you think is bad behavior as is described in the books of the Bible pertaining to this conversation ? Then apply it to our conversation here if you will. Eating certain kinds of food (even though might be considered bad behavior in the old testament) is not the best example to fit with this conversation we are having wouldn't you say ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stay on OP, beagle boy, stay in context.

You have been bobbling for some time.

You have no real evidence that anyone can force churches to marry those they don't want to?

 

[beagle9]

Stay on OP, beagle boy, stay in context.

You have been bobbling for some time.

You have no real evidence that anyone can force churches to mayy those they don't want to?

As in all these conversations, they do broaden to include the things that have led up to the problems that are being experienced now by many or they might even project a little into the future if the problems aren't resolved somehow in the present, so just follow along if you want to, but don't try and derail when you get worried that the conversation isn't going the way that you think that it should.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Stay on OP, beagle boy, stay in context.

You have been bobbling for some time.

You have no real evidence that anyone can force churches to mayy those they don't want to?

As in all these conversations, they do broaden to include the things that have led up to the problems that are being experienced now by many or they might even project a little into the future if the problems aren't resolved somehow in the present, so just follow along if you want to, but don't try and derail when you get worried that the conversation isn't going the way that you think that it should.

Nonsense.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government, not private persons or organizations such as churches.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stay on OP, beagle boy, stay in context.

You have been bobbling for some time.

You have no real evidence that anyone can force churches to mayy those they don't want to?

As in all these conversations, they do broaden to include the things that have led up to the problems that are being experienced now by many or they might even project a little into the future if the problems aren't resolved somehow in the present, so just follow along if you want to, but don't try and derail when you get worried that the conversation isn't going the way that you think that it should.

You will never be allowed to derail the thread, bobble boy.

One, those 'precursors' are only in your head and don't matter to normal people.

Two, no one is going to make religious churches marry people they don't want to marry.

Let's stay on OP.

 

[Skylar]

If there were no attacks on Christians (and there were and still is), then we wouldn't be having the conversation that we are having between each other would we ?

That assumes that anything you choose to talk about must be true. I don't subscribe to that interpretation. Your belief of persecution may motivate you to talk about it. But it need not have the slightest connection to reality. Rendering your logic invalid.

Second, we're talking about the application of PA laws. Which aren't attacks against Christianity or Christians. They're minimum standards of conduct when conducting business. And they apply to everyone.

You're demanding special treatment. And the lack of special treatment isn't an 'attack'. Again, words have meanings.

OK, then it may just have to become a sovereign citizen argument, and this for such a thing to be considered now going forward.

So you're not subject to any law unless you agree you are, huh?

Oh my. Surely you realize that such an argument is so wildly void of connection to reality, our history and the founders as to be the punchline of some joke, right?

And of course, you never did answer my question: Would then Sharia law trump any US law using your reasoning? Would then a Muslim be immune to any US or State law that they didn't feel their religion allowed to be applied to them?

You're avoiding answering the question. I strongly suspect you don't actually believe in religious freedoms as you describe them. I suspect that you believe in Christian religious freedoms as you describe them. With other religions held to a completely different standard.

If that turns out to be true, then we have a word for that: Hypocrisy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any "sovereign citizen" argument the refuses to accept the law can be immediately dismissed as having almost no worth.

We live in a constitutional republic, and that is not going to change.

 

[Skylar]

Any "sovereign citizen" argument the refuses to accept the law can be immediately dismissed as having almost no worth.

We live in a constitutional republic, and that is not going to change.

That genuinely appears to be what they're arguing. And with his explicit refusal to extend such vast powers to Sharia law potentially demonstrates.....apparently only for Christians.

 

[beagle9]

If there were no attacks on Christians (and there were and still is), then we wouldn't be having the conversation that we are having between each other would we ?

That assumes that anything you choose to talk about must be true. I don't subscribe to that interpretation. Your belief of persecution may motivate you to talk about it. But it need not have the slightest connection to reality. Rendering your logic invalid.

Second, we're talking about the application of PA laws. Which aren't attacks against Christianity or Christians. They're minimum standards of conduct when conducting business. And they apply to everyone.

You're demanding special treatment. And the lack of special treatment isn't an 'attack'. Again, words have meanings.

OK, then it may just have to become a sovereign citizen argument, and this for such a thing to be considered now going forward.

So you're not subject to any law unless you agree you are, huh?

Oh my. Surely you realize that such an argument is so wildly void of connection to reality, our history and the founders as to be the punchline of some joke, right?

And of course, you never did answer my question: Would then Sharia law trump any US law using your reasoning? Would then a Muslim be immune to any US or State law that they didn't feel their religion allowed to be applied to them?

You're avoiding answering the question. I strongly suspect you don't actually believe in religious freedoms as you describe them. I suspect that you believe in Christian religious freedoms as you describe them. With other religions held to a completely different standard.

If that turns out to be true, then we have a word for that: Hypocrisy.

You all are reading wildly so much into my post, and then you create all these insinuations about my post in which you try and apply to my post in every kind of way imaginable, where as I can barely keep up with all your insinuations and interpretations that you all come up with.. It appears that you all are straining at a gnat while you swallow a camel. PS. That is in the Bible also if you want to look it up.

I mean hey I'm not all that complicated of a person in life nor are many others who live life daily as Christians in this nation, so keep it all at a common sense level that is simple for both me and you all to work with, and then I know we can get a consensus maybe somewhere on this stuff do you think ? Hmm I wonder if you all complicate things more than what they are, because in the confusion you hope to confuse with, others might be confused as well on these things.

I mean look at how much you all have put into fighting this stuff, so there must be something to it all unless you all just don't have anything else to do in life.. LOL

It amazes me where or how far you all have gone on this subject, and especially when all people are asking, is for the attackers to leave the Christians alone now and in the future. There is enough cake bakers out there, that the one speaking on his religious values in which doesn't allow him to participate in promoting a gay wedding by baking them a cake, should have been enough for the ones wanting the cake baked from that baker, but no they were offended and wanted the baker punished for his not going along wit the woe's of a society in which in his mind is being promoted now against his religious standards and values in life.

I mean in his world he couldn't have even gone home and told his family if he had given in to the pressures in that way. I mean what would he have said to his kids if they would have asked him what's a gay wedding dad ? Would he lie or tell them the truth about what he thinks of that situation, I mean if they were to have asked him about it ? This is what the movement disregards when they want the nation to just up and join them in their promotion of that lifestyle. Now you all say that the customer never told him what the cake was for, but how did he know exactly what it was for if no one told him what it was for ? If he just looked at a person without them saying anything, and he would have refused a service to them as based upon ones looks, then he was in the wrong I would say, otherwise by refusing the person a cake based upon a profile analysis of the person, yet the person said nothing other than I need a cake for a wedding, then he was in the wrong I would say.

 

[Silhouette]

You all are reading wildly so much into my post, and then you create all these insinuations about my post in which you try and apply to my post in every kind of way imaginable, where as I can barely keep up with all your insinuations and interpretations that you all come up with...

Yes, they've made diversion into quite an artform, haven't they? If they obfuscate the laser points you are making, and get you sidetracked, then you engage in a strawman and they've "won" the debate by silencing the issues they're afraid of confronting...

...like how homosexual marraige guarantees children in the home are structurally-deprived the same as single parent (monosexual) homes of the complimentary gender 100% of the time..

 

[beagle9]

You all are reading wildly so much into my post, and then you create all these insinuations about my post in which you try and apply to my post in every kind of way imaginable, where as I can barely keep up with all your insinuations and interpretations that you all come up with.. It appears that you all are straining at a gnat while you swallow a camel. PS. That is in the Bible also if you want to look it up.

I mean hey I'm not all that complicated of a person in life nor are many others who live life daily as Christians in this nation, so keep it all at a common sense level that is simple for both me and you all to work with, and then I know we can get a consensus maybe somewhere on this stuff do you think ? Hmm I wonder if you all complicate things more than what they are, because in the confusion you hope to confuse with, others might be confused as well on these things.

I mean look at how much you all have put into fighting this stuff, so there must be something to it all unless you all just don't have anything else to do in life.. LOL

It amazes me where or how far you all have gone on this subject, and especially when all people are asking, is for the attackers to leave the Christians alone now and in the future. There is enough cake bakers out there, that the one speaking on his religious values in which doesn't allow him to participate in promoting a gay wedding by baking them a cake, should have been enough for the ones wanting the cake baked from that baker, but no they were offended and wanted the baker punished for his not going along wit the woe's of a society in which in his mind is being promoted now against his religious standards and values in life.

I mean in his world he couldn't have even gone home and told his family if he had given in to the pressures in that way. I mean what would he have said to his kids if they would have asked him what's a gay wedding dad ? Would he lie or tell them the truth about what he thinks of that situation, I mean if they were to have asked him about it ? This is what the movement disregards when they want the nation to just up and join them in their promotion of that lifestyle everywhere and anywhere. Now you all say that the customer never told him what the cake was for, but how did he know exactly what it was for if no one told him what it was for ? If he just looked at a person without them saying anything, and he would have refused a service to them as based upon ones looks in life, then he was in the wrong I would say, otherwise by refusing the person a cake based upon a profile analysis of the person, yet the person said nothing other than I need a cake for a wedding, then he (the baker) was in the wrong I would say if that is what he done. He could have been buying a cake for his sisters wedding for all the baker knew, so I wonder what alerted the baker to the reason for the wedding cake in the situation ?

Wouldn't let me edit as the time limit had expired, so I will do it this way..

 

[beagle9]

You all are reading wildly so much into my post, and then you create all these insinuations about my post in which you try and apply to my post in every kind of way imaginable, where as I can barely keep up with all your insinuations and interpretations that you all come up with...

Yes, they've made diversion into quite an artform, haven't they? If they obfuscate the laser points you are making, and get you sidetracked, then you engage in a strawman and they've "won" the debate by silencing the issues they're afraid of confronting...

...like how homosexual marraige guarantees children in the home are structurally-deprived the same as single parent (monosexual) homes of the complimentary gender 100% of the time..

Just when you think you've seen it all or heard it all, they go and come up with something else..LOL

 

[Silhouette]

Just don't let them divert you from your points. That's my point.

 

[Syriusly]

You asked me what I thought was bad behavior- and you said that everything described in the NT and OT as bad behavior is either believed or isn't- which is it?

It still comes down to what each of us deems as bad behavior now doesn't it ? So what do you think is bad behavior as is described in the books of the Bible pertaining to this conversation ? Then apply it to our conversation here if you will. Eating certain kinds of food (even though might be considered bad behavior in the old testament) is not the best example to fit with this conversation we are having wouldn't you say ?

That is not what you said before:

The new testemant and the old T has a list of what is deemed bad behavior, and the whole book is either believed or it isn't when reading it.

According to your own standards- you either believe what whole Old Testament says or you don't.

I don't consider homosexuality or unmarried sex bad behavior. I don't believe that celebrating the marriage of two people who are in love and want to commit to themselves for the rest of their lives is bad behavior. I do consider adultery by married people to be bad behavior because that is breaking promises to each other.

You appear to want to pick and choose which 'bad behavior' from the Bible you want to deem 'bad'- and ignore the others.

 

[Syriusly]

It is a huge problem that many of the justices didn't take into consideration when granting rights and privileges by law for some, but then not realizing that there is a huge chance that there are many whom may be amongst a group that would abuse those rights and privileges granted unto them, in order to then abuse another or even hundreds of thousands with if they can get away with it.

You are maddeningly both overly broad and vague.

What are you talking about?

Are you talking about the justices saying that we all have the individual right to own guns- and thereby there would be those that would abuse those priveleges in order to abuse others?

Or what?

You make these absurdly broad and vague accusations- and then don't back them with anything.

The main thing is to keep everything as best you can in context, where as we aren't talking about guns are we ?

The main thing is to actually say what you mean.

You are maddeningly both overly broad and vague.

What are you talking about?

Are you talking about the justices saying that we all have the individual right to own guns- and thereby there would be those that would abuse those priveleges in order to abuse others?

Or what?

You make these absurdly broad and vague accusations- and then don't back them with anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Just don't let them divert you from your points. That's my point.

Right- follow Silhouette's lead and just make up crap and pretend like its points.

 

[Skylar]

I mean hey I'm not all that complicated of a person in life nor are many others who live life daily as Christians in this nation, so keep it all at a common sense level that is simple for both me and you all to work with, and then I know we can get a consensus maybe somewhere on this stuff do you think ? Hmm I wonder if you all complicate things more than what they are, because in the confusion you hope to confuse with, others might be confused as well on these things.

But the daily life often runs lately to consensus common to the sense of simple stuff that all work with. Complicate think the wonder complicated? Life daily for you all.

I mean in his world he couldn't have even gone home and told his family if he had given in to the pressures in that way. I mean what would he have said to his kids if they would have asked him what's a gay wedding dad ? Would he lie or tell them the truth about what he thinks of that situation, I mean if they were to have asked him about it ? This is what the movement disregards when they want the nation to just up and join them in their promotion of that lifestyle.
Now you all say that the customer never told him what the cake was for, but how did he know exactly what it was for if no one told him what it was for ? If he just looked at a person without them saying anything, and he would have refused a service to them as based upon ones looks, then he was in the wrong I would say, otherwise by refusing the person a cake based upon a profile analysis of the person, yet the person said nothing other than I need a cake for a wedding, then he was in the wrong I would say.

But cake the person says anything would refuse the nation just up. Asking him the other nothing about a customer never person promotion. But the lifestyle? The profile analysis of the movement disregarding. Join the promotion, mean the promotion, have you asked him I would say.

And don't read too wildly into what I just posted. Just look at how much you have put into fighting this stuff.

 

[Skylar]

Just don't let them divert you from your points. That's my point.

Right- follow Silhouette's lead and just make up crap and pretend like its points.

Hey...if we're lucky, Silo will make up yet another version of what Edith Windsor asked the courts to decide. I'm betting this next version will involve monosexuals!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Will Sil remain on the Board after SCOTUS rules for marriage equality?

Or Where R My Keys?

Hope they do. Fun to kick around.

 

[Silhouette]

Will Sil remain on the Board after SCOTUS rules for marriage equality?

Or Where R My Keys?

Hope they do. Fun to kick around.

Marriage equalty for ALL I say! I can't wait for singles to marry themselves now that the complimentary gendered parent as role model has been discarded to the winds. Their tens of millions kids have been "in immediate legal harm" for too long simply because of their parent's relationship-preference. And the polygamists too. Jonathan Turley should be ready to make "the phone call" to the Browns really soon now..

Homosexual, monosexual and polysexual marriage-equality TODAY!!!