Alabama Counties Stop Issuing Marriage Licenses

[Where_r_my_Keys]

1) A baker can believe that gay marriage is bad and all homosexuals will burn in hell. Fine by me, that's his beliefs. The baker however is not allowed to refuse service based on those beliefs.

Then what purpose does the belief serve?

In your case, it seems to serve as a reason to publish your disdain and validate your bigotry.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Whose next?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all?

Why do you ignore everyone else's beliefs with this nonsense parrot-o-thon troll shit you got going on?

To hold 'beliefs' is meaningless, unless and until those beliefs can be shown to be objectively valid and true...

Your beliefs are irrational... seeking to serve ONLY YOUR OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS... nothing you have said here in any way can objectively be said to serve so much as a single principle... they rests in your mind and your mind alone and bear absolutely no tangible relevance to anyone or anything that is not intrinsic to YOU!

Thus, the application of such can and will only result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe...

For instance, when you felt CERTAIN that 'Everyone Deserves To Own Their Own Home' and you supported the supplanting of the sound, actuarial lending principles with your own perverse notion of fairness... you had NO IDEA that such could ONLY result in economic catastrophe... and most likely you STILL have no conscious idea of the catastrophe that resulted from such; wherein you rationalize that the catastrophe was the result of other people, doing other things; all of which are intrinsically tethered to your own needs, wants and desires.

But in fairness to you, as a Relativist, thus evil... there is NO WAY you could... .

 

[HappyJoy]

1) A baker can believe that gay marriage is bad and all homosexuals will burn in hell. Fine by me, that's his beliefs. The baker however is not allowed to refuse service based on those beliefs.

Then what purpose does the belief serve?

So a belief only matters if you can break the law by committing a follow up action? Dude, grow up.

Why are you discriminating against the guy who doesn't want to serve Christians in his restaurant?

Any law that forces one to behave outside of what they know to be truthful, valid and essential to their own viability, is invalid and in no way obligates a free sovereign.

Ohhhhhh, now I get it. You're one of those. Are you one of those nut cases who goes apeshit when he sees his named spelled in all caps?

Let the record reflect that when THE LAW required that homosexual sex was forbidden, Homosexuals were having sex.

Yeah, some went to jail for it too until the Supreme Court fixed that problem, point? And you don't have to say "Let the record state", you're posting it on a public forum and it could be delete for any reason outside of your control.

Let the record reflect that when THE LAW required that One Man and One Woman could marry, Homosexuals were marrying.

Yep. That's inaccurate.

Homosexuals do not give a tinker's dam about THE LAW... but in fairness to them, they're Leftists, thus thy reason SUBJECTIVELY.

Considering their marriages didn't count until it was legal, whatever dam they gave about the law didn't matter. They did voice their beliefs that it should be legal and flippidy-flop look where we are now? All quite legal and stuff.

Law is only valid where such is OBJECTIVE.

The law is always valid until it isn't and you don't get to decide.

Subjective law is invalid law, thus obligates no free sovereign to recognize it.

Subjective law? You mean when you keep saying that marriage is between one man and one woman but that's really only a subjective belief, right? It's not a law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I demand that a bakery make this cake for me.......or else.

Based on your posting I'd say you'll need that cake in about 12 years.

 

[HappyJoy]

1) A baker can believe that gay marriage is bad and all homosexuals will burn in hell. Fine by me, that's his beliefs. The baker however is not allowed to refuse service based on those beliefs.

Then what purpose does the belief serve?

In your case, it seems to serve as a reason to publish your disdain and validate your bigotry.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Whose next?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all?

I most certainly concede nothing to you.

Yet... you conceded the standing points, as the record above clearly and irrefutably indicates.

As a witness to this thread...or whatever...I object, AugmentedDog conceded nothing. Uh...do you respond to this sort of reply or am I just going insane reading your posts?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think it is good for a state like Alabama. Cousins shouldn't marry anyways.

What kind of guys in Alabama marry their cousins?

Guys with ugly sisters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then what purpose does the belief serve?

In your case, it seems to serve as a reason to publish your disdain and validate your bigotry.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Whose next?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all?

I most certainly concede nothing to you.

Yet... you conceded the standing points, as the record above clearly and irrefutably indicates.

As a witness to this thread...or whatever...I object, AugmentedDog conceded nothing. Uh...do you respond to this sort of reply or am I just going insane reading your posts?

He blurts that line out every time he loses an argument. It's his tell.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yup. Your beliefs are fine. But Biden help you if you try to act on them and follow them.

My beliefs are whatever they are and they don't require your approval. Actions however are a different matter.

LOL! You are a hypocrite.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You claimed to 'believe' that beliefs are worthy and valuable, then you state that beliefs have no value in action.

Which DEFINES YOU AS A HYPOCRITE!

DUMBASS: Someone who confuses thoughts with physical acts of breaking the law.

In the entire history of humanity: NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN BROKEN BY A THOUGHT.

Let's review:

Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You claimed to 'believe' that beliefs are worthy and valuable, then you state that beliefs have no value in action.

Which, once again: DEFINES YOU AS A HYPOCRITE!

 

[NYcarbineer]

...there's no Utopia...

That's correct, but there is equal before the law. A liberal, therefore an American, ideal...

Using the law to force equality on everyone is synonymous with Communism. If you want to bugger your brother, go ahead. But don't try to force my church to honor your faggotry.

They don't, and I don't either...

Bullshit. So what's going to happen if for example I was the pastor of a church which actually followed the word of God, and refused to perform a gay wedding?

How about if I owned a bakery and refused to make a cake for one, because of my deeply-held Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin?

How about if I owned a bakery and refused to make a cake for an interracial couple because of my deeply held Christian belief that race mixing is a sin?

Most conservatives on this forum think that's okay, or should be okay.

 

[HappyJoy]

My beliefs are whatever they are and they don't require your approval. Actions however are a different matter.

LOL! You are a hypocrite.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You claimed to 'believe' that beliefs are worthy and valuable, then you state that beliefs have no value in action.

Which DEFINES YOU AS A HYPOCRITE!

DUMBASS: Someone who confuses thoughts with physical acts of breaking the law.

In the entire history of humanity: NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN BROKEN BY A THOUGHT.

Who claimed otherwise?

Let's review:

Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You claimed to 'believe' that beliefs are worthy and valuable, then you state that beliefs have no value in action.

Which, once again: DEFINES YOU AS A HYPOCRITE!

DUMBASS: Someone who confuses thoughts with physical acts of breaking the law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In your case, it seems to serve as a reason to publish your disdain and validate your bigotry.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Whose next?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all?

I most certainly concede nothing to you.

Yet... you conceded the standing points, as the record above clearly and irrefutably indicates.

As a witness to this thread...or whatever...I object, AugmentedDog conceded nothing. Uh...do you respond to this sort of reply or am I just going insane reading your posts?

He blurts that line out every time he loses an argument. It's his tell.

OH! A joining Concession. How positively and MIGHTY white of ya Gilligan. What a comfort must accompany the assent of the in-house jester! Good for you Gilligan.

Your unenviable station as the house whipping boy lackey, should not preclude you from standing up with your peers.

BRAVO! ... B R A V O !

 

[HappyJoy]

He blurts that line out every time he loses an argument. It's his tell.

Yeah, it's a big tell. I wonder if he has ever been close to being right about anything.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In the entire history of humanity: NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN BROKEN BY A THOUGHT.

Literal piles of bodies would disagree...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Whose next?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all?

I most certainly concede nothing to you.

Yet... you conceded the standing points, as the record above clearly and irrefutably indicates.

As a witness to this thread...or whatever...I object, AugmentedDog conceded nothing. Uh...do you respond to this sort of reply or am I just going insane reading your posts?

He blurts that line out every time he loses an argument. It's his tell.

OH! A joining Concession. How positively and MIGHTY white of ya Gilligan. What a comfort must accompany the assent of the in-house jester! Good for you Gilligan.

Your unenviable station as the house whipping boy lackey, should not preclude you from standing up with your peers.

BRAVO! ... B R A V O !

You should bringing your adult voice to the forum, if you have one.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In the entire history of humanity: NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN BROKEN BY A THOUGHT.

Who claimed otherwise?

You did... and ya did so through implication. It's right in the record above.

Let's review:

Not baking a cake, is by definition: INACTION; OKA: THE REFUSAL TO ACT.

You claimed that the principled stand, wherein an individual REFUSES TO TAKE ACTION, CONSTITUTES ACTION.

A law which requires one to ACT outside of what they know to be truthful, viable and sustainable actions, is INVALID LAW and does NOT OBLIGATE A VIABLE INDIVIDUAL and by extension is not relevant to, thus is counter productive to a viable culture.

Thus you are claiming that THOSE THOUGHTS ARE CRIMINAL... in that they provide for one to NOT TAKE ACTION, where the would-be law, requires they must.

There's nothing complex about any of this, yet there you are... completely incapable of discussing it without wholly humiliating yourself.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I most certainly concede nothing to you.

Yet... you conceded the standing points, as the record above clearly and irrefutably indicates.

As a witness to this thread...or whatever...I object, AugmentedDog conceded nothing. Uh...do you respond to this sort of reply or am I just going insane reading your posts?

He blurts that line out every time he loses an argument. It's his tell.

OH! A joining Concession. How positively and MIGHTY white of ya Gilligan. What a comfort must accompany the assent of the in-house jester! Good for you Gilligan.

Your unenviable station as the house whipping boy lackey, should not preclude you from standing up with your peers.

BRAVO! ... B R A V O !

You should bringing your adult voice to the forum, if you have one.

Oh how sweet... a Re-Concession.

Thank you Gilligan, your Re-Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.

 

[AugmentedDog]

1) A baker can believe that gay marriage is bad and all homosexuals will burn in hell. Fine by me, that's his beliefs. The baker however is not allowed to refuse service based on those beliefs.

Then what purpose does the belief serve?

In your case, it seems to serve as a reason to publish your disdain and validate your bigotry.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Whose next?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all?

I most certainly concede nothing to you.

Yet... you conceded the standing points, as the record above clearly and irrefutably indicates.

Nothing above indicates any such thing.
To be clear, I refute all you endorse here.
You are exactly the kind of weak willed, weak minded, so-called "Christian" child that took satisfaction in ganging up on and assaulting me as a child because my family are not Christian.
You mercilessly attack those you consider non-believers and then have the temerity to claim that it was you who were attacked.
You have no honor and no true belief in anything.
If you truly believed, you'd not feel so threatened by those with alternate beliefs.
You hang by a thread, and any whose shoulders you cannot stand upon in common fear, threaten your weak faith.
You are revealed.
Now, my cat requires my attention, and she is infinitely more deserving than you.
Done with you.

 

[HappyJoy]

Nothing hypocritical about it.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You claimed to 'believe' that beliefs are worthy and valuable, then you state that beliefs have no value in action.

Which DEFINES YOU AS A HYPOCRITE!

DUMBASS: Someone who confuses thoughts with physical acts of breaking the law.

In the entire history of humanity: NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN BROKEN BY A THOUGHT.

Who claimed otherwise?

You did... and ya did so through implication. It's right in the record above.

Let's review:

Not baking a cake, is by definition: INACTION; OKA: THE REFUSAL TO ACT.

You claimed that the principled stand, wherein an individual REFUSES TO TAKE ACTION, CONSTITUTES ACTION.

A law which requires one to ACT outside of what they know to be truthful, viable and sustainable actions, is INVALID LAW and does NOT OBLIGATE A VIABLE INDIVIDUAL and by extension is not relevant to, thus is counter productive to a viable culture.

Thus you are claiming that THOSE THOUGHTS ARE CRIMINAL... in that they provide for one to NOT TAKE ACTION, where the would-be law, requires they must.

There's nothing complex about any of this, yet there you are... completely incapable of discussing it without wholly humiliating yourself.

Would you please stop talking like a fuckin' retard with a mouth full of marbles reciting stereo instructions. Can you just be fucking human for a change?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You claimed to 'believe' that beliefs are worthy and valuable, then you state that beliefs have no value in action.

Which DEFINES YOU AS A HYPOCRITE!

DUMBASS: Someone who confuses thoughts with physical acts of breaking the law.

In the entire history of humanity: NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN BROKEN BY A THOUGHT.

Who claimed otherwise?

You did... and ya did so through implication. It's right in the record above.

Let's review:

Not baking a cake, is by definition: INACTION; OKA: THE REFUSAL TO ACT.

You claimed that the principled stand, wherein an individual REFUSES TO TAKE ACTION, CONSTITUTES ACTION.

A law which requires one to ACT outside of what they know to be truthful, viable and sustainable actions, is INVALID LAW and does NOT OBLIGATE A VIABLE INDIVIDUAL and by extension is not relevant to, thus is counter productive to a viable culture.

Thus you are claiming that THOSE THOUGHTS ARE CRIMINAL... in that they provide for one to NOT TAKE ACTION, where the would-be law, requires they must.

There's nothing complex about any of this, yet there you are... completely incapable of discussing it without wholly humiliating yourself.

Would you please stop talking like a fuckin' retard with a mouth full of marbles reciting stereo instructions. Can you just be fucking human for a change?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Again Reader:

Rules for Defeating a Leftist In Debate:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.

 

[Carla_Danger]

1) A baker can believe that gay marriage is bad and all homosexuals will burn in hell. Fine by me, that's his beliefs. The baker however is not allowed to refuse service based on those beliefs.

Then what purpose does the Baker's belief serve?

I'll finish the sentence for you.

Then what purpose does the Baker's belief serve, if you can't hide your bigotry behind your religion?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Then what purpose does the belief serve?

In your case, it seems to serve as a reason to publish your disdain and validate your bigotry.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Whose next?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all?

I most certainly concede nothing to you.

Yet... you conceded the standing points, as the record above clearly and irrefutably indicates.

Nothing above indicates any such thing.
To be clear, I refute all you endorse here.
You are exactly the kind of weak willed, weak minded, so-called "Christian" child that took satisfaction in ganging up on and assaulting me as a child because my family are not Christian.
You mercilessly attack those you consider non-believers and then have the temerity to claim that it was you who were attacked.
You have no honor and no true belief in anything.
If you truly believed, you'd not feel so threatened by those with alternate beliefs.
You hang by a thread, and any whose shoulders you cannot stand upon in common fear, threaten your weak faith.
You are revealed.
Now, my cat requires my attention, and she is infinitely more deserving than you.
Done with you.

OH! A Re-Concession?

Well that's sweet...

Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.