Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If the NT is about monogamy, why doesn’t the Christian taliban try to outlaw divorce instead of marriage?
Sorry, snowflake, they aren’t our rules. The rules were set in the 60s. You know the rule, the one that says the gay baker must bake for the Christian in all 50 states...
Most Churches won't grant divorces, only annulments.
Is there some Gay Religion that says heterosexuality is sinful?
That has zero to do with civil marriage law. They are two completely different things.
Some Christians thought the Bible exempted them from serving blacks...the courts felt differently.
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.
The bible doesn't reference how to treat other races directly, just other tribes, and that is mostly OT when the hebrews were the irish of the middle east.
It doesn't matter if YOU believe the bible justifies racism,the racist believe it does. Many people don't believe the bible forbids gay marriage, but homophobes believe it.
Why should homophobes get religious carve outs from law we don't give to racists?
Does the bible condone homosexuality or not? Yes or No?
Does the bible condone racism, yes or no?
The 2nd requires a stretch, the 1st requires no stretch.
And the issue of us allowing people to go with their morality depends on the pervasiveness of the situation. PA laws for race were required because of the systemic nature of the discrimination found in PA's in the south. One baker not wanting to do one cake is not pervasive, and should be placed under other guidelines.
What is with your constant need to be accepted by people that don't want to accept you? I swear progressives are nothing more than perpetual 14 year old girls stuck in the "PAY ATTENTION TO ME" phase.
Most Churches won't grant divorces, only annulments.
Is there some Gay Religion that says heterosexuality is sinful?
That has zero to do with civil marriage law. They are two completely different things.
Some Christians thought the Bible exempted them from serving blacks...the courts felt differently.
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.
The bible doesn't reference how to treat other races directly, just other tribes, and that is mostly OT when the hebrews were the irish of the middle east.
It doesn't matter if YOU believe the bible justifies racism,the racist believe it does. Many people don't believe the bible forbids gay marriage, but homophobes believe it.
Why should homophobes get religious carve outs from law we don't give to racists?
Does the bible condone homosexuality or not? Yes or No?
Does the bible condone racism, yes or no?
The 2nd requires a stretch, the 1st requires no stretch.
And the issue of us allowing people to go with their morality depends on the pervasiveness of the situation. PA laws for race were required because of the systemic nature of the discrimination found in PA's in the south. One baker not wanting to do one cake is not pervasive, and should be placed under other guidelines.
What is with your constant need to be accepted by people that don't want to accept you? I swear progressives are nothing more than perpetual 14 year old girls stuck in the "PAY ATTENTION TO ME" phase.
That’s YOUR interpretation of the Bible. The racist sees implicit support in the Bible just as clearly as you see support for homophobia.
Christians are covered by PA laws more than gays are. All 50 states require you Christians be served by gays but whine like little bitches about having to serve gays in about 25.
That has zero to do with civil marriage law. They are two completely different things.
Some Christians thought the Bible exempted them from serving blacks...the courts felt differently.
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.
The bible doesn't reference how to treat other races directly, just other tribes, and that is mostly OT when the hebrews were the irish of the middle east.
It doesn't matter if YOU believe the bible justifies racism,the racist believe it does. Many people don't believe the bible forbids gay marriage, but homophobes believe it.
Why should homophobes get religious carve outs from law we don't give to racists?
Does the bible condone homosexuality or not? Yes or No?
Does the bible condone racism, yes or no?
The 2nd requires a stretch, the 1st requires no stretch.
And the issue of us allowing people to go with their morality depends on the pervasiveness of the situation. PA laws for race were required because of the systemic nature of the discrimination found in PA's in the south. One baker not wanting to do one cake is not pervasive, and should be placed under other guidelines.
What is with your constant need to be accepted by people that don't want to accept you? I swear progressives are nothing more than perpetual 14 year old girls stuck in the "PAY ATTENTION TO ME" phase.
That’s YOUR interpretation of the Bible. The racist sees implicit support in the Bible just as clearly as you see support for homophobia.
Christians are covered by PA laws more than gays are. All 50 states require you Christians be served by gays but whine like little bitches about having to serve gays in about 25.
Does the bible condemn homosexuality explicitly, yes or no?
The difference is Christians don't seem to be litigious twats like your types are.
And again there is a difference between a PA and a contracted service despite what these SJW government ***** say.
The bible doesn't reference how to treat other races directly, just other tribes, and that is mostly OT when the hebrews were the irish of the middle east.
It doesn't matter if YOU believe the bible justifies racism,the racist believe it does. Many people don't believe the bible forbids gay marriage, but homophobes believe it.
Why should homophobes get religious carve outs from law we don't give to racists?
Does the bible condone homosexuality or not? Yes or No?
Does the bible condone racism, yes or no?
The 2nd requires a stretch, the 1st requires no stretch.
And the issue of us allowing people to go with their morality depends on the pervasiveness of the situation. PA laws for race were required because of the systemic nature of the discrimination found in PA's in the south. One baker not wanting to do one cake is not pervasive, and should be placed under other guidelines.
What is with your constant need to be accepted by people that don't want to accept you? I swear progressives are nothing more than perpetual 14 year old girls stuck in the "PAY ATTENTION TO ME" phase.
That’s YOUR interpretation of the Bible. The racist sees implicit support in the Bible just as clearly as you see support for homophobia.
Christians are covered by PA laws more than gays are. All 50 states require you Christians be served by gays but whine like little bitches about having to serve gays in about 25.
Does the bible condemn homosexuality explicitly, yes or no?
The difference is Christians don't seem to be litigious twats like your types are.
And again there is a difference between a PA and a contracted service despite what these SJW government ***** say.
No, it doesn’t. Not the NT, anyway...at least according to some interpretations. And it doesn’t matter if you believe that the Bible implicitly supports racism, the racist believe it.
They don’t have to be litigious, they aren’t a historically discriminated against group and still they got protections against discrimination in public accommodation.
That’s nice you feel that way but the law doesn’t care about your feelings.
It doesn't matter if YOU believe the bible justifies racism,the racist believe it does. Many people don't believe the bible forbids gay marriage, but homophobes believe it.
Why should homophobes get religious carve outs from law we don't give to racists?
Does the bible condone homosexuality or not? Yes or No?
Does the bible condone racism, yes or no?
The 2nd requires a stretch, the 1st requires no stretch.
And the issue of us allowing people to go with their morality depends on the pervasiveness of the situation. PA laws for race were required because of the systemic nature of the discrimination found in PA's in the south. One baker not wanting to do one cake is not pervasive, and should be placed under other guidelines.
What is with your constant need to be accepted by people that don't want to accept you? I swear progressives are nothing more than perpetual 14 year old girls stuck in the "PAY ATTENTION TO ME" phase.
That’s YOUR interpretation of the Bible. The racist sees implicit support in the Bible just as clearly as you see support for homophobia.
Christians are covered by PA laws more than gays are. All 50 states require you Christians be served by gays but whine like little bitches about having to serve gays in about 25.
Does the bible condemn homosexuality explicitly, yes or no?
The difference is Christians don't seem to be litigious twats like your types are.
And again there is a difference between a PA and a contracted service despite what these SJW government ***** say.
No, it doesn’t. Not the NT, anyway...at least according to some interpretations. And it doesn’t matter if you believe that the Bible implicitly supports racism, the racist believe it.
They don’t have to be litigious, they aren’t a historically discriminated against group and still they got protections against discrimination in public accommodation.
That’s nice you feel that way but the law doesn’t care about your feelings.
Maybe they aren't litigious because they aren't looking for acceptance like some LGBT people are.
Does the bible condone homosexuality or not? Yes or No?
Does the bible condone racism, yes or no?
The 2nd requires a stretch, the 1st requires no stretch.
And the issue of us allowing people to go with their morality depends on the pervasiveness of the situation. PA laws for race were required because of the systemic nature of the discrimination found in PA's in the south. One baker not wanting to do one cake is not pervasive, and should be placed under other guidelines.
What is with your constant need to be accepted by people that don't want to accept you? I swear progressives are nothing more than perpetual 14 year old girls stuck in the "PAY ATTENTION TO ME" phase.
That’s YOUR interpretation of the Bible. The racist sees implicit support in the Bible just as clearly as you see support for homophobia.
Christians are covered by PA laws more than gays are. All 50 states require you Christians be served by gays but whine like little bitches about having to serve gays in about 25.
Does the bible condemn homosexuality explicitly, yes or no?
The difference is Christians don't seem to be litigious twats like your types are.
And again there is a difference between a PA and a contracted service despite what these SJW government ***** say.
No, it doesn’t. Not the NT, anyway...at least according to some interpretations. And it doesn’t matter if you believe that the Bible implicitly supports racism, the racist believe it.
They don’t have to be litigious, they aren’t a historically discriminated against group and still they got protections against discrimination in public accommodation.
That’s nice you feel that way but the law doesn’t care about your feelings.
Maybe they aren't litigious because they aren't looking for acceptance like some LGBT people are.
Or maybe they've not experienced discrimination in public accommodation. I reckon we'll never know.
That’s YOUR interpretation of the Bible. The racist sees implicit support in the Bible just as clearly as you see support for homophobia.
Christians are covered by PA laws more than gays are. All 50 states require you Christians be served by gays but whine like little bitches about having to serve gays in about 25.
Does the bible condemn homosexuality explicitly, yes or no?
The difference is Christians don't seem to be litigious twats like your types are.
And again there is a difference between a PA and a contracted service despite what these SJW government ***** say.
No, it doesn’t. Not the NT, anyway...at least according to some interpretations. And it doesn’t matter if you believe that the Bible implicitly supports racism, the racist believe it.
They don’t have to be litigious, they aren’t a historically discriminated against group and still they got protections against discrimination in public accommodation.
That’s nice you feel that way but the law doesn’t care about your feelings.
Maybe they aren't litigious because they aren't looking for acceptance like some LGBT people are.
Or maybe they've not experienced discrimination in public accommodation. I reckon we'll never know.
We all know.
Some just don't admit to it.
Does the bible condemn homosexuality explicitly, yes or no?
The difference is Christians don't seem to be litigious twats like your types are.
And again there is a difference between a PA and a contracted service despite what these SJW government ***** say.
No, it doesn’t. Not the NT, anyway...at least according to some interpretations. And it doesn’t matter if you believe that the Bible implicitly supports racism, the racist believe it.
They don’t have to be litigious, they aren’t a historically discriminated against group and still they got protections against discrimination in public accommodation.
That’s nice you feel that way but the law doesn’t care about your feelings.
Maybe they aren't litigious because they aren't looking for acceptance like some LGBT people are.
Or maybe they've not experienced discrimination in public accommodation. I reckon we'll never know.
We all know.
Some just don't admit to it.
We know that Christians have never been in the minority in the U.S. and, therefore, have not been subject to widespread discrimination in public accommodation...and yet STILL they are protected by Federal Law.
/------/ So? You wouldn't list to it even if he held one in your front yard while holding your puppy.is it because he’s a pussy who can’t handle hardball questions unlike the softies he gets from Fox News? Does he constantly need Fox News to coddle his ego? The white press conference is standard practice by Presidents that goes back generations.
Even If you want to pretend the press is unfair to him which of course is bullshit, why doesn’t he face them down like a real president would and defend himself? Be a man for once. Even better, he removes his fake hair and orange tan to show he has some balls.
Of course, maybe the true reason he doesn’t do them is because he knows he made a complete ass of himself last time.
Are you Trump supporters really going to pretend White House press conferences don’t matter? If Obama dodged them you would never shut the fuck about it.
In Trump era, the death of the White House press conference
No, it doesn’t. Not the NT, anyway...at least according to some interpretations. And it doesn’t matter if you believe that the Bible implicitly supports racism, the racist believe it.
They don’t have to be litigious, they aren’t a historically discriminated against group and still they got protections against discrimination in public accommodation.
That’s nice you feel that way but the law doesn’t care about your feelings.
Maybe they aren't litigious because they aren't looking for acceptance like some LGBT people are.
Or maybe they've not experienced discrimination in public accommodation. I reckon we'll never know.
We all know.
Some just don't admit to it.
We know that Christians have never been in the minority in the U.S. and, therefore, have not been subject to widespread discrimination in public accommodation...and yet STILL they are protected by Federal Law.
That you count "Christians" as one monolithic group shows your ignorance about them.
Maybe they aren't litigious because they aren't looking for acceptance like some LGBT people are.
Or maybe they've not experienced discrimination in public accommodation. I reckon we'll never know.
We all know.
Some just don't admit to it.
We know that Christians have never been in the minority in the U.S. and, therefore, have not been subject to widespread discrimination in public accommodation...and yet STILL they are protected by Federal Law.
That you count "Christians" as one monolithic group shows your ignorance about them.
Shifting the goalposts are we? So now you want to contend that Christians need these protections because they aren't all the same? Are Baptists refusing to serve Protestants?
Doesn't change my or statement about gays having to serve Christians in all 50 states whereas Christians only have to serve gays in about half that. Fix it one way or the other, I don't care which.
Or maybe they've not experienced discrimination in public accommodation. I reckon we'll never know.
We all know.
Some just don't admit to it.
We know that Christians have never been in the minority in the U.S. and, therefore, have not been subject to widespread discrimination in public accommodation...and yet STILL they are protected by Federal Law.
That you count "Christians" as one monolithic group shows your ignorance about them.
Shifting the goalposts are we? So now you want to contend that Christians need these protections because they aren't all the same? Are Baptists refusing to serve Protestants?
Doesn't change my or statement about gays having to serve Christians in all 50 states whereas Christians only have to serve gays in about half that. Fix it one way or the other, I don't care which.
Or just limit PA's to actual PA's.
No one is asking to not serve gays in point of sale transaction, just not to be involved in Gay weddings for a very replaceable service.
But your side wants it all, to fuck over those you don't like and whine behind protected class protections like snivelling little twats.
We all know.
Some just don't admit to it.
We know that Christians have never been in the minority in the U.S. and, therefore, have not been subject to widespread discrimination in public accommodation...and yet STILL they are protected by Federal Law.
That you count "Christians" as one monolithic group shows your ignorance about them.
Shifting the goalposts are we? So now you want to contend that Christians need these protections because they aren't all the same? Are Baptists refusing to serve Protestants?
Doesn't change my or statement about gays having to serve Christians in all 50 states whereas Christians only have to serve gays in about half that. Fix it one way or the other, I don't care which.
Or just limit PA's to actual PA's.
No one is asking to not serve gays in point of sale transaction, just not to be involved in Gay weddings for a very replaceable service.
But your side wants it all, to fuck over those you don't like and whine behind protected class protections like snivelling little twats.
What evs. Ain’t fair the way it is. If the Christian can deny me service, I should be able to deny them.
Whiny Christians are already protected.
We know that Christians have never been in the minority in the U.S. and, therefore, have not been subject to widespread discrimination in public accommodation...and yet STILL they are protected by Federal Law.
That you count "Christians" as one monolithic group shows your ignorance about them.
Shifting the goalposts are we? So now you want to contend that Christians need these protections because they aren't all the same? Are Baptists refusing to serve Protestants?
Doesn't change my or statement about gays having to serve Christians in all 50 states whereas Christians only have to serve gays in about half that. Fix it one way or the other, I don't care which.
Or just limit PA's to actual PA's.
No one is asking to not serve gays in point of sale transaction, just not to be involved in Gay weddings for a very replaceable service.
But your side wants it all, to fuck over those you don't like and whine behind protected class protections like snivelling little twats.
What evs. Ain’t fair the way it is. If the Christian can deny me service, I should be able to deny them.
Whiny Christians are already protected.
So it's all about butthurt for people like you.
Got it.
What a whiny little bitch you are.
That you count "Christians" as one monolithic group shows your ignorance about them.
Shifting the goalposts are we? So now you want to contend that Christians need these protections because they aren't all the same? Are Baptists refusing to serve Protestants?
Doesn't change my or statement about gays having to serve Christians in all 50 states whereas Christians only have to serve gays in about half that. Fix it one way or the other, I don't care which.
Or just limit PA's to actual PA's.
No one is asking to not serve gays in point of sale transaction, just not to be involved in Gay weddings for a very replaceable service.
But your side wants it all, to fuck over those you don't like and whine behind protected class protections like snivelling little twats.
What evs. Ain’t fair the way it is. If the Christian can deny me service, I should be able to deny them.
Whiny Christians are already protected.
So it's all about butthurt for people like you.
Got it.
What a whiny little bitch you are.
No, it’s about fairness. Why should a Christian be able to deny me service, but I cannot deny him? Seems to me like it’s the Christians that are the whiny bitches. They are the more protected class after all.
Protected by federal law.....?Does the bible condemn homosexuality explicitly, yes or no?
The difference is Christians don't seem to be litigious twats like your types are.
And again there is a difference between a PA and a contracted service despite what these SJW government ***** say.
No, it doesn’t. Not the NT, anyway...at least according to some interpretations. And it doesn’t matter if you believe that the Bible implicitly supports racism, the racist believe it.
They don’t have to be litigious, they aren’t a historically discriminated against group and still they got protections against discrimination in public accommodation.
That’s nice you feel that way but the law doesn’t care about your feelings.
Maybe they aren't litigious because they aren't looking for acceptance like some LGBT people are.
Or maybe they've not experienced discrimination in public accommodation. I reckon we'll never know.
We all know.
Some just don't admit to it.
We know that Christians have never been in the minority in the U.S. and, therefore, have not been subject to widespread discrimination in public accommodation...and yet STILL they are protected by Federal Law.
Shifting the goalposts are we? So now you want to contend that Christians need these protections because they aren't all the same? Are Baptists refusing to serve Protestants?
Doesn't change my or statement about gays having to serve Christians in all 50 states whereas Christians only have to serve gays in about half that. Fix it one way or the other, I don't care which.
Or just limit PA's to actual PA's.
No one is asking to not serve gays in point of sale transaction, just not to be involved in Gay weddings for a very replaceable service.
But your side wants it all, to fuck over those you don't like and whine behind protected class protections like snivelling little twats.
What evs. Ain’t fair the way it is. If the Christian can deny me service, I should be able to deny them.
Whiny Christians are already protected.
So it's all about butthurt for people like you.
Got it.
What a whiny little bitch you are.
No, it’s about fairness. Why should a Christian be able to deny me service, but I cannot deny him? Seems to me like it’s the Christians that are the whiny bitches. They are the more protected class after all.
If gay florists want to stop providing flowers to Christian weddings I'm all for it. It would be suicide for them, but I am OK with it.
Protected by federal law.....?No, it doesn’t. Not the NT, anyway...at least according to some interpretations. And it doesn’t matter if you believe that the Bible implicitly supports racism, the racist believe it.
They don’t have to be litigious, they aren’t a historically discriminated against group and still they got protections against discrimination in public accommodation.
That’s nice you feel that way but the law doesn’t care about your feelings.
Maybe they aren't litigious because they aren't looking for acceptance like some LGBT people are.
Or maybe they've not experienced discrimination in public accommodation. I reckon we'll never know.
We all know.
Some just don't admit to it.
We know that Christians have never been in the minority in the U.S. and, therefore, have not been subject to widespread discrimination in public accommodation...and yet STILL they are protected by Federal Law.
When did this happen?
Or just limit PA's to actual PA's.
No one is asking to not serve gays in point of sale transaction, just not to be involved in Gay weddings for a very replaceable service.
But your side wants it all, to fuck over those you don't like and whine behind protected class protections like snivelling little twats.
What evs. Ain’t fair the way it is. If the Christian can deny me service, I should be able to deny them.
Whiny Christians are already protected.
So it's all about butthurt for people like you.
Got it.
What a whiny little bitch you are.
No, it’s about fairness. Why should a Christian be able to deny me service, but I cannot deny him? Seems to me like it’s the Christians that are the whiny bitches. They are the more protected class after all.
If gay florists want to stop providing flowers to Christian weddings I'm all for it. It would be suicide for them, but I am OK with it.
The law isn’t. That’s the point. It’s about the law not how you feel.
