Being Gay In ISIL Territory - Warning - Gaphic

[Carla_Danger]

Porn for RWer's.

Bullshit.

You love this thread/topic and you know it.

Love? No. Read my opinions of what should happen to the perpetrators of the crimes shown. They are above.

So, you think you found a group worse than you! Hallelujah, praise be!

I'm Marty, and I have no problem with discrimination against gay people in the work place, but at least I'm not stoning them!

We need to make you a T-shirt.

Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but failure from you as usual.

and where have I ever debated discriminating against gay people in a working environment, my argument is with PA laws usurping religious liberty.

When you're in business and you refuse to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, that's called discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit.

You love this thread/topic and you know it.

Love? No. Read my opinions of what should happen to the perpetrators of the crimes shown. They are above.

So, you think you found a group worse than you! Hallelujah, praise be!

I'm Marty, and I have no problem with discrimination against gay people in the work place, but at least I'm not stoning them!

We need to make you a T-shirt.

Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but failure from you as usual.

and where have I ever debated discriminating against gay people in a working environment, my argument is with PA laws usurping religious liberty.

When you're in business and you refuse to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, that's called discrimination.

yes, but its the same when a church denies the right to marry inside its halls, and that is easily acceptable.

Discrimination is not automatically illegal.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You love this thread/topic and you know it.

Love? No. Read my opinions of what should happen to the perpetrators of the crimes shown. They are above.

So, you think you found a group worse than you! Hallelujah, praise be!

I'm Marty, and I have no problem with discrimination against gay people in the work place, but at least I'm not stoning them!

We need to make you a T-shirt.

Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but failure from you as usual.

and where have I ever debated discriminating against gay people in a working environment, my argument is with PA laws usurping religious liberty.

When you're in business and you refuse to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, that's called discrimination.

yes, but its the same when a church denies the right to marry inside its halls, and that is easily acceptable.

Discrimination is not automatically illegal.

No one said it was. If it were illegal, you'd be in jail.

A Church isn't the same a running a business which serves the public. A Church is not a place of public accommodation, and that has already been explained to you numerous times.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No snide remarks. Just passing on what certain Muslims here don't want to be seen by the world. And they'll certainly hate the source.



Story @ *GRAPHIC* Islamic State STONES ‘Gay Men’ to Death | Pamela Geller



And for there who will instantly claim this is false because of Geller, here's another source for the same story = Islamic State STONES ‘Gay Men’ to Death @ Prison Planet.com » *GRAPHIC* Islamic State STONES ‘Gay Men’ to Death

Dudes look stoned.

 

[Programmer]

The state of Oregon has a specific law that says you cannot discriminate against sexual orientation.

and the 1st amendment guarantees free exercise of Religion. The question becomes which one hold more weight.

Right? But using religious beliefs to allow justify civil rights violations will not work. You can't imprison someone in your church against their will, for example.

Imprisonment is actual harm. Hurt feelings over having to go to another baker to get a cake is not harm.

I wonder if merely baking can be religious enough. This is a church or ministry's bakery? Would it require that to evoke religious freedom?

Being a Church or not doesn't matter. Unless the government has a compelling interest to force the baker to bake the cake, 1st amendment protections should trump any PA laws.

I'd say a church that objected to the use of their venue is in a better position than the baker or tux shop. In many states, sex preference is not on the list of reasons you can't discriminate against people. In cases where it is a civil rights violation, would making an exception for a religion or religious person be considered a 1st amendment breach? ...making a law respecting a religion?

 

[bodecea]

You love this thread/topic and you know it.

Love? No. Read my opinions of what should happen to the perpetrators of the crimes shown. They are above.

So, you think you found a group worse than you! Hallelujah, praise be!

I'm Marty, and I have no problem with discrimination against gay people in the work place, but at least I'm not stoning them!

We need to make you a T-shirt.

Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but failure from you as usual.

and where have I ever debated discriminating against gay people in a working environment, my argument is with PA laws usurping religious liberty.

When you're in business and you refuse to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, that's called discrimination.

yes, but its the same when a church denies the right to marry inside its halls, and that is easily acceptable.

Discrimination is not automatically illegal.

Indeed...you are correct. That's when freedom of religion kicks in....when it's a religious organization. For example, the state cannot force the Catholic Church to marry previously divorced people. BUT...a Catholic cake baker cannot legally refuse to bake a wedding cake for a previously divorced couple.

 

[martybegan]

Love? No. Read my opinions of what should happen to the perpetrators of the crimes shown. They are above.

So, you think you found a group worse than you! Hallelujah, praise be!

I'm Marty, and I have no problem with discrimination against gay people in the work place, but at least I'm not stoning them!

We need to make you a T-shirt.

Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but failure from you as usual.

and where have I ever debated discriminating against gay people in a working environment, my argument is with PA laws usurping religious liberty.

When you're in business and you refuse to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, that's called discrimination.

yes, but its the same when a church denies the right to marry inside its halls, and that is easily acceptable.

Discrimination is not automatically illegal.

No one said it was. If it were illegal, you'd be in jail.

A Church isn't the same a running a business which serves the public. A Church is not a place of public accommodation, and that has already been explained to you numerous times.

And I have explained numerous times, the 1st amendment does not limit your right to free exercise, "only if you are, or are inside, a church"

If you are fining someone $138k for something, you are making it illegal even if you are using civil law to punish them.

 

[martybegan]

Love? No. Read my opinions of what should happen to the perpetrators of the crimes shown. They are above.

So, you think you found a group worse than you! Hallelujah, praise be!

I'm Marty, and I have no problem with discrimination against gay people in the work place, but at least I'm not stoning them!

We need to make you a T-shirt.

Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but failure from you as usual.

and where have I ever debated discriminating against gay people in a working environment, my argument is with PA laws usurping religious liberty.

When you're in business and you refuse to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, that's called discrimination.

yes, but its the same when a church denies the right to marry inside its halls, and that is easily acceptable.

Discrimination is not automatically illegal.

Indeed...you are correct. That's when freedom of religion kicks in....when it's a religious organization. For example, the state cannot force the Catholic Church to marry previously divorced people. BUT...a Catholic cake baker cannot legally refuse to bake a wedding cake for a previously divorced couple.

That distinction is according to you, not according to anything in the constitution. Nothing in the document says a PA law trumps free exercise, only idiot judges and busybody progressive asshats want it that way.

 

[martybegan]

and the 1st amendment guarantees free exercise of Religion. The question becomes which one hold more weight.

Right? But using religious beliefs to allow justify civil rights violations will not work. You can't imprison someone in your church against their will, for example.

Imprisonment is actual harm. Hurt feelings over having to go to another baker to get a cake is not harm.

I wonder if merely baking can be religious enough. This is a church or ministry's bakery? Would it require that to evoke religious freedom?

Being a Church or not doesn't matter. Unless the government has a compelling interest to force the baker to bake the cake, 1st amendment protections should trump any PA laws.

I'd say a church that objected to the use of their venue is in a better position than the baker or tux shop. In many states, sex preference is not on the list of reasons you can't discriminate against people. In cases where it is a civil rights violation, would making an exception for a religion or religious person be considered a 1st amendment breach? ...making a law respecting a religion?

No, the exception would be based on the harm caused by government forcing a person to perform a task they don't want to do over the harm of someone having to find another baker. To me the first harm is worse.

Now if you had a situation where most of the bakers in an area refused to provide a wedding cake to the couple, THEN there would be actual harm, and government would have to step in.

 

[Political Junky]

Apologies to longknife but I skipped completely over the OP. If there's imagery, got enough unpleasantness in my head as it is.

Wanted to say it's ironic Muslims would have such a problem with homosexuals in the light of the 'dancing boys' stories recently.

It's simple. To them being gay means an emotional connection. A gay man can be in love with another man. Raping little boys is just rape. No one cares about them.

Like former Speaker Hastert.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

and the 1st amendment guarantees free exercise of Religion. The question becomes which one hold more weight.

Right? But using religious beliefs to allow justify civil rights violations will not work. You can't imprison someone in your church against their will, for example.

Imprisonment is actual harm. Hurt feelings over having to go to another baker to get a cake is not harm.

I wonder if merely baking can be religious enough. This is a church or ministry's bakery? Would it require that to evoke religious freedom?

Being a Church or not doesn't matter. Unless the government has a compelling interest to force the baker to bake the cake, 1st amendment protections should trump any PA laws.

I'd say a church that objected to the use of their venue is in a better position than the baker or tux shop. In many states, sex preference is not on the list of reasons you can't discriminate against people. In cases where it is a civil rights violation, would making an exception for a religion or religious person be considered a 1st amendment breach? ...making a law respecting a religion?

So the 1st Amendment ends at the doors of the Church?

 

[bodecea]

So, you think you found a group worse than you! Hallelujah, praise be!

I'm Marty, and I have no problem with discrimination against gay people in the work place, but at least I'm not stoning them!

We need to make you a T-shirt.

Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but failure from you as usual.

and where have I ever debated discriminating against gay people in a working environment, my argument is with PA laws usurping religious liberty.

When you're in business and you refuse to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, that's called discrimination.

yes, but its the same when a church denies the right to marry inside its halls, and that is easily acceptable.

Discrimination is not automatically illegal.

Indeed...you are correct. That's when freedom of religion kicks in....when it's a religious organization. For example, the state cannot force the Catholic Church to marry previously divorced people. BUT...a Catholic cake baker cannot legally refuse to bake a wedding cake for a previously divorced couple.

That distinction is according to you, not according to anything in the constitution. Nothing in the document says a PA law trumps free exercise, only idiot judges and busybody progressive asshats want it that way.

It's funny to have you call judges "idiots".

 

[bodecea]

Right? But using religious beliefs to allow justify civil rights violations will not work. You can't imprison someone in your church against their will, for example.

Imprisonment is actual harm. Hurt feelings over having to go to another baker to get a cake is not harm.

I wonder if merely baking can be religious enough. This is a church or ministry's bakery? Would it require that to evoke religious freedom?

Being a Church or not doesn't matter. Unless the government has a compelling interest to force the baker to bake the cake, 1st amendment protections should trump any PA laws.

I'd say a church that objected to the use of their venue is in a better position than the baker or tux shop. In many states, sex preference is not on the list of reasons you can't discriminate against people. In cases where it is a civil rights violation, would making an exception for a religion or religious person be considered a 1st amendment breach? ...making a law respecting a religion?

So the 1st Amendment ends at the doors of the Church?

So religion to you is a building?

 

[Programmer]

Right? But using religious beliefs to allow justify civil rights violations will not work. You can't imprison someone in your church against their will, for example.

Imprisonment is actual harm. Hurt feelings over having to go to another baker to get a cake is not harm.

I wonder if merely baking can be religious enough. This is a church or ministry's bakery? Would it require that to evoke religious freedom?

Being a Church or not doesn't matter. Unless the government has a compelling interest to force the baker to bake the cake, 1st amendment protections should trump any PA laws.

I'd say a church that objected to the use of their venue is in a better position than the baker or tux shop. In many states, sex preference is not on the list of reasons you can't discriminate against people. In cases where it is a civil rights violation, would making an exception for a religion or religious person be considered a 1st amendment breach? ...making a law respecting a religion?

So the 1st Amendment ends at the doors of the Church?

This has more to do with the idea of well established religious conviction. Within a church's doors this is hard to dispute. If it's a religious bakery, similar justification. If it's a bakery purporting to offer public accommodation, there's not much difference to a racist who wont sell his donuts to black people. What do you say to religious exceptions to civil rights justice constituting law respecting a religion?

 

[martybegan]

Nice attempt at putting words in my mouth, but failure from you as usual.

and where have I ever debated discriminating against gay people in a working environment, my argument is with PA laws usurping religious liberty.

When you're in business and you refuse to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, that's called discrimination.

yes, but its the same when a church denies the right to marry inside its halls, and that is easily acceptable.

Discrimination is not automatically illegal.

Indeed...you are correct. That's when freedom of religion kicks in....when it's a religious organization. For example, the state cannot force the Catholic Church to marry previously divorced people. BUT...a Catholic cake baker cannot legally refuse to bake a wedding cake for a previously divorced couple.

That distinction is according to you, not according to anything in the constitution. Nothing in the document says a PA law trumps free exercise, only idiot judges and busybody progressive asshats want it that way.

It's funny to have you call judges "idiots".

authority does not equal superiority.

 

[longknife]

No snide remarks. Just passing on what certain Muslims here don't want to be seen by the world. And they'll certainly hate the source.



Story @ *GRAPHIC* Islamic State STONES ‘Gay Men’ to Death | Pamela Geller



And for there who will instantly claim this is false because of Geller, here's another source for the same story = Islamic State STONES ‘Gay Men’ to Death @ Prison Planet.com » *GRAPHIC* Islamic State STONES ‘Gay Men’ to Death

Porn for RWer's.

Only a true idiot would post that.

Oh really? You think it's not correct to post the brutal treatment of people just because of their personal beliefs?

Or are you saying you support these thugs claiming to represent the Islamic cult?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Imprisonment is actual harm. Hurt feelings over having to go to another baker to get a cake is not harm.

I wonder if merely baking can be religious enough. This is a church or ministry's bakery? Would it require that to evoke religious freedom?

Being a Church or not doesn't matter. Unless the government has a compelling interest to force the baker to bake the cake, 1st amendment protections should trump any PA laws.

I'd say a church that objected to the use of their venue is in a better position than the baker or tux shop. In many states, sex preference is not on the list of reasons you can't discriminate against people. In cases where it is a civil rights violation, would making an exception for a religion or religious person be considered a 1st amendment breach? ...making a law respecting a religion?

So the 1st Amendment ends at the doors of the Church?

This has more to do with the idea of well established religious conviction. Within a church's doors this is hard to dispute. If it's a religious bakery, similar justification. If it's a bakery purporting to offer public accommodation, there's not much difference to a racist who wont sell his donuts to black people. What do you say to religious exceptions to civil rights justice constituting law respecting a religion?

Where does the Constitution specify that the Bill of Rights is null and void of somebody is running a business?

 

[longknife]

I wonder if merely baking can be religious enough. This is a church or ministry's bakery? Would it require that to evoke religious freedom?

Being a Church or not doesn't matter. Unless the government has a compelling interest to force the baker to bake the cake, 1st amendment protections should trump any PA laws.

I'd say a church that objected to the use of their venue is in a better position than the baker or tux shop. In many states, sex preference is not on the list of reasons you can't discriminate against people. In cases where it is a civil rights violation, would making an exception for a religion or religious person be considered a 1st amendment breach? ...making a law respecting a religion?

So the 1st Amendment ends at the doors of the Church?

This has more to do with the idea of well established religious conviction. Within a church's doors this is hard to dispute. If it's a religious bakery, similar justification. If it's a bakery purporting to offer public accommodation, there's not much difference to a racist who wont sell his donuts to black people. What do you say to religious exceptions to civil rights justice constituting law respecting a religion?

Where does the Constitution specify that the Bill of Rights is null and void of somebody is running a business?

What the hell does this have to do with the OP?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Being a Church or not doesn't matter. Unless the government has a compelling interest to force the baker to bake the cake, 1st amendment protections should trump any PA laws.

I'd say a church that objected to the use of their venue is in a better position than the baker or tux shop. In many states, sex preference is not on the list of reasons you can't discriminate against people. In cases where it is a civil rights violation, would making an exception for a religion or religious person be considered a 1st amendment breach? ...making a law respecting a religion?

So the 1st Amendment ends at the doors of the Church?

This has more to do with the idea of well established religious conviction. Within a church's doors this is hard to dispute. If it's a religious bakery, similar justification. If it's a bakery purporting to offer public accommodation, there's not much difference to a racist who wont sell his donuts to black people. What do you say to religious exceptions to civil rights justice constituting law respecting a religion?

Where does the Constitution specify that the Bill of Rights is null and void of somebody is running a business?

What the hell does this have to do with the OP?

Did you accidentally quote the wrong person?