Bigoted Florist Loses Again

[frigidweirdo]

PoliticalChic

Trying to identify our political parties with specific religions is a grave mistake on your part.The decision to specify in the Constitution that the government is forbidden to establish a religion was grounded in the wisdom acquired by observing the religious strife in Europe and the colonies. The personal religious beliefs of "The Founders" are not significant.

You fail to acknowledge both the wide variety of opinions and beliefs among the various Christian groups and the fact that we now have citizens from just about every one of the world's religions, as well as atheists and agnostics, and all of us share the same government and are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

The fact that the right to religious freedom of choice belongs to each and every individual has both good and bad implications. It is good that we all may move from faith to faith, or choose not to practice a faith, according to our own minds, but it is bad that an individual may choose a belief that involves interfering with the lives and rights of others and then expect their negative actions toward these others to be protected by the government at the expense of those being attacked.

There are many Christians who support the Democratic Party, preferring the policies put forth by Democrats to those put forth by Republicans, which indicates that a split exists between various factions of the Christian faith. The Republican Party seems to have gone full-blown Protestant fundamentalist, with the occasional nod to the Catholics when the Catholics agree with certain stances taken by the Protestant fundamentalists.

Marxism has nothing to do with any of this.

Many of these "Christians" seem to have a very selective faith. I would not give much weight to any of their loony ravings.

Yeah "I hate gay people because the Bible says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination." Leviticus

But I love Trump even though the Bible says:
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." Exodus
"But he that is an adulterer, for the folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul:" Proverbs
"If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour's wife: let them: be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress." Leviticus

And they have no problem with a triple adulterer, but would never vote for a gay guy.

Impressive.

"Abomination" I hate it
"Put to death" I'll vote for it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This idea that anyone can violate a law based on a religious belief that they hold is absurd.

Correct.

It also runs counter to settled, accepted Constitutional law.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and warranted, consistent with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong. What does this say?

Wrong.

What does this say:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[LeftofLeft]

In business? Then serve everyone equally.

So Conservative Christians operating a business must serve homosexuals and gays yet businesses operated by gays can refuse service to Conservative Christians?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/06/23/why-a-small-town-restaurant-owner-asked-sarah-huckabee-sanders-to-leave-and-would-do-it-again/

 

[PoliticalChic]

In business? Then serve everyone equally.

Service may be denied to anybody at any time for any reason. Religious objections are legal. This gets revisited and the florist wins. Like the baker in Colorado who has been targeted by homos every since he won. And won every case.

I wish I were the optimist that you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic

Trying to identify our political parties with specific religions is a grave mistake on your part.The decision to specify in the Constitution that the government is forbidden to establish a religion was grounded in the wisdom acquired by observing the religious strife in Europe and the colonies. The personal religious beliefs of "The Founders" are not significant.

You fail to acknowledge both the wide variety of opinions and beliefs among the various Christian groups and the fact that we now have citizens from just about every one of the world's religions, as well as atheists and agnostics, and all of us share the same government and are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

The fact that the right to religious freedom of choice belongs to each and every individual has both good and bad implications. It is good that we all may move from faith to faith, or choose not to practice a faith, according to our own minds, but it is bad that an individual may choose a belief that involves interfering with the lives and rights of others and then expect their negative actions toward these others to be protected by the government at the expense of those being attacked.

There are many Christians who support the Democratic Party, preferring the policies put forth by Democrats to those put forth by Republicans, which indicates that a split exists between various factions of the Christian faith. The Republican Party seems to have gone full-blown Protestant fundamentalist, with the occasional nod to the Catholics when the Catholics agree with certain stances taken by the Protestant fundamentalists.

Marxism has nothing to do with any of this.

Many of these "Christians" seem to have a very selective faith. I would not give much weight to any of their loony ravings.

Yeah "I hate gay people because the Bible says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination." Leviticus

But I love Trump even though the Bible says:
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." Exodus
"But he that is an adulterer, for the folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul:" Proverbs
"If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour's wife: let them: be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress." Leviticus

And they have no problem with a triple adulterer, but would never vote for a gay guy.

Impressive.

"Abomination" I hate it
"Put to death" I'll vote for it.

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?


Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


"My Administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the Constitutional right to pray in public schools. In America, we do not punish prayer. We do not tear down crosses. We do not ban symbols of faith. We do not muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith. We cherish religion. We lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the Glory of God!"

Trump, SOTU 2020




Get it, you dunce???????

“Pastors were using the pulpit to press the congregation into voting a specific way and they actually denied the people of the congregation the right to vote of their own free will.”

That is an actual post….check it out here: (tax man)
Which Side Can Support and Defend and Explain Ideas?







“…most egregious example of attempted government overreach, California legislators have proposed a bill that would dictate what pastors preach from the pulpit. Specifically, “Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99 calls on ‘counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators’ and institutions with ‘great moral influence’ to stop perpetuating the idea that something is wrong with LGBT identities or sexual behavior. ACR 99 also condemns attempts to change unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion as ‘unethical,’ ‘harmful,’ and leading to high rates of suicide.”

Why California Pastors Must Stand Up to Government Tyranny

In the latest and most egregious example of attempted government overreach, California legislators have proposed a bill that would dictate what pastors preach from the pulpit. Specifically, “Assembly Concurrent Resolution

townhall.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

This idea that anyone can violate a law based on a religious belief that they hold is absurd.

Correct.

It also runs counter to settled, accepted Constitutional law.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and warranted, consistent with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?


Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


"My Administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the Constitutional right to pray in public schools. In America, we do not punish prayer. We do not tear down crosses. We do not ban symbols of faith. We do not muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith. We cherish religion. We lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the Glory of God!"

Trump, SOTU 2020




Get it, you dunce???????

“Pastors were using the pulpit to press the congregation into voting a specific way and they actually denied the people of the congregation the right to vote of their own free will.”

That is an actual post….check it out here: (tax man)

Which Side Can Support and Defend and Explain Ideas?







“…most egregious example of attempted government overreach, California legislators have proposed a bill that would dictate what pastors preach from the pulpit. Specifically, “Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99 calls on ‘counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators’ and institutions with ‘great moral influence’ to stop perpetuating the idea that something is wrong with LGBT identities or sexual behavior. ACR 99 also condemns attempts to change unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion as ‘unethical,’ ‘harmful,’ and leading to high rates of suicide.”

Why California Pastors Must Stand Up to Government Tyranny

In the latest and most egregious example of attempted government overreach, California legislators have proposed a bill that would dictate what pastors preach from the pulpit. Specifically, “Assembly Concurrent Resolution

townhall.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic

Trying to identify our political parties with specific religions is a grave mistake on your part.The decision to specify in the Constitution that the government is forbidden to establish a religion was grounded in the wisdom acquired by observing the religious strife in Europe and the colonies. The personal religious beliefs of "The Founders" are not significant.

You fail to acknowledge both the wide variety of opinions and beliefs among the various Christian groups and the fact that we now have citizens from just about every one of the world's religions, as well as atheists and agnostics, and all of us share the same government and are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

The fact that the right to religious freedom of choice belongs to each and every individual has both good and bad implications. It is good that we all may move from faith to faith, or choose not to practice a faith, according to our own minds, but it is bad that an individual may choose a belief that involves interfering with the lives and rights of others and then expect their negative actions toward these others to be protected by the government at the expense of those being attacked.

There are many Christians who support the Democratic Party, preferring the policies put forth by Democrats to those put forth by Republicans, which indicates that a split exists between various factions of the Christian faith. The Republican Party seems to have gone full-blown Protestant fundamentalist, with the occasional nod to the Catholics when the Catholics agree with certain stances taken by the Protestant fundamentalists.

Marxism has nothing to do with any of this.

"Trying to identify our political parties with specific religions is a grave mistake on your part."

I simply reported the truth....as I always do.

The truth about American's founders is..."all of whom, even if some did not individually adhere to orthodox Christianity, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Here’s what we can say for certain about their religious beliefs.

a) All of the Founders believed in a transcendent God, that is, a Creator who exists outside of nature.
b) All the Founders believed in a God who imposes moral obligations on human beings
c) All the Founders believed in a God who punishes bad behavior and rewards good behavior in an afterlife."


The Constitution has a clear reference to Jesus Christ.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic

Trying to identify our political parties with specific religions is a grave mistake on your part.The decision to specify in the Constitution that the government is forbidden to establish a religion was grounded in the wisdom acquired by observing the religious strife in Europe and the colonies. The personal religious beliefs of "The Founders" are not significant.

You fail to acknowledge both the wide variety of opinions and beliefs among the various Christian groups and the fact that we now have citizens from just about every one of the world's religions, as well as atheists and agnostics, and all of us share the same government and are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

The fact that the right to religious freedom of choice belongs to each and every individual has both good and bad implications. It is good that we all may move from faith to faith, or choose not to practice a faith, according to our own minds, but it is bad that an individual may choose a belief that involves interfering with the lives and rights of others and then expect their negative actions toward these others to be protected by the government at the expense of those being attacked.

There are many Christians who support the Democratic Party, preferring the policies put forth by Democrats to those put forth by Republicans, which indicates that a split exists between various factions of the Christian faith. The Republican Party seems to have gone full-blown Protestant fundamentalist, with the occasional nod to the Catholics when the Catholics agree with certain stances taken by the Protestant fundamentalists.

Marxism has nothing to do with any of this.

"There are many Christians who support the Democratic Party, preferring the policies put forth by Democrats to those put forth by Republicans,..."


The weirdest thing is that you are serious.


Biden's a Kermit Gosnell Catholic.


Biden.....a Catholic?
"Catholic Priest: Joe Biden “Claims to be a Catholic But Throws the Teachings Out the Window”

Catholic Priest: Joe Biden “Claims to be a Catholic But Throws the Teachings Out the Window”
Joe Biden is facing continued criticism from Catholic leaders for touting his Catholic faith but not really living it. The presumed Democrat presidential nom
www.lifenews.com





"It’s official, the main Democrat platform going into the 2020 election is Infanticide.
According to the Washington Post: ‘Joe Biden asked for a pen. Then he reversed a position he’d held for four decades’.
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s U-Turn on the Hyde Amendment on Thursday makes the coast clear: All 24 main contenders in the DNC primary race are, down to the last one, solidly pro-abortion."

Biden Says His Infanticide U-Turn Republicans’ Fault
Biden Says His Infanticide U-Turn Republicans’ Fault, infanticide, Hyde Amendment

canadafreepress.com





He's unfamiliar with the term 'psalmist.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic

Trying to identify our political parties with specific religions is a grave mistake on your part.The decision to specify in the Constitution that the government is forbidden to establish a religion was grounded in the wisdom acquired by observing the religious strife in Europe and the colonies. The personal religious beliefs of "The Founders" are not significant.

You fail to acknowledge both the wide variety of opinions and beliefs among the various Christian groups and the fact that we now have citizens from just about every one of the world's religions, as well as atheists and agnostics, and all of us share the same government and are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

The fact that the right to religious freedom of choice belongs to each and every individual has both good and bad implications. It is good that we all may move from faith to faith, or choose not to practice a faith, according to our own minds, but it is bad that an individual may choose a belief that involves interfering with the lives and rights of others and then expect their negative actions toward these others to be protected by the government at the expense of those being attacked.

There are many Christians who support the Democratic Party, preferring the policies put forth by Democrats to those put forth by Republicans, which indicates that a split exists between various factions of the Christian faith. The Republican Party seems to have gone full-blown Protestant fundamentalist, with the occasional nod to the Catholics when the Catholics agree with certain stances taken by the Protestant fundamentalists.

Marxism has nothing to do with any of this.

"Marxism has nothing to do with any of this."




You truly are oblivious.



Let's clear up the falsity that has been advanced....
Here is the evidence of history:
Some nations/societies are based on religion and capitalism
Others, on atheism and communism.
Which system has proven more successful.

"Capitalism and religion are 2 different things.
They are NOT intertwined."
I really don't expect you to comprehend this....but, actually, they are.

"Only capitalism regards man as a sovereign individual with an inalienable right to his own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Government recognition and protection of individual rights is the hallmark of a moral, peaceful, productive society."
Sipsey Street Irregulars: The lie before the crime. "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" ("The community comes before the individual")

Sounds a lot like Genesis 1:27
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And, of course, the Judeo-Christian faith is based on free will.
Generosity is based on choice....on free will....the cornerstone of Judeo-Christian tradition.
Not so with any of these six: Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Progressivism, Fascism or Nazism, all of which are collectivist and based on coercion and force.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Wrong. What does this say?

Wrong.

What does this say:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

www.law.cornell.edu

An "otherwise valid law" - a laughable description - does not override Constitutional rights. "No law" means no law.

Consider what happened to your party's Jim Crow "otherwise valid" laws.

 

[Dana7360]

In business? Then serve everyone equally.

I'm surprised that the Supreme Court we have now did that.

I would have expected them to take the case then rule in favor of the florist giving more power to a religion than our laws and equality.

I'm glad they refused to take the case.

 

[bodecea]

Since it's a Washington Post article behind a pay wall I can't give you a direct link. Click the tweet, then click the article.

Do you bake cakes for homos?

Oh sorry everything you bake is for a homo.

My bad

That sounds like it scares you.

 

[Dana7360]

Apparently you are unable to read.

you're the one with the comprehension problem. Twitter and facebook are businesses.

People were kicked off twitter and facebook because they violated the contract they had with those companies.

They signed and agreed to the TOS rules of those websites then repeatedly violated those rules.

They signed a contract with those companies agreeing that if they violated those TOS rules that company can kick them off the site.

What contract did those gay people sign with the florist and how did those gay people violate that contract?

You are the person with the comprehension problem.

 

[Dusty]

Since it's a Washington Post article behind a pay wall I can't give you a direct link. Click the tweet, then click the article.

Do you bake cakes for homos?

Oh sorry everything you bake is for a homo.

My bad

That sounds like it scares you.

BBC News | AFRICA | Mbeki digs in on Aids

news.bbc.co.uk

Hell yea

You would be scared too if you thought with your head instead of with your dick

 

[22lcidw]

PoliticalChic

Trying to identify our political parties with specific religions is a grave mistake on your part.The decision to specify in the Constitution that the government is forbidden to establish a religion was grounded in the wisdom acquired by observing the religious strife in Europe and the colonies. The personal religious beliefs of "The Founders" are not significant.

You fail to acknowledge both the wide variety of opinions and beliefs among the various Christian groups and the fact that we now have citizens from just about every one of the world's religions, as well as atheists and agnostics, and all of us share the same government and are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

The fact that the right to religious freedom of choice belongs to each and every individual has both good and bad implications. It is good that we all may move from faith to faith, or choose not to practice a faith, according to our own minds, but it is bad that an individual may choose a belief that involves interfering with the lives and rights of others and then expect their negative actions toward these others to be protected by the government at the expense of those being attacked.

There are many Christians who support the Democratic Party, preferring the policies put forth by Democrats to those put forth by Republicans, which indicates that a split exists between various factions of the Christian faith. The Republican Party seems to have gone full-blown Protestant fundamentalist, with the occasional nod to the Catholics when the Catholics agree with certain stances taken by the Protestant fundamentalists.

Marxism has nothing to do with any of this.

Many of these "Christians" seem to have a very selective faith. I would not give much weight to any of their loony ravings.

Yeah "I hate gay people because the Bible says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination." Leviticus

But I love Trump even though the Bible says:
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." Exodus
"But he that is an adulterer, for the folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul:" Proverbs
"If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour's wife: let them: be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress." Leviticus

And they have no problem with a triple adulterer, but would never vote for a gay guy.

Impressive.

"Abomination" I hate it
"Put to death" I'll vote for it.

Become massively conservative and really let what happens in the bedroom stay in the bedroom. No public shows of crazy.

 

[Desperado]

This idea that anyone can violate a law based on a religious belief that they hold is absurd.

Correct.

It also runs counter to settled, accepted Constitutional law.

Public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and warranted, consistent with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Get back to me when Facebook and Twitter have to pllay by the same rules.

 

[bodecea]

In business? Then serve everyone equally.

I'm surprised that the Supreme Court we have now did that.

I would have expected them to take the case then rule in favor of the florist giving more power to a religion than our laws and equality.

I'm glad they refused to take the case.

I'm waiting for businesses to use made up religious reasons to refuse to follow health and safety laws here soon.

 

[Oddball]

In business? Then serve everyone equally.

You mean like letting the President have an account on Twitter and Facebookburning?

It's always (D)ifferent when those fascist peckerheads do it.

Were it not for double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

 

[whitehall]

They are stoning homosexuals to death in countries where head covering is mandatory for women and yet the American left calls a devout Christian who just wants to be left alone a "bigot" for refusing to acknowledge sodomite weddings.