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.
So behavior isn't protected....except when behavior is religion, and it is?
Why do you think anyone should be obligated to care about, let alone adhere to or believe in the writings of your or someone else's religious book or beliefs? If a business person will not follow court interpretations of the Constitution they should get into another business. What makes you so sure the mark is on those you disagree with. Maybe that mark is on you and folks like the bakers. I just can't imagine the figure of Jesus would side with the bakers. He would probably turn that 10 lb. bag of flour into enough cakes to feed everyone who showed up no matter what kind of people they were. He wouldn't care if some of them wanted to use his cakes as wedding cakes. Those bakers, whether by mistake of by malicious intent, are fake Christians.No Christian is forced into selling to the public. They are free to not have a business open to the public
Revelation speaks of a “mark of the beast”, that people will be compelled to accept, in order to be allowed to buy and sell—to engage in commerce.
I am coming to suspect that this mark will not be a physical or visual mark, but an ideological mark. I am increasingly seeing suggestions like this, that if one wants to engage in commerce, that one must put aside one's conscience and engage in or support activities that are overtly immoral; that those who do not want to participate in such evil are “… free to not have a business open to the public”. I am coming to suspect that in this, I am seeing the emergence of the true mark of the beast.
Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance...Who told you that? They were wrong.Because if homosexuality is a behavior, nobody is compelled to play along..
A Muslim can't force a jew to advertise for "Pork, the other white meat". A Mormon can't force a Muslim to print a picture of a cartoon of Muhammed.
There are others, but I only needed one to prove you wrong. Next...Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion.Who told you that? They were wrong.Because if homosexuality is a behavior, nobody is compelled to play along..
Since you are the one that decides what is defined as immoral or perverted, are there any other things we should know about?So behavior isn't protected....except when behavior is religion, and it is?
Which of these are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and explicitly affirmed and protected as a right?
- Religion
- Immoral sexual perversions
- Forcing other people to participate in and support celebrations of immoral sexual perversions
In this case, like others, it didn't need to. The concept of Equality was already there, which is a shame for your kind.Agreed. The Judicial can't add things to the Constitution.
Just checked my calendar. Yep, it's 2016 not 1787...
Sorry FAA, the Founders forgot to mention you...
Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance...Who told you that? They were wrong.Because if homosexuality is a behavior, nobody is compelled to play along..
It isn't being disobeyed, it's being applied, fairly, to homosexuals. Screws you pretty damn good.Just checked my calendar. Yep, it's 2016 not 1787...
Sorry FAA, the Founders forgot to mention you...
The Constitution does not have an expiration date.
If any part of it is deemed to be outdated, then the only legitimate remedy is to ratify an amendment to it, in accordance with the process that the Constitution establishes for this purpose.
That you do not agree with any part of the Constitution, but cannot muster nearly the support that it would take to ratify an amendment, is not a valid excuse to disobey the Constitution as it currently stands.
A Muslim can't force a jew to advertise for "Pork, the other white meat". A Mormon can't force a Muslim to print a picture of a cartoon of Muhammed.Bullroar. Speech is a behavior.
Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance...
Bullroar. Speech is a behavior.
Yes, akin to freedom of association, or to not associate. Good, you're learning....and your cult is going to lose this round, so prepare for that mentally ahead of time...
Agreed. The Judicial can't add things to the Constitution.
Let me guess, Miranda warnings, Integration, Interracial marriage, no staff led Christian prayers in public schools and, Roe v. Wade of course...Agreed. The Judicial can't add things to the Constitution.
Not legitimately. That hasn't stopped them from trying to do so, and it hasn't stopped the rest of our corrupt system of government from treating these illegal “judicial amendments” as valid.
Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance...
Bullroar. Speech is a behavior.
Yes, akin to freedom of association, or to not associate. Good, you're learning....and your cult is going to lose this round, so prepare for that mentally ahead of time...
Either stupid or flat-out lying, God only knows. Obsessed to the point of madness isn't open for debate.Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance...
Bullroar. Speech is a behavior.
Yes, akin to freedom of association, or to not associate. Good, you're learning....and your cult is going to lose this round, so prepare for that mentally ahead of time...
I thought the only behavior protected was religion. lol. As always, you are all over the place.
Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance...
Bullroar. Speech is a behavior.
Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance...
Bullroar. Speech is a behavior.
One that is explicitly affirmed and protected under the First Amendment, along with religion.
And inherent in the right to express what one believes and supports, is equally a right not to be compelled to express that which one does not believe or support.
Behaviors aren't protected in the Constitution outside religion. Has the cult of LGBT gotten tax exempt status, declaring themselves as a religion? No? Then there is no protection. Even if there was, no religion can force others to practice it. A Christian couldn't force a member of the Church of LGBT to print giant highway billboards that read "Homosexuality is an abomination before God", for instance...
Bullroar. Speech is a behavior.
One that is explicitly affirmed and protected under the First Amendment, along with religion.
And inherent in the right to express what one believes and supports, is equally a right not to be compelled to express that which one does not believe or support.
Yeah because judges should be able to trample on whoever fails to get in line with the New Truth.I hope the judge orders them to do community service and ban them from creating a rw panhandling acct (gofundme)
