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.
No. Nobody believes that. The bakers wanted to make a political stand. They could have just refused service and not told them why. But they wanted to preach.Then we've factually established that Jude 1 and Romans 1 make no mention of same sex marriage nor wedding cakes. That was easy!
.
Just as we've established that Loving v Virgina makes no mention of gay sex behaviors. That was easy!
Loving v. Virginia does however cite the right to marry. Which is what it was cited doing in Obergefell. And exactly what we told you it would be cited for.
See how that works?
Romans 1 BTW speaks of the evil of men burning in their lust towards one another...and women likewise...and Jude 1 speaks of "going after strange flesh" and how that movement as in Sodom and all the cities like it (San Francisco for example) are doomed to eternal destruction...and all that refuse to resist such an overtaking of those societies...but yeah no actual mention of "gay marriage' because such a thing having gone that far even then, in Sodom, in its completely depraved and doomed state would not have been even thought of by the homosexuals themselves there...
But I think even basic minds like yours can draw logical conclusions on God's feelings about helping out "gay marriage"...
If you genuinely believe that baking a cake will condemn you to eternal torment and damnation, cake baking probably isn't the right profession for you.
Gender blending defeats God's plan.
How do we know they are rebelling against God's plan?Gender blending defeats God's plan.
Ultimately, nothing can or will defeat God's plan. But those who rebel against it, as Lucifer did, and do not repent; will share in Lucifer's fate.
Read Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament.How do we know they are rebelling against God's plan?
Read Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament.How do we know they are rebelling against God's plan?
Look at it this way though from a secular standpoint, since morality and faith are FAR beyond your reach... If the US Supreme Court won't force a nun nurse in a catholic hospital that otherwise serves the public, to perform an abortion, which may be legal in that state, then (here's the logic part so listen carefully) therefore, passive religious objection to go along with secular laws are allowed.
How do we know they are rebelling against God's plan?Gender blending defeats God's plan.
Ultimately, nothing can or will defeat God's plan. But those who rebel against it, as Lucifer did, and do not repent; will share in Lucifer's fate.
No. You prove that it's against God's plan. The bible won't do that.Read Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament.
Morality isn't obedience. And my faith is pretty solid.Look at it this way though from a secular standpoint, since morality and faith are FAR beyond your reach...
We aren't talking about passive religious objection. It's really quite active.If the US Supreme Court won't force a nun nurse in a catholic hospital that otherwise serves the public, to perform an abortion, which may be legal in that state, then (here's the logic part so listen carefully) therefore, passive religious objection to go along with secular laws are allowed.
He will tell us what be was programmed to think by the Mormon church.How do we know they are rebelling against God's plan?Gender blending defeats God's plan.
Ultimately, nothing can or will defeat God's plan. But those who rebel against it, as Lucifer did, and do not repent; will share in Lucifer's fate.
Apparnetly, Bob will tell us. As according to Bob, Bob defines good, evil, right, wrong, the meaning of all words, the law, the constitution, constitutional violations....
....and of course, the sole and absolute definition of marriage.
According to Bob.
We aren't talking about passive religious objection. It's really quite active.
If it was passive we wouldn't have heard about it.
They were denied equality in the marketplace. It's both illegal, in the case, and anti-capitalist. The wedding cake could have been for the wedding of a dog and a mouse, it's none of their business. They were a bakery, a cake shop, not a church. Requiring them to do what they already do for a living, nothing like oppression...In what way were the homosexuals harmed when the Kleins declined to bake a wedding cake for them?
Where in the 1st Amendment does it delineate that the exercise of religion has to be done in a building? Maybe just a brick church and not a wooden one? Or does it have to have gilding around the doorknob? Just wondering what types of buildings the 1st Amendment intended when it said "exercise of religion". Does religion end Sunday after the sermon the moment one crosses the threshold to leave? Or is it like Sundays and Wednesdays?They were denied equality in the marketplace. It's both illegal, in the case, and anti-capitalist. The wedding cake could have been for the wedding of a dog and a mouse, it's none of their business. They were a bakery, a cake shop, not a church. Requiring them to do what they already do for a living, nothing like oppression...In what way were the homosexuals harmed when the Kleins declined to bake a wedding cake for them?
Nobody has to be harmed for something to be active.We aren't talking about passive religious objection. It's really quite active.
If it was passive we wouldn't have heard about it.
In what way were the homosexuals harmed when the Kleins declined to bake a wedding cake for them? Hurt feelings don't count. They don't have a civil right to force someone to participate in their wedding whose religion forbids such a thing. The resistance was passive. There was no harm.
Where in the 1st Amendment does it delineate that the exercise of religion has to be done in a building? Maybe just a brick church and not a wooden one? Or does it have to have gilding around the doorknob? Just wondering what types of buildings the 1st Amendment intended when it said "exercise of religion". Does religion end Sunday after the sermon the moment one crosses the threshold to leave? Or is it like Sundays and Wednesdays?They were denied equality in the marketplace. It's both illegal, in the case, and anti-capitalist. The wedding cake could have been for the wedding of a dog and a mouse, it's none of their business. They were a bakery, a cake shop, not a church. Requiring them to do what they already do for a living, nothing like oppression...In what way were the homosexuals harmed when the Kleins declined to bake a wedding cake for them?
Sooner or later bro, you're going to have to wake up and smell the 1st Amendment..
People are not churches. Don't believe me? Claim yourself a church and refuse to pay your taxes this year. Sitting in prison should leave you plenty of time to think of ways to hurt fags.
Inevitable, when it comes to your feelings as an adult about your own behaviors being accepted by society, you can't force others to "stop harming you" with their right to passively resist playing along..
People are not churches. Don't believe me? Claim yourself a church and refuse to pay your taxes this year. Sitting in prison should leave you plenty of time to think of ways to hurt fags.
Please quote from the US Constitution where it says "freedom of church". Thanks!
Neither churches nor believers get to disobey the law simply because of faith, kids. The First Amendment, and its rights, are limited rights, like all rights.Inevitable, when it comes to your feelings as an adult about your own behaviors being accepted by society, you can't force others to "stop harming you" with their right to passively resist playing along..
People are not churches. Don't believe me? Claim yourself a church and refuse to pay your taxes this year. Sitting in prison should leave you plenty of time to think of ways to hurt fags.
Please quote from the US Constitution where it says "freedom of church". Thanks!
Please quote where the Constituion allows you to use the First Amendment to ignore any law that doesn't jive with your religious beliefs. It doesn't. You can claim people are churches until the cows come home but that has never been the case in this nation.
Please quote where the Constituion allows you to use the First Amendment to ignore any law that doesn't jive with your religious beliefs. It doesn't. You can claim people are churches until the cows come home but that has never been the case in this nation.
RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."[1] The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage[2]—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please quote where the Constituion allows you to use the First Amendment to ignore any law that doesn't jive with your religious beliefs. It doesn't. You can claim people are churches until the cows come home but that has never been the case in this nation.
Well, let's do this. Let's discuss previous Upheld USSC cases that interpreted the Constitution per the questions you ask. Hobby Lobby. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Your buddy Justice Kennedy wrote that the government had not met its burden to show that there was a meaningful difference between non-profit religious institutions and for-profit religious corporations under the RFRA.
The RFRA was introduced by democrats and signed into law under Bill Clinton:
RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."[1] The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage[2]—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you're up against the 1st Amendment and the RFRA.
Neither the RFRA or the First Amendment allows people to ignore the law b/c of their faith. Kim Davis' office still has to allow homos to marry. Too bad, so sad.
And that's a public entity specifically even. Private businesses aren't forced to tolerate different behaviors they don't agree with. Oh...that's right...we're talking about behaviors and not a race of people.....did you forget that? I never have...
