Christian bakers: Wouldnt ANY wedding violate the deadly sin of gluttony?

[Nutz]

Exactly. And hey what do you know, we protect their rights.

A protected choice...or do you hate the 1st amendment too?

It's protected for each and every member of society.

In the public sphere you cannot restrict the rights of others because your religion tells you too.

Again, you no understand the founding of America and the importance of freedom of religion. That is why it is part of the Constitution. Again, you are the one stuck on religion...GOd tells me to love everyone, and I do. But I don't understand how you are saying that the 1st amendment is all of a sudden the reason gays should get special rights. your argument is nonsense. The Constitution gives Americans the right to freedom of religion, what does that have to do with gays? Are you saying the gay lifestyle is now a religion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You don't understand the principals of law and your arguments are becoming more and more childish. What next, are you going to bring up the difference between a donkey and a mule to support gay marriage? Your right, you cant yell fire in a crowded movie theater, but what the hell does that have to do with the freedom of religion? Or gay marriage, or special rights for people who make poor life choices.

So if you can't yell fire in a crowded theater how is the First Amendment still valid? It says "make no law", "no prohibition" and now you're telling me there is a law that limits free speech? Isn't that like saying you have "free choice in religion" but you can't be a Catholic?

What is there was an Amendment to the Constitution protecting sexual orientation? Would you think that was okay? I mean the Amendments can as an add-on to the Constitution right? They were added later so did we really found the place on Religious Freedom? Did you know that before the Constitution was in force states had established religions, that they threw people in jail who preached for other sects? They fined them and even banished them?

See if you can answer some of these questions.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A protected choice...or do you hate the 1st amendment too?

It's protected for each and every member of society.

In the public sphere you cannot restrict the rights of others because your religion tells you too.

Again, you no understand the founding of America and the importance of freedom of religion. That is why it is part of the Constitution. Again, you are the one stuck on religion...GOd tells me to love everyone, and I do. But I don't understand how you are saying that the 1st amendment is all of a sudden the reason gays should get special rights. your argument is nonsense. The Constitution gives Americans the right to freedom of religion, what does that have to do with gays? Are you saying the gay lifestyle is now a religion.

I'm not saying anything about the First Amendment and gays. We are speaking of choices and minority rights. Now why should the majority care about the rights of the minority? Why say that their religious choices are just as valid? What were the Founders thinking of when they made such a law, and is it really true? If my faith requires me to have sex with ten-year-old girls, am I protected?

 

[Nutz]

You don't understand the principals of law and your arguments are becoming more and more childish. What next, are you going to bring up the difference between a donkey and a mule to support gay marriage? Your right, you cant yell fire in a crowded movie theater, but what the hell does that have to do with the freedom of religion? Or gay marriage, or special rights for people who make poor life choices.

So if you can't yell fire in a crowded theater how is the First Amendment still valid? It says "make no law", "no prohibition" and now you're telling me there is a law that limits free speech? Isn't that like saying you have "free choice in religion" but you can't be a Catholic?

What is there was an Amendment to the Constitution protecting sexual orientation? Would you think that was okay? I mean the Amendments can as an add-on to the Constitution right? They were added later so did we really found the place on Religious Freedom? Did you know that before the Constitution was in force states had established religions, that they threw people in jail who preached for other sects? They fined them and even banished them?

See if you can answer some of these questions.

You are molesting the intent of the constitution to support some pretty sophomoric arguments. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater because it is not speech or opinion and it causes danger and reeks havoc. Im not avoiding your question, Im just tired of the childish arguments from someone who thinks he knows more about the law than SCOTUS. If you are going to make your point, hurry up, im about to go to sleep. And I don't think it is worth staying up to read. Wow...I don;t even how to respond to such childish arguments without a point.

Did you know that the constitution was not ratified until the Bill of Rights was created? So they weren't really added later as you suggest, they were added so the colonies would all agree to sign. Again, your arguments are silly, sophomoric and a perversion of US history. A molestation of the truth to justify homosexuality.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You don't understand the principals of law and your arguments are becoming more and more childish. What next, are you going to bring up the difference between a donkey and a mule to support gay marriage? Your right, you cant yell fire in a crowded movie theater, but what the hell does that have to do with the freedom of religion? Or gay marriage, or special rights for people who make poor life choices.

So if you can't yell fire in a crowded theater how is the First Amendment still valid? It says "make no law", "no prohibition" and now you're telling me there is a law that limits free speech? Isn't that like saying you have "free choice in religion" but you can't be a Catholic?

What is there was an Amendment to the Constitution protecting sexual orientation? Would you think that was okay? I mean the Amendments can as an add-on to the Constitution right? They were added later so did we really found the place on Religious Freedom? Did you know that before the Constitution was in force states had established religions, that they threw people in jail who preached for other sects? They fined them and even banished them?

See if you can answer some of these questions.

You are molesting the intent of the constitution to support some pretty sophomoric arguments. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater because it is not speech or opinion and it causes danger and reeks havoc. Im not avoiding your question, Im just tired of the childish arguments from someone who thinks he knows more about the law than SCOTUS. If you are going to make your point, hurry up, im about to go to sleep. And I don't think it is worth staying up to read. Wow...I don;t even how to respond to such childish arguments without a point.

Did you know that the constitution was not ratified until the Bill of Rights was created? So they weren't really added later as you suggest, they were added so the colonies would all agree to sign. Again, your arguments are silly, sophomoric and a perversion of US history. A molestation of the truth to justify homosexuality.

We aren't even discussing gays at the moment. So what in your mind is "protected" speech? What is "protected" religion? Doesn't the First Amendment say "no law"? If it does then why do we have laws that limit it?

And why should the majority care about the rights of the minority?

 

[paperview]

You don't understand the principals of law and your arguments are becoming more and more childish. What next, are you going to bring up the difference between a donkey and a mule to support gay marriage? Your right, you cant yell fire in a crowded movie theater, but what the hell does that have to do with the freedom of religion? Or gay marriage, or special rights for people who make poor life choices.

So if you can't yell fire in a crowded theater how is the First Amendment still valid? It says "make no law", "no prohibition" and now you're telling me there is a law that limits free speech? Isn't that like saying you have "free choice in religion" but you can't be a Catholic?

What is there was an Amendment to the Constitution protecting sexual orientation? Would you think that was okay? I mean the Amendments can as an add-on to the Constitution right? They were added later so did we really found the place on Religious Freedom? Did you know that before the Constitution was in force states had established religions, that they threw people in jail who preached for other sects? They fined them and even banished them?

See if you can answer some of these questions.

...

Did you know that the constitution was not ratified until the Bill of Rights was created? So they weren't really added later as you suggest, they were added so the colonies would all agree to sign. Again, your arguments are silly, sophomoric and a perversion of US history. A molestation of the truth to justify homosexuality.

Er,
The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 ratified by eleven States and went into effect on March 4, 1789.

The Bill of Rights were proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and were ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

And now you know.

 

[Nutz]

It's protected for each and every member of society.

In the public sphere you cannot restrict the rights of others because your religion tells you too.

Again, you no understand the founding of America and the importance of freedom of religion. That is why it is part of the Constitution. Again, you are the one stuck on religion...GOd tells me to love everyone, and I do. But I don't understand how you are saying that the 1st amendment is all of a sudden the reason gays should get special rights. your argument is nonsense. The Constitution gives Americans the right to freedom of religion, what does that have to do with gays? Are you saying the gay lifestyle is now a religion.

I'm not saying anything about the First Amendment and gays. We are speaking of choices and minority rights. Now why should the majority care about the rights of the minority? Why say that their religious choices are just as valid? What were the Founders thinking of when they made such a law, and is it really true? If my faith requires me to have sex with ten-year-old girls, am I protected?

Im trying to give you a chance to make your point, but your just playing games with issues that have been long resolved. You wany me to say the majority protects the minority in response to your very flawed argument about the Freedom of Religion. Nonetheless, you have no understanding as to why there is Freedom of Religion and why a Religious Minority is protected and a gay person is not. THERE IS NO CONNECTION. Whether religion is a choice or not, our Constitution gives freedom of religion...an absolute that has not changed since the inception of the country. Yeah, you cant use religion as an excuse to have sex with a 10 year old. Argue that you should have that right all you want...its an age old argument that SCOTUS resolved, and just because YOU don't agree with the Constitution and the law of the land, it doesn't matter. Your argument is nonsense, you are trying to change the constitution, its intent and its purity to justify gayness. You hate God, you hate the Constituition and want the right to scream in a theater so you can rape a 10 year old...disgusting

 

[paperview]

Again, you no understand the founding of America and the importance of freedom of religion. That is why it is part of the Constitution. Again, you are the one stuck on religion...GOd tells me to love everyone, and I do. But I don't understand how you are saying that the 1st amendment is all of a sudden the reason gays should get special rights. your argument is nonsense. The Constitution gives Americans the right to freedom of religion, what does that have to do with gays? Are you saying the gay lifestyle is now a religion.

I'm not saying anything about the First Amendment and gays. We are speaking of choices and minority rights. Now why should the majority care about the rights of the minority? Why say that their religious choices are just as valid? What were the Founders thinking of when they made such a law, and is it really true? If my faith requires me to have sex with ten-year-old girls, am I protected?

Im trying to give you a chance to make your point, but your just playing games with issues that have been long resolved. You wany me to say the majority protects the minority in response to your very flawed argument about the Freedom of Religion. Nonetheless, you have no understanding as to why there is Freedom of Religion and why a Religious Minority is protected and a gay person is not. THERE IS NO CONNECTION. Whether religion is a choice or not, our Constitution gives freedom of religion...an absolute that has not changed since the inception of the country. Yeah, you cant use religion as an excuse to have sex with a 10 year old. Argue that you should have that right all you want...its an age old argument that SCOTUS resolved, and just because YOU don't agree with the Constitution and the law of the land, it doesn't matter. Your argument is nonsense, you are trying to change the constitution, its intent and its purity to justify gayness. You hate God, you hate the Constituition and want the right to scream in a theater so you can rape a 10 year old...disgusting

^ How cons debate. ^

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Again, you no understand the founding of America and the importance of freedom of religion. That is why it is part of the Constitution. Again, you are the one stuck on religion...GOd tells me to love everyone, and I do. But I don't understand how you are saying that the 1st amendment is all of a sudden the reason gays should get special rights. your argument is nonsense. The Constitution gives Americans the right to freedom of religion, what does that have to do with gays? Are you saying the gay lifestyle is now a religion.

I'm not saying anything about the First Amendment and gays. We are speaking of choices and minority rights. Now why should the majority care about the rights of the minority? Why say that their religious choices are just as valid? What were the Founders thinking of when they made such a law, and is it really true? If my faith requires me to have sex with ten-year-old girls, am I protected?

Im trying to give you a chance to make your point, but your just playing games with issues that have been long resolved. You wany me to say the majority protects the minority in response to your very flawed argument about the Freedom of Religion. Nonetheless, you have no understanding as to why there is Freedom of Religion and why a Religious Minority is protected and a gay person is not. THERE IS NO CONNECTION. Whether religion is a choice or not, our Constitution gives freedom of religion...an absolute that has not changed since the inception of the country. Yeah, you cant use religion as an excuse to have sex with a 10 year old. Argue that you should have that right all you want...its an age old argument that SCOTUS resolved, and just because YOU don't agree with the Constitution and the law of the land, it doesn't matter. Your argument is nonsense, you are trying to change the constitution, its intent and its purity to justify gayness. You hate God, you hate the Constituition and want the right to scream in a theater so you can rape a 10 year old...disgusting

I think you are too tired and unable to answer my questions, but I'll ask these anyway.

If the SCOTUS, which you seem to approve of, says that gays are now a protected minority, is that the end of the debate for you? Does it have the same standing as the court saying you have freedom of religion but that doesn't mean you can sex with a child even if your faith approves of such a thing?

See if you can nail those two without telling me I hate God.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, here's a more important question for these Christian (cough: Homophobic: cough) bakers.

60% of couples live together before marriage. this is clearly in violation of what the bible has to say about marriage, which insists that the woman be a virgin on her wedding night. In fact, a very small percentage of girls are still virgins.

To which the bible says...

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21


But you never, ever hear about the Baker who refused to bake a cake for the couple that was "living in sin" before marriage. (In fact, "Living in Sin", which was a common saying when I was still young, has vanished from the venacular.)

So are these Bakers really, really concerned about their "sincere" beliefs, or are they just using "religion" as an excuse to cover their own bigotry?

I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but the answer is yes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hey, here's a more important question for these Christian (cough: Homophobic: cough) bakers.

60% of couples live together before marriage. this is clearly in violation of what the bible has to say about marriage, which insists that the woman be a virgin on her wedding night. In fact, a very small percentage of girls are still virgins.

To which the bible says...

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21


But you never, ever hear about the Baker who refused to bake a cake for the couple that was "living in sin" before marriage. (In fact, "Living in Sin", which was a common saying when I was still young, has vanished from the venacular.)

So are these Bakers really, really concerned about their "sincere" beliefs, or are they just using "religion" as an excuse to cover their own bigotry?

I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but the answer is yes.

You wouldn't stay in business long if you only baked wedding cakes for for virgins who still lived with mom and dad these days. I'd be interested to see someone try though? You might just pull that off in Mormon land.

 

[Nutz]

I'm not saying anything about the First Amendment and gays. We are speaking of choices and minority rights. Now why should the majority care about the rights of the minority? Why say that their religious choices are just as valid? What were the Founders thinking of when they made such a law, and is it really true? If my faith requires me to have sex with ten-year-old girls, am I protected?

Im trying to give you a chance to make your point, but your just playing games with issues that have been long resolved. You wany me to say the majority protects the minority in response to your very flawed argument about the Freedom of Religion. Nonetheless, you have no understanding as to why there is Freedom of Religion and why a Religious Minority is protected and a gay person is not. THERE IS NO CONNECTION. Whether religion is a choice or not, our Constitution gives freedom of religion...an absolute that has not changed since the inception of the country. Yeah, you cant use religion as an excuse to have sex with a 10 year old. Argue that you should have that right all you want...its an age old argument that SCOTUS resolved, and just because YOU don't agree with the Constitution and the law of the land, it doesn't matter. Your argument is nonsense, you are trying to change the constitution, its intent and its purity to justify gayness. You hate God, you hate the Constituition and want the right to scream in a theater so you can rape a 10 year old...disgusting

I think you are too tired and unable to answer my questions, but I'll ask these anyway.

If the SCOTUS, which you seem to approve of, says that gays are now a protected minority, is that the end of the debate for you? Does it have the same standing as the court saying you have freedom of religion but that doesn't mean you can sex with a child even if your faith approves of such a thing?

See if you can nail those two without telling me I hate God.

No. No. I do find it interesting that you equate violating a child with the homosexual lifestyle. Both are a assault on the moral fiber of this nation and cause great harm to society as a whole. You cant have sex with a child because it is illegal and violent.

 

[JoeB131]

You see folks, it's ok to sit around and make fun and put down people who are Christians

Because they know they won't have their heads cut off for offending their religious beliefs or a book...

this is what we have gotten for turning the other cheek...Hate and ignorance such as this post and them thinking they have a right to FORCE themselves on us...

You think they'd dare make fun of Muslims or be up in arms if it was one who refused service over their beliefs...?

yet they were ok Obama blamed us for Benghazi because someone offended their religion...

they are big and bad when they know they can keep their heads...

NO, Any Muslim in THIS country that tried to cut off anyone's head would be sent to jail, as he should be.

What they do in their own countries is their own business, and the Zionists and Oil Companies can fight their own fucking wars.

That's a whacky idea.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, here's a more important question for these Christian (cough: Homophobic: cough) bakers.

60% of couples live together before marriage. this is clearly in violation of what the bible has to say about marriage, which insists that the woman be a virgin on her wedding night. In fact, a very small percentage of girls are still virgins.

To which the bible says...

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21


But you never, ever hear about the Baker who refused to bake a cake for the couple that was "living in sin" before marriage. (In fact, "Living in Sin", which was a common saying when I was still young, has vanished from the venacular.)

So are these Bakers really, really concerned about their "sincere" beliefs, or are they just using "religion" as an excuse to cover their own bigotry?

I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but the answer is yes.

You wouldn't stay in business long if you only baked wedding cakes for for virgins who still lived with mom and dad these days. I'd be interested to see someone try though? You might just pull that off in Mormon land.

Well, they are probably still waiting for TK's call.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Im trying to give you a chance to make your point, but your just playing games with issues that have been long resolved. You wany me to say the majority protects the minority in response to your very flawed argument about the Freedom of Religion. Nonetheless, you have no understanding as to why there is Freedom of Religion and why a Religious Minority is protected and a gay person is not. THERE IS NO CONNECTION. Whether religion is a choice or not, our Constitution gives freedom of religion...an absolute that has not changed since the inception of the country. Yeah, you cant use religion as an excuse to have sex with a 10 year old. Argue that you should have that right all you want...its an age old argument that SCOTUS resolved, and just because YOU don't agree with the Constitution and the law of the land, it doesn't matter. Your argument is nonsense, you are trying to change the constitution, its intent and its purity to justify gayness. You hate God, you hate the Constituition and want the right to scream in a theater so you can rape a 10 year old...disgusting

I think you are too tired and unable to answer my questions, but I'll ask these anyway.

If the SCOTUS, which you seem to approve of, says that gays are now a protected minority, is that the end of the debate for you? Does it have the same standing as the court saying you have freedom of religion but that doesn't mean you can sex with a child even if your faith approves of such a thing?

See if you can nail those two without telling me I hate God.

No. No. I do find it interesting that you equate violating a child with the homosexual lifestyle. Both are a assault on the moral fiber of this nation and cause great harm to society as a whole. You cant have sex with a child because it is illegal and violent.

I equate no such thing. We are discussing faith and some religion is perfectly fine with adults having sex with children, but you are saying that's not okay even though religion is protected, but in this case it isn't protected, like the Mormons having more than one wife which we don't allow.

Regardless of that, if the SCOTUS says that gays are protected minority that's not valid in your opinion even though the SCOTUS saying you can't yell fire in a crowded theater is?

So, really, the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says, meaning if they say gays are a protected minority. even though it's a choice like religion is a choice, then that's what it is but you still won't agree with it because you said "no and no".

So, if that's true, then no matter what the court says, unless you agree with it, it's wrong? And even though you agree religion is a choice, and think homosexuality is a choice, and that they are both minorities, only religion can have protection but even it is limited by the law so really, what the First Amendment says, isn't true? That "no laws" part, that's not actually true because that's not what really matters, what matters is what the court said, but you won't agree if it says gays should be protected? Did I miss anything?

 

[JoeB131]

If they don't want to serve gays...they don't have to serve gays.

What is the issue ?

They don't want to serve Mormons, they don't have to serve Mormons.

They don't want to serve blacks, they don't have to serve blacks.

They don't want to serve Jews, they don't have to serve Jews.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If they don't want to serve gays...they don't have to serve gays.

What is the issue ?

They don't want to serve Mormons, they don't have to serve Mormons.

They don't want to serve blacks, they don't have to serve blacks.

They don't want to serve Jews, they don't have to serve Jews.

I hate everyone so I don't serve anybody. Now if I could just figure out why my business is failing?

 

[Listening]

If they don't want to serve gays...they don't have to serve gays.

What is the issue ?

They don't want to serve Mormons, they don't have to serve Mormons.

They don't want to serve blacks, they don't have to serve blacks.

They don't want to serve Jews, they don't have to serve Jews.

Exactly.

 

[Seawytch]

If they don't want to serve gays...they don't have to serve gays.

What is the issue ?

They don't want to serve Mormons, they don't have to serve Mormons.

They don't want to serve blacks, they don't have to serve blacks.

They don't want to serve Jews, they don't have to serve Jews.

Exactly.

Except the law precludes that, you know that right? The Civil Rights Act, you've heard of that? You do have to serve Mormons, Jews, Muslims, blacks, the handicapped, etc. In some states and localities you even have to serve "the gheys".

And yet there was no big push to get rid of public accommodation laws in decades...until they did start applying to the gheys.

 

[Listening]

They don't want to serve Mormons, they don't have to serve Mormons.

They don't want to serve blacks, they don't have to serve blacks.

They don't want to serve Jews, they don't have to serve Jews.

Exactly.

Except the law precludes that, you know that right? The Civil Rights Act, you've heard of that? You do have to serve Mormons, Jews, Muslims, blacks, the handicapped, etc. In some states and localities you even have to serve "the gheys".

And yet there was no big push to get rid of public accommodation laws in decades...until they did start applying to the gheys.

I know what the law says.

I know what people do.

Not the same thing. Sorry. You'll never legislate bigotry (like yours) out of existence.