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.
"Homosexual" is not a religion. It is not a protected category under the First Amendment.really? Cite them
The legal requirement that Christians back cakes for queers, but queers need not bake cakes for Christians.
Public Accommodation laws require that a bakery owned by homosexuals cannot refuse service based on the religion of the customer.
So a homosexual baker that offers wedding cakes to the public cannot refuse customer based on the fact they are Christian but then provide the same goods and services say to Jews, Muslims, and Hindus.
>>>>
really? Cite them
The legal requirement that Christians back cakes for queers, but queers need not bake cakes for Christians.
Public Accommodation laws require that a bakery owned by homosexuals cannot refuse service based on the religion of the customer.
So a homosexual baker that offers wedding cakes to the public cannot refuse customer based on the fact they are Christian but then provide the same goods and services say to Jews, Muslims, and Hindus.
>>>>
Spoiled brats that can't accept no for an answer on things for which the Constitution grants them nothing related to what they demand.
Yes. That is my opinion of the far right.
One of the big things the left argues about related to spending is the amount on the military and the lack of it on social programs. Last time I looked, establishing and maintaining a military was a delegated power of Congress with no mention of food stamps, marriage, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution. While you may not like the amount spent on the military, that's a different thing that whether or not the power exists.
I have no idea what you are talking about now. I don't recall talking about the military or food stamps. Frankly, my opinion of the far left is the same as my opinion of the far right. I happen to be a conservative, a Goldwater conservative. Which, of course, makes me a RINO because I don't just toe the party line of the far right. I don't really argue with people on the left because I have no dog in that hunt. Let them police themselves. I am concerned with what has happened to the Conservative movement, which used to populated by intellectual giants such as Goldwater and Buckley. Now it has Limbaugh and Beck. They tossed out true Conservative principles in exchange for money and power, and pander to people who are only interested in being told what they want to hear.
Spoiled brats are all you are going to find on either end of the spectrum.
I used it as an example. I thought smart people could relate general principles. I'll make it easy.
You didn't mention the military or food stamps but you did say that you have the opinion that those on the right are spoiled brats. Spoiled brats expect a yes answer even yes isn't the answer that needs to be given. I used the EXAMPLE of how the left constantly bitches about military spending. I pointed out that maintaining a military, which involves spending, is a delegated power. I also pointed out, an an EXAMPLE, that social welfare spending is nowhere to be found in the same document that specially mentions the military.
Let's tie it together. You claim the right is a bunch of spoiled brats because they don't want to be told no on something specifically in the Constitution yet seem to think the left isn't when they're told no on things for which no Constitutional authority is given.
You're not a RINO you're a CINO. Those you call the far right don't have a party, it's called an ideology. I'm concerned with what happened to those like you that call themselves Conservatives. You claim you are then defend anything but conservatism. What you should say is you are concerned with what happened to conservatism in the manner YOU think it should be.
I said those on the far right. Do try to follow what I actually say. I know it makes it harder for you, but make an attempt.
Let's figure out your point.
I fully support freedom of speech under the first amendment. How is that not a Conservative value?
I fully support the right of every American citizen to equal protection of the law. How is that not a Conservative value?
But religion IS a choice, so it is shown that something being a choice does not preclude it being protected by law."Homosexual" is not a religion. It is not a protected category under the First Amendment.really? Cite them
The legal requirement that Christians back cakes for queers, but queers need not bake cakes for Christians.
Public Accommodation laws require that a bakery owned by homosexuals cannot refuse service based on the religion of the customer.
So a homosexual baker that offers wedding cakes to the public cannot refuse customer based on the fact they are Christian but then provide the same goods and services say to Jews, Muslims, and Hindus.
>>>>
You left out that the baker was willing to provide the cake but refused to write derogatory messages on the cake.
Also - Why do you assume the owner is homosexual?
>>>>
>>>>
And the fags claim they don't want special rights. they claim they want equality then whine when they have to do what they demand others do.really? Cite them
The legal requirement that Christians back cakes for queers, but queers need not bake cakes for Christians.
Public Accommodation laws require that a bakery owned by homosexuals cannot refuse service based on the religion of the customer.
So a homosexual baker that offers wedding cakes to the public cannot refuse customer based on the fact they are Christian but then provide the same goods and services say to Jews, Muslims, and Hindus.
>>>>
{
A Colorado baker that found herself ensnared in controversy after refusing to prepare cakes decorated with anti-gay messages can now breathe deeply.
The Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver's Azucar Bakery, did not discriminate against William Jack when she refused to prep two bible-shaped cakes with anti-gay imagery and phrases like "God hates gays" written in icing, ABC 7 News Denver is reporting.}
Colorado s Azucar Bakery Did Not Discriminate By Refusing To Bake Anti-Gay Cakes Court Rules
Turns out we have one law for the Hated Christians, and a VERY different law for our cherished queers.
But religion IS a choice, so it is shown that something being a choice does not preclude it being protected by law."Homosexual" is not a religion. It is not a protected category under the First Amendment.really? Cite them
The legal requirement that Christians back cakes for queers, but queers need not bake cakes for Christians.
Public Accommodation laws require that a bakery owned by homosexuals cannot refuse service based on the religion of the customer.
So a homosexual baker that offers wedding cakes to the public cannot refuse customer based on the fact they are Christian but then provide the same goods and services say to Jews, Muslims, and Hindus.
>>>>
Whether or not someone acts as a fag is a choice.
Whether or not someone acts as a fag is a choice.
Like alcoholism, I suspect there are genetic factors involved.
Vice is part of the human condition. I find homosexuality no worse than other vices, and a lot less damaging than drug addiction. I couldn't care less what the queers do. BUT, they need to leave others the fuck alone. Stop crushing the civil rights of others.
Yes. That is my opinion of the far right.
One of the big things the left argues about related to spending is the amount on the military and the lack of it on social programs. Last time I looked, establishing and maintaining a military was a delegated power of Congress with no mention of food stamps, marriage, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution. While you may not like the amount spent on the military, that's a different thing that whether or not the power exists.
I have no idea what you are talking about now. I don't recall talking about the military or food stamps. Frankly, my opinion of the far left is the same as my opinion of the far right. I happen to be a conservative, a Goldwater conservative. Which, of course, makes me a RINO because I don't just toe the party line of the far right. I don't really argue with people on the left because I have no dog in that hunt. Let them police themselves. I am concerned with what has happened to the Conservative movement, which used to populated by intellectual giants such as Goldwater and Buckley. Now it has Limbaugh and Beck. They tossed out true Conservative principles in exchange for money and power, and pander to people who are only interested in being told what they want to hear.
Spoiled brats are all you are going to find on either end of the spectrum.
I used it as an example. I thought smart people could relate general principles. I'll make it easy.
You didn't mention the military or food stamps but you did say that you have the opinion that those on the right are spoiled brats. Spoiled brats expect a yes answer even yes isn't the answer that needs to be given. I used the EXAMPLE of how the left constantly bitches about military spending. I pointed out that maintaining a military, which involves spending, is a delegated power. I also pointed out, an an EXAMPLE, that social welfare spending is nowhere to be found in the same document that specially mentions the military.
Let's tie it together. You claim the right is a bunch of spoiled brats because they don't want to be told no on something specifically in the Constitution yet seem to think the left isn't when they're told no on things for which no Constitutional authority is given.
You're not a RINO you're a CINO. Those you call the far right don't have a party, it's called an ideology. I'm concerned with what happened to those like you that call themselves Conservatives. You claim you are then defend anything but conservatism. What you should say is you are concerned with what happened to conservatism in the manner YOU think it should be.
I said those on the far right. Do try to follow what I actually say. I know it makes it harder for you, but make an attempt.
Let's figure out your point.
I fully support freedom of speech under the first amendment. How is that not a Conservative value?
I fully support the right of every American citizen to equal protection of the law. How is that not a Conservative value?
I specifically said the far right. Try to read. It's only three letters in far.
It's not about whether or not someone supports the freedom, it's about how many apply that support in a hypocritical manner Liberals and those like you say tolerance of other's views should take place. However, when someone exercises their freedom of speech in a way you and Liberals don't agree with, you find plenty of excuses as to why you don't have to be tolerant of those view. More than once I've been told that not being tolerant of a bigoted view isn't intolerance. The interesting thing is that the view someone held toward what they called bigotry was done in a bigoted manner.
The concept of equal protection under the law isn't the issue but how equal is defined and applied. I find that many will argue for same sex marriage using the 14th amendment as the basis of their argument. They claim that two consenting adults, of age, that love each other shouldn't be denied marriage. In other words, their argument is based on the premise of equal treatment. A lot go further to say that opposition to such marriages don't have valid reasons in the opposition really meaning they disagree with those reasons are the source where that reasoning comes from. However, ask them whether or not they support a brother/sister marriage and the same ones will quickly say no despite both being consenting adults, of age, that apparently love each other. In addition, while they'll demand the reasons they provide are valid and demand people accept them. What they're saying is that any marriage other than the types they approve of can be restricted if they say so.
Not if you listen to many of them. They'll tell you they had no choice. Plenty of non-homos will say the same about homos. However, mention that murderers, rapist, pedophiles, thieves, etc. claim they couldn't control themselves and the I was born that way mindset disappears. I don't advocate any of them just using them as examples of people who do things then claim they were born that way or really didn't feel like they had a choice. Sounds to me as if the homos think sexual orientation is the only way someone can be born with it comes to what they do in life.
Not if you listen to many of them. They'll tell you they had no choice. Plenty of non-homos will say the same about homos. However, mention that murderers, rapist, pedophiles, thieves, etc. claim they couldn't control themselves and the I was born that way mindset disappears. I don't advocate any of them just using them as examples of people who do things then claim they were born that way or really didn't feel like they had a choice. Sounds to me as if the homos think sexual orientation is the only way someone can be born with it comes to what they do in life.
Humans are complex. There are tendencies, often very strong tendencies. But the choice to act on a tendency is just that, a choice.
Nobody gives a shit about your opinion, s0n.
I have already said that you are free not to care, as am I. But I am not the one complaining that the little kid in the playground is beating me up because he won't let me hit him anymore. I am fine with you not caring and I am fine with you being afraid. Whatever makes you happy. The important thing is that you keep vocalizing your position - which provides a far better argument for the LGBT community than they could ever make for themselves.
That's because they have no argument. "I'm a fag and you should think it's normal" isn't an arugment. It's whining.
I believe the argument is "I'm a citizen of the United States and am entitled to all of the rights of a citizen". And then you come up with the above to demonstrate the quality of the counter argument. It's been very effective for them. They should thank you.
The problem is they demand as a right that isn't one. They have a right to vote, a fair trial, free speech, to own guns, not to incriminate oneself, etc. They are specifically stated in the Constitution. I'm yet to find where marraige is written.
14th amendment. Every citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law. If the government decides to get out of the marriage business, then that becomes moot. Until then, every citizen should have the right to make that determination for themselves without governmental interference. A Conservative would understand that.
No. That's what you want. The church elders or the pope or someone in authority take homosexuality off the sin list and make everyone swallow it. No elder or authority, no majority of members can or should change the Bible into something they like better. Christianity is not a popularity contest. Christianity is not a product to be decorated according to the focus group.Any right thinking person would avoid such a church as if it carried the plague.Well, let's take a look at the article. Actually, we need go further than the title, where he said Churches must be made to affirm homosexuality. Who can make them do that? Only one entity I can think of that has the power to do that. Not that any real Church will comply. Some churches will, but that will just show which churches real Christians should avoid.Please just tell us why you believe this opinion piece is an assault on the separation of church and state
Yep- only one entity- the churches members.
And I have no doubt you would avoid any church that follows the will of its members.
I can see why your type would avoid any church that listened to its members.
Much better to be dictated by church elders or a Pope.....or someone else in authority.....
If a majority of members decided to change the religion to suit the members it isn't a Christian church. It might be the First Church of Vassilation but not a Christian church.
There were Christians on both side of the aisles, bub.Christians also were the driving force behind eliminating both slavery and segregation.What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?
Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist
NEW YORK, April 7, 2015 – A New York Times columnist and a corporate leader have agreed that Christian churches “must” be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an “ossified” doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.
Frank Bruni wrote that traditional Christianity – whether among evangelicals, Catholics, or Orthodox – provides the greatest resistance to normalizing homosexuality in the United States in a recent column in the New York Times.
“Homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni insisted. “The continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”
Christian churches must be made to affirm homosexuality says New York Times columnist News LifeSite
Bruni's commentary:
Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch
I can sum this OP in one sentence: One man has an OPINION that differs than mine.
"Christians" used to back segregation and slavery--both had ample scripture to support them. They'll eventually realize how pathetic they look using one or two lines of scripture (wa-aaaay out of historical context) to justify their homophobia.
Just for your information, it was democrats doing all of that justifying. Christians are against that sort of thing. Christians led the fight against racism. Democrats fought to keep it. Christians honor and love their wives. Christians were also fighting on the front lines to abolish slavery. What did the Democrats do? I'll give three guesses.You couldn't kick your own ass must less destroy something much stronger than you.
You irked and irritated bro ?
How ‘religious liberty’ has been used to justify racism, sexism and slavery throughout history
Using religion to deny people rights is an old routine that harms both the church and the state.
Not even. A Christian is defined by their obedience to God's word and their love for their fellow man. Only one side did that. Can you guess which one?
One of the big things the left argues about related to spending is the amount on the military and the lack of it on social programs. Last time I looked, establishing and maintaining a military was a delegated power of Congress with no mention of food stamps, marriage, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution. While you may not like the amount spent on the military, that's a different thing that whether or not the power exists.
I have no idea what you are talking about now. I don't recall talking about the military or food stamps. Frankly, my opinion of the far left is the same as my opinion of the far right. I happen to be a conservative, a Goldwater conservative. Which, of course, makes me a RINO because I don't just toe the party line of the far right. I don't really argue with people on the left because I have no dog in that hunt. Let them police themselves. I am concerned with what has happened to the Conservative movement, which used to populated by intellectual giants such as Goldwater and Buckley. Now it has Limbaugh and Beck. They tossed out true Conservative principles in exchange for money and power, and pander to people who are only interested in being told what they want to hear.
Spoiled brats are all you are going to find on either end of the spectrum.
I used it as an example. I thought smart people could relate general principles. I'll make it easy.
You didn't mention the military or food stamps but you did say that you have the opinion that those on the right are spoiled brats. Spoiled brats expect a yes answer even yes isn't the answer that needs to be given. I used the EXAMPLE of how the left constantly bitches about military spending. I pointed out that maintaining a military, which involves spending, is a delegated power. I also pointed out, an an EXAMPLE, that social welfare spending is nowhere to be found in the same document that specially mentions the military.
Let's tie it together. You claim the right is a bunch of spoiled brats because they don't want to be told no on something specifically in the Constitution yet seem to think the left isn't when they're told no on things for which no Constitutional authority is given.
You're not a RINO you're a CINO. Those you call the far right don't have a party, it's called an ideology. I'm concerned with what happened to those like you that call themselves Conservatives. You claim you are then defend anything but conservatism. What you should say is you are concerned with what happened to conservatism in the manner YOU think it should be.
I said those on the far right. Do try to follow what I actually say. I know it makes it harder for you, but make an attempt.
Let's figure out your point.
I fully support freedom of speech under the first amendment. How is that not a Conservative value?
I fully support the right of every American citizen to equal protection of the law. How is that not a Conservative value?
I specifically said the far right. Try to read. It's only three letters in far.
It's not about whether or not someone supports the freedom, it's about how many apply that support in a hypocritical manner Liberals and those like you say tolerance of other's views should take place. However, when someone exercises their freedom of speech in a way you and Liberals don't agree with, you find plenty of excuses as to why you don't have to be tolerant of those view. More than once I've been told that not being tolerant of a bigoted view isn't intolerance. The interesting thing is that the view someone held toward what they called bigotry was done in a bigoted manner.
The concept of equal protection under the law isn't the issue but how equal is defined and applied. I find that many will argue for same sex marriage using the 14th amendment as the basis of their argument. They claim that two consenting adults, of age, that love each other shouldn't be denied marriage. In other words, their argument is based on the premise of equal treatment. A lot go further to say that opposition to such marriages don't have valid reasons in the opposition really meaning they disagree with those reasons are the source where that reasoning comes from. However, ask them whether or not they support a brother/sister marriage and the same ones will quickly say no despite both being consenting adults, of age, that apparently love each other. In addition, while they'll demand the reasons they provide are valid and demand people accept them. What they're saying is that any marriage other than the types they approve of can be restricted if they say so.
Actually, you said "You claim the right is a bunch of spoiled brats because they don't want to be told no on something specifically in the Constitution yet seem to think the left isn't when they're told no on things for which no Constitutional authority is given." You didn't use the word far in describing what I was saying.
What you are claiming liberals are doing you are doing. My position is that the writer had the right to say what he said, I was free not to care and the churches were free to do as they please. I said that plainly. Others said it was sedition. Yet you disagree with me and support them. How is that supporting freedom of speech? And if you don't support free speech, how is that a Conservative value?
You aren't discussing this with some ethereal "them", you are discussing it with me. As long as the government is in the marriage business the laws need to be applied to all equally. So long as the parties are adults, it is up to them how to live - not the government. Brother and sister, three women and two men, whatever. Not my cup of tea but I don't have to live in the relationship. The place of the government is to issue the license and resolve any disputes if it doesn't work out, not to dictate lifestyles. How is that not a Conservative value?
Just for your information, it was democrats doing all of that justifying. Christians are against that sort of thing. Christians led the fight against racism. Democrats fought to keep it. Christians honor and love their wives. Christians were also fighting on the front lines to abolish slavery. What did the Democrats do? I'll give three guesses.You couldn't kick your own ass must less destroy something much stronger than you.
You irked and irritated bro ?
How ‘religious liberty’ has been used to justify racism, sexism and slavery throughout history
Using religion to deny people rights is an old routine that harms both the church and the state.
Christians also led the fight for rascism.
I just get tired of this partisan ignorance of history.
Yes- the Confederacy was essentially a Democratic government- and a Conservative government.
Christians led the fight against slavery- and Christians also led the fight for slavery.
Christians fought on the front lines for slavery and fought on the front lines against slavery.
Pretending Christians were only on the side against slavery and racism is either a lie- or ignorance.
All you are doing is saying "my interpretation of bible is right - and yours are wrong."There were Christians on both side of the aisles, bub.Christians also were the driving force behind eliminating both slavery and segregation.What part of freedom OF religion and separation of Church and state are the homosexuals and left loons not quite grasping?
Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist
NEW YORK, April 7, 2015 – A New York Times columnist and a corporate leader have agreed that Christian churches “must” be convinced, or coerced, to change their teachings on sexual morality and abandon an “ossified” doctrinal teaching that sex outside heterosexual marriage is immoral.
Frank Bruni wrote that traditional Christianity – whether among evangelicals, Catholics, or Orthodox – provides the greatest resistance to normalizing homosexuality in the United States in a recent column in the New York Times.
“Homosexuality and Christianity don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni insisted. “The continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”
Christian churches must be made to affirm homosexuality says New York Times columnist News LifeSite
Bruni's commentary:
Frank Bruni commentary It s time to cross homosexuality off the list of sins The Columbus Dispatch
I can sum this OP in one sentence: One man has an OPINION that differs than mine.
"Christians" used to back segregation and slavery--both had ample scripture to support them. They'll eventually realize how pathetic they look using one or two lines of scripture (wa-aaaay out of historical context) to justify their homophobia.
Let's look at another issue and see how Christians on both sides view it. Same sex marriage. Conservative Christians, other than Libertarians, say God's word says same sex marriage is wrong so they oppose it claiming that the sin can be hated without hating the person. Liberal Christians say Jesus never said anything against same sex marriage, although they'd be wrong, therefore, it's OK despite the letter written by Paul, one of those that spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the known world.
