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.
Again... it would be slavery if they forced you to be in the baking business if you wanted to be or not.
If you are the ONLY baker in town then I can see the govt stepping in and saying you MUST do this. When there are a LOT of bakeries and several who would be happy to do the job, not so much.
If you want to quote the Bible don't forget where it says homos are abominations, Mr Atheist. HAHAHAHA Get around that one toady
Again, where did JESUS talk about Homosexuality. Not Moses or St. Paul. You guys don't call yourselves Mosiacs or Paulians.... you call yourselves Christians. So you hsould be able to find a spot on quote from the bible where Jesus said, "I don't like the gay stuff."
Kind of hard. Jesus was a guy who hung around with dudes and showed no interest in women...
What an asinine comment ...
Again... it would be slavery if they forced you to be in the baking business if you wanted to be or not.
If you are the ONLY baker in town then I can see the govt stepping in and saying you MUST do this. When there are a LOT of bakeries and several who would be happy to do the job, not so much.
If you don't want to eat at a lunch counter serving a black man, eat outside or go without. Our nation is one of laws, go find one which allows bigotry but be prepared not to be served, not everyone likes people like you.
Eating raw oysters is an 'abomination'. YUCK!Yes it is...in the same part that shellfish is considered an "abomination". Have you eaten shellfish?
(Remember sin is SIN!)
Oh save it, the Bible condemns homoseculaity and any stupid fuck that thinks Jesus would have condoned it is too fucking stupid to live
Nice deflection.
You made a claim, and this is you not backing it up.
Don't care, homosexulaity is called an abomination in the Bible. Refute that, asshole
Yes it is...in the same part that shellfish is considered an "abomination". Have you eaten shellfish?
The ban on eating shellfish was Mosaic law, done away with by the New Covenant and never applied to Gentiles.
You may go now
So liberals are now including Christians in that "basket of deplorables" Hillary preaches to her supporters?They hear code words and dog whistles.
A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.
“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.
Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Intolerance, Homophobia, and ‘Christian Supremacy’
Following your line of thinking, a rapist has only to throw money on the body of his victim so he can say "I paid you for that sex".What level of enforced equality is desirable?
Understanding that the government is founded on inequality needs to be considered in that plan as well.
I've know gay people who've lost their jobs because of homophobes, I've know gay people who've been beaten up because of homophobes.
"Waaah, I had to bake a cake after I offered to bake a cake and I got money for baking the cake and made a hefty profit" is NOT that much of a burden.
The bakers baked a specialty cake. No doubt they had the address of the tyrants that forced their labor. A midnight visit is absolutely in order to teach gays a lesson by example.What level of enforced equality is desirable?
Understanding that the government is founded on inequality needs to be considered in that plan as well.
I've know gay people who've lost their jobs because of homophobes, I've know gay people who've been beaten up because of homophobes.
"Waaah, I had to bake a cake after I offered to bake a cake and I got money for baking the cake and made a hefty profit" is NOT that much of a burden.
Jesus reinforced the Bible as a whole, does the Bible condemn homosexuality?
False.
The bible did not exist at all during the time of Jesus, nor is there one version of the bible.
All I recall is him stating that his intent was not to tear down scripture. You should be more clear on how he reinforced scripture, considering that is what most likely meant to say.
If he reinforced all scripture past and future, does that include Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha?
Oh save it, the Bible condemns homoseculaity and any stupid fuck that thinks Jesus would have condoned it is too fucking stupid to live
Nice deflection.
You made a claim, and this is you not backing it up.
Don't care, homosexulaity is called an abomination in the Bible. Refute that, asshole
Whoa, another angry old black man.
sorry, dude, I'm about as pasty white as they get.
Jesus reinforced the Bible as a whole, does the Bible condemn homosexuality?
False.
The bible did not exist at all during the time of Jesus, nor is there one version of the bible.
All I recall is him stating that his intent was not to tear down scripture. You should be more clear on how he reinforced scripture, considering that is what most likely meant to say.
If he reinforced all scripture past and future, does that include Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha?
Of course the Bible existed when yeshua was alive. What are you talking about?
The New Testament did not exist then. The bible did.
I agree. Smart businessmen never turn down cash.
However, they should be free to choose.
I quite agree. If their bigotry is greater than their business sense, they should be free to sell their businesses and find something to do for a living that doesn't offend their Imaginary Friend in the Sky.
Once they open a business, though, they are a public accommodation.
Of course the Bible existed when yeshua was alive. What are you talking about?
The New Testament did not exist then. The bible did.
Q. What does the bible call those who call others assholes
A. Psychological Transference
Don't be a hastry pastry, Billy, or you will get a bite taken out of you.You should probably go back and learn what a common law country is and what constitutional construction.Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.
Marbury v Madison was decided when the founders were alive and no one ever implied it wasn't "constitutional". In fact by definition if the court finds it constitutional, it is. Also the founders were politicians who didn't even agree with each other so I'm not sure what the heck you think you're talking about.
Jefferson certainly did not agree. It's an opinion that he lost and bitched about for two decades. He was wrong then, wrong now, wrong forever.
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best."
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
Thomas Jefferson's Reaction | www.streetlaw.org
Jake proves himself useful and more patient with crazy girls than I. Kudos.
Jillian has said nothing with which I can't agree. Jefferson tried to overthrow the Court with an impeachment of a federalist judge he hated and lost. He then gave up because he knew it was a lost cause. I agree wholeheartedly with M v M and disagree as strongly with Jefferson's take on it. There has to be a decider, and that decider cannot be subject to the whims of public elections.
Jake returns to his useless state. Donuts retracted.
It's OK. I ate the donuts I wanted and gave the rest to the takers.Don't be a hastry pastry, Billy, or you will get a bite taken out of you.You should probably go back and learn what a common law country is and what constitutional construction.
Marbury v Madison was decided when the founders were alive and no one ever implied it wasn't "constitutional". In fact by definition if the court finds it constitutional, it is. Also the founders were politicians who didn't even agree with each other so I'm not sure what the heck you think you're talking about.
Jefferson certainly did not agree. It's an opinion that he lost and bitched about for two decades. He was wrong then, wrong now, wrong forever.
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best."
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
Thomas Jefferson's Reaction | www.streetlaw.org
Jake proves himself useful and more patient with crazy girls than I. Kudos.
Jillian has said nothing with which I can't agree. Jefferson tried to overthrow the Court with an impeachment of a federalist judge he hated and lost. He then gave up because he knew it was a lost cause. I agree wholeheartedly with M v M and disagree as strongly with Jefferson's take on it. There has to be a decider, and that decider cannot be subject to the whims of public elections.
Jake returns to his useless state. Donuts retracted.
Ad Hominem Alert
Q. What does the bible call those who call others assholes
A. Psychological Transference
Yeah, why is it that so many Christians in America have adopted a hostile attitude? I always say that the attitude of American Christians is more suited towards Devil worship than Jesus worship.
When I was a devoted Christian, I tried really hard to act aesthetically and at least apologize when I knew I had acted like a dick.
They hear code words and dog whistles.
A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.
“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.
Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Intolerance, Homophobia, and ‘Christian Supremacy’
because it's true.
your point?
Funny, they defend Islam a religion that openly calls for killing homos.
Soggy, per his language, is not better, no. Most Christians, like most Muslims, though, do not call for the death of LGBT and abortion clinic personnel and do not support blowing up abortion clinics.They hear code words and dog whistles.
A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.
“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.
Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Intolerance, Homophobia, and ‘Christian Supremacy’
because it's true.
your point?
Funny, they defend Islam a religion that openly calls for killing homos.
And there are Christians who openly call for killing gays and doctors and who blow up abortion clinics. Most Muslims do not call for any such thing.
Btw, your calling anyone a homo doesn't exactly say you're much better than they are.
