Civil Rights Commission Against Religious Freedom

[SassyIrishLass]

You got the "boy" part right, now fug off

No.

If you want to act your own age, you know where to find me.

I will probably keep responded whether or not you choose to act like a mature adult.

Off to ignore ya go....boy. Gee Einstein that didn't work out quite like ya planned now did it. Stupid noob

 

[Onyx]

Off to ignore ya go....boy. Gee Einstein that didn't work out quite like ya planned now did it. Stupid noob

Cool. The ignorant 12 year old girl is putting me on ignore. I'll leave this with you, milady.

How did Jesus reinforce that homosexuality was an abomination, as you claimed earlier and have been deflecting from answering thus far?

btw, here is a victory song from a bunch of queers. That kind of intellectual dishonesty signifies a victory for me.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

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.

You should go back to sleep. Your posts make more sense when you're asleep.

In other words you have zero understanding about what I said. Maybe you should take a con law class, dum dum

Now go look up what a common law system is, idiota

Oh, I know what it is. It binds future judges to past mistakes.

In fact by definition if the court finds it constitutional, it is.

So if a future court were to revisit Roe v Wade and rule against constitutionality, upon which it is not based anyway, you would be orgasmic with support over their authority thanks to Marbury v Madison?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who says you can't own a machine gun?

The right to own a "machine gun" is (correctly) infringed by licensing, fees/taxation and background checks. Thus Scalia/Heller was and is correct, the 2nd A. is not an absolute prohibition of gun control; infringements exist!

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

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.

You should go back to sleep. Your posts make more sense when you're asleep.

In other words you have zero understanding about what I said. Maybe you should take a con law class, dum dum

Now go look up what a common law system is, idiota

Oh, I know what it is. It binds future judges to past mistakes.

In fact by definition if the court finds it constitutional, it is.

So if a future court were to revisit Roe v Wade and rule against constitutionality, upon which it is not based anyway, you would be orgasmic with support over their authority thanks to Marbury v Madison?

Courts have narrowed down Roe and may overturn it. If so, then the next step is to get the people and states to overturn it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The right to own a "machine gun" is (correctly) infringed by licensing, fees/taxation and background checks. Thus Scalia/Heller was and is correct, the 2nd A. is not an absolute prohibition of gun control; infringements exist!

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

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.

Don't be a hastry pastry, Billy, or you will get a bite taken out of you.

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.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

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.

Don't be a hastry pastry, Billy, or you will get a bite taken out of you.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

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.

Don't be a hastry pastry, Billy, or you will get a bite taken out of you.

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.

Already gave them to the children of poor needy Alt Righters.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry.....slavery at any level is wrong.....and forcing a business to do business is just as evil...

Again... it would be slavery if they forced you to be in the baking business if you wanted to be or not.

If you have a business and you don't want to do business with group X... Then you should be in another line of business.

Once you put out a sign that says "We bake wedding cakes", guess what, you made a promise to bake wedding cakes.

Nope....it is your business....private property...by making you work against your will they are making you a slave...since if you don't work they will take your property. you can pretend all you want...but forcing someone to work against their will.....a democrat specialty....is slavery.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry....they are owned by people....and forcing them to work when they do not want to is called slavery. They are free people, they own the business....ordering them to work for people they don't want to work for is slavery....

They are owned by people who agreed to abide by commerce laws when they opened a business. We in fact have volumes of contract law.

I mean, by your "logic", having the bakery comply with sanitation and safety laws is "Slavery", right.

They should be able to run any kind of shop they want, and if they sell cakes filled with rat turds and roaches, then the benevolence of the market should drive them out of business. But those mean old govenrment types, inspecting their shop to make sure they aren't mixing rat turds into the flour... THAT'S SLAVERY in 2TinyGuy's world.

Nope...complying with sanitation laws is protecting the customer from harm...keeping them from having their safety violated. Forcing them to bake a cake against their will is slavery.

 

[2aguy]

In a 'related' story....

Pope Francis: The Devil Wages a ‘Dirty War’ to Destroy the Church
(Pope Francis: The Devil Wages a ‘Dirty War’ to Destroy the Church)

Right. The Devil totally made the Church molest those Altar boys...

Nope....human weakness did.....

 

[Spare_change]

So liberals are now including Christians in that "basket of deplorables" Hillary preaches to her supporters?

Please point out to me in the Gospels where Jesus said anything about homosexuality at all? The problem with you "Christians" is that you use Jesus to rationalize a lot of deplorable things that Jesus never talked about.

And ignore the things he did talk about like "Taking care of the poor", "doing onto others" and "Turning the other cheek".

"If Jesus were alive today, the one thing he wouldn't be is a Christian"- Mark Twain.

And I quote:

Question: "If homosexuality is a sin, why didn’t Jesus ever mention it?"

Answer: Many who support same-sex marriage and gay rights argue that, since Jesus never mentionedhomosexuality, He did not consider it to be sinful. After all, the argument goes, if homosexuality is bad, why did Jesus treat it as a non-issue?

It is technically true that Jesus did not specifically address homosexuality in the Gospel accounts; however, He did speak clearly about sexuality in general. Concerning marriage, Jesus stated, “At the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh[.]’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:4–6). Here Jesus clearly referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed God’s intended design for marriage and sexuality.

For those who follow Jesus, sexual practices are limited. Rather than take a permissive view of sexual immorality and divorce, Jesus affirmed that people are either to be single and celibate or married and faithful to one spouse of the opposite gender. Jesus considered any other expression of sexuality sinful. This would include same-sex activity.

Also, are we to believe that any and every action is good unless Jesus specifically forbade it? The goal of the Gospels was not to give us a comprehensive list of sinful activities, and there are many obvious sins that are not found in the “red letter” section of the Bible. Kidnapping, for example. Jesus never specifically said that kidnapping was a sin, yet we know that stealing children is wrong. The point is that Jesus did not need to itemize sin, especially when the further revelation contained in the Epistles removes all doubt as to homosexuality’s sinfulness.

Scripture is clear that believers are to have nothing to do with sexual immorality: “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18). Sexual immorality, whether same-sex activity or otherwise, is a sin against a person’s own body.

It is important to note that sexual immorality, including same-sex activity, is listed alongside other sins in Scripture, indicating that God does not rank one sin as worse than another. While the consequences of some sins are greater than others, Scripture often simply lists sins side by side. For example, Jesus said, “Out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19–20; see also Romans 1:24–31).

The Bible teaches that followers of Jesus are to practice sexual purity, and that includes abstaining from same-sex activity. In addition, unbelievers who practice homosexuality stand in need of salvation just like any other unbeliever. Christians are called to pray for those who do not know Christ, to serve others in love, and to share the message of Jesus with all people, including those involved in homosexuality.

If homosexuality is a sin, why didn't Jesus ever mention it?

 

[easyt65]

'This business resumes the right to withhold service from anyone."

If this is offensive, why not let the 'market' handle it. If people find it offensive they won't come. If they don't come the business loses money. If they lose enough money they will close.

If a diner wants to allow smoking. non smokers will not come to the diner. If a customer knows it allows smoking they should not be allowed to demand the business change or be punished out of business. If people don't like the smoking they don't have to come .If they do they won't come. If they don't come the place loses money. If they lose enough money they will go out of business.

Again, why exactly do we have to have big brother controlling the way we live?


(I understand this is a FAR more complex question involving much more...being 'devil's advocate...)

 

[Seawytch]

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?

 

[Spare_change]

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 ...

 

[easyt65]

So liberals are now including Christians in that "basket of deplorables" Hillary preaches to her supporters?

Please point out to me in the Gospels where Jesus said anything about homosexuality at all? The problem with you "Christians" is that you use Jesus to rationalize a lot of deplorable things that Jesus never talked about.

And ignore the things he did talk about like "Taking care of the poor", "doing onto others" and "Turning the other cheek".

"If Jesus were alive today, the one thing he wouldn't be is a Christian"- Mark Twain.

And I quote:

Question: "If homosexuality is a sin, why didn’t Jesus ever mention it?"

Answer: Many who support same-sex marriage and gay rights argue that, since Jesus never mentionedhomosexuality, He did not consider it to be sinful. After all, the argument goes, if homosexuality is bad, why did Jesus treat it as a non-issue?

It is technically true that Jesus did not specifically address homosexuality in the Gospel accounts; however, He did speak clearly about sexuality in general. Concerning marriage, Jesus stated, “At the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh[.]’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:4–6). Here Jesus clearly referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed God’s intended design for marriage and sexuality.

For those who follow Jesus, sexual practices are limited. Rather than take a permissive view of sexual immorality and divorce, Jesus affirmed that people are either to be single and celibate or married and faithful to one spouse of the opposite gender. Jesus considered any other expression of sexuality sinful. This would include same-sex activity.

Also, are we to believe that any and every action is good unless Jesus specifically forbade it? The goal of the Gospels was not to give us a comprehensive list of sinful activities, and there are many obvious sins that are not found in the “red letter” section of the Bible. Kidnapping, for example. Jesus never specifically said that kidnapping was a sin, yet we know that stealing children is wrong. The point is that Jesus did not need to itemize sin, especially when the further revelation contained in the Epistles removes all doubt as to homosexuality’s sinfulness.

Scripture is clear that believers are to have nothing to do with sexual immorality: “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18). Sexual immorality, whether same-sex activity or otherwise, is a sin against a person’s own body.

It is important to note that sexual immorality, including same-sex activity, is listed alongside other sins in Scripture, indicating that God does not rank one sin as worse than another. While the consequences of some sins are greater than others, Scripture often simply lists sins side by side. For example, Jesus said, “Out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19–20; see also Romans 1:24–31).

The Bible teaches that followers of Jesus are to practice sexual purity, and that includes abstaining from same-sex activity. In addition, unbelievers who practice homosexuality stand in need of salvation just like any other unbeliever. Christians are called to pray for those who do not know Christ, to serve others in love, and to share the message of Jesus with all people, including those involved in homosexuality.

If homosexuality is a sin, why didn't Jesus ever mention it?

Jesus did not specifically mention having sex with a small child, cannibalism, etc.... So even though the Bible - God's word - specifically covers it, if Jesus did not specifically list every son possible then they are not sins?

Good luck with that.

 

[easyt65]

Yes it is...in the same part that shellfish is considered an "abomination". Have you eaten shellfish?

Eating raw oysters is an 'abomination'. YUCK!







(Remember sin is SIN!)

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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