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.
Apartheid was based upon bible texts.
Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective
It is still used to justify racism to this day.
Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.
What "consensus" would you be referring to?
Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.
Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?
Why is it whenever the right starts talking about 'protecting rights' its almost always about one person treating another like a piece of shit?
That's better than government treating someone like shit in the name of "equality" over something that causes no real harm to the "offended" party.
Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.
What "consensus" would you be referring to?
Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.
Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?
Why is it whenever the right starts talking about 'protecting rights' its almost always about one person treating another like a piece of shit?
That's better than government treating someone like shit in the name of "equality" over something that causes no real harm to the "offended" party.
How is setting minimum codes of conduct in business 'treating someone like shit'? What, the KKK grand wizard is being treated like shit because he can't send black people to the back of the bus?
Ordering cake from a cake baker is a completely reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of your customers isn't.
The purpose is to change the definition of consenting adult.What "consensus" would you be referring to?
Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.
Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?
Why is it whenever the right starts talking about 'protecting rights' its almost always about one person treating another like a piece of shit?
That's better than government treating someone like shit in the name of "equality" over something that causes no real harm to the "offended" party.
How is setting minimum codes of conduct in business 'treating someone like shit'? What, the KKK grand wizard is being treated like shit because he can't send black people to the back of the bus?
Ordering cake from a cake baker is a completely reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of your customers isn't.
The bus is a public service, i.e. a government service, so not a proper example, as I have already said government cannot take sides or discriminate.
and in the Colorado case the guy said he doesn't deny cakes if you are gay, he just doesn't want to provide a cake for a gay wedding.
For non-required commerce, why should the government care about private transactions beyond making sure the transaction is open, fair and mutually consenting?
As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.
The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.
But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.
Apartheid was based upon bible texts.
Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective
It is still used to justify racism to this day.
Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.
What "consensus" would you be referring to?
Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.
Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?
The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.
But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.
America does not let our Christian priests, Jewish rabbis, or Islamic mullahs dictate our laws.
Surprising, I know.
The only "dictating" going on is on the progressive side, where either people comply with the morality de jure, or government goes after your ass.
Your strawman is noted, and rejected.
A majority now support gay marriage.
And the views of the minority should be protected, or is that only for things you agree with?
What "consensus" would you be referring to?
Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.
Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?
Why is it whenever the right starts talking about 'protecting rights' its almost always about one person treating another like a piece of shit?
That's better than government treating someone like shit in the name of "equality" over something that causes no real harm to the "offended" party.
How is setting minimum codes of conduct in business 'treating someone like shit'? What, the KKK grand wizard is being treated like shit because he can't send black people to the back of the bus?
Ordering cake from a cake baker is a completely reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of your customers isn't.
The bus is a public service, i.e. a government service, so not a proper example, as I have already said government cannot take sides or discriminate.
The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.
But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.
Apartheid was based upon bible texts.
Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective
It is still used to justify racism to this day.
Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.
What "consensus" would you be referring to?
Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.
Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?
Apples and oranges.
Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.
Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?
Why is it whenever the right starts talking about 'protecting rights' its almost always about one person treating another like a piece of shit?
That's better than government treating someone like shit in the name of "equality" over something that causes no real harm to the "offended" party.
How is setting minimum codes of conduct in business 'treating someone like shit'? What, the KKK grand wizard is being treated like shit because he can't send black people to the back of the bus?
Ordering cake from a cake baker is a completely reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of your customers isn't.
The bus is a public service, i.e. a government service, so not a proper example, as I have already said government cannot take sides or discriminate.
Ah, then you're more a 'No Coloreds Allowed' at the lunch counter kinda guy. Where poor, poor Woolworths was being treated like shit for not being able to tell blacks they weren't welcome.
Is this your conception of 'protecting rights'?
The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.
But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.
America does not let our Christian priests, Jewish rabbis, or Islamic mullahs dictate our laws.
Surprising, I know.
The only "dictating" going on is on the progressive side, where either people comply with the morality de jure, or government goes after your ass.
Your strawman is noted, and rejected.
A majority now support gay marriage.
And the views of the minority should be protected, or is that only for things you agree with?
No rights are being infringed.
The Constitution grants the Freedom of Religion ... and the 'practice thereof...'. Refusing to engage in activities that are contradictory to one's religion IS 'practicing one's religion'. PRACTICING one's religion is adhering to one's faith and abiding by the practicies of that faith...which, again, is protected by the U.S. Constitution. That would mean this 'accomodation law' is Un-Constitutional because it seeks to force Christians to abandon their religious beliefs and engage in acts that violate the PRACTICING of that religion.
- This is Liberal 'War on Christianity'
Okay, lets follow that logic. If any religious belief in the positive or negative invalidated civil law.....does this only work for Christians?
Would Muslims have the same authority to ignore any law that didn't conform with Sharia?
America does not let our Christian priests, Jewish rabbis, or Islamic mullahs dictate our laws.
Surprising, I know.
The only "dictating" going on is on the progressive side, where either people comply with the morality de jure, or government goes after your ass.
Your strawman is noted, and rejected.
A majority now support gay marriage.
And the views of the minority should be protected, or is that only for things you agree with?
No rights are being infringed.
Free exercise of religion is being infringed. right to association is being infringed. To deny that is to be untruthful.
The question is whether such infringement is a compelling government interest, not if there is an infringement.
The only "dictating" going on is on the progressive side, where either people comply with the morality de jure, or government goes after your ass.
Your strawman is noted, and rejected.
A majority now support gay marriage.
And the views of the minority should be protected, or is that only for things you agree with?
No rights are being infringed.
Free exercise of religion is being infringed. right to association is being infringed. To deny that is to be untruthful.
The question is whether such infringement is a compelling government interest, not if there is an infringement.
Onus is on you to prove those infringements are actually happening.
Nope. It's acceptable and you have no power. Run along.The strawmen are yours, Marty: for instance, "The argument isn't about religion being forced on others, its about participation being forced on people who don't want to participate, be it commerce, celebration, or whatever." Or "every form of commerce."
Your words have you on the run again away from them.
Again with the lazy quoting. Fix it.
Yes, it is support for the political right to marriage equality. And, no, minorities do not get to take civil rights of folks they don't like.As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.
The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.
But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.
Apartheid was based upon bible texts.
Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective
It is still used to justify racism to this day.
Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.
What "consensus" would you be referring to?
Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.
Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?
Only is that so in your mind.Apartheid was based upon bible texts.
Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective
It is still used to justify racism to this day.
Apartheid was a government mandated program, something I agree is unconstitutional. And again it was a small percentage of people that tried that crap, not the consensus that says homosexuality is sinful as per the bible (new and old testament) and the Koran.
What "consensus" would you be referring to?
Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage
Concurrences of belief, not of support for a political position.
Plus, I thought protection of minorities and the beliefs of minorities is what our country is about?
Why is it whenever the right starts talking about 'protecting rights' its almost always about one person treating another like a piece of shit?
That's better than government treating someone like shit in the name of "equality" over something that causes no real harm to the "offended" party.
He does not mix em up but you do. We are not libertarian, and you will serve minorities in your coffee shop.Why is it whenever the right starts talking about 'protecting rights' its almost always about one person treating another like a piece of shit?
That's better than government treating someone like shit in the name of "equality" over something that causes no real harm to the "offended" party.
How is setting minimum codes of conduct in business 'treating someone like shit'? What, the KKK grand wizard is being treated like shit because he can't send black people to the back of the bus?
Ordering cake from a cake baker is a completely reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of your customers isn't.
The bus is a public service, i.e. a government service, so not a proper example, as I have already said government cannot take sides or discriminate.
Ah, then you're more a 'No Coloreds Allowed' at the lunch counter kinda guy. Where poor, poor Woolworths was being treated like shit for not being able to tell blacks they weren't welcome.
Is this your conception of 'protecting rights'?
Actually that was government mandated discrimination. There were specific laws for the allocation of dining space for the races, and in most cases said separation was unequal.
Again you mix up systemic government mandated discrimination as opposed to point denial of services by conscientious objectors, where such services are easily obtainable from others.
Doesn't a baker bake cakes? What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? Is it lewd? Is it torrid? Nope! It looks just like every other wedding cake a baker bakes.What else do we have to do for other people? Is the government going to force us to smile at a "gay wedding"? I'm just kind of curious how far can the government go in forcing us to do things. Do ring makers have to make gay wedding bans? This whole thing is f'n stupid but we have to make a cake. Better get making a cake or else!
The Constitution grants the Freedom of Religion ... and the 'practice thereof...'. Refusing to engage in activities that are contradictory to one's religion IS 'practicing one's religion'. PRACTICING one's religion is adhering to one's faith and abiding by the practicies of that faith...which, again, is protected by the U.S. Constitution. That would mean this 'accomodation law' is Un-Constitutional because it seeks to force Christians to abandon their religious beliefs and engage in acts that violate the PRACTICING of that religion.
- This is Liberal 'War on Christianity'
Would the U.S. Government force a Muslim Bakery to make a cake that declares, "Jesus Christ is Lord", 'There is no other God that God / Jesus Christ", or "Mohammad was a Poser - Jesus is lord"? Would the government force a Muslim Bakery to bake a same-sex wedding cake with some tuxedo-clad mini-male statue holding hands with Mohammad? Would the government force a Muslim-owned resteraunt serve bacon? Ummmm, NO!
