Evangelical Christians Must Pay For Trading Faith For Power, Morality Lost Forever

[koshergrl]

If gays are not attacking the religious institution of marriage, then why did they refuse our offer of a civil union with the same benefits as married couples? Make no mistake. They do not want equal treatment. They want others to accept and even endorse their perverted lifestyle under penalty of law.

They DO want equal treatment, and they got it. If there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, why the difference in terminology? You make it sound like people who are in something they describe as a "marriage" are actually in a "civil union." The word "marriagWhe" is used in civil law as well as in the beliefs of various religions, but they are not the same thing. One is religious law as recognized by various religious sects, the other usage is in civil law.
Also, who was the "our" in "our offer"?

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage

Same-sex couples who want a religious marriage can be married in a religious ceremony in various religious traditions. It's up to their religious views.

Then why do they insisted on calling it a marriage, when it obviously isn't? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They can call their perverted union whatever they like, but it's not marriage.

Why is it that that such a marriage "obviously isn't"? In civil-law terms, it is marriage. What your particular religious sect believes, that is your choice and your law within your sect's community.
It also is your sect's choice as to how to respond to those civilly-divorced persons who marry again while their first spouse is still alive, or how to respond to people whose marriage has been sanctified within your sect who then commit adultery or commit domestic abuse against their spouses, having first had their marriages sanctified by your sect. Religious law is totally separate from civil law.
I had a relative, now deceased, who married once, had a child with his spouse, and then they split. I don't know about his first wife or what kind of religious ceremony they had to sanctify their marriage, but he was a Roman Catholic, his second wife was a Roman Catholic, and his second wife, although loving him enough to agree to be his second wife, made it known to the family that she was aggrieved at having been deprived of a religious ceremony to confer a religious blessing on their union because of his status as a divorcee. The laws of the various religions are so different from the civil laws of the U.S.A. Deal with it.

Marriage is an institution ordained by God. It is not a human invention. Queers are not married. They're just queer.

Only in your own head, or the heads of the leaders of your sect. Whichever, it has no place in our U.S.A. civil law.

Marriage has no place in civil law. You're right about that.

The state can't marry queers. Marriage is a religious construct...and a sacrament. Which is why Christian bakers can't fix special cakes for homo orgies that homos like to pretend are marriage ceremonies.

Let the fags get their own fake clergy to perform the rites, whatever they are. And let them get bakers who don't think they will go to hell for creating penis- and vagina-themed gakes for them to wallow in.

 

[Lysistrata]

They DO want equal treatment, and they got it. If there is no difference between a civil union and a marriage, why the difference in terminology? You make it sound like people who are in something they describe as a "marriage" are actually in a "civil union." The word "marriagWhe" is used in civil law as well as in the beliefs of various religions, but they are not the same thing. One is religious law as recognized by various religious sects, the other usage is in civil law.
Also, who was the "our" in "our offer"?

Where Christian churches, other religions stand on gay marriage

Same-sex couples who want a religious marriage can be married in a religious ceremony in various religious traditions. It's up to their religious views.

Then why do they insisted on calling it a marriage, when it obviously isn't? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They can call their perverted union whatever they like, but it's not marriage.

Why is it that that such a marriage "obviously isn't"? In civil-law terms, it is marriage. What your particular religious sect believes, that is your choice and your law within your sect's community.
It also is your sect's choice as to how to respond to those civilly-divorced persons who marry again while their first spouse is still alive, or how to respond to people whose marriage has been sanctified within your sect who then commit adultery or commit domestic abuse against their spouses, having first had their marriages sanctified by your sect. Religious law is totally separate from civil law.
I had a relative, now deceased, who married once, had a child with his spouse, and then they split. I don't know about his first wife or what kind of religious ceremony they had to sanctify their marriage, but he was a Roman Catholic, his second wife was a Roman Catholic, and his second wife, although loving him enough to agree to be his second wife, made it known to the family that she was aggrieved at having been deprived of a religious ceremony to confer a religious blessing on their union because of his status as a divorcee. The laws of the various religions are so different from the civil laws of the U.S.A. Deal with it.

Marriage is an institution ordained by God. It is not a human invention. Queers are not married. They're just queer.

Only in your own head, or the heads of the leaders of your sect. Whichever, it has no place in our U.S.A. civil law.

Marriage has no place in civil law. You're right about that.

The state can't marry queers. Marriage is a religious construct...and a sacrament. Which is why Christian bakers can't fix special cakes for homo orgies that homos like to pretend are marriage ceremonies.

Let the fags get their own fake clergy to perform the rites, whatever they are. And let them get bakers who don't think they will go to hell for creating penis- and vagina-themed gakes for them to wallow in.

You get more ignorant and more crazy by the hour. You deliberately mangle my words. You know damned well that I mean that people of whatever sexual orientation and whatever religion may marry under civil law, with a license issued by the state, and have a ceremony at the local courthouse rather than one conducted by clergy. This form of marriage is a civil construct, not a religious one.That's how that so-called "Christian" idiot got in trouble in Kentucky. She was screwing up the operation of civil law. Those couples who wish to have a religious ceremony performed by clergy may have one that symbolizes their desire to make their their promises to each other before the Supreme Being.

LGBTs don't have "orgies" at wedding receptions any more than heterosexuals do. Are you insinuating that all people who marry have an orgy at their receptions? You show your sick mind here. And who has ever asked for a penis- or vagina-themed wedding cake? Tell me. Do fundie Christians, who shamelessly train their little girls for sexual submissiveness and market their daughters' flesh at fairs as potential "brides," order cakes that portray the bride on her knees sexually servicing her new husband to be displayed and consumed at their wedding receptions? Think about your stupidity and lack of taste here.

Moreover, what is "fake clergy"? Clergy are ordained or otherwise elevated to their positions by the rules of their denominations. Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran, priests and ministers, as well as Jewish rabbis of the reformed and conservative movements, are not "fakes." I would add that the members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), at least in the tradition of this faith with which I am most familiar (there are others), do not have designated ministers and the entire congregation of believers solemnizes the marriage.

Idiots like Phillips and the Kleins need to simmer down and realize that they have to obey the law. They don't deserve to be catered to any more than anyone else.

 

[RWNJ]

Then why do they insisted on calling it a marriage, when it obviously isn't? A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. They can call their perverted union whatever they like, but it's not marriage.

Why is it that that such a marriage "obviously isn't"? In civil-law terms, it is marriage. What your particular religious sect believes, that is your choice and your law within your sect's community.
It also is your sect's choice as to how to respond to those civilly-divorced persons who marry again while their first spouse is still alive, or how to respond to people whose marriage has been sanctified within your sect who then commit adultery or commit domestic abuse against their spouses, having first had their marriages sanctified by your sect. Religious law is totally separate from civil law.
I had a relative, now deceased, who married once, had a child with his spouse, and then they split. I don't know about his first wife or what kind of religious ceremony they had to sanctify their marriage, but he was a Roman Catholic, his second wife was a Roman Catholic, and his second wife, although loving him enough to agree to be his second wife, made it known to the family that she was aggrieved at having been deprived of a religious ceremony to confer a religious blessing on their union because of his status as a divorcee. The laws of the various religions are so different from the civil laws of the U.S.A. Deal with it.

Marriage is an institution ordained by God. It is not a human invention. Queers are not married. They're just queer.

Only in your own head, or the heads of the leaders of your sect. Whichever, it has no place in our U.S.A. civil law.

Marriage has no place in civil law. You're right about that.

The state can't marry queers. Marriage is a religious construct...and a sacrament. Which is why Christian bakers can't fix special cakes for homo orgies that homos like to pretend are marriage ceremonies.

Let the fags get their own fake clergy to perform the rites, whatever they are. And let them get bakers who don't think they will go to hell for creating penis- and vagina-themed gakes for them to wallow in.

You get more ignorant and more crazy by the hour. You deliberately mangle my words. You know damned well that I mean that people of whatever sexual orientation and whatever religion may marry under civil law, with a license issued by the state, and have a ceremony at the local courthouse rather than one conducted by clergy. This form of marriage is a civil construct, not a religious one.That's how that so-called "Christian" idiot got in trouble in Kentucky. She was screwing up the operation of civil law. Those couples who wish to have a religious ceremony performed by clergy may have one that symbolizes their desire to make their their promises to each other before the Supreme Being.

LGBTs don't have "orgies" at wedding receptions any more than heterosexuals do. Are you insinuating that all people who marry have an orgy at their receptions? You show your sick mind here. And who has ever asked for a penis- or vagina-themed wedding cake? Tell me. Do fundie Christians, who shamelessly train their little girls for sexual submissiveness and market their daughters' flesh at fairs as potential "brides," order cakes that portray the bride on her knees sexually servicing her new husband to be displayed and consumed at their wedding receptions? Think about your stupidity and lack of taste here.

Moreover, what is "fake clergy"? Clergy are ordained or otherwise elevated to their positions by the rules of their denominations. Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran, priests and ministers, as well as Jewish rabbis of the reformed and conservative movements, are not "fakes." I would add that the members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), at least in the tradition of this faith with which I am most familiar (there are others), do not have designated ministers and the entire congregation of believers solemnizes the marriage.

Idiots like Phillips and the Kleins need to simmer down and realize that they have to obey the law. They don't deserve to be catered to any more than anyone else.

By your own argument, Martin Luther King should have just obeyed the law and kept his fat mouth shut.

 

[Lysistrata]

Why is it that that such a marriage "obviously isn't"? In civil-law terms, it is marriage. What your particular religious sect believes, that is your choice and your law within your sect's community.
It also is your sect's choice as to how to respond to those civilly-divorced persons who marry again while their first spouse is still alive, or how to respond to people whose marriage has been sanctified within your sect who then commit adultery or commit domestic abuse against their spouses, having first had their marriages sanctified by your sect. Religious law is totally separate from civil law.
I had a relative, now deceased, who married once, had a child with his spouse, and then they split. I don't know about his first wife or what kind of religious ceremony they had to sanctify their marriage, but he was a Roman Catholic, his second wife was a Roman Catholic, and his second wife, although loving him enough to agree to be his second wife, made it known to the family that she was aggrieved at having been deprived of a religious ceremony to confer a religious blessing on their union because of his status as a divorcee. The laws of the various religions are so different from the civil laws of the U.S.A. Deal with it.

Marriage is an institution ordained by God. It is not a human invention. Queers are not married. They're just queer.

Only in your own head, or the heads of the leaders of your sect. Whichever, it has no place in our U.S.A. civil law.

Marriage has no place in civil law. You're right about that.

The state can't marry queers. Marriage is a religious construct...and a sacrament. Which is why Christian bakers can't fix special cakes for homo orgies that homos like to pretend are marriage ceremonies.

Let the fags get their own fake clergy to perform the rites, whatever they are. And let them get bakers who don't think they will go to hell for creating penis- and vagina-themed gakes for them to wallow in.

You get more ignorant and more crazy by the hour. You deliberately mangle my words. You know damned well that I mean that people of whatever sexual orientation and whatever religion may marry under civil law, with a license issued by the state, and have a ceremony at the local courthouse rather than one conducted by clergy. This form of marriage is a civil construct, not a religious one.That's how that so-called "Christian" idiot got in trouble in Kentucky. She was screwing up the operation of civil law. Those couples who wish to have a religious ceremony performed by clergy may have one that symbolizes their desire to make their their promises to each other before the Supreme Being.

LGBTs don't have "orgies" at wedding receptions any more than heterosexuals do. Are you insinuating that all people who marry have an orgy at their receptions? You show your sick mind here. And who has ever asked for a penis- or vagina-themed wedding cake? Tell me. Do fundie Christians, who shamelessly train their little girls for sexual submissiveness and market their daughters' flesh at fairs as potential "brides," order cakes that portray the bride on her knees sexually servicing her new husband to be displayed and consumed at their wedding receptions? Think about your stupidity and lack of taste here.

Moreover, what is "fake clergy"? Clergy are ordained or otherwise elevated to their positions by the rules of their denominations. Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran, priests and ministers, as well as Jewish rabbis of the reformed and conservative movements, are not "fakes." I would add that the members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), at least in the tradition of this faith with which I am most familiar (there are others), do not have designated ministers and the entire congregation of believers solemnizes the marriage.

Idiots like Phillips and the Kleins need to simmer down and realize that they have to obey the law. They don't deserve to be catered to any more than anyone else.

By your own argument, Martin Luther King should have just obeyed the law and kept his fat mouth shut.

Martin Luther King affirmatively spoke up for people; to elevate people. His speech was not aimed at trying to hurt and demean anyone else.
He also did not operate a business subject to our business laws.

 

[RWNJ]

Marriage is an institution ordained by God. It is not a human invention. Queers are not married. They're just queer.

Only in your own head, or the heads of the leaders of your sect. Whichever, it has no place in our U.S.A. civil law.

Marriage has no place in civil law. You're right about that.

The state can't marry queers. Marriage is a religious construct...and a sacrament. Which is why Christian bakers can't fix special cakes for homo orgies that homos like to pretend are marriage ceremonies.

Let the fags get their own fake clergy to perform the rites, whatever they are. And let them get bakers who don't think they will go to hell for creating penis- and vagina-themed gakes for them to wallow in.

You get more ignorant and more crazy by the hour. You deliberately mangle my words. You know damned well that I mean that people of whatever sexual orientation and whatever religion may marry under civil law, with a license issued by the state, and have a ceremony at the local courthouse rather than one conducted by clergy. This form of marriage is a civil construct, not a religious one.That's how that so-called "Christian" idiot got in trouble in Kentucky. She was screwing up the operation of civil law. Those couples who wish to have a religious ceremony performed by clergy may have one that symbolizes their desire to make their their promises to each other before the Supreme Being.

LGBTs don't have "orgies" at wedding receptions any more than heterosexuals do. Are you insinuating that all people who marry have an orgy at their receptions? You show your sick mind here. And who has ever asked for a penis- or vagina-themed wedding cake? Tell me. Do fundie Christians, who shamelessly train their little girls for sexual submissiveness and market their daughters' flesh at fairs as potential "brides," order cakes that portray the bride on her knees sexually servicing her new husband to be displayed and consumed at their wedding receptions? Think about your stupidity and lack of taste here.

Moreover, what is "fake clergy"? Clergy are ordained or otherwise elevated to their positions by the rules of their denominations. Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran, priests and ministers, as well as Jewish rabbis of the reformed and conservative movements, are not "fakes." I would add that the members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), at least in the tradition of this faith with which I am most familiar (there are others), do not have designated ministers and the entire congregation of believers solemnizes the marriage.

Idiots like Phillips and the Kleins need to simmer down and realize that they have to obey the law. They don't deserve to be catered to any more than anyone else.

By your own argument, Martin Luther King should have just obeyed the law and kept his fat mouth shut.

Martin Luther King affirmatively spoke up for people; to elevate people. His speech was not aimed at trying to hurt and demean anyone else.
He also did not operate a business subject to our business laws.

But he disobeyed the law.

 

[Lysistrata]

Only in your own head, or the heads of the leaders of your sect. Whichever, it has no place in our U.S.A. civil law.

Marriage has no place in civil law. You're right about that.

The state can't marry queers. Marriage is a religious construct...and a sacrament. Which is why Christian bakers can't fix special cakes for homo orgies that homos like to pretend are marriage ceremonies.

Let the fags get their own fake clergy to perform the rites, whatever they are. And let them get bakers who don't think they will go to hell for creating penis- and vagina-themed gakes for them to wallow in.

You get more ignorant and more crazy by the hour. You deliberately mangle my words. You know damned well that I mean that people of whatever sexual orientation and whatever religion may marry under civil law, with a license issued by the state, and have a ceremony at the local courthouse rather than one conducted by clergy. This form of marriage is a civil construct, not a religious one.That's how that so-called "Christian" idiot got in trouble in Kentucky. She was screwing up the operation of civil law. Those couples who wish to have a religious ceremony performed by clergy may have one that symbolizes their desire to make their their promises to each other before the Supreme Being.

LGBTs don't have "orgies" at wedding receptions any more than heterosexuals do. Are you insinuating that all people who marry have an orgy at their receptions? You show your sick mind here. And who has ever asked for a penis- or vagina-themed wedding cake? Tell me. Do fundie Christians, who shamelessly train their little girls for sexual submissiveness and market their daughters' flesh at fairs as potential "brides," order cakes that portray the bride on her knees sexually servicing her new husband to be displayed and consumed at their wedding receptions? Think about your stupidity and lack of taste here.

Moreover, what is "fake clergy"? Clergy are ordained or otherwise elevated to their positions by the rules of their denominations. Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran, priests and ministers, as well as Jewish rabbis of the reformed and conservative movements, are not "fakes." I would add that the members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), at least in the tradition of this faith with which I am most familiar (there are others), do not have designated ministers and the entire congregation of believers solemnizes the marriage.

Idiots like Phillips and the Kleins need to simmer down and realize that they have to obey the law. They don't deserve to be catered to any more than anyone else.

By your own argument, Martin Luther King should have just obeyed the law and kept his fat mouth shut.

Martin Luther King affirmatively spoke up for people; to elevate people. His speech was not aimed at trying to hurt and demean anyone else.
He also did not operate a business subject to our business laws.

But he disobeyed the law.

what law?

 

[RWNJ]

Marriage has no place in civil law. You're right about that.

The state can't marry queers. Marriage is a religious construct...and a sacrament. Which is why Christian bakers can't fix special cakes for homo orgies that homos like to pretend are marriage ceremonies.

Let the fags get their own fake clergy to perform the rites, whatever they are. And let them get bakers who don't think they will go to hell for creating penis- and vagina-themed gakes for them to wallow in.

You get more ignorant and more crazy by the hour. You deliberately mangle my words. You know damned well that I mean that people of whatever sexual orientation and whatever religion may marry under civil law, with a license issued by the state, and have a ceremony at the local courthouse rather than one conducted by clergy. This form of marriage is a civil construct, not a religious one.That's how that so-called "Christian" idiot got in trouble in Kentucky. She was screwing up the operation of civil law. Those couples who wish to have a religious ceremony performed by clergy may have one that symbolizes their desire to make their their promises to each other before the Supreme Being.

LGBTs don't have "orgies" at wedding receptions any more than heterosexuals do. Are you insinuating that all people who marry have an orgy at their receptions? You show your sick mind here. And who has ever asked for a penis- or vagina-themed wedding cake? Tell me. Do fundie Christians, who shamelessly train their little girls for sexual submissiveness and market their daughters' flesh at fairs as potential "brides," order cakes that portray the bride on her knees sexually servicing her new husband to be displayed and consumed at their wedding receptions? Think about your stupidity and lack of taste here.

Moreover, what is "fake clergy"? Clergy are ordained or otherwise elevated to their positions by the rules of their denominations. Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran, priests and ministers, as well as Jewish rabbis of the reformed and conservative movements, are not "fakes." I would add that the members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), at least in the tradition of this faith with which I am most familiar (there are others), do not have designated ministers and the entire congregation of believers solemnizes the marriage.

Idiots like Phillips and the Kleins need to simmer down and realize that they have to obey the law. They don't deserve to be catered to any more than anyone else.

By your own argument, Martin Luther King should have just obeyed the law and kept his fat mouth shut.

Martin Luther King affirmatively spoke up for people; to elevate people. His speech was not aimed at trying to hurt and demean anyone else.
He also did not operate a business subject to our business laws.

But he disobeyed the law.

what law?

Look it up. He actually went to jail 29 times.

 

[Lysistrata]

You get more ignorant and more crazy by the hour. You deliberately mangle my words. You know damned well that I mean that people of whatever sexual orientation and whatever religion may marry under civil law, with a license issued by the state, and have a ceremony at the local courthouse rather than one conducted by clergy. This form of marriage is a civil construct, not a religious one.That's how that so-called "Christian" idiot got in trouble in Kentucky. She was screwing up the operation of civil law. Those couples who wish to have a religious ceremony performed by clergy may have one that symbolizes their desire to make their their promises to each other before the Supreme Being.

LGBTs don't have "orgies" at wedding receptions any more than heterosexuals do. Are you insinuating that all people who marry have an orgy at their receptions? You show your sick mind here. And who has ever asked for a penis- or vagina-themed wedding cake? Tell me. Do fundie Christians, who shamelessly train their little girls for sexual submissiveness and market their daughters' flesh at fairs as potential "brides," order cakes that portray the bride on her knees sexually servicing her new husband to be displayed and consumed at their wedding receptions? Think about your stupidity and lack of taste here.

Moreover, what is "fake clergy"? Clergy are ordained or otherwise elevated to their positions by the rules of their denominations. Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran, priests and ministers, as well as Jewish rabbis of the reformed and conservative movements, are not "fakes." I would add that the members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), at least in the tradition of this faith with which I am most familiar (there are others), do not have designated ministers and the entire congregation of believers solemnizes the marriage.

Idiots like Phillips and the Kleins need to simmer down and realize that they have to obey the law. They don't deserve to be catered to any more than anyone else.

By your own argument, Martin Luther King should have just obeyed the law and kept his fat mouth shut.

Martin Luther King affirmatively spoke up for people; to elevate people. His speech was not aimed at trying to hurt and demean anyone else.
He also did not operate a business subject to our business laws.

But he disobeyed the law.

what law?

Look it up. He actually went to jail 29 times.

For what? For regular crimes or violations of Jim Crow laws? The filthy rednecks in the south managed to pass some pretty nasty laws specifically aimed at legalizing racism. Name the violations that brought him to jail.

 

[RWNJ]

By your own argument, Martin Luther King should have just obeyed the law and kept his fat mouth shut.

Martin Luther King affirmatively spoke up for people; to elevate people. His speech was not aimed at trying to hurt and demean anyone else.
He also did not operate a business subject to our business laws.

But he disobeyed the law.

what law?

Look it up. He actually went to jail 29 times.

For what? For regular crimes or violations of Jim Crow laws? The filthy rednecks in the south managed to pass some pretty nasty laws specifically aimed at legalizing racism. Name the violations that brought him to jail.

Look it up. I'm not your secretary. Besides, it's off topic. You made the claim that Christians should just follow the law. I turned it around on you, and now you're making excuses. Pathetic.

 

[Lysistrata]

Martin Luther King affirmatively spoke up for people; to elevate people. His speech was not aimed at trying to hurt and demean anyone else.
He also did not operate a business subject to our business laws.

But he disobeyed the law.

what law?

Look it up. He actually went to jail 29 times.

For what? For regular crimes or violations of Jim Crow laws? The filthy rednecks in the south managed to pass some pretty nasty laws specifically aimed at legalizing racism. Name the violations that brought him to jail.

Look it up. I'm not your secretary. Besides, it's off topic. You made the claim that Christians should just follow the law. I turned it around on you, and now you're making excuses. Pathetic.

The only laws that MLK, a Christian minister, apparently broke were Jim Crow laws that were designed to prohibit protests of the policies of the racist scumbags who had control of the state legislatures, not laws of general applicability that did not have these nefarious origins. The bakers in Oregon and Colorado knew what they were doing when they got their business licenses. Please don't implicate all Christians in your hate-filled world. this involves your cult and your cult only. These bakers are members of your cult, yes, but this does not excuse them from obeying laws of general applicability, even though you folks feel that you are somehow entitled to special rights. You aren't.

 

[RWNJ]

But he disobeyed the law.

what law?

Look it up. He actually went to jail 29 times.

For what? For regular crimes or violations of Jim Crow laws? The filthy rednecks in the south managed to pass some pretty nasty laws specifically aimed at legalizing racism. Name the violations that brought him to jail.

Look it up. I'm not your secretary. Besides, it's off topic. You made the claim that Christians should just follow the law. I turned it around on you, and now you're making excuses. Pathetic.

The only laws that MLK, a Christian minister, apparently broke were Jim Crow laws that were designed to prohibit protests of the policies of the racist scumbags who had control of the state legislatures, not laws of general applicability that did not have these nefarious origins. The bakers in Oregon and Colorado knew what they were doing when they got their business licenses. Please don't implicate all Christians in your hate-filled world. this involves your cult and your cult only. These bakers are members of your cult, yes, but this does not excuse them from obeying laws of general applicability, even though you folks feel that you are somehow entitled to special rights. You aren't.

I guess you missed the part where I said that no one may be compelled by the government to use their artistic talents for something that they find objectionable. If you want a queer cake, go to a queer bakery. Punk!

 

[Lysistrata]

what law?

Look it up. He actually went to jail 29 times.

For what? For regular crimes or violations of Jim Crow laws? The filthy rednecks in the south managed to pass some pretty nasty laws specifically aimed at legalizing racism. Name the violations that brought him to jail.

Look it up. I'm not your secretary. Besides, it's off topic. You made the claim that Christians should just follow the law. I turned it around on you, and now you're making excuses. Pathetic.

The only laws that MLK, a Christian minister, apparently broke were Jim Crow laws that were designed to prohibit protests of the policies of the racist scumbags who had control of the state legislatures, not laws of general applicability that did not have these nefarious origins. The bakers in Oregon and Colorado knew what they were doing when they got their business licenses. Please don't implicate all Christians in your hate-filled world. this involves your cult and your cult only. These bakers are members of your cult, yes, but this does not excuse them from obeying laws of general applicability, even though you folks feel that you are somehow entitled to special rights. You aren't.

I guess you missed the part where I said that no one may be compelled by the government to use their artistic talents for something that they find objectionable. If you want a queer cake, go to a queer bakery. Punk!

I am not a punk, first of all. Yes, the law may compel someone to provide a service to the general public that they, themselves have advertised to the public. I have already given a link the Masterpiece Bakery's website, which featured the bake-shop's wares, including "wedding" and "specialty" cakes, and invited the general public in.
I do not understand why the members of your cult hate LGBTs so much, but you, too, must obey the public-accommodations laws as a condition of being permitted to do business within the state. Your sect, no sect, no religion, has the right to opt itself out of any law it doesn't like. A nation of over 300 million people would be in absolute chaos if every individual could just decide which, if any laws he or she would be willing to follow. The right-wing "Christian" cults are not entitled to any special treatment even if you run around with your noses in the air and try to demand it. If you wish to remove yourselves from American society, you may. Go live like the Amish, who come down here with their cakes and cheeses and meats and jams to sell at various markets that they rent every Thursday through Saturday, sell to anyone who puts money on the counter, and then go home to their enclaves, driven in motor vehicles by non-Amish of course, since the Amish are not allowed to drive motor vehicles.

 

[RWNJ]

Look it up. He actually went to jail 29 times.

For what? For regular crimes or violations of Jim Crow laws? The filthy rednecks in the south managed to pass some pretty nasty laws specifically aimed at legalizing racism. Name the violations that brought him to jail.

Look it up. I'm not your secretary. Besides, it's off topic. You made the claim that Christians should just follow the law. I turned it around on you, and now you're making excuses. Pathetic.

The only laws that MLK, a Christian minister, apparently broke were Jim Crow laws that were designed to prohibit protests of the policies of the racist scumbags who had control of the state legislatures, not laws of general applicability that did not have these nefarious origins. The bakers in Oregon and Colorado knew what they were doing when they got their business licenses. Please don't implicate all Christians in your hate-filled world. this involves your cult and your cult only. These bakers are members of your cult, yes, but this does not excuse them from obeying laws of general applicability, even though you folks feel that you are somehow entitled to special rights. You aren't.

I guess you missed the part where I said that no one may be compelled by the government to use their artistic talents for something that they find objectionable. If you want a queer cake, go to a queer bakery. Punk!

I am not a punk, first of all. Yes, the law may compel someone to provide a service to the general public that they, themselves have advertised to the public. I have already given a link the Masterpiece Bakery's website, which featured the bake-shop's wares, including "wedding" and "specialty" cakes, and invited the general public in.
I do not understand why the members of your cult hate LGBTs so much, but you, too, must obey the public-accommodations laws as a condition of being permitted to do business within the state. Your sect, no sect, no religion, has the right to opt itself out of any law it doesn't like. A nation of over 300 million people would be in absolute chaos if every individual could just decide which, if any laws he or she would be willing to follow. The right-wing "Christian" cults are not entitled to any special treatment even if you run around with your noses in the air and try to demand it. If you wish to remove yourselves from American society, you may. Go live like the Amish, who come down here with their cakes and cheeses and meats and jams to sell at various markets that they rent every Thursday through Saturday, sell to anyone who puts money on the counter, and then go home to their enclaves, driven in motor vehicles by non-Amish of course, since the Amish are not allowed to drive motor vehicles.

So, how do you feel about the special treatment that Muslims enjoy? It seems that people like you object only when Christians are involved. Everyone else gets a pass. Why is that? And why do you think that some faggots rights trump the rights of others? Especially Christians.