Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[Syriusly]

Just face the fact that most conservatives would like to roll back anti-discrimination laws to the point where the whites-only diner could operate unfettered.

Based on my experience a few days ago involving two black females and their children they let run wild while people were trying to eat, I'm good with that.

I also believe that if a black owned restaurant wanted to do such a thing with whites, they should be able to do so. However, there's only so much money that can be made from serving fried chicken, watermelon, and collard greens.

Always fascinating to see the posts of a Trump voter.

 

[hazlnut]

In the bible, homosexuality is an afterthought. Almost entirely irrelevant and unimportant.

If you're reading decent credible translation then maybe you can see 1 single line that mentions the specific act… Leviticus, not Romans. That correct translation is Men with Boys referring to the Temple Priests practice of pederasty. (but many American Christians read a piss-poor translation motivated by hate and bigotry)

But the bible says tons about love and tolerance. And these are absolute, not relative...

 

[Syriusly]

Tough titties. The yokel can peddle his wares plenty of other places.

Discrimination is A-OK with you as long as you approve of it.

What a fucking scumbag you are.

It's not okay. Thus the ordinance. Scumbag.

That bunch of commies who passed that ordinance are going to learn they screwed the pooch with that dumb ass law. That farmer will take it to the Supreme Court. He knows the law and Constitution are on his side. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment. (It protects the 1st)

More like the ACLU protects the first .

The only people the ACLU protects are the Free Shit Generation, deadbeats and trash.

Wow so the ACLU has protected you and Rush Limbaugh.

Good for them.

 

[Syriusly]

YOU MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG, BUT THE GLEICHSCHALTUNG IS INTERESTED IN YOU!

Jacques: Farmer gets boot for expressing his beliefs

He should convert to islam, then he will be able to.

Yep, coward left don't peep when Muslims refuse to go along with the homosexual agenda.

You show me actual examples of Muslims actually refusing to service actual homosexuals in America- I will be glad to denounce them in exactly the same manner.

(and please don't such a liar to post the lying video that claims to be exactly that in Michigan- I have watched and listened to that video- not a single bakery that makes wedding cakes actually refused to bake a wedding cake for the faux gay man.)

 

[Syriusly]

Tough titties. The yokel can peddle his wares plenty of other places.

Violation of the bill of rights according to the US Constitution.
Free expression of religion shall not be infringed.

Yet it is still illegal for a Christian to refuse to sell to a black customer- claiming his religious beliefs forbid it.

 

[Syriusly]

Unconstitutional is a legal term.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Unconstitutional is a term that denotes something goes against the Constitution. Are you saying something that can't change it's wording isn't unconstitutional when it's written?

They're guilty when they commit the crime. Telling them so doesn't change that what they did was illegal when they did it.

You're making comically circular arguments.

Did you think the mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional?

Absolutely.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos where George asked him several times about the mandate being a tax, Obama said, "No. That's not true, George. The - for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs."

Strange thing is the Supreme Court upheld the mandate using the reasoning, wait for it, that the mandate could be considered a tax. When they did that, why didn't Obama step up and say that's not what it is, you're wrong?

As far as other parts of that statement, Obama's full of shit and not very knowledgeable about the difference between auto and health insurance. He said that "we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens . . ". The subsidies one person receives that others have to pay for is just that. If the burden on someone was (fill in the blank $) before Obama care and the burden on someone is the same amount to fund subsidies, how is that not carrying a burden for someone else? Can you tell me the difference between the purpose of auto insurance and the purpose off health insurance? If you can, you'll know Obama's full of shit. If you can't, you'll realize you are.

So you were wrong about the mandate. See? You aren't the one who decides.

Apparently the black boy President

Always good to hear from an honest Trump voter.

 

[RodISHI]

Who said christians are disqualified as judges?

Diane Feinstein and a few other Democrats reportedly made that argument last week about a Catholic Judge up for appointment / confirmation....

So did some posters on here.

Just what I thought.....misrepresenting: Analysis | Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?

And yet some here have no problem with christian sharia, do they?

I have no problem with mandating this type of indecent shit goes back into the strip clubs and variety adult shows where it belongs.

 

[Syriusly]

Did you notice the government assholes think Lansing property is their personal property when it in fact belongs to the people. Very typical of government fiefdoms.

EVERYTHING you have is the government's....you only have what you have because they LET you have it...temporarily.

That does seem to be the thing from the left and 'you didn't build anything'. I'm thinking if that is the case we can just seize whatever those who believe that shit has and distribute their goods, wealth, what ever among the middle class and poor they screwed over to get their billions or millions.

'Christians Are Disqualified From Serving As Judges'

Why do you believe that Christians are disqualified form serving as judges?

 

[Conservative65]

You mean like the fags could have had somewhere else make their cake?

Or the farmer could have followed the city laws.

You know- like the Bible says.

You do know the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Do you agree with that or are you going to ignore it when it's not what you like to hear?

I do know that the New Testament says that Christians are supposed to follow the law- and Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament.

Of course the New Testament doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination- matter of fact Jesus doesn't even mention homosexuality. He does say that remarriage after divorce- you know like President Trump- is adultery.

Or maybe you are one of those "Old Testament" Christians- who doesn't eat shellfish or cut his beard?

In the same passage about divorce (Matthew 19), Jesus referenced what had been written in Genesis (OT) about a man (MALE) leaving his father/mother and being united with his wife (FEMALE). Even Jesus referenced the OT word of God. That reference doesn't mention a man being united with another man or a woman with another woman.

There are lots of things Jesus didn't mention specifically that I suspect you'd believe are wrong. Since He didn't, are you saying those things are OK to do? Based on your logic, they'd have to be.

I am glad to post all of the relevant parts(why are you so coy about quoting the Bible?)

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”


4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a]">[a] 5 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’b]">[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”


7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”


8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”


10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”


11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

So here Jesus says two relevant things:

1. That marriage is between and man and a woman and
2. That any man who divorces his wife and remarries unless she is cheating on him- is guilty of adultery.

I don't disagree with the Christians who say the Bible says marriage is between a man and woman. But other than the Catholics and a few Protestant sects- none forbid divorce.

More to the point- nowhere does the Bible say that Christians should not sell to either homosexuals- or adulterers like Donald Trump.

Instead- the Bible says specifically that Christians must obey the law.

And the law says that gay couples- and adulterers like Donald Trump can be legally married- and the law in that town says that is a violation of the law to discriminate against Christians or Jews or Muslims or blacks or Mexicans or gay couples that want to get married.

Why do Christians want to ignore the teachings of the New Testament- so that they can refuse to do something the Bible never tells them that they should refuse to do?

And why do those same Christians have no problem providing their services to men marrying their second or third or fourth wives?

Why would anyone need to repeat what the word of God already says?

Nowhere does the Bible say fags have to be sold anything. See how that works?

Why do you ignore the teachings of Jesus related to marriage?

 

[easyt65]

Would love to see the evidence.

Dianne Feinstein Attacks Judicial Nominee's Catholic Faith

Feinstein argued that, based on the nature of his religion and how it was engrained in him, his catholic religion should disqualify him from being a judge and / or he would have to recuse himself during cases involving abortions.

Evidently Feinstein believes that a judge who has taken an oath to uphold, defend, and protect / enforce the Constitution will elevate his own religious beliefs above that oath and the Constitution. It is obvious in her comments that she has a laser-like focus on the issue of abortions...

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” Feinstein is clearly hinting here at the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that Feinstein supports so vociferously that she has even called it a “super-precedent.”

Claiming that a Christian should be disqualified for being a judge / that a Christian can not be trusted to NOT allow his own personal religious beliefs supersede the Constitution is just as arguably equivalent to claiming that a devoted liberal can not be trusted to NOT allow his / her own liberal ideology to supersede the Constitution and instead attempt to legislate from the bench.

The same concern, the same question, could be asked / brought up regarding anyone who is passionate about their beliefs, no matter what they are, religious or not....but Feinstein went THERE, questioning a Christian's ability to be a competent, fair judge based on his personal Christian faith.

 

[Conservative65]

Where did I lie? You are the one who say I was "OK if businesses deny service to divorced people"...when I said no such thing.

If you're going to lie about lying, why do you even come on here?

Are you and Rustic the same person or did you both go to the same school to become stupid and dishonest?

Are all you NLs the same person or are there just that many of you?

There's that NL fall-back that Con-servative65 uses. A dead giveaway, isn't it?

Nature Lover?

Aren't we all Nature lovers?

LOL

He is such a cowardly asshole.

Tell that to the filter, NL.

 

[Syriusly]

Who said christians are disqualified as judges?

Diane Feinstein and a few other Democrats reportedly made that argument last week about a Catholic Judge up for appointment / confirmation....

So did some posters on here.

Just what I thought.....misrepresenting: Analysis | Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?

And yet some here have no problem with christian sharia, do they?

I have no problem with mandating this type of indecent shit goes back into the strip clubs and variety adult shows where it belongs.

Because of course- you don't want local communities to decide what is appropriate.....

 

[easyt65]

Why do you believe that Christians are disqualified form serving as judges?

Piss-poor, and very transparent, attempt to spin douche-bag. It was Feinstein's argument that a catholic could possibly not be trusted to be a good judge based on his own personal religious beliefs.

 

[RodISHI]

Who said christians are disqualified as judges?

Diane Feinstein and a few other Democrats reportedly made that argument last week about a Catholic Judge up for appointment / confirmation....

So did some posters on here.

Just what I thought.....misrepresenting: Analysis | Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?

And yet some here have no problem with christian sharia, do they?

I have no problem with mandating this type of indecent shit goes back into the strip clubs and variety adult shows where it belongs.

Because of course- you don't want local communities to decide what is appropriate.....

1% to 3% of weirdos don't get to rule over the other 99% to 97% with their nasty shit.

 

[Conservative65]

Or the farmer could have followed the city laws.

You know- like the Bible says.

You do know the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Do you agree with that or are you going to ignore it when it's not what you like to hear?

I do know that the New Testament says that Christians are supposed to follow the law- and Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament.

Of course the New Testament doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination- matter of fact Jesus doesn't even mention homosexuality. He does say that remarriage after divorce- you know like President Trump- is adultery.

Or maybe you are one of those "Old Testament" Christians- who doesn't eat shellfish or cut his beard?

In the same passage about divorce (Matthew 19), Jesus referenced what had been written in Genesis (OT) about a man (MALE) leaving his father/mother and being united with his wife (FEMALE). Even Jesus referenced the OT word of God. That reference doesn't mention a man being united with another man or a woman with another woman.

There are lots of things Jesus didn't mention specifically that I suspect you'd believe are wrong. Since He didn't, are you saying those things are OK to do? Based on your logic, they'd have to be.

I am glad to post all of the relevant parts(why are you so coy about quoting the Bible?)

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”


4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a]">[a] 5 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’b]">[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”


7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”


8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”


10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”


11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

So here Jesus says two relevant things:

1. That marriage is between and man and a woman and
2. That any man who divorces his wife and remarries unless she is cheating on him- is guilty of adultery.

I don't disagree with the Christians who say the Bible says marriage is between a man and woman. But other than the Catholics and a few Protestant sects- none forbid divorce.

More to the point- nowhere does the Bible say that Christians should not sell to either homosexuals- or adulterers like Donald Trump.

Instead- the Bible says specifically that Christians must obey the law.

And the law says that gay couples- and adulterers like Donald Trump can be legally married- and the law in that town says that is a violation of the law to discriminate against Christians or Jews or Muslims or blacks or Mexicans or gay couples that want to get married.

Why do Christians want to ignore the teachings of the New Testament- so that they can refuse to do something the Bible never tells them that they should refuse to do?

And why do those same Christians have no problem providing their services to men marrying their second or third or fourth wives?

Some of these "Christian" bible translations are really wild.

'Certificate of divorce' -- yeah that was a thing back then… duh!

Another one that ignores marriage being between a man/woman is the only acceptable kind.

 

[Syriusly]

What's to ignore? It was pretty much the only kind there was over 2,000 years ago. So what? It has nothing to do with the questions posed. Your continued deflection is noted.

Things you don't like that the Bible addresses. It has to do with you claiming things the Bible says then ignoring it when you don't like. Jesus didn't mention your kind of marriage. Tell me He didn't think it was a valid kind either.

Jesus didn't mention interracial marriage either.....Tell me he didn't think it was a valid kind either.

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

But you oddly enough don't know that Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage.

Jesus never condemned same gender marriage- but he did condemn the kind of marriage Donald Trump is in right now.

So of course the marriage that bothers you is Bob marrying Gary- not Donald marrying Melania.

 

[Conservative65]

Who said christians are disqualified as judges?

Diane Feinstein and a few other Democrats reportedly made that argument last week about a Catholic Judge up for appointment / confirmation....

So did some posters on here.

Just what I thought.....misrepresenting: Analysis | Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?

And yet some here have no problem with christian sharia, do they?

I have no problem if you choose not to believe. The same Bible you quote when it comes to divorce is also very clear about where you'll be after this life.

 

[Conservative65]

Things you don't like that the Bible addresses. It has to do with you claiming things the Bible says then ignoring it when you don't like. Jesus didn't mention your kind of marriage. Tell me He didn't think it was a valid kind either.

Jesus didn't mention interracial marriage either.....Tell me he didn't think it was a valid kind either.

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

But you oddly enough don't know that Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage.

Jesus never condemned same gender marriage- but he did condemn the kind of marriage Donald Trump is in right now.

So of course the marriage that bothers you is Bob marrying Gary- not Donald marrying Melania.

I know it enough to not have done it.

Jesus was clear about what types of marriages were acceptable. Fag marriages weren't one of them.

 

[Conservative65]

Just face the fact that most conservatives would like to roll back anti-discrimination laws to the point where the whites-only diner could operate unfettered.

Based on my experience a few days ago involving two black females and their children they let run wild while people were trying to eat, I'm good with that.

I also believe that if a black owned restaurant wanted to do such a thing with whites, they should be able to do so. However, there's only so much money that can be made from serving fried chicken, watermelon, and collard greens.

Always fascinating to see the posts of a Trump voter.

Perhaps they'll let tokens like you in, NL.

 

[mdk]

What more can possibly be said about this topic that 480 posts haven't covered already?