Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[bodecea]

Oh look, you're ignoring that Jesus didn't mention your type of marriage and but mentioned my type.

No, I'm acknowledging he said nothing about gays...but he did mention divorce. Why aren't divorced people being denied service by these "good Christians"?

He also mentioned marriage being between a man and a woman. Why do you ignore that?

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.

No, that's you ignoring what is inconvenient for you to answer...like why all these so called christian merchants aren't refusing to serve other "sinners".

There was no "my kind of marriage" at the time and place that Jesus walked the earth. There were gay people but he didn't see fit to mention them. Guess it wasn't that big a deal to him. Divorce was though. It was a huge deal to him. He talked about it in no uncertain terms. Why aren't christians upset about divorced people like they are about gay people?

If people talk about what concerns them the most and don't talk about what doesn't concern them much......we know what Jesus cared most about. Those divorced people were sinners and adulterers.

 

[bodecea]

Federal law says it and the Constitution protects the supremacy of federal law in the Supremacy Clause.

So you can't show me the specific location? Got it. Much like when I've asked for the location of where the Constitution says healthcare, food stamps, etc. you couldn't provide it. The 10th Amendment says things like that belong at the State level yet you big government idiots still want them at the federal level.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

I hope so. It's not right that the hypocritical, hateful Christian can deny me service but I can't deny him. I hope the SCOTUS destroys decades of precedent because a small minority of "Christians" hate gays.

Hate and not wanting to take any part with them are two different issues that you are attempting to conflate.

How do you feel about christians who call other people n*ggers?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Yep- that is why you don't get to tell the rest of us Americans what to do.

I sure do get to tell you what will happen to you if you try to shove your nasty shit into my space when you are uninvited.

You know that works both ways, right?

 

[hadit]

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.

How do you know that? Did he say "only hetero marriages, folks"?

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

But he doesn't condemn those who are not "a man and a woman", does he? While he DOES condemn those that divorced. Why is that acceptable to christers when Jesus was so very clear in his condemnation?

He didn't have to. He fully supported the Mosaic Law. Why would He talk about something that was virtually universally understood to be wrong? Should future generations claim Nancy Pelosi thinks slavery is okay because she doesn't condemn slave owners? IOW, there is little need to talk about things that are universally accepted if you're in agreement with them.

Jesus made it clear where He superceded the law, and marriage being between one man and one woman was not one of those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Another one that ignores the Biblical prohibition of divorce and Bible demand that Christians obey the law.

Another one that ignores the Biblical support of marriages only between a man and a woman.

 

[Seawytch]

No, I'm acknowledging he said nothing about gays...but he did mention divorce. Why aren't divorced people being denied service by these "good Christians"?

He also mentioned marriage being between a man and a woman. Why do you ignore that?

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.

That's not what the bible says...

Acts 17

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

 

[hadit]

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.

Jesus never mentioned 'fags' at all.

He did say that Donald Trump is an adulterer though.

Of course he did. Why is that significant when it's clear that Trump doesn't intend to follow Christ's teachings? In fact, if he did, as his VP has done, he would be condemned for doing so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bodecea]

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.

Jesus never mentioned 'fags' at all.

He did say that Donald Trump is an adulterer though.

Of course he did. Why is that significant when it's clear that Trump doesn't intend to follow Christ's teachings? In fact, if he did, as his VP has done, he would be condemned for doing so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When did Jesus mention "fags"?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Yep- that is why you don't get to tell the rest of us Americans what to do.

I sure do get to tell you what will happen to you if you try to shove your nasty shit into my space when you are uninvited.

You know that works both ways, right?

I know that several of your kind, when offered the opportunity, ran like little bitches. One of yours claimed something about himself compared to me and when I provided a way for him to do it, he ran to the mods like a coward. Is that what represents your kind?

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.)

Million dollar question: why are the left so busy pretending to remain ignorant about their Muslim masters?

HIDDEN CAMERA: Will Muslim Bakeries Make a Gay Wedding Cake?

Retailer Lets Muslim Employees Refuse Service

Muslim barber refuses to cut hair of lesbian: Whose rights trump whose? - Liberty Unyielding

Video on Muslim bakers points to double standard on gay weddings

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

 

[Conservative65]

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 was, too since he said it wasn't a tax. Why didn't he do the honorable thing by standing up and saying it absolutely is not when the Supreme Court decided? He's just like the looters after the hurricane that think taking things that don't belong to them are theirs because they have them in their possession.

You need to put your racism on the back burner in this debate. it's not helping you.

Obama's not black?

Funny how you ignore what he said.

 

[Seawytch]

Federal law says it and the Constitution protects the supremacy of federal law in the Supremacy Clause.

So you can't show me the specific location? Got it. Much like when I've asked for the location of where the Constitution says healthcare, food stamps, etc. you couldn't provide it. The 10th Amendment says things like that belong at the State level yet you big government idiots still want them at the federal level.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

I hope so. It's not right that the hypocritical, hateful Christian can deny me service but I can't deny him. I hope the SCOTUS destroys decades of precedent because a small minority of "Christians" hate gays.

Hate and not wanting to take any part with them are two different issues that you are attempting to conflate.

Actually, yes, it is all about hate. These people are not doing this because the tenants of their religion dictates they do it. If it were about religion, more bakers and florists would be refusing to bake wedding cakes for the formerly divorced or other "sinners". We know this has nothing to do with "deeply held religious beliefs".

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Imagine if Cruz attacked the faith of a Muslim nominee. It would be 7/24 news for years.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

How do you know that? Did he say "only hetero marriages, folks"?

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

Just for the record, who do you believe should determine the constitutionality of laws?

The Constitution itself.

Why do you believe the Supreme Court should do something the Constitution doesn't give them the authority to do?

It's easy. When you bleeding hearts want to institute some social welfare program, look in the Constitution to see if the federal government has the delegated authority to do it. If it's not there, refer to the 10th Amendment, also in the Constitution, that says the power to deal with it is reserved to the States. Also, don't assume that if a State chooses not to deal with it that it defaults back to the federal government.

Let's look at the example of Romneycare vs. Obamacare. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government authority to deal with healthcare, therefore, if a government entity is going to deal with it, it belongs on the State level and local if the State government so chooses to pass it down. That's Constitutional. With Romneycare, it was done at the State level according to the Constitution. While I'm not one that supports the concept, I support the Constitution and doing things according to it. I don't have to support what's being done in order to accept it being done at the proper level.

With Obamacare, no such authority was given to the federal government. In that case, not only do I not support the concept, I don't supports its existence.

 

[Conservative65]

Aren't those that argue PA laws rank higher on the scale than what's in the Constitution constantly telling us something about a Supremacy Clause?

Nobody is arguing PA laws take precedent over the Constitution. But, you be you.

That's exactly what NYCarbineer did. That's exactly what Seawytch did.

PA laws are not unconstitutional.

Anyone that supports them when compared to the 1st Amendment, as in this case, is arguing that laws passed by a legislative body are superior to what the Constitution says.

First amendment? What does the first amendment have to do with PA laws?

Freedom of religious exercise isn't in the 1st?

 

[Conservative65]

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

Only Acceptable to whom? Homophobes.

And there are really only two major homophobic groups left in the world -- So called evangelical "Christian" Americans and Islamic countries…

Don't confuse not accepting abnormal marriages with fearing those that think they're OK.

 

[Weatherman2020]

He also mentioned marriage being between a man and a woman. Why do you ignore that?

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.

That's not what the bible says...

Acts 17

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

God hating Leftards always think they are theologians.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

 

[Seawytch]

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

That's in the Constitution?

Things ONLY in the Constitution are legal?

Please, not that diversionary argument.

So you agree that something doesn't HAVE to be specifically in the Constitution to be legal. Good, RL. Progress.

Is that what I said NL? Since that's what you are, you'll never progress.

Do you really believe that in the 21st Century, using the term "N Word Lover" is an insult of some sort?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Jesus never mentioned 'fags' at all.

He did say that Donald Trump is an adulterer though.

And if a single Christian baker ever refused to bake a cake for an adulterer like Trump, I'd have A LOT more respect for them and their beliefs.

 

[bodecea]

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.)

Million dollar question: why are the left so busy pretending to remain ignorant about their Muslim masters?

HIDDEN CAMERA: Will Muslim Bakeries Make a Gay Wedding Cake?

In Michigan where there is NO PA law protecting gays.

Retailer Lets Muslim Employees Refuse Service

In the UK....not in the US.

Muslim barber refuses to cut hair of lesbian: Whose rights trump whose? - Liberty Unyielding

In Canada.....not in the US.

Video on Muslim bakers points to double standard on gay weddings

Again...in Michigan where there is NO PA law protecting gays.

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

From 2007...and if you continued to follow that story, those cab drivers LOST their jobs.

Surely you can do better than that.