Here's why religious restoration acts are repressive

[peach174]

The problem is Gay activists do not want mere equality, they want "government mandated" acceptance.

That's the exact same argument your processors, the blatant bigots and racists in the Jim Crow south used more than 50 years ago.

Do you think that extending the exact same rights to Gay American citizens means that your rights will somehow be eroded?

The difference is they had no choice.
Gays do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think David Limbaugh did a very neat and concise summary of the REAL law, rather than the overblown leftist hysteria and womanish sobbing about it.

"The Indiana law doesn’t authorize businesses to deny services to gay people at will. Neither the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act nor any of the state RFRAs have been used as a license for merchants to refuse to do business with gays. But there is a qualitative difference between refusing to serve gays in general and declining to provide services for the very event that solemnizes their legal marriage.

Let’s not forget what the federal and state RFRAs, as construed by the courts, do. They seek to balance sometimes-conflicting interests. They say the government can’t force people to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs unless it can prove it has a compelling interest in doing so, and only then if it does so by the least restrictive means.
Again, RFRAs recognize potential disagreements and provide for a reasonable balancing of those interests. But the ugly truth is that opponents of RFRAs don’t want there to be a balancing test. They don’t believe that the religious convictions of Christians on same-sex marriage deserve any protection. They are the extremists in this conflict, not the Christian merchants who choose to respectfully decline performing services for a very minute fraction of transactions involving gays."

Let s Recognize Who the Real Haters Are Human Events

 

[Nosmo King]

The problem is Gay activists do not want mere equality, they want "government mandated" acceptance.

That's the exact same argument your processors, the blatant bigots and racists in the Jim Crow south used more than 50 years ago.

Do you think that extending the exact same rights to Gay American citizens means that your rights will somehow be eroded?

Our "processors"?

Your predecessors. They had the same opinions, held the same beliefs and somehow lived with the same shaky morality.

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The problem is Gay activists do not want mere equality, they want "government mandated" acceptance.

That's the exact same argument your processors, the blatant bigots and racists in the Jim Crow south used more than 50 years ago.

Do you think that extending the exact same rights to Gay American citizens means that your rights will somehow be eroded?

Our "processors"?

Your predecessors. They had the same opinions, held the same beliefs and somehow lived with the same shaky morality.

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

I'm certain you want to believe this. I'm equally certain it's just as meaningless and valueless as everything else you believe, if only because you're the one believing it, and you are a non-entity.

 

[Nosmo King]

That's the exact same argument your processors, the blatant bigots and racists in the Jim Crow south used more than 50 years ago.

Do you think that extending the exact same rights to Gay American citizens means that your rights will somehow be eroded?

Our "processors"?

Your predecessors. They had the same opinions, held the same beliefs and somehow lived with the same shaky morality.

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

I'm certain you want to believe this. I'm equally certain it's just as meaningless and valueless as everything else you believe, if only because you're the one believing it, and you are a non-entity.

This is the way all defeated folks behave after their peculiar arguments collapse under the weight of falsehoods, hyperbole and ignorance. You are typical, and not much more.

 

[peach174]

The problem is Gay activists do not want mere equality, they want "government mandated" acceptance.

That's the exact same argument your processors, the blatant bigots and racists in the Jim Crow south used more than 50 years ago.

Do you think that extending the exact same rights to Gay American citizens means that your rights will somehow be eroded?

Our "processors"?

Your predecessors. They had the same opinions, held the same beliefs and somehow lived with the same shaky morality.

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

How about the Social Liberal views of do as you please, starting in the 1960's that continue today, that has led us to what we have, which is lawlessness, and disrespectful children.
Our society is going down the tubes and it's eroding fast.

 

[Nosmo King]

That's the exact same argument your processors, the blatant bigots and racists in the Jim Crow south used more than 50 years ago.

Do you think that extending the exact same rights to Gay American citizens means that your rights will somehow be eroded?

Our "processors"?

Your predecessors. They had the same opinions, held the same beliefs and somehow lived with the same shaky morality.

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

How about the Social Liberal views of do as you please, starting in the 1960's that continue today, that has led us to what we have, which is lawlessness, and disrespectful children.
Our society is going down the tubes and it's eroding fast.

Do you believe that social morals and ethics are static? that they never ever evolve? Do you believe that the morality that was prevalent during the 1890s stayed like a rock throughout the 20th century? Do you think that the moral code by which Americans led their lives that was prevalent during the 1920s was even appropriate for the 1930s?

And do you believe America should establish and enforce a code of morals?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our "processors"?

Your predecessors. They had the same opinions, held the same beliefs and somehow lived with the same shaky morality.

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

I'm certain you want to believe this. I'm equally certain it's just as meaningless and valueless as everything else you believe, if only because you're the one believing it, and you are a non-entity.

This is the way all defeated folks behave after their peculiar arguments collapse under the weight of falsehoods, hyperbole and ignorance. You are typical, and not much more.

It's a good thing you're so quick to declare victory for yourself, since it's the only way it'll ever happen.

 

[Nosmo King]

Your predecessors. They had the same opinions, held the same beliefs and somehow lived with the same shaky morality.

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

I'm certain you want to believe this. I'm equally certain it's just as meaningless and valueless as everything else you believe, if only because you're the one believing it, and you are a non-entity.

This is the way all defeated folks behave after their peculiar arguments collapse under the weight of falsehoods, hyperbole and ignorance. You are typical, and not much more.

It's a good thing you're so quick to declare victory for yourself, since it's the only way it'll ever happen.

The arc of society bends slowly, but it always bends toward justice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our "processors"?

Your predecessors. They had the same opinions, held the same beliefs and somehow lived with the same shaky morality.

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

How about the Social Liberal views of do as you please, starting in the 1960's that continue today, that has led us to what we have, which is lawlessness, and disrespectful children.
Our society is going down the tubes and it's eroding fast.

Do you believe that social morals and ethics are static? that they never ever evolve? Do you believe that the morality that was prevalent during the 1890s stayed like a rock throughout the 20th century? Do you think that the moral code by which Americans led their lives that was prevalent during the 1920s was even appropriate for the 1930s?

And do you believe America should establish and enforce a code of morals?

No. Morality does not "evolve". Our understanding of what morality entails both evolves and devolves, but the moral absolutes remain the same.

Of course, leftists never have understood the difference between reality and their perception, possibly because they're such narcissists, they think they are the universe.

 

[peach174]

Our "processors"?

Your predecessors. They had the same opinions, held the same beliefs and somehow lived with the same shaky morality.

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

How about the Social Liberal views of do as you please, starting in the 1960's that continue today, that has led us to what we have, which is lawlessness, and disrespectful children.
Our society is going down the tubes and it's eroding fast.

Do you believe that social morals and ethics are static? that they never ever evolve? Do you believe that the morality that was prevalent during the 1890s stayed like a rock throughout the 20th century? Do you think that the moral code by which Americans led their lives that was prevalent during the 1920s was even appropriate for the 1930s?

And do you believe America should establish and enforce a code of morals?

1st question - No
2nd - yes they do evolve, such as not stoning adulterers, but the basic principals have stayed the same.
3rd - yes they did. They stayed the same in the 1890's all though out the 20th century until the late 1960's when it changed to do as you please, shack up with one another, have the kid 1st and then maybe but not necessarily get married and the hell with morals. Sex being exposed to very young children. Young children being taught how to kill with video games.
4th question - Yes and they stayed the same.
5th question - No that is the problem today, government enforcing rules on our society rather than each and every American having their own.
When Government does the ruling on society it becomes tyranny.
The Government should stay out of religious beliefs and stop trying to force the religious people against their 1st amendment rights.
Our morals was the same as when we became a nation of not living with each other until marriage. Not having kids out of wedlock. Not lying to our parents. Respect for authority. Until the late 1960's of being liberated from society's morals.
Yes a few still did those things but it was a small minority who did so. Not like the large majority of today.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

I'm certain you want to believe this. I'm equally certain it's just as meaningless and valueless as everything else you believe, if only because you're the one believing it, and you are a non-entity.

This is the way all defeated folks behave after their peculiar arguments collapse under the weight of falsehoods, hyperbole and ignorance. You are typical, and not much more.

It's a good thing you're so quick to declare victory for yourself, since it's the only way it'll ever happen.

The arc of society bends slowly, but it always bends toward justice.

Hardly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your predecessors. They had the same opinions, held the same beliefs and somehow lived with the same shaky morality.

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

How about the Social Liberal views of do as you please, starting in the 1960's that continue today, that has led us to what we have, which is lawlessness, and disrespectful children.
Our society is going down the tubes and it's eroding fast.

Do you believe that social morals and ethics are static? that they never ever evolve? Do you believe that the morality that was prevalent during the 1890s stayed like a rock throughout the 20th century? Do you think that the moral code by which Americans led their lives that was prevalent during the 1920s was even appropriate for the 1930s?

And do you believe America should establish and enforce a code of morals?

1st question - No
2nd - yes they do evolve
3rd - yes they did. They stayed the same in the 1890's all though out the 20th century until the late 1960's when it changed to do as you please, shack up with one another, have the kid 1st and then maybe but not necessarily get married and the hell with morals. Sex being exposed to very young children. Young children being taught how to kill with video games.
4th question - Yes and they stayed the same.
5th question - No that is the problem today, government enforcing rules on our society rather than each and every American having their own.
When Government does the ruling on society it becomes tyranny.
The Government should stay out of religious beliefs and stop trying to force the religious people against their 1st amendment rights.
Our morals was the same as when we became a nation of not living with each other until marriage. Not having kids out of wedlock. Not lying to our parents. Respect for authority. Until the late 1960's of being liberated from society's morals.
Yes a few still did those things but it was a small minority who did so. Not like the large majority of today.

I didn't ask any questions, piss ant. If you're answering your own questions, that means they weren't really questions. They were just an opportunity for you to talk to yourself and then congratulate yourself on how brilliant you think you are. I for one would appreciate it if you would masturbate in the bathroom instead of online.

 

[peach174]

How are they MY predecessors, dumbass? I've never been a Democrat in my life.

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

How about the Social Liberal views of do as you please, starting in the 1960's that continue today, that has led us to what we have, which is lawlessness, and disrespectful children.
Our society is going down the tubes and it's eroding fast.

Do you believe that social morals and ethics are static? that they never ever evolve? Do you believe that the morality that was prevalent during the 1890s stayed like a rock throughout the 20th century? Do you think that the moral code by which Americans led their lives that was prevalent during the 1920s was even appropriate for the 1930s?

And do you believe America should establish and enforce a code of morals?

1st question - No
2nd - yes they do evolve
3rd - yes they did. They stayed the same in the 1890's all though out the 20th century until the late 1960's when it changed to do as you please, shack up with one another, have the kid 1st and then maybe but not necessarily get married and the hell with morals. Sex being exposed to very young children. Young children being taught how to kill with video games.
4th question - Yes and they stayed the same.
5th question - No that is the problem today, government enforcing rules on our society rather than each and every American having their own.
When Government does the ruling on society it becomes tyranny.
The Government should stay out of religious beliefs and stop trying to force the religious people against their 1st amendment rights.
Our morals was the same as when we became a nation of not living with each other until marriage. Not having kids out of wedlock. Not lying to our parents. Respect for authority. Until the late 1960's of being liberated from society's morals.
Yes a few still did those things but it was a small minority who did so. Not like the large majority of today.

I didn't ask any questions, piss ant. If you're answering your own questions, that means they weren't really questions. They were just an opportunity for you to talk to yourself and then congratulate yourself on how brilliant you think you are. I for one would appreciate it if you would masturbate in the bathroom instead of online.

I was answering Nosmo's questions.
That is why I did not quote you.

 

[Iceweasel]

Even a civil ceremony is a couple getting married under Gods Command.
God himself married Adam and Eve
Genesis 2: 23-24
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

There was no Churches back then.

Even folks who have never heard of the Bible get married. Some ceremonies never mention God at all. Some ceremonies are held in for profit wedding 'chapels' that have no religious affiliation.

Not everyone must believe in Adam and Eve, I sure don't!

You are still married under Gods eyes.

Unless of course there was a previous marriage that ended in divorce. In which case it's an adulterous, sinful marriage.

Not necessarily
Jesus Explains Why Divorce is Allowed
Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The other three gospels don't make that exception. But in any case, that doesn't excuse the others. If a baker bakes a cake for the reception of a wedding where either the bride or groom was divorced for other than fornication, it is a sinful wedding, as stated by Jesus in reference to the 10 Commandments.

Why does anyone need to excuse their religious beliefs to anyone else? Have you ever heard of the Constitution? Someone may not see re-marriage in the same light as homosexuality, when did they lose that right?

 

[Iceweasel]

You are still married under Gods eyes.

Unless of course there was a previous marriage that ended in divorce. In which case it's an adulterous, sinful marriage.

Not necessarily
Jesus Explains Why Divorce is Allowed
Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The other three gospels don't make that exception. But in any case, that doesn't excuse the others. If a baker bakes a cake for the reception of a wedding where either the bride or groom was divorced for other than fornication, it is a sinful wedding, as stated by Jesus in reference to the 10 Commandments.

Very different for some believers to bake for sinners and bake for two men or two women.
A man and woman sinner can still do gods will of multiplying but 2 men or 2 women can't multiply.
It is their belief and it should be honored.

Is procreation a requirement for marriage? If my widowed grandmother wants to get married at 81, should she expect blowback from ersatz Christians too?

If she marries another 81 year old grandmother she can go find someone willing to bake her cake. Not many people see a heterosexual couple the same as a homosexual couple due to the gender. Playing lawyer with gender about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The Merchant is committing a sin by participating in a sinful, ungodly activity. Gays can get service from the majority of other merchants. Why can't they leave Christians alone? They would not dare pull this stunt with a Muslim merchant. Maybe Christians should start declaring jihad and chop a few heads off so the godless and liberals will stop fucking with us.

Until God sends down an edict that fudge packing is okay, Christians will not be permitted to engage in what is considered a sin. It's a matter of conscience.

The SCOTUS will have to figure this out. It is cruel to deny a religious person the freedom to refuse service to anyone and lose your business over it. The American people see what's going on and don't like it when Christians are singled out for persecution by the new American ISIS.

 

[Nosmo King]

The Merchant is committing a sin by participating in a sinful, ungodly activity. Gays can get service from the majority of other merchants. Why can't they leave Christians alone? They would not dare pull this stunt with a Muslim merchant. Maybe Christians should start declaring jihad and chop a few heads off so the godless and liberals will stop fucking with us.

Until God sends down an edict that fudge packing is okay, Christians will not be permitted to engage in what is considered a sin. It's a matter of conscience.

The SCOTUS will have to figure this out. It is cruel to deny a religious person the freedom to refuse service to anyone and lose your business over it. The American people see what's going on and don't like it when Christians are singled out for persecution by the new American ISIS.

So, you're looking to the Middle East as a paradigm of morality. That sends a message!

And no wedding vendor "participates" in the wedding. Rather, they merely ply their trade.

Why is it okay to bash homosexuals? Why is it okay to levee upon them the distinction of second class citizen? Are homosexuals not tax payers, business owners, property owners? Homosexuals proudly serve our country in the armed services. They play an active and beneficial part in our communities, our civic organizations, our government.

Why do so many blatant bigots like yourself seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable and proper to repress them? Are they committing a crime by merely being homosexual?

Or do you want to use religion not as a welcome hand, but a clinched fist? How does that attitude square with Christianity?

Or are you willing to use Christianity the same way your moral heroes in the Middle East use Islam?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Party affiliation and political ideology rarely stay in sync for more than a generation or two. But if you hold Social Conservative views, your similarly bigoted predecessors would welcome you home as a prodigal son.

How about the Social Liberal views of do as you please, starting in the 1960's that continue today, that has led us to what we have, which is lawlessness, and disrespectful children.
Our society is going down the tubes and it's eroding fast.

Do you believe that social morals and ethics are static? that they never ever evolve? Do you believe that the morality that was prevalent during the 1890s stayed like a rock throughout the 20th century? Do you think that the moral code by which Americans led their lives that was prevalent during the 1920s was even appropriate for the 1930s?

And do you believe America should establish and enforce a code of morals?

1st question - No
2nd - yes they do evolve
3rd - yes they did. They stayed the same in the 1890's all though out the 20th century until the late 1960's when it changed to do as you please, shack up with one another, have the kid 1st and then maybe but not necessarily get married and the hell with morals. Sex being exposed to very young children. Young children being taught how to kill with video games.
4th question - Yes and they stayed the same.
5th question - No that is the problem today, government enforcing rules on our society rather than each and every American having their own.
When Government does the ruling on society it becomes tyranny.
The Government should stay out of religious beliefs and stop trying to force the religious people against their 1st amendment rights.
Our morals was the same as when we became a nation of not living with each other until marriage. Not having kids out of wedlock. Not lying to our parents. Respect for authority. Until the late 1960's of being liberated from society's morals.
Yes a few still did those things but it was a small minority who did so. Not like the large majority of today.

I didn't ask any questions, piss ant. If you're answering your own questions, that means they weren't really questions. They were just an opportunity for you to talk to yourself and then congratulate yourself on how brilliant you think you are. I for one would appreciate it if you would masturbate in the bathroom instead of online.

I was answering Nosmo's questions.
That is why I did not quote you.

Oh, sorry. I misread who was posting. I'm doing this in between taking calls at work, and switching from screen to screen can get confusing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Merchant is committing a sin by participating in a sinful, ungodly activity. Gays can get service from the majority of other merchants. Why can't they leave Christians alone? They would not dare pull this stunt with a Muslim merchant. Maybe Christians should start declaring jihad and chop a few heads off so the godless and liberals will stop fucking with us.

Until God sends down an edict that fudge packing is okay, Christians will not be permitted to engage in what is considered a sin. It's a matter of conscience.

The SCOTUS will have to figure this out. It is cruel to deny a religious person the freedom to refuse service to anyone and lose your business over it. The American people see what's going on and don't like it when Christians are singled out for persecution by the new American ISIS.

So, you're looking to the Middle East as a paradigm of morality. That sends a message!

And no wedding vendor "participates" in the wedding. Rather, they merely ply their trade.

Why is it okay to bash homosexuals? Why is it okay to levee upon them the distinction of second class citizen? Are homosexuals not tax payers, business owners, property owners? Homosexuals proudly serve our country in the armed services. They play an active and beneficial part in our communities, our civic organizations, our government.

Why do so many blatant bigots like yourself seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable and proper to repress them? Are they committing a crime by merely being homosexual?

Or do you want to use religion not as a welcome hand, but a clinched fist? How does that attitude square with Christianity?

Or are you willing to use Christianity the same way your moral heroes in the Middle East use Islam?

No, dimwit. He's pointing out that you're willing to harass Christians in a way that you're not willing to harass Muslims because you're a frigging coward.

A valid point, in my never-humble opinion.