Here's why religious restoration acts are repressive

[Nosmo King]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs.

Also, no harm befalls weddings when a merchant refuses to bake them a cake. True fact.

The couple may not have as many options for vendors. They may truly desire the wares of a particular vendor for the quality and value?

But, in the end, the couple is made to feel less than. And there's harm in that.

There's harm in making people participate in something immoral to them. That's the bottom line here, you simply don't give a fuck about them.

But they are not participants, they are vendors plying their trade. They provide goods and services, not rituals or rites. They bake and provide floral arraignments and photographs, they are not required to pass judgments or provide a mercantile imprimatur or approval.

Calling such vendors "participants" exceeds the mandate of services provided.

 

[Iceweasel]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs.

Also, no harm befalls weddings when a merchant refuses to bake them a cake. True fact.

The couple may not have as many options for vendors. They may truly desire the wares of a particular vendor for the quality and value?

But, in the end, the couple is made to feel less than. And there's harm in that.

There's harm in making people participate in something immoral to them. That's the bottom line here, you simply don't give a fuck about them.

But they are not participants, they are vendors plying their trade. They provide goods and services, not rituals or rites. They bake and provide floral arraignments and photographs, they are not required to pass judgments or provide a mercantile imprimatur or approval.

Calling such vendors "participants" exceeds the mandate of services provided.

Wrong. If a black chef was forced to cater a KKK event you'd sing a different tune. I've turned down work advertising abortion for moral reasons. You are not qualified to dictate how one should feel or not feel about their craft. Sorry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The object is to put these Christians out of business since if they had real integrity and conviction they wouldn't be bakers or florists knowing they would have to commit sinful acts just to stay in business.

Grow up!

 

[JakeStarkey]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs.

Also, no harm befalls weddings when a merchant refuses to bake them a cake. True fact.

The couple may not have as many options for vendors. They may truly desire the wares of a particular vendor for the quality and value?

But, in the end, the couple is made to feel less than. And there's harm in that.

There's harm in making people participate in something immoral to them. That's the bottom line here, you simply don't give a fuck about them.

But they are not participants, they are vendors plying their trade. They provide goods and services, not rituals or rites. They bake and provide floral arraignments and photographs, they are not required to pass judgments or provide a mercantile imprimatur or approval.

Calling such vendors "participants" exceeds the mandate of services provided.

Wrong. If a black chef was forced to cater a KKK event you'd sing a different tune. I've turned down work advertising abortion for moral reasons. You are not qualified to dictate how one should feel or not feel about their craft. Sorry.

Non sequitur: a fallacious comparison. No one cares about how your or me of anyone may feel, but they do care that you treat folks equally.

 

[Iceweasel]

Also, no harm befalls weddings when a merchant refuses to bake them a cake. True fact.

The couple may not have as many options for vendors. They may truly desire the wares of a particular vendor for the quality and value?

But, in the end, the couple is made to feel less than. And there's harm in that.

There's harm in making people participate in something immoral to them. That's the bottom line here, you simply don't give a fuck about them.

But they are not participants, they are vendors plying their trade. They provide goods and services, not rituals or rites. They bake and provide floral arraignments and photographs, they are not required to pass judgments or provide a mercantile imprimatur or approval.

Calling such vendors "participants" exceeds the mandate of services provided.

Wrong. If a black chef was forced to cater a KKK event you'd sing a different tune. I've turned down work advertising abortion for moral reasons. You are not qualified to dictate how one should feel or not feel about their craft. Sorry.

Non sequitur: a fallacious comparison. No one cares about how your or me of anyone may feel, but they do care that you treat folks equally.

Right. You would force a black man to cater a KKK event. You've proven you are a world class asshole before, we didn't need further evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The couple may not have as many options for vendors. They may truly desire the wares of a particular vendor for the quality and value?

But, in the end, the couple is made to feel less than. And there's harm in that.

There's harm in making people participate in something immoral to them. That's the bottom line here, you simply don't give a fuck about them.

But they are not participants, they are vendors plying their trade. They provide goods and services, not rituals or rites. They bake and provide floral arraignments and photographs, they are not required to pass judgments or provide a mercantile imprimatur or approval.

Calling such vendors "participants" exceeds the mandate of services provided.

Wrong. If a black chef was forced to cater a KKK event you'd sing a different tune. I've turned down work advertising abortion for moral reasons. You are not qualified to dictate how one should feel or not feel about their craft. Sorry.

Non sequitur: a fallacious comparison. No one cares about how your or me of anyone may feel, but they do care that you treat folks equally.

Right. You would force a black man to cater a KKK event. You've proven you are a world class asshole before, we didn't need further evidence.

You spammed, so here is the answer again:

Non sequitur: a fallacious comparison. No one cares about how your or me of anyone may feel, but they do care that you treat folks equally.

 

[Ernie S.]

No, baking a cake or arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt. The same sex marriage is sinful and corrupt. Enabling it and participating in it should be voluntary.
Or should we force people who are against capital punishment for religious reasons to prepare the execution room?

Baking and floral arraigning are not holy rites or sacramental rituals. They are, in fact, the stock and trade of merchants who happen to be bakers and florists.

If my religious beliefs dictate I in no way can support the abomination and desecration of homosexual marriage, who are you to tell me different? Your beliefs differ from mine. Which is right or just matters not. The US Constitution forbids Congress the right to make laws that abridge MY religious beliefs.

 

[Ernie S.]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma. The basic tenets of Christianity maintain love for your neighbor, not judging lest ye be judged and those without sin should cast the first stone. But the notion that baking a cake of arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt is a notion born from peculiar dogma. I'm a Christian and if the fear of servicing homosexual customers in the same manner every other customer is not part of the liturgical teachings in my church. If serving homosexuals was so grave a danger businesses would fear for the standing of their souls, that would be universal among Christians.

What these Religious Restoration Acts do is provide legal cover for repressive bigotry. And that also flies in the face of the basic American tenets of faith: all men are created equal and they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether or not it harms anyone is besides the point, it won't harm gays if they have to shop around for a non essential services, either. Besides, there are plenty of "adult" oriented novelty bakeries around that would be happy to make a profit here, so what's the big deal?

What's the big deal. Precisely. What do you imagine a wedding cake for a same sex couple looks like? What do you imagine a same sex wedding reception looks like?

Why should same sex couples be forced to "shop around" to find an accommodating wedding vendors? Should the Coloreds shop around for a lunch counter that would serve them? Bigots never understand.

This isn't walking in and sitting at a lunch counter. Gays do that all the time. This is requiring someone to commit a very personal sin for at best monetary gain.

My personal view is somewhat different. Cake decorating, flower arranging and photography are all artistic endeavors. No artist should ever be required to create against their will. They don't need a reason.

Cake decorating for a same sex couple is a 'very personal sin'?!?

to some, it is. It is not your privilege to tell anyone what they feel constitutes sin.

Could a homosexual walk into a bakery and buy a dozen sugar cookies without 'forcing' the baker to 'commit a very personal sin'?

Of course. Sugar cookies aren't the issue, gay marriage is.

Or is it providing the exact same services they provide to any other couple sinful

It's not the exact same service. Some folks believe differently than you do.

And that every other couple, do the vendors vet them so they can deal with them without imperiling their immortal souls?

So. Would you be for a law that forces straight couples to buy their wedding cake from a gay baker?

 

[Ernie S.]

You don't get to redefine Christian beliefs to suit yourself or your agenda.

Tell that to the merchants. Because that is precisely what they are doing.

No! they are defining THEIR beliefs. Yours don't matter one iota.

 

[MaryL]

I am an atheist, don't care what religion says about this. Gays are nice, they never hurt me. It isn't about that. Something else going on here. I have known people with real problems, paraplegics, schizophrenics , people that had strokes, all sorts folks with real issues. They aren't buying lawyers and trying to bend societies will to conform to THEM. gays are acting like spoilt children that think they are special. They are decidedly NOT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, baking a cake or arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt. The same sex marriage is sinful and corrupt. Enabling it and participating in it should be voluntary.
Or should we force people who are against capital punishment for religious reasons to prepare the execution room?

Baking and floral arraigning are not holy rites or sacramental rituals. They are, in fact, the stock and trade of merchants who happen to be bakers and florists.

If my religious beliefs dictate I in no way can support the abomination and desecration of homosexual marriage, who are you to tell me different? Your beliefs differ from mine. Which is right or just matters not. The US Constitution forbids Congress the right to make laws that abridge MY religious beliefs.

Ernie S., any one coming into your bar and you know they are gay and they are minding their business, I hope you are stupid enough to refuse to serve them. And if you or you buddies threaten them in any way, they will have ownership of the bar within a year.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's what I thought you irrelevant nincompoop.

 

[Immanuel]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma. The basic tenets of Christianity maintain love for your neighbor, not judging lest ye be judged and those without sin should cast the first stone. But the notion that baking a cake of arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt is a notion born from peculiar dogma. I'm a Christian and if the fear of servicing homosexual customers in the same manner every other customer is not part of the liturgical teachings in my church. If serving homosexuals was so grave a danger businesses would fear for the standing of their souls, that would be universal among Christians.

What these Religious Restoration Acts do is provide legal cover for repressive bigotry. And that also flies in the face of the basic American tenets of faith: all men are created equal and they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. As a Christian I disagree completely with the way the Religious Right treats the homosexual community. As far as I am concerned, the Religious Right is more closely represented by the Pharisees of the Bible than Disciples of Christ. Pharisees are people that I pray I am never associated with. My personal opinion is that homosexuality is disgusting, but as long as I am not forced to participate it does not affect me in any way.

As for your final paragraph, I disagree to some extent. Yes, the RFRA do allow bigots to be bigots. On the other hand, the RFRA also protects people from being conscripted into performing services that they find disgusting. As far as I am concerned, homosexuals can get married in a church if they can find a church that will marry them, but I do not feel that any business owner should be forced to perform services that they object to. Then again, if that were allowed, I suspect African Americans would still be excluded from many places of business. That would be a tragedy. I suppose this is a Catch-22 situation. Do we allow what seems to be a natural right and allow people the right of association with those who they want to associate or do we force them to in effect become slaves to the politically correct masters of the universe?

 

[Iceweasel]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma. The basic tenets of Christianity maintain love for your neighbor, not judging lest ye be judged and those without sin should cast the first stone. But the notion that baking a cake of arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt is a notion born from peculiar dogma. I'm a Christian and if the fear of servicing homosexual customers in the same manner every other customer is not part of the liturgical teachings in my church. If serving homosexuals was so grave a danger businesses would fear for the standing of their souls, that would be universal among Christians.

What these Religious Restoration Acts do is provide legal cover for repressive bigotry. And that also flies in the face of the basic American tenets of faith: all men are created equal and they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. As a Christian I disagree completely with the way the Religious Right treats the homosexual community. As far as I am concerned, the Religious Right is more closely represented by the Pharisees of the Bible than Disciples of Christ. Pharisees are people that I pray I am never associated with. My personal opinion is that homosexuality is disgusting, but as long as I am not forced to participate it does not affect me in any way.

As for your final paragraph, I disagree to some extent. Yes, the RFRA do allow bigots to be bigots. On the other hand, the RFRA also protects people from being conscripted into performing services that they find disgusting. As far as I am concerned, homosexuals can get married in a church if they can find a church that will marry them, but I do not feel that any business owner should be forced to perform services that they object to. Then again, if that were allowed, I suspect African Americans would still be excluded from many places of business. That would be a tragedy. I suppose this is a Catch-22 situation. Do we allow what seems to be a natural right and allow people the right of association with those who they want to associate or do we force them to in effect become slaves to the politically correct masters of the universe?

You made an accusation against the "religious right" then fumbled the ball. That's called bearing false witness. A sin. I'm not aware of Christians determining anyone's sexual orientation prior to doing business with them. The issue only comes up when they are asked to provide a service or goods that they are at odds with, like homosexuality, abortion, racism, etc. There are no Pharisees today and given your idiotic and smug attitude I'm sure any Christian would be better off without your hypocritical prayers.

Races are protected but homosexuality isn't a race, I hope that clears up some confusion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right social cons have been bearing false witness against the LGBT.

They are not discriminating against you; you are against them.

 

[Kondor3]

...What these Religious Restoration Acts do is provide legal cover for repressive bigotry...

What these Religious Restoraction Acts TRY to do, is to give business folk the right not to be forced to conduct transactions with sexual deviants and perverts.

...And that also flies in the face of the basic American tenets of faith: all men are created equal and they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Men, not deviants and perverts and sodomites and catamites and creatures and things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kondor3 just wrote the second stupidest post of the day.

 

[dblack]

Kondor3 just wrote the second stupidest post of the day.

Not to fear. You're still undefeated!

 

[Immanuel]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma. The basic tenets of Christianity maintain love for your neighbor, not judging lest ye be judged and those without sin should cast the first stone. But the notion that baking a cake of arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt is a notion born from peculiar dogma. I'm a Christian and if the fear of servicing homosexual customers in the same manner every other customer is not part of the liturgical teachings in my church. If serving homosexuals was so grave a danger businesses would fear for the standing of their souls, that would be universal among Christians.

What these Religious Restoration Acts do is provide legal cover for repressive bigotry. And that also flies in the face of the basic American tenets of faith: all men are created equal and they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. As a Christian I disagree completely with the way the Religious Right treats the homosexual community. As far as I am concerned, the Religious Right is more closely represented by the Pharisees of the Bible than Disciples of Christ. Pharisees are people that I pray I am never associated with. My personal opinion is that homosexuality is disgusting, but as long as I am not forced to participate it does not affect me in any way.

As for your final paragraph, I disagree to some extent. Yes, the RFRA do allow bigots to be bigots. On the other hand, the RFRA also protects people from being conscripted into performing services that they find disgusting. As far as I am concerned, homosexuals can get married in a church if they can find a church that will marry them, but I do not feel that any business owner should be forced to perform services that they object to. Then again, if that were allowed, I suspect African Americans would still be excluded from many places of business. That would be a tragedy. I suppose this is a Catch-22 situation. Do we allow what seems to be a natural right and allow people the right of association with those who they want to associate or do we force them to in effect become slaves to the politically correct masters of the universe?

You made an accusation against the "religious right" then fumbled the ball. That's called bearing false witness. A sin. I'm not aware of Christians determining anyone's sexual orientation prior to doing business with them. The issue only comes up when they are asked to provide a service or goods that they are at odds with, like homosexuality, abortion, racism, etc. There are no Pharisees today and given your idiotic and smug attitude I'm sure any Christian would be better off without your hypocritical prayers.

Races are protected but homosexuality isn't a race, I hope that clears up some confusion.

No Pharisees today? Are you insane?

Do you know anything at all about the Pharisees? Do you really believe they were a passing phase of humanity? Well, a short lesson for one such as yourself who obviously does not understand what the Pharisees were then and what they are today. The Pharisees were arrogant human beings who took the basic teachings of God's laws and expanded upon them, putting their own beliefs and interpretations of God's law ahead of God's law. An example would be the Sabbath laws.

Exodus 20:8-11

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The Pharisees took that simple law and rewrote it to forbidding everything from simply taking a stroll down the street to visit a friend to healing on the Sabbath. They even condemned the disciples for picking heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath while walking through a field (Matthew 12:1-3) and in verse 12 of that very chapter, Jesus condemns you Pharisees for your actions. They were willing to condemn all manner of human beings by their "enlightened" understanding of God's law.

The Pharisees saw themselves as the ultimate authority on God's law and morality of the time. Much like the Religious Right of today. In fact, just like the Religious Right of today.

Today, you Pharisees, have once again taken God's Word into your own hands and blasphemed your way into taking God's place. There are many verses that forbid homosexuality. Just as there are verses that condemn trimming one's beard. If you are male, have you ever shaved your beard? I suspect so... sinner. Do you have tattoos? If you know God's Word at all, you know tattoos are also sinful. You seem to judge your fellow man... me for one. God has reserved that right for himself. Therefore, you have placed yourself in God's shoes. You are a blasphemer, a Pharisee, a sinner! May God judge you and yet show you mercy. I, too, am a sinner, though I did not lie in my post. Pharisees do in fact exist today and the "Religious Right" is no doubt a brand of Pharisee today. There is no doubt that I have sinned including judging those very people whom I condemn, you Pharisees of the Religious Right. I was once one of you. I believed that man's interpretations of God's law should preempt God's law itself. Abortionist were evil people who glorified in the murders they committed every day and worse yet were the feminists who screamed daily praising their work demanding that even more murders be committed in our names. Now, I cannot justify that attitude. I know I am a sinner just like those abortionists.

Only God can grant me salvation. And if he is willing to do that, I am certain he will offer the same salvation to abortionists, feminists, homosexuals and Pharisees.

The Pharisees did not die out with old Israel. They simply changed their names to things like "The 700 Club", "The Moral Majority" and a group that I once thought very highly of "The American Family Association". They exist today and they will exist in the future. Their ways are human ways and for as long as humanity exists we will continue to reinterpret God's laws to our own satisfaction.

Today's Pharisees here in the United States of America are no different than those of Christ's days or anytime before or after. I am very much opposed to abortion. It is easy for me to fall into the trap of condemning doctors and even women for the atrocity of abortion. The sixth commandment is "Thou shall not murder", some interpret it as "thou shall not kill". I can very easily fall in the category of believing it to be "thou shall not kill" and thus feeling justified in condemning all abortionists and their patients based on that alone. I also can justify being against abortion based on the interpretation of the commandment as "thou shall not murder" because I believe abortion to be a form of legalized murder. Ninety Seven percent of all abortions (according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute which is the vocal arm of the abortion industry itself) are performed for nothing more than convenience sake. That makes it murder in my book. But, beyond that interpretation, there is no where in the Bible that condemns abortion. Who am I to speak for God in this case? Maybe God doesn't see abortion as killing? Although, I cannot see how that would be the case, I do not know the mind of God.

Races are protected but homosexuality isn't a race, I hope that clears up some confusion.

Yes, indeed the Pharisees do indeed exist today. In fact, by your own words you condemn yourself. I can see you as having been the man discussed in Luke 18:11-12 who goes to church and prays, "God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.". You display the very same attitude by your writings. Your words speak for themselves.

As for those abortionists, I think of myself as one of those who were in the crowd when they brought the adulteress to Jesus asking if they should stone her. He said, "you who is without sin, cast the first stone." I can't. And neither can I cast a stone at my neighbors whom I believe to be homosexuals. Yes, if it is true and they are homosexuals (lesbians in this case) they are breaking God's law that in my opinion was very clearly written, but I would be a fool if I were to think for a minute that I was not in the same boat as they are when it comes to sin. I can only rely on God's mercy which is written of throughout the New Testament. You and the Religious Right did not drop your stones. Rather you gleefully cast those stones at those "evil" homosexuals.

Me condemning them will not bring them closer to God's Word. Rather, displaying the same attitude towards them that Christ did to the adulteress is more likely to help.

Remember this, to the chief priests and the elders (Religious Right of his time), Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him." Matthew 21:31-32. By his own words, Jesus very clearly states, that prostitutes and homosexuals who listen to the Word of God will enter the Kingdom of God ahead of those who continue to blaspheme by placing ourselves in God's role.

The RFRA laws that have been discussed so much these past few weeks are not by any means Christian in nature. They do not display any of the principles displayed by Christ while he was on Earth. Those who support these laws in the name of bigotry do, in fact, display the nature of the Pharisee. Oh, I am sorry, those who support it do so in the name of Christ disguising their bigotry as being morally based. Except for in the case of the money changers in the temple, Christ never displayed any hatred against sinners whether they were adulteresses or thieves flanking him on the cross. Rather, he displayed a love for them at all times. A funny thing is that no where in the Gospels is a homosexual presented as a sinner. Funny, do you think they didn't exist back then? They were apparently present before Christ as Exodus and Leviticus declare homosexuality to be a sin, and they were around after the Gospels. Did they suddenly vanish for those 30 years? If not, why didn't Christ tell us that while it was not okay to stone an adulteress, it was permissible to stone homosexuals? Is homosexuality the one "unforgivable sin"? No, I think not!

Ah, but homosexuals must repent in order to enter the kingdom of God! They must turn from their sins, be baptized and believe that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity or be condemned. All of that sounds perfectly Biblical. Now, if only I could no longer sin in my own life! I can't every time I read about something a Progressive politician attempts to push on us, I curse them. I despise Diane Fienstein, Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer. That is a sin. Every time I think about Obamacare, I despise what this President has straddled us with and what he has done to poor people who cannot afford the "protection" he forced them to take in order to benefit the corporate entities in the insurance industry. I am a sinner and as much as I wish I could defeat the sin in my life, it is a never ending battle. How is the homosexual supposed to win his battle against sin? Why should we (Christians) demand the homosexual accomplish something neither one of us are capable of accomplishing?

Back to your statement: "Races are protected but homosexuality isn't a race, I hope that clears up some confusion." No, homosexuality is not a race. On the other hand, homosexuals are, in fact, human and it does not take all that much imagination to remove the adulteress from the story in John 8 and replace her with a homosexual or an abortionist. And another thing, your statement is in reference to U.S. law not God's law. Currently the U.S. protects people of all races but does not protect the LGBT community. Um, where does God's law fit with all of this? Do you believe that the U.S. law supersedes God's law? Is U.S. law more advanced than God's law? Or do you believe that under God's law race is protected, but homosexuality is not? What is your justification for such a belief? Surely not the Gospels.

Races are protected... homosexuality is not. So, you defend committing an injustice against another human being for what reason? Obviously, you believe homosexuals are not equal to other humans and are not deserving of the common decencies we offer to other human beings. Where in the Word of God do you find justification for your actions? You ignorantly attempt to defend your position by justifying it with this statement, " I'm not aware of Christians determining anyone's sexual orientation prior to doing business with them. The issue only comes up when they are asked to provide a service or goods that they are at odds with, like homosexuality, abortion, racism, etc." So what? What difference does it make when they find out they are dealing with homosexuals? You are still defending discrimination.

Oh yes, The Pharisees are alive and well feeding off the ignorance of those who will not question their "authority", feeding off the immature who believe that they and they alone are the moral authorities of the times. Things have not changed in the last 2,000 years and they won't in the future either.

Go ahead, Ice Weasel, keep thinking that you are better than everyone else. See where that gets you. By the way, that in a nutshell was a problem of the Pharisees of 2,000 years ago.

 

[Iceweasel]

No Pharisees today? Are you insane?

Do you know anything at all about the Pharisees? Do you really believe they were a passing phase of humanity? Well, a short lesson for one such as yourself who obviously does not understand what the Pharisees were then and what they are today. The Pharisees were arrogant human beings who took the basic teachings of God's laws and expanded upon them, putting their own beliefs and interpretations of God's law ahead of God's law. An example would be the Sabbath laws.

I'm not insane, you are. You claim Pharasees exist and to prove it you mention arrogant humans today. That would include you with that definition.


<Big steamy pile of manure snipped>

Oh yes, The Pharisees are alive and well feeding off the ignorance of those who will not question their "authority", feeding of the immature who believe that they and they alone are the moral authorities of the times. Things have not changed in the last 2,000 years and they won't in the future either.

Go ahead, Ice Weasel, keep thinking that you are better than everyone else. See where that gets you. By the way, that in a nutshell was a problem of the Pharisees of 2,000 years ago.

Well, my response to your infantile jibberish was

"You made an accusation against the "religious right" then fumbled the ball. That's called bearing false witness. A sin. I'm not aware of Christians determining anyone's sexual orientation prior to doing business with them. The issue only comes up when they are asked to provide a service or goods that they are at odds with, like homosexuality, abortion, racism, etc. There are no Pharisees today and given your idiotic and smug attitude I'm sure any Christian would be better off without your hypocritical prayers."

And you puked up a bunch of nonsense to prove how Pharisees exist today, only you didn't. Words don't mean what you want them to mean. Sounds to me like you became what you hated.