Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The gay lifestyle is also a sin...LolGod said plenty about gays... He burned them to the ground.The bible has a lot more to say about adulterers than homosexuals. Jesus specifically addressed adultery, and never said a word about gays.
And yet I don't see any bakers refusing to bake a cake for people getting married for the second, third, fourth, fifth time even though they are in total violation of the bible.
That's how you know this has NOTHING to do with bible compliancy.
It is the same tired bullshit of bigots using the bible as an excuse for their inexcusable bigotry. There is a special place in the hell they claim to believe in for those kind of hypocrites.
Jesus had a great deal to say about hypocrites, too. Probably more than any other category of people.
The Bible is gibberish is not taken as a whole…
Jesus never said a word. He spoke very strongly against divorce. Have you ever seen a baker or a florist refuse to do a wedding because one of the couples was divorced? Me neither.
Jesus pro-gay?
Don’t think so...
Here’s what Jesus says about the gay lifestyle...
http://www.living-out.org/the-bible-and-ssa
I didn’t say he was pro gay. I said he never said a word about gays. He DID speak out quite strongly on divorce...which is how I know that these so called Christian bakers aren’t refusing to serve gays because of religion. It’s a lie (and lying is a sin)
The Bible and Same-Sex Attraction | Living Out
I think it's ok as long as you're not Catholic.Is that what Jesus said? Divorce is only okay if you're straight?It is still a man and a woman. It's not like it was a wedding between two perverts.God said plenty about gays... He burned them to the ground.The bible has a lot more to say about adulterers than homosexuals. Jesus specifically addressed adultery, and never said a word about gays.
And yet I don't see any bakers refusing to bake a cake for people getting married for the second, third, fourth, fifth time even though they are in total violation of the bible.
That's how you know this has NOTHING to do with bible compliancy.
It is the same tired bullshit of bigots using the bible as an excuse for their inexcusable bigotry. There is a special place in the hell they claim to believe in for those kind of hypocrites.
Jesus had a great deal to say about hypocrites, too. Probably more than any other category of people.
The Bible is gibberish is not taken as a whole…
Jesus never said a word. He spoke very strongly against divorce. Have you ever seen a baker or a florist refuse to do a wedding because one of the couples was divorced? Me neither.
Which brings us to our pervert PresidentI think it's ok as long as you're not Catholic.Is that what Jesus said? Divorce is only okay if you're straight?It is still a man and a woman. It's not like it was a wedding between two perverts.God said plenty about gays... He burned them to the ground.
The Bible is gibberish is not taken as a whole…
Jesus never said a word. He spoke very strongly against divorce. Have you ever seen a baker or a florist refuse to do a wedding because one of the couples was divorced? Me neither.
Not according to Jesus.
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
and yet no baker or florist has ever refused to bake a cake for someone remarrying. That tells the people who aren't stupid that it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with hating gays.
Are you ok with the fact that a gay marriage contract uniquely promises to deprive parties to it of either a mother or father for life? Are you aware that contracts children share with adults cannot contain terms that deprive kids of psychological needs?Hey man, I have NOTHING bad to say about gays. I support gay rights. I believe that marriage is a contract and other than interpreting, enforcing, and rescinding contracts on request by a party to said contract, government has no place therein.The bible has a lot more to say about adulterers than homosexuals. Jesus specifically addressed adultery, and never said a word about gays.The Bible says fudge packers should be culled from society.Consider who wrote it. These were ancient tribal laws from way back thousands of years ago. Read the rest of Leviticus. Read the rest of the Old Testament. There are lots of "sins" in there that specify the death penalty. Look 'em up. I guess cherry-picking is a hobby of yours.
I fail to see the problem?? ...
And yet I don't see any bakers refusing to bake a cake for people getting married for the second, third, fourth, fifth time even though they are in total violation of the bible.
That's how you know this has NOTHING to do with bible compliancy.
It is the same tired bullshit of bigots using the bible as an excuse for their inexcusable bigotry. There is a special place in the hell they claim to believe in for those kind of hypocrites.
Jesus had a great deal to say about hypocrites, too. Probably more than any other category of people.
I am a friend and defender of gay rights.
But...
Using government to force one person to provide goods or services to another against his/her will, even as a condition on participation in the market, is fundamentally wrong on all levels. That is some nuclear-grade bullshit.
To support government forcing individuals to provide goods or services to other individuals is as authoritarian as it gets. No amount of good intentions can overcome that intolerable level of statism.
Um liar. Read Jude 1. Romans 1. Technically Jesus himself says nothing in the Bible because it was written by witnesses.God said plenty about gays... He burned them to the ground.The bible has a lot more to say about adulterers than homosexuals. Jesus specifically addressed adultery, and never said a word about gays.The Bible says fudge packers should be culled from society.Consider who wrote it. These were ancient tribal laws from way back thousands of years ago. Read the rest of Leviticus. Read the rest of the Old Testament. There are lots of "sins" in there that specify the death penalty. Look 'em up. I guess cherry-picking is a hobby of yours.
I fail to see the problem?? ...
And yet I don't see any bakers refusing to bake a cake for people getting married for the second, third, fourth, fifth time even though they are in total violation of the bible.
That's how you know this has NOTHING to do with bible compliancy.
It is the same tired bullshit of bigots using the bible as an excuse for their inexcusable bigotry. There is a special place in the hell they claim to believe in for those kind of hypocrites.
Jesus had a great deal to say about hypocrites, too. Probably more than any other category of people.
The Bible is gibberish is not taken as a whole…
Jesus never said a word. He spoke very strongly against divorce. Have you ever seen a baker or a florist refuse to do a wedding because one of the couples was divorced? Me neither.
If a gay Baker said no Christian's in the store, they would be bankrupt in a week, as most people are not gay... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.
Agree or Disagree?
nor was that the ruling. I posted the ruling yesterday.No all people are not in protected classes. The baker was not protected as being part of a classThe opinion "may" mean that when a state's law creates a protected class, such as gays, and a sincere religious belief must be compromised in order to comply with the law, and there are many other providers of comparable services, then the law has to bend to allow for the religious belief.that isn't what they held at all. they held that the State official was mean and discriminated against the baker. Nothing about religion. that is why the scope was narrow. The lawyer stated she didn't need to go to freedom of religion.That's what JC and the boys didn't get (-:How about an absolute right to choose never to sell anything to a Christian who is buying?
The Sup Ct held that under Colo's law a Christian baker doesn't have an absolute right to not bake a cake for a gay couple, but neither does the state have the power to order him to do so without "fairly" considering his religious beliefs in the matter. It held, that Colo's commission was "unfair." But the Sup Ct didn't offer much guidance in how this was all to be accommodated.
Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics
"Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.
"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."
"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow."
All people are in protected classes. Read the laws sometime. All you need to have is a race, a gender, a national origin, an ethnic background, or any other unchangeable characteristic, except for religion, which is a characteristic that is a choice and that one can change. Bear in mind, though, that you have to prove that the bad thing that was done to you was done because you have this particular characteristic.
If a boss of race A fires an employee of race B, the employee has a case IF there is evidence that the boss said something like that he was "damned tired of all the B's around here," or there is evidence that the boss consistently rated the performance of B's below the A's, the employee has a case. If the employee was fired for poor performance, the employee has a problem.
huh? dude, grow up.The gay lifestyle is also a sin...LolGod said plenty about gays... He burned them to the ground.
The Bible is gibberish is not taken as a whole…
Jesus never said a word. He spoke very strongly against divorce. Have you ever seen a baker or a florist refuse to do a wedding because one of the couples was divorced? Me neither.
Jesus pro-gay?
Don’t think so...
Here’s what Jesus says about the gay lifestyle...
http://www.living-out.org/the-bible-and-ssa
I didn’t say he was pro gay. I said he never said a word about gays. He DID speak out quite strongly on divorce...which is how I know that these so called Christian bakers aren’t refusing to serve gays because of religion. It’s a lie (and lying is a sin)
The Bible and Same-Sex Attraction | Living Out
Again, no shit, Red Rider. Are you stupid or just a Trump supporter?
Yes, being gay is a "sin", but it is no more a sin than divorce...and yet no baker or florist has ever refused to bake a cake for someone remarrying. That tells the people who aren't stupid that it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with hating gays.
obammy left and slick willie has been gone for awhile.Which brings us to our pervert PresidentI think it's ok as long as you're not Catholic.Is that what Jesus said? Divorce is only okay if you're straight?It is still a man and a woman. It's not like it was a wedding between two perverts.Jesus never said a word. He spoke very strongly against divorce. Have you ever seen a baker or a florist refuse to do a wedding because one of the couples was divorced? Me neither.
Not according to Jesus.
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
yep. The ruling however, wasn't about religious beliefs, it was about the conduct of the Colorado Commissions treatment and not the first amendment, this was an isolated incident and lack of respect for his faith. It's why the scope is narrow.Yes. But it doesn't matter. This is part of our system, which is designed to bring order to society. The guy was licensed and expected to observe the relevant laws. Observing relevant laws is what we do here in the U.S. I'm not for anarchy.
Apparently the USSC found that the relevant laws that apply in this case was the baker's 1st Amendment rights. Those rights trumped the lifestyle that the religious baker cannot abide by or he'd have to abdicate his faith.
This decision is important for many reasons, but the best one I can think of is that the Court said that "a man's faith is protected in church, on its steps, down the road and into the market place". When that faith is tested against deviant lifestyles, faith wins. It's a super-victory for people of faith. And a stunning defeat for gay-lifestylists.not at all. you should read the ruling. you have rather a large ignorance. you should let your ignorance go.
Read my post 382 on page 39 of the dungeoned thread linked in my signature:
The crux: (page 12 of the Opinion of the Court) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.
The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection. That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case. At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs “if he decides to do business
****
The court found that 1st Amendment protections of the baker's faith extend to his business life. There it is in red and white.
nor was that the ruling. I posted the ruling yesterday.No all people are not in protected classes. The baker was not protected as being part of a class
Bullshit. Discrimination is not allowed. GET USED TO IT.yes, a gay baker should be able to refuse to make a cake for a straight couple's wedding. Who cares?
why would a gay couple go to a baker that they knew didn't approve of gay marriage? To stir up shit, no other reason.
If he doesn't agree with gay marriage or gay whatever, then he must be destroyed. You would think they physically harmed or murdered someone. Leftists are totally out of control.
Liberalism = intolerance. Think like we do or we will destroy you. Only liberal thoughts and beliefs are allowed. Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote accurately about it.
do you have a link? I can't find that sentence in any paper I've looked at.nor was that the ruling. I posted the ruling yesterday.No all people are not in protected classes. The baker was not protected as being part of a class
Completely wrong. Even Kagan said that as a person of faith, people have to back off and let him have his right to determine whether or not he would promote another lifestyle in complete opposition to his faith. Kagan said no government has the right to make a determination of that threshold for the individual. That's 1st Amendment protections for the class known as "religion" or "people of faith"...you know, like the baker?....
The Opinion also admonished the city openly for saying that if the baker had certain religious convictions that didn't allow him to build a "gay wedding" cake, he didn't belong in the marketplace. The Court called that straight-up discrimination against people of faith. The baker has a lawsuit based on that violation of his civil rights.
So you are as wrong as wrong can be about that pal.
Should that be illegal? What about just being asswipes?What individual rights can we fuck over with the standard (lack of standard, actually) that we are allowed to be bigoted asswipes to one another?
It also opens the door for we, the non-bigots, to boycott the fuck out of such establishments. No government action needed.A decision on this can open the gates to putting that sign back in the window that "We refuse to serve ...." and I don't think that is what America is about.
Loaded with irony. How can you not see the irony of this statement?We are supposed to be about individual freedom to be EQUAL and treated FAIRLY, no matter who we are or what we look like.
There is nothing said by Jesus about gays. Romans was written by Paul. And Jude was written by...Jude.Um liar. Read Jude 1. Romans 1. Technically Jesus himself says nothing in the Bible because it was written by witnesses.God said plenty about gays... He burned them to the ground.The bible has a lot more to say about adulterers than homosexuals. Jesus specifically addressed adultery, and never said a word about gays.The Bible says fudge packers should be culled from society.Consider who wrote it. These were ancient tribal laws from way back thousands of years ago. Read the rest of Leviticus. Read the rest of the Old Testament. There are lots of "sins" in there that specify the death penalty. Look 'em up. I guess cherry-picking is a hobby of yours.
I fail to see the problem?? ...
And yet I don't see any bakers refusing to bake a cake for people getting married for the second, third, fourth, fifth time even though they are in total violation of the bible.
That's how you know this has NOTHING to do with bible compliancy.
It is the same tired bullshit of bigots using the bible as an excuse for their inexcusable bigotry. There is a special place in the hell they claim to believe in for those kind of hypocrites.
Jesus had a great deal to say about hypocrites, too. Probably more than any other category of people.
The Bible is gibberish is not taken as a whole…
Jesus never said a word. He spoke very strongly against divorce. Have you ever seen a baker or a florist refuse to do a wedding because one of the couples was divorced? Me neither.
Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.Meh, the Bible (IMO) is basically an outline on how to have a successful society. They discouraged divorce, they encouraged having a lot of kids (because back then - that was a good thing), they discouraged homosexuality (for many different reasons, I'm sure - disease, no kids, etc). It was a way of policing people before there were resources available to actually physically police. That is just my theory though.
