If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Rustic]

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.

It is still a man and a woman. It's not like it was a wedding between two perverts.

Is that what Jesus said? Divorce is only okay if you're straight?

I think it's ok as long as you're not Catholic.

Not according to Jesus.

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Which brings us to our pervert President

Says a Clinton supporter

 

[dblack]

you have an absolute right to choose never to buy anything that a Christian is selling (Obamcare aside (-

How about an absolute right to choose never to sell anything to a Christian who is buying?

That's what JC and the boys didn't get (-:

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.

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.
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."

The 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.

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.

Yes. Protected classes are often misconstrued as classes of people. They are not. They are specific kinds of bias that government has targeted for suppression. It's really not about protect minorities as much as controlling viewpoints that the government doesn't like,.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.

Can't agree with everything. A woman gets pregnant as a result of intercourse with a male. The sperm that penetrates the egg that she is carrying, which contains only X chromosomes, offers up either another X chrome, making the future child develop as a female, or a Y chromosome, making the future child to be a male. But the bible says that the woman in this case will be "unclean" for 33 days if the child to whom she gives birth is a male, and 66 days if the child to whom she gives birth is female. What is the basis for this?And please ask yourself why a person should be considered "unclean" for bearing a child, when this is the smooth operation of the human reproductive process. Every person who has ever walked this earth is a result of this process, you and I included.

Maybe they were talking about "lochia"? Have you ever had a baby? You sure don't feel very "clean", I can tell you that much!

Yes, but why is it in the bible? The bible talks about this as a religious thing, like don't report to religious services, not as an expression of how the new mother is feeling. Moreover, why would it be based on the sex of the child to which the woman has given birth when the effort is the same? Please explain that. The idea of being "clean" after giving birth implies some sort of spiritual problem with the act of giving birth, which apparently is something dirty, and some idea that the Supreme Being has a problem with this process, which has been created by him/her/itself in the first place. The idea that a person might need to recover strength and stamina after such a physical ordeal is completely separate.

Because that is how people were back then in ancient times when the Bible was written. They were superstitious and didn't have a good understanding of the natural occurrences behind certain events and occurrences. I would think that everyone would be aware of this.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.

Can't agree with everything. A woman gets pregnant as a result of intercourse with a male. The sperm that penetrates the egg that she is carrying, which contains only X chromosomes, offers up either another X chrome, making the future child develop as a female, or a Y chromosome, making the future child to be a male. But the bible says that the woman in this case will be "unclean" for 33 days if the child to whom she gives birth is a male, and 66 days if the child to whom she gives birth is female. What is the basis for this?And please ask yourself why a person should be considered "unclean" for bearing a child, when this is the smooth operation of the human reproductive process. Every person who has ever walked this earth is a result of this process, you and I included.

Maybe they were talking about "lochia"? Have you ever had a baby? You sure don't feel very "clean", I can tell you that much!

Yes, but why is it in the bible? The bible talks about this as a religious thing, like don't report to religious services, not as an expression of how the new mother is feeling. Moreover, why would it be based on the sex of the child to which the woman has given birth when the effort is the same? Please explain that. The idea of being "clean" after giving birth implies some sort of spiritual problem with the act of giving birth, which apparently is something dirty, and some idea that the Supreme Being has a problem with this process, which has been created by him/her/itself in the first place. The idea that a person might need to recover strength and stamina after such a physical ordeal is completely separate.

Christianity is not an religion... it’s a faith

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Now that USMB Christian white wingers know about the Worlds Biggest Orgy coming up in Vegas, how many will attend? There won't be any gays there. It's all about horndog heteros.

Feeling left out?

 

[Rustic]

The Bible says fudge packers should be culled from society.

I fail to see the problem?? ...

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.

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.

Um liar. Read Jude 1. Romans 1. Technically Jesus himself says nothing in the Bible because it was written by witnesses.

There is nothing said by Jesus about gays. Romans was written by Paul. And Jude was written by...Jude.

But here is what Jesus said about divorce in Matthew 19:9 - "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."


And that is how you know these bakers' claims to be bible compliant is complete horseshit.


As I said, bigots have been using the bible as an excuse for their bigotry for centuries.

Jesus represents the WHOLE bible and vise versa, to cherry pick what you like and don’t like is cowardly. The Bible is 100% meaningless if not taken as a whole.
Political correctness is for pussies...

 

[Silhouette]

Yes. Protected classes are often misconstrued as classes of people. They are not. They are specific kinds of bias that government has targeted for suppression. It's really not about protect minorities as much as controlling viewpoints that the government doesn't like,.

Yes and thankfully Justice Kagan outlined that in the first paragraph from her concurring Opinion in the OP here: Lefty Supremes Kagan & Breyer Tell Why They Sided With People of Faith In Colorado Gay Cake Issue

 

[Rustic]

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.

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.

The collective has no credibility... So gays do have every right to discriminate against Christians.

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.

The collective has no credibility... So gays do have every right to discriminate against Christians.

Absolutely, and gays can be excommunicated from the church, as any other sinner in denial should.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Partly true.
Definitely is what drives most of Leviticus.

However there is a spiritual aspect to it..living a godly life as outlined by the bible leads to joy and happiness. Our nature is such that we want to be close to God, we suffer when we move away from God, and we are happier when we focus on God.

I believe that just as there are physical laws of the Universe, there are also spiritual laws.

If we violate a physical law, such as gravity, we suffer the consequences. Just so with violating a spiritual law.

Our President is suffering the consequences of violating quite a few spiritual laws.

No doubt our president is certainly no saint, but to say that he is any more flawed than any other career politician is absolutely delusional.
He has not yet become a professional at being a hypocrite like Clinton’s, obama and or other career politician. He really needs on the job training to accomplish such things...

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.

Can't agree with everything. A woman gets pregnant as a result of intercourse with a male. The sperm that penetrates the egg that she is carrying, which contains only X chromosomes, offers up either another X chrome, making the future child develop as a female, or a Y chromosome, making the future child to be a male. But the bible says that the woman in this case will be "unclean" for 33 days if the child to whom she gives birth is a male, and 66 days if the child to whom she gives birth is female. What is the basis for this?And please ask yourself why a person should be considered "unclean" for bearing a child, when this is the smooth operation of the human reproductive process. Every person who has ever walked this earth is a result of this process, you and I included.

Maybe they were talking about "lochia"? Have you ever had a baby? You sure don't feel very "clean", I can tell you that much!

Yes, but why is it in the bible? The bible talks about this as a religious thing, like don't report to religious services, not as an expression of how the new mother is feeling. Moreover, why would it be based on the sex of the child to which the woman has given birth when the effort is the same? Please explain that. The idea of being "clean" after giving birth implies some sort of spiritual problem with the act of giving birth, which apparently is something dirty, and some idea that the Supreme Being has a problem with this process, which has been created by him/her/itself in the first place. The idea that a person might need to recover strength and stamina after such a physical ordeal is completely separate.

Because that is how people were back then in ancient times when the Bible was written. They were superstitious and didn't have a good understanding of the natural occurrences behind certain events and occurrences. I would think that everyone would be aware of this.

Then why are you trying to return us all to the days of superstition? I must make it perfectly clear that I find the ideas that the bible is inerrant and infallible to be totally ridiculous. One gets from a several-thousands-year old tribal society what one gets from a such a society so long ago. I note that these requirements portrayed the new mother as someone dirty, and more dirty when she gave birth to a child of one sex than she would be if she had given birth to a child of the other sex, and not that society should give her some space to recover.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.

The collective has no credibility... So gays do have every right to discriminate against Christians.

Absolutely, and gays can be excommunicated from the church, as any other sinner in denial should.

True, all sin is viewed the same by God... He cannot tolerate it

 

[jc456]

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.

Partly true.
Definitely is what drives most of Leviticus.

However there is a spiritual aspect to it..living a godly life as outlined by the bible leads to joy and happiness. Our nature is such that we want to be close to God, we suffer when we move away from God, and we are happier when we focus on God.

I believe that just as there are physical laws of the Universe, there are also spiritual laws.

If we violate a physical law, such as gravity, we suffer the consequences. Just so with violating a spiritual law.

Our President is suffering the consequences of violating quite a few spiritual laws.

No doubt our president is certainly no saint, but to say that he is any more flawed than any other career politician is absolutely delusional.
He has not yet become a professional at being a hypocrite like Clinton’s, obama and or other career politician. He really needs on the job training to accomplish such things...

and the number of promises he made on the campaign trail that he's kept has made him the most honest politician since forever.

 

[NightFox]

True, all sin is viewed the same by God... He cannot tolerate it

Then why doesn't he just ban it?

 

[Syriusly]

L The point is the Court said that buttsex lifestyles

Nope- you are just lying again- and displaying your continual obsession with anal sex.

The court didn't say anything buttsex at all.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.

The collective has no credibility... So gays do have every right to discriminate against Christians.

One, the people who are doing this and have the nerve to identify themselves as Christians and then do this are an outright fraud.

 

[ChrisL]

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.

Can't agree with everything. A woman gets pregnant as a result of intercourse with a male. The sperm that penetrates the egg that she is carrying, which contains only X chromosomes, offers up either another X chrome, making the future child develop as a female, or a Y chromosome, making the future child to be a male. But the bible says that the woman in this case will be "unclean" for 33 days if the child to whom she gives birth is a male, and 66 days if the child to whom she gives birth is female. What is the basis for this?And please ask yourself why a person should be considered "unclean" for bearing a child, when this is the smooth operation of the human reproductive process. Every person who has ever walked this earth is a result of this process, you and I included.

Maybe they were talking about "lochia"? Have you ever had a baby? You sure don't feel very "clean", I can tell you that much!

Yes, but why is it in the bible? The bible talks about this as a religious thing, like don't report to religious services, not as an expression of how the new mother is feeling. Moreover, why would it be based on the sex of the child to which the woman has given birth when the effort is the same? Please explain that. The idea of being "clean" after giving birth implies some sort of spiritual problem with the act of giving birth, which apparently is something dirty, and some idea that the Supreme Being has a problem with this process, which has been created by him/her/itself in the first place. The idea that a person might need to recover strength and stamina after such a physical ordeal is completely separate.

Because that is how people were back then in ancient times when the Bible was written. They were superstitious and didn't have a good understanding of the natural occurrences behind certain events and occurrences. I would think that everyone would be aware of this.

Then why are you trying to return us all to the days of superstition? I must make it perfectly clear that I find the ideas that the bible is inerrant and infallible to be totally ridiculous. One gets from a several-thousands-year old tribal society what one gets from a such a society so long ago. I note that these requirements portrayed the new mother as someone dirty, and more dirty when she gave birth to a child of one sex than she would be if she had given birth to a child of the other sex, and not that society should give her some space to recover.

There are plenty of things in the Bible that are based on just plain old common sense.

So you are going to take offense to something written in a book thousands of years ago? Who cares?

 

[Rustic]

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.

Can't agree with everything. A woman gets pregnant as a result of intercourse with a male. The sperm that penetrates the egg that she is carrying, which contains only X chromosomes, offers up either another X chrome, making the future child develop as a female, or a Y chromosome, making the future child to be a male. But the bible says that the woman in this case will be "unclean" for 33 days if the child to whom she gives birth is a male, and 66 days if the child to whom she gives birth is female. What is the basis for this?And please ask yourself why a person should be considered "unclean" for bearing a child, when this is the smooth operation of the human reproductive process. Every person who has ever walked this earth is a result of this process, you and I included.

Maybe they were talking about "lochia"? Have you ever had a baby? You sure don't feel very "clean", I can tell you that much!

Yes, but why is it in the bible? The bible talks about this as a religious thing, like don't report to religious services, not as an expression of how the new mother is feeling. Moreover, why would it be based on the sex of the child to which the woman has given birth when the effort is the same? Please explain that. The idea of being "clean" after giving birth implies some sort of spiritual problem with the act of giving birth, which apparently is something dirty, and some idea that the Supreme Being has a problem with this process, which has been created by him/her/itself in the first place. The idea that a person might need to recover strength and stamina after such a physical ordeal is completely separate.

Because that is how people were back then in ancient times when the Bible was written. They were superstitious and didn't have a good understanding of the natural occurrences behind certain events and occurrences. I would think that everyone would be aware of this.

Then why are you trying to return us all to the days of superstition? I must make it perfectly clear that I find the ideas that the bible is inerrant and infallible to be totally ridiculous. One gets from a several-thousands-year old tribal society what one gets from a such a society so long ago. I note that these requirements portrayed the new mother as someone dirty, and more dirty when she gave birth to a child of one sex than she would be if she had given birth to a child of the other sex, and not that society should give her some space to recover.

Lol
You a right to your opinion... so there is that

 

[koshergrl]

True, all sin is viewed the same by God... He cannot tolerate it

Then why doesn't he just ban it?

The answer is in the bible.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Eating pork and being gay were both categorized as "abominations" in Leviticus.

One could say eating pork is a euphemism for being gay...

I believe in God and the Bible. The Bible is an excellent design for living. Most of the strictures and commandments are meant to protect us from ourselves. They are not meant to suck all the fun out of life. Quite the contrary. I have found that as I have altered the course of my life to abide by the spiritual laws of the Universe, I am far far happier than when I lived as a degenerate pleasure-seeking fool.

But I have no doubt in my mind that the bakers are not spiritual or abiding by the Bible. They are using it as an excuse for their hatred, and that is about as evil as it gets.

The collective has no credibility... So gays do have every right to discriminate against Christians.

One, the people who are doing this and have the nerve to identify themselves as Christians and then do this are an outright fraud.

...in your opinion