Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

[martybegan]

Why does a person automatically lose their constitutional rights when they try to sell something?

Why is free exercise limited only to Churches (in your opinion).

When we tore down your "Whites Only" signs you racist bigoted assfuck.

The religious basis for segregation was flawed and really just a justification for something that was done for economic reasons.

The religious prohibition on homosexual acts is far more explicit in all of the major religious texts.

Where outside of the Old Testament. What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

What difference does that make?

Christianity is the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus' teachings were based on the OT, and the NT written by his followers after his death.

Inspiration by God or Man for this is up to your own views and beliefs.

 

[RealDave]

I think you should get a freakin brain. There is no infanticide. You are either lying or stupid.

Gay people are God/s children, why do you want to discriminate against them?

Sexual Promiscuity? A Trump supporter obviously has not problem with that one.

Seems to me, taking away access to birth control & then crying about sexual responsibility is really hypocritical.

Which party backs corporate greed???? Which party demands workers get $7/hr while CEO's get billions?

We have a separation of church & state. If a Church starts a businsss then it follows the same rules. Quit using religion to sanctify bigotry & hate. anmd if your church ewasnts to be political, then rthey can paty fucking tazxers.

.

You are a hate spewing bigoted POS and certainly no Christian

you act as if any 1 issue is enough to not support someone.

it's entirely possible to disagree with someone AND still support them. why do you have to apply binary thinking to every situation?

Because it suits his worldview, in particular it supports his desire to marginalize anyone who thinks differently than he does.

yea, i know. i'm just calling him on it. pretty sick and tired of people who seem to think if you support someone, you agree with them 100%.

no one - NO ONE - does that. yet here he is thinking he's being clever, not just stupid.

Ummmmmm. Because you never post about it?????

Here's your chance. Tells us what you don't like about Trump.

post about what?

i said people are not so binary usually in that 1 issue means i will no longer support someone. i support a lot of people i disagree with.

you're on your asinine bandwagon crap of thinking that if people support trump, they agree with every facet of him and that's just ignorance in motion.

So you can't post any item you don't like about Trump?

 

[martybegan]

Biden supports policies harmful to their interests.

You are confusing supporting someone politically with endorsing their behavior.

Trump may violate the rules they live by, but to them his soul is his issue,and thus they know God will judge him as he sees fit.

But what he doesn't do it try to ruin them for their belief structure.

Biden doesn't support policies that are "harmful to their interests". Gay rights, women's reproductive rights, and the right of all people to have unfettered access to health care, have absolutely no impact on the rights of conservative Christians.

If providing services to people whose beliefs you disagree with is so odious to the Christian right that they cannot serve them, then they are free to avoid opening businesses which are open to the "public". In the event they do open their business to the public, then public accommodation laws should be respected as set out in the Bible.

"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"

By every Christian principle, by every law that Jesus gave his followers, by every commandment about obeying the laws of the land, and doing unto others as you would have have them do unto you, and by every scripture in the Bible about welcoming others, yes, bake the fucking cake.

"Render unto caesar" doesn't mean blanket acceptance of all laws, and there is a difference between being ASKED to comply with something, and being FORCED to comply.

Sorry, but the days of your political opposition rolling over to fascist wanna-be's like you is OVER.

But government dick suckers like you just LOOOOVE government force, because you are too gutless to do things like this yourself.

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

 

[iceberg]

you act as if any 1 issue is enough to not support someone.

it's entirely possible to disagree with someone AND still support them. why do you have to apply binary thinking to every situation?

Because it suits his worldview, in particular it supports his desire to marginalize anyone who thinks differently than he does.

yea, i know. i'm just calling him on it. pretty sick and tired of people who seem to think if you support someone, you agree with them 100%.

no one - NO ONE - does that. yet here he is thinking he's being clever, not just stupid.

Ummmmmm. Because you never post about it?????

Here's your chance. Tells us what you don't like about Trump.

post about what?

i said people are not so binary usually in that 1 issue means i will no longer support someone. i support a lot of people i disagree with.

you're on your asinine bandwagon crap of thinking that if people support trump, they agree with every facet of him and that's just ignorance in motion.

So you can't post any item you don't like about Trump?

Not chasing your bullshit as i never said anything about that.

But I see you are still binary stupid.

 

[Dragonlady]

When we tore down your "Whites Only" signs you racist bigoted assfuck.

The religious basis for segregation was flawed and really just a justification for something that was done for economic reasons.

The religious prohibition on homosexual acts is far more explicit in all of the major religious texts.

Where outside of the Old Testament. What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

What difference does that make?

Christianity is the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus' teachings were based on the OT, and the NT written by his followers after his death.

Inspiration by God or Man for this is up to your own views and beliefs.

So suddenly you've gone from "every word in the Bible is the sacred word of God", to "some parts of the Bible, like the entire New Testament, upon which Christianity is founded, is to be ignored". Here's a clue, Jackass. MEN wrote the Old Testament too. It was written by the prophets, as a history of the Jewish peoples. Within its pages you can find stories of daughters having sex with their fathers, fathers willing to murder their children as sacrifices to God, and God inflicting the Trials of Job upon a man who dared to disobey him.

Jesus teachings weren't based on the Old Testament. The Old Testament prohibits sins and punishes those who sin. Jesus teachings are all about love and the foregiveness of sins. God gave a list of things you shouldn't do, and homosexuality was not along them. Jesus gave a list of things to do, which was to love God, and to love one another. Jesus opposed wealth, and the pursuit of wealth. His Kingdom was the spirtual world. Wealth and money are secular concepts and Jesus was clear that the secular pursuit of money imperilled your immortal soul. One need only to read the Sermon on the Mount to appreciate how utterly different the teaching of Jesus were to the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.

 

[RealDave]

Biden doesn't support policies that are "harmful to their interests". Gay rights, women's reproductive rights, and the right of all people to have unfettered access to health care, have absolutely no impact on the rights of conservative Christians.

If providing services to people whose beliefs you disagree with is so odious to the Christian right that they cannot serve them, then they are free to avoid opening businesses which are open to the "public". In the event they do open their business to the public, then public accommodation laws should be respected as set out in the Bible.

"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"

By every Christian principle, by every law that Jesus gave his followers, by every commandment about obeying the laws of the land, and doing unto others as you would have have them do unto you, and by every scripture in the Bible about welcoming others, yes, bake the fucking cake.

"Render unto caesar" doesn't mean blanket acceptance of all laws, and there is a difference between being ASKED to comply with something, and being FORCED to comply.

Sorry, but the days of your political opposition rolling over to fascist wanna-be's like you is OVER.

But government dick suckers like you just LOOOOVE government force, because you are too gutless to do things like this yourself.

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

 

[martybegan]

The religious basis for segregation was flawed and really just a justification for something that was done for economic reasons.

The religious prohibition on homosexual acts is far more explicit in all of the major religious texts.

Where outside of the Old Testament. What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

What difference does that make?

Christianity is the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus' teachings were based on the OT, and the NT written by his followers after his death.

Inspiration by God or Man for this is up to your own views and beliefs.

So suddenly you've gone from "every word in the Bible is the sacred word of God", to "some parts of the Bible, like the entire New Testament, upon which Christianity is founded, is to be ignored". Here's a clue, Jackass. MEN wrote the Old Testament too. It was written by the prophets, as a history of the Jewish peoples. Within its pages you can find stories of daughters having sex with their fathers, fathers willing to murder their children as sacrifices to God, and God inflicting the Trials of Job upon a man who dared to disobey him.

Jesus teachings weren't based on the Old Testament. The Old Testament prohibits sins and punishes those who sin. Jesus teachings are all about love and the foregiveness of sins. God gave a list of things you shouldn't do, and homosexuality was not along them. Jesus gave a list of things to do, which was to love God, and to love one another. Jesus opposed wealth, and the pursuit of wealth. His Kingdom was the spirtual world. Wealth and money are secular concepts and Jesus was clear that the secular pursuit of money imperilled your immortal soul. One need only to read the Sermon on the Mount to appreciate how utterly different the teaching of Jesus were to the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.

Still not a reason to say "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

 

[martybegan]

"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"

By every Christian principle, by every law that Jesus gave his followers, by every commandment about obeying the laws of the land, and doing unto others as you would have have them do unto you, and by every scripture in the Bible about welcoming others, yes, bake the fucking cake.

"Render unto caesar" doesn't mean blanket acceptance of all laws, and there is a difference between being ASKED to comply with something, and being FORCED to comply.

Sorry, but the days of your political opposition rolling over to fascist wanna-be's like you is OVER.

But government dick suckers like you just LOOOOVE government force, because you are too gutless to do things like this yourself.

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

It's Constitutional. The Constitution is mute on marriage, and thus it is left to the States. You could try the whole 14th amendment route, but SSM is not equal to opposite sex marriage, as SSM is a recent creation of only the last few decades. It is a new concept.

 

[iceberg]

"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"

By every Christian principle, by every law that Jesus gave his followers, by every commandment about obeying the laws of the land, and doing unto others as you would have have them do unto you, and by every scripture in the Bible about welcoming others, yes, bake the fucking cake.

"Render unto caesar" doesn't mean blanket acceptance of all laws, and there is a difference between being ASKED to comply with something, and being FORCED to comply.

Sorry, but the days of your political opposition rolling over to fascist wanna-be's like you is OVER.

But government dick suckers like you just LOOOOVE government force, because you are too gutless to do things like this yourself.

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

so if 1 state has 10x the population of another state, that should give them greater voice in our government?

how is *that* american?

 

[Lysistrata]

When we tore down your "Whites Only" signs you racist bigoted assfuck.

The religious basis for segregation was flawed and really just a justification for something that was done for economic reasons.

The religious prohibition on homosexual acts is far more explicit in all of the major religious texts.

Actually, the prohibition on homosexual acts, if one is Christian or Jewish and adheres to these writings, is surrounded by other prohibitions of other behaviors, and mandates for other behaviors, which are no longer followed. I would expect a Christian who is fundamentalist to adhere to everything in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Line by line. Do you do this? Have you ever actually read these books?

I have read them plenty of times. Again, you don't get to decide, and more importantly government doesn't get to decide HOW a religion follows it's precepts.

So you admit that you are a cherrypicker who abuses your scripture to fit your taste. You also applaud government intervention and interference with the religious and moral choices made by women, showing that you are a Big Government guy.

Have fun with your ritual baths, your animal sacrifices, and having sex with your dead childless brother's wife, and not driving or switching the lights on on the Sabbath.
Your religion is a farce.

Not cherrypicking, it's up to the person to decide, and the church in question to interpret.

My issue is with Roe as terrible law, not with abortion per se. however I do have an issue with people trying to convince themselves they aren't killing a living thing.

In my state NY, Abortion would be protected without Roe, and to me that isn't an issue. If Alabama wants to ban it, I don't have an issue with that either.

My religion? This isn't about my Religion, it's about me not being an intolerant bigot about other people's religion.

As stated before, i am a lapsed Catholic at best.

So you support the idea that Big Government at the state level should be allowed to trample on the rights of that state's citizens. It is not for government at any level to make a personal decision for a private citizen. It is for the private citizen to make personal decisions. These decisions have nothing to do with somebody else's religion.

There is nothing intolerant or bigoted against anyone's religion. But no one should be forced by Big Government to make personal decisions according to a religion that she is not an adherent of.

 

[Seawytch]

A business is not a citizen and does not have religious rights
If it wants to close on Sunday or any other day, they are entitled. If they want to discriminate they must follow the law

A person still retains constitutional rights even if they want to sell something. Nice strawman attempt, but fail.

So Churches can be forced to perform Same sex wedding ceremonies?

A church is not a business knucklehead

A person can hate any group he wants. But once he opens a business, that BUSINESS must comply with local laws

Why does a person automatically lose their constitutional rights when they try to sell something?

Why is free exercise limited only to Churches (in your opinion).

When we tore down your "Whites Only" signs you racist bigoted assfuck.

The religious basis for segregation was flawed and really just a justification for something that was done for economic reasons.

The religious prohibition on homosexual acts is far more explicit in all of the major religious texts.

Bullshit. Racists are just as sure of their bible passages as homophobes are.

 

[Seawytch]

By every Christian principle, by every law that Jesus gave his followers, by every commandment about obeying the laws of the land, and doing unto others as you would have have them do unto you, and by every scripture in the Bible about welcoming others, yes, bake the fucking cake.

"Render unto caesar" doesn't mean blanket acceptance of all laws, and there is a difference between being ASKED to comply with something, and being FORCED to comply.

Sorry, but the days of your political opposition rolling over to fascist wanna-be's like you is OVER.

But government dick suckers like you just LOOOOVE government force, because you are too gutless to do things like this yourself.

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

so if 1 state has 10x the population of another state, that should give them greater voice in our government?

how is *that* american?

Under the one voter, one vote model...or democracy as I like to call it, yes. You think it’s working when a voter’s vote in Wyoming is worth three times that of a voter in California?

 

[Seawytch]

Sums up perfectly why I left organized religion years ago. The one thing that supposedly cannot be compromised is religious principles yet here they are, believing in a figure who doesn’t embody any of their beliefs.

But to your point, like the GOP now…they won’t abandon Mara-Lard-Ass, they have nowhere else to go.

What do the Dems offer them besides persecution?

Sorry, the party of "Bake that cake, peasant" isn't going to win over these people.

No, I don’t expect it would. I wouldn’t expect them as a group to endorse the Democrats.

However if your loyalty is to God (make me laugh harder), your loyalty is to her/him (or just “him” in their case). You don’t compromise that and give your loyalty to someone who doesn’t share your values.

As for the Politics of the situation, lets say Joe Biden is the nominee. You’re stating—correctly—that the Christian Conservatives will support someone who has had multiple affairs over Biden who TTBOOK, never had any.

Biden supports policies harmful to their interests.

You are confusing supporting someone politically with endorsing their behavior.

Trump may violate the rules they live by, but to them his soul is his issue,and thus they know God will judge him as he sees fit.

But what he doesn't do it try to ruin them for their belief structure.

Biden doesn't support policies that are "harmful to their interests". Gay rights, women's reproductive rights, and the right of all people to have unfettered access to health care, have absolutely no impact on the rights of conservative Christians.

If providing services to people whose beliefs you disagree with is so odious to the Christian right that they cannot serve them, then they are free to avoid opening businesses which are open to the "public". In the event they do open their business to the public, then public accommodation laws should be respected as set out in the Bible.

"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"

Actually, the way the SCOTUS ruled, it was make that fucking BBQ, peasant. Stop blaming gays for PA laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lif...ory.html?utm_term=.b8b1d3b03fb5&noredirect=on

 

[RealDave]

By every Christian principle, by every law that Jesus gave his followers, by every commandment about obeying the laws of the land, and doing unto others as you would have have them do unto you, and by every scripture in the Bible about welcoming others, yes, bake the fucking cake.

"Render unto caesar" doesn't mean blanket acceptance of all laws, and there is a difference between being ASKED to comply with something, and being FORCED to comply.

Sorry, but the days of your political opposition rolling over to fascist wanna-be's like you is OVER.

But government dick suckers like you just LOOOOVE government force, because you are too gutless to do things like this yourself.

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

so if 1 state has 10x the population of another state, that should give them greater voice in our government?

how is *that* american?

Yes, obviously.

Congress is elected based on the population.

Every State gets two Senators.

Thus, people in small states have more say that people in larger states.

You think that Delaware & California should get equal votes?

 

[RealDave]

Because it suits his worldview, in particular it supports his desire to marginalize anyone who thinks differently than he does.

yea, i know. i'm just calling him on it. pretty sick and tired of people who seem to think if you support someone, you agree with them 100%.

no one - NO ONE - does that. yet here he is thinking he's being clever, not just stupid.

Ummmmmm. Because you never post about it?????

Here's your chance. Tells us what you don't like about Trump.

post about what?

i said people are not so binary usually in that 1 issue means i will no longer support someone. i support a lot of people i disagree with.

you're on your asinine bandwagon crap of thinking that if people support trump, they agree with every facet of him and that's just ignorance in motion.

So you can't post any item you don't like about Trump?

Not chasing your bullshit as i never said anything about that.

But I see you are still binary stupid.

So I was right. You wear the MAGA hart, you support Trump's bigotry & hate.

 

[Lysistrata]

By every Christian principle, by every law that Jesus gave his followers, by every commandment about obeying the laws of the land, and doing unto others as you would have have them do unto you, and by every scripture in the Bible about welcoming others, yes, bake the fucking cake.

"Render unto caesar" doesn't mean blanket acceptance of all laws, and there is a difference between being ASKED to comply with something, and being FORCED to comply.

Sorry, but the days of your political opposition rolling over to fascist wanna-be's like you is OVER.

But government dick suckers like you just LOOOOVE government force, because you are too gutless to do things like this yourself.

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

It's Constitutional. The Constitution is mute on marriage, and thus it is left to the States. You could try the whole 14th amendment route, but SSM is not equal to opposite sex marriage, as SSM is a recent creation of only the last few decades. It is a new concept.

Dumbshit. The 14th Amendment applies to everyone. If you want a heterosexual marriage, nobody is stopping you. Same-sex marriage does not effect you in any way. I don't lose any sleep over how many times that trump or gingrich have been married. How do the marriages of people you don't know effect you? You people who fret about the lives of people you don't know are just kooks.

 

[iceberg]

"Render unto caesar" doesn't mean blanket acceptance of all laws, and there is a difference between being ASKED to comply with something, and being FORCED to comply.

Sorry, but the days of your political opposition rolling over to fascist wanna-be's like you is OVER.

But government dick suckers like you just LOOOOVE government force, because you are too gutless to do things like this yourself.

So says the person wanting to ban gay marriage. Wanting to legalize discrimination.

Wrong. I have nothing wrong with a State allowing SSM as long as it is done so via legislative action, or if the State constitution allows it, referendum.

My issue is with courts making up the right out of thin air, like they did in Obergfell and forcing States to issue them if they don't want to.

What Obergfell should have done was leave it to the States to ISSUE SSM licenses if they saw fit, but be forced to recognize out of State SSM licenses under full faith and credit.

So, if States have a lot of bigots, they could ban it? How is that "American"?

so if 1 state has 10x the population of another state, that should give them greater voice in our government?

how is *that* american?

Under the one voter, one vote model...or democracy as I like to call it, yes. You think it’s working when a voter’s vote in Wyoming is worth three times that of a voter in California?

so as usual, the standards by which we choose to live will forever be altered but only in a manner which benefits you personally.

 

[iceberg]

yea, i know. i'm just calling him on it. pretty sick and tired of people who seem to think if you support someone, you agree with them 100%.

no one - NO ONE - does that. yet here he is thinking he's being clever, not just stupid.

Ummmmmm. Because you never post about it?????

Here's your chance. Tells us what you don't like about Trump.

post about what?

i said people are not so binary usually in that 1 issue means i will no longer support someone. i support a lot of people i disagree with.

you're on your asinine bandwagon crap of thinking that if people support trump, they agree with every facet of him and that's just ignorance in motion.

So you can't post any item you don't like about Trump?

Not chasing your bullshit as i never said anything about that.

But I see you are still binary stupid.

So I was right. You wear the MAGA hart, you support Trump's bigotry & hate.

so i was right. i don't play your trump games, ergo i must support his bigotry and hate OF WHICH is only there cause you "feel" it is.

thank you for defining "dumbshit binary thinking" for us again.

 

[Issa]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

Evangelicals are religious ? Lol....I'm sorry but having Christian's friends from Catholics to Greek orthodox I think those who call themselves evangelicals are the worst (highly likely bigots or racists, supported, slavery, racism, anti immigrants and anti refugees, gave us the most immoral human being as president) they are not religious.

 

[Dragonlady]

Where outside of the Old Testament. What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

What difference does that make?

Christianity is the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus' teachings were based on the OT, and the NT written by his followers after his death.

Inspiration by God or Man for this is up to your own views and beliefs.

So suddenly you've gone from "every word in the Bible is the sacred word of God", to "some parts of the Bible, like the entire New Testament, upon which Christianity is founded, is to be ignored". Here's a clue, Jackass. MEN wrote the Old Testament too. It was written by the prophets, as a history of the Jewish peoples. Within its pages you can find stories of daughters having sex with their fathers, fathers willing to murder their children as sacrifices to God, and God inflicting the Trials of Job upon a man who dared to disobey him.

Jesus teachings weren't based on the Old Testament. The Old Testament prohibits sins and punishes those who sin. Jesus teachings are all about love and the foregiveness of sins. God gave a list of things you shouldn't do, and homosexuality was not along them. Jesus gave a list of things to do, which was to love God, and to love one another. Jesus opposed wealth, and the pursuit of wealth. His Kingdom was the spirtual world. Wealth and money are secular concepts and Jesus was clear that the secular pursuit of money imperilled your immortal soul. One need only to read the Sermon on the Mount to appreciate how utterly different the teaching of Jesus were to the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.

Still not a reason to say "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

And religion is not a valid reason to refuse to bake the fucking cake, asshole!