Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

[Dragonlady]

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.

The entire legal concept of marriage is a new concept. Back in the days when legal marriage didn't confer status and property rights upon the spouse, there was no necessity for gay marriage. When "marriage" became a necessity to receive "family benefits" from your employer. When children were taken away from their surviving parent on the death of their biological parent. When gay spouses were basically thrown out of hospital rooms by "blood family" because they had no spousal right to be there, then for all of these reasons, gay marriage became a legal necessity to provide the same legal benefits and protections for gay spouses and their families as hetero-sexual families.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Or...maybe they just dont like the alternative?

I think that's actually what the guy is saying. They're not going to abandon him when the only other choices are so much worse.

 

[busybee01]

The Republicans could not find someone who was not a mass adulterer who lies every time he opens his mouth and defrauds seniors of their retirement nest eggs and worships a KGB thug.

They could not find an honest, decent man who is also against abortion anywhere in the whoooooooooooooole party!

They had a primary, he won the primary.

Only the Democrats feel the need to rig their primary, but I have a feeling the RINO's and Never Trumpers wish they had rigged the Republican one.

Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.

Superdelegates.

Name 1 election where superdelegates have changed the nominating process. In theory they could but in actual practice they never have.

2016
Primary vote
Clinton 54%
Sanders 42%

Delegate count from state primaries
Clinton 2205 54.4%
Sanders 1845 45.4%

Hillary Clinton had enough delegates to win without the superdelegates. In 2008, the superdelegates leaned heavily towards Clinton but Obama peeled them away as he won state after state. The process is not rigged.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Too bad you put up “blacks only” signs in their place and forfeited the debate....

Wow, what a stupid comment. I understand you want to defend your racism & bigotry but really, you have to do better than that.

Look up black only dorms and learn something for once you little shit.

Really, You are comparing this to the racism of the 50's. Just how fucking stupid are you?

These dorms created a safe place to live away from racist attacks & slurs.

I guess next, you'll feel left out because they wouldn't let you in the women's dorm?

It is segregation dipshit. Do you even how stupid you for supporting that given your supposed position on racism?

What would you say if a white only dorm was made? The fact that black people can pressure campuses into rolling back integration just for them proves that the racism they suffer is nothing. That is privilege beyond privilege.

You racist asshole. The fact that blacks are asking for black only dorms proves that the racism they CONTINUE to suffer, is unbearable, and we have seen examples of it every week, so much so that it was dubbed "living while black".

All of last year we saw black people being reported to the police for waiting in a Starbucks, falling asleep in the common room at Yale, checking out of an AirBnB, BBQing in a public park, and playing golf too slowly. Not one of the people who filed these reports were cited for filing a false report. You know who was charged for filing a false report? Jussie Smollett, a black who filed a false report that he was beaten up by two white guys. But not one white person who false reported black people who hadn't even committed a crime, was charged

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

The issue is not of forcing states to do anything except to recognize the rights belonging to each individual citizen of the state, which are not subject to majority rule.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.

Don't you?

They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!

So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?

And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.

As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.

They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.

I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?

Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says

Did you even bother to read your own link?

You are such a hypocrite, Seabiscuit. If the guy had been a Christian and wanting his own personal pastor there, you'd have been screeching about "Have to follow the rules!" and "No special treatment!" and "Separation of church and state!" at the top of your lungs.

No matter how much you and Justice Kagan try to pretend otherwise, your link had nothing to do with "shitting on religion", or with the inmate's religion at all, and everything to do with rules and proper procedure.

 

[martybegan]

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

My word for people like this is fake Christians. Being a religious conservative and a Trump supporter is a oxymoron. You cannot be both. Franklin Graham's niece has rebuked Graham for his support of Trump, correctly pointing out you cannot forgive someone who has not admitted to his sins. Morality does not end at abortion. Morality is also compassion for people who are running in fear for their lives. Try remembering the Bible story of the Good Semaritin. Trump has the distinction of being rebuked by Jesus Christ.

And yet the only other alternative to them is the party of "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

And you wonder why they hold their nose and vote from Trump.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.

Don't you?

They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!

So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?

And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.

As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.

They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.

I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?

Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says

He wasn't allowed in the death chamber, because the law as set up didn't allow it. The guy was not denied an Imam prior to being in the death chamber.

The issue becomes that if he was allowed in, the people trying to get his sentence commuted would have also appealed for THAT, because the State was then not following the rules of the death chamber.

Catch-22 situation.

But one religious representative WAS allowed in, elevating that one above all others. Directly in violation of the Constitution.

There's no "elevation" about it, imbecile. The religious representative in question was an employee of the Department of Corrections, which is what the rules require of anyone present in the execution chamber. You would know that, if you had read the article and employed some reason, rather than just reading the headline and jumping straight to "Aha!"

 

[martybegan]

The Republicans could not find someone who was not a mass adulterer who lies every time he opens his mouth and defrauds seniors of their retirement nest eggs and worships a KGB thug.

They could not find an honest, decent man who is also against abortion anywhere in the whoooooooooooooole party!

They had a primary, he won the primary.

Only the Democrats feel the need to rig their primary, but I have a feeling the RINO's and Never Trumpers wish they had rigged the Republican one.

Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.

Superdelegates.

Superdelegates were in the rules. Bernie knew the rules.

It is the Democrat Psrty thast os electing their represntative. Maybe Bernie should have actually been one?

Wow, good job on not really answering the statements made.

knowing the rules and the rules being rigged are not exclusive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!

So they should support a party that shits on their religious beliefs, forces them to not just tolerate, but accept lifestyles they do not approve of, and enforces an open hositlity to their religion in schools and the public square?

And can it with the ist/ic/ism bullshit. You are just as bigoted as the most virulent KKK asshole, but because you are bigoted against "approved" groups, you think you get a pass.

As long as Democrats are the party of "BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT" they will not have the support of the most Religious people in this country.

They also lose people like me, who while not religious, don't have the deep hatred of the religious you have.

I'm sorry...come again with who is "shitting on religious beliefs"?

Supreme Court is ‘unspeakably cruel’ for denying Muslim death row inmate’s request for imam, ex-Obama official says

He wasn't allowed in the death chamber, because the law as set up didn't allow it. The guy was not denied an Imam prior to being in the death chamber.

The issue becomes that if he was allowed in, the people trying to get his sentence commuted would have also appealed for THAT, because the State was then not following the rules of the death chamber.

Catch-22 situation.

But one religious representative WAS allowed in, elevating that one above all others. Directly in violation of the Constitution.

The law was probably from a time when it wasn't considered. Blame the legislature for not updating the law.

Again, if they HAD let the guy in, I guarantee his defense attorneys would have claimed a violation of execution chamber procedure and sought a stay.

The rule in question is that no one is allowed in the execution chamber who is not an employee of the Department of Corrections. One assumes it's a matter of security and safety, and I am willing to defer to the prison staff's superior knowledge and expertise on that subject.

Whether or not the Department of Corrections has any imams on its chaplain staff, or whether or not any imams have even TRIED to become part of the staff, is unclear from that article.

It appears that the Supreme Court felt that the inmate had waited far too long to address the question and that made it likely just an attempt to delay his execution.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

Same sex marriage is not a concept which began only in the last few decades. It may be rare, but there is evidence of same sex unions as far back as ancient Rome.

As a mainstream legal construct is is only a creation of the past few decades.

The "evidence" isn't about State sanctioning, it's about people buggering others of the same sex, which of course has occurred throughout the millennia.

Even in those cases the relationships were not seen as equal to heterosexual relationships, which had the required ability to procreate, and back then since infant mortality and life spans were so short, procreating had to be done "early and often" to assure enough people in the next generation to continue a given culture/tribe/family/nation etc.

It's about a bit more than "people buggering other of the same sex." I said it was rare, certainly not a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that the concept of same sex marriage is not only from the past few decades, as you stated.

One or two random cases does not a precedent make. The current concept of it being equal to opposite sex marriage, or that there was even something besides opposite sex marriage is a new construct.

 

[Cecilie1200]

BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.

It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.

Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.

I don't "hate" Christians, of which there are millions in this country and in the world. It's not "force" based on some hatred of anybody's religion. Business laws apply to everyone, regardless of what religion they choose to follow.

Jacky-jerk refused to meet his business obligations. He chose to be a scoff-law on his own. If he doesn't want to participate in society, he is free to go do something else.

May I refuse to serve an Evangelical, as Evangelicals violate my basic beliefs about how people should be treated? May a Muslim business owner refuse to serve a Southern Baptist, considering the insults that members of that faith continue to hurl at the Islamic faith? May an LGBTQ person refuse to serve an Evangelical for similar reasons?

You are a one-trick pony.

Business law doesn't trump constitutional rights, of which free exercise is one.

The guy doesn't want to participate in one single type of ceremony. But you groupthink assholes can't deal with that, so he has to be ruined or forced to bow down to your progressive gods.

And your last thing depends on the situation. the bakers in question never refused point of sale, non custom items to anyone regardless of their beliefs.

Do you want to force Jewish and Muslim butchers to stock pork?

You are being ridiculous. If a business doesn't stock something, it doesn't stock it. That's it. There is not any compulsion to order anything to be delivered to a business.I can't go into a sporting-goods store and demand that it furnish me with pork chops. We are discussing businesses that have the desired goods in store and advertise that these goods are available to the public, and then refuse to sell these goods to a particular class of people.This is a much different scenario.

Baking a cake and decorating it has absolutely nothing to do with participating in any ceremony. If I am a baker and advertise wedding cakes, and a couple of Southern Baptists, William and Martha, one or both are divorced and whose spouses are still alive, am I within my rights to refuse them service as preparing their cake would be tantamount to participating in their wedding? I would think that Newt Gingrich got a wedding cake when he married Calista. I think that trump got a wedding cake when he married melania.

The difference between pork and beef isn't the same as the difference between a SSM wedding cake and a traditional wedding cake? The reason for not "stocking" both is because it conflicts with their morality.

It can be seen as an endorsement of acceptance of the ceremony/event, and these people don't want to do that. They are not preventing it from happening, or from the couple going to get another cake from another baker.

The main issue is the abusive use of the State over something as trivial as not getting the wedding cake a couple wants, and the consequence being the ruin of people just following their own moral code based on their religion. That you don't see yourself, by advocating this, as a fascist asshole just shows how much of a hateful twat you are.

Again with the personal insults. The main issue is following laws that apply to everyone regardless of religion, gender, or anything else, a concept that plays a large part in keeping our society from descending into chaos.

You seek to transfer the burdens of discrimination away from the person who chooses to discriminate and onto his or her victims, to drive around and waste their time and energy all because they have been the victims of discrimination and false advertising. This is just plain wrong. People like phillips have to own their actions..

Yeah, you're ALL about laws "being followed by everyone regardless" . . . until the law in question inconveniences someone you personally agree with.

 

[martybegan]

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

You left out "Pretend". You left out Muslims, Hindus, etc as they will not support Trump.

A true Christian would not stand for the lying, disregard fir marriage, cheating, lying, bigotry, hate, greed, stealing of children, opulence, and Trump's overall amorality.

You don't get to decide who is a "True" Christian.

If Christianity says to love your neighbor as yourself, and you spew hate, bigotry & racism, you ain't no Christian.

If you support stealing children at the border you ain't no Christian.

If you worship greed, you ain't no Christian.

You don't get to decide that.

And people when attacked by virulent assholes like you tend to get defensive.

 

[martybegan]

"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.

The entire legal concept of marriage is a new concept. Back in the days when legal marriage didn't confer status and property rights upon the spouse, there was no necessity for gay marriage. When "marriage" became a necessity to receive "family benefits" from your employer. When children were taken away from their surviving parent on the death of their biological parent. When gay spouses were basically thrown out of hospital rooms by "blood family" because they had no spousal right to be there, then for all of these reasons, gay marriage became a legal necessity to provide the same legal benefits and protections for gay spouses and their families as hetero-sexual families.

The legal concept of marriage goes back to antiquity, as property rights go back that far, and those rights could involve spouses.

Stop trying to re-write history to justify your positions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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.

Sums up perfectly why you're a dumbass. This just in: disagreeing with you on how to fulfill religious beliefs is NOT "compromising religious principles".

But you are correct that they have nowhere else to go. I just wonder if you realize that you just admitted that your candidates are all less-moral choices than Donald Trump.

 

[martybegan]

The Republicans could not find someone who was not a mass adulterer who lies every time he opens his mouth and defrauds seniors of their retirement nest eggs and worships a KGB thug.

They could not find an honest, decent man who is also against abortion anywhere in the whoooooooooooooole party!

They had a primary, he won the primary.

Only the Democrats feel the need to rig their primary, but I have a feeling the RINO's and Never Trumpers wish they had rigged the Republican one.

Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.

Superdelegates.

Name 1 election where superdelegates have changed the nominating process. In theory they could but in actual practice they never have.

2016
Primary vote
Clinton 54%
Sanders 42%

Delegate count from state primaries
Clinton 2205 54.4%
Sanders 1845 45.4%

Hillary Clinton had enough delegates to win without the superdelegates. In 2008, the superdelegates leaned heavily towards Clinton but Obama peeled them away as he won state after state. The process is not rigged.

Got links to the data presented?

 

[martybegan]

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.

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

The issue is not of forcing states to do anything except to recognize the rights belonging to each individual citizen of the state, which are not subject to majority rule.

So NYC should not be allowed to have a law which requires me to wait 3-6 months and pay over $500 in fees just to keep a handgun in my own apartment?

Isn't that infringement of the 2nd amendment, and thus not subject to "majority rule"

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

These people who refer to themselves as "Christians" without any further identifier are trying to mold the Christian faith according to their sickness. They are an insult to every other Christian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, and all the rest..

I always find it comical that progressives are far more judgemental than the people they are bitching about being judgemental.

Far less forgiving as well.

"Hate the sinner and the sin, and make sure they are ruined for life" The progressive mantra.

People of each and every religion face the challenge of resolving any conflict between their beliefs and their legal obligations. It just seems that this particular group wants a dispensation from the obligations all of us share. This group wants special treatment.

 

[ptbw forever]

Too bad you put up “blacks only” signs in their place and forfeited the debate....

Wow, what a stupid comment. I understand you want to defend your racism & bigotry but really, you have to do better than that.

Look up black only dorms and learn something for once you little shit.

Really, You are comparing this to the racism of the 50's. Just how fucking stupid are you?

These dorms created a safe place to live away from racist attacks & slurs.

I guess next, you'll feel left out because they wouldn't let you in the women's dorm?

It is segregation dipshit. Do you even how stupid you for supporting that given your supposed position on racism?

What would you say if a white only dorm was made? The fact that black people can pressure campuses into rolling back integration just for them proves that the racism they suffer is nothing. That is privilege beyond privilege.

You racist asshole. The fact that blacks are asking for black only dorms proves that the racism they CONTINUE to suffer, is unbearable, and we have seen examples of it every week, so much so that it was dubbed "living while black".

All of last year we saw black people being reported to the police for waiting in a Starbucks, falling asleep in the common room at Yale, checking out of an AirBnB, BBQing in a public park, and playing golf too slowly. Not one of the people who filed these reports were cited for filing a false report. You know who was charged for filing a false report? Jussie Smollett, a black who filed a false report that he was beaten up by two white guys. But not one white person who false reported black people who hadn't even committed a crime, was charged

No, it proves that they control the culture. White students can’t even get a fucking student union but yet black people can not only bypass integration but actually have their own dorms paid for by mostly white students’ tuition and white donors.

The racism that white people go through every day is not only much greater than the racism that black people go through, but it is completely unimpeded and ever growing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Business law doesn't trump constitutional rights, of which free exercise is one.

The guy doesn't want to participate in one single type of ceremony. But you groupthink assholes can't deal with that, so he has to be ruined or forced to bow down to your progressive gods.

And your last thing depends on the situation. the bakers in question never refused point of sale, non custom items to anyone regardless of their beliefs.

Do you want to force Jewish and Muslim butchers to stock pork?

You are being ridiculous. If a business doesn't stock something, it doesn't stock it. That's it. There is not any compulsion to order anything to be delivered to a business.I can't go into a sporting-goods store and demand that it furnish me with pork chops. We are discussing businesses that have the desired goods in store and advertise that these goods are available to the public, and then refuse to sell these goods to a particular class of people.This is a much different scenario.

Baking a cake and decorating it has absolutely nothing to do with participating in any ceremony. If I am a baker and advertise wedding cakes, and a couple of Southern Baptists, William and Martha, one or both are divorced and whose spouses are still alive, am I within my rights to refuse them service as preparing their cake would be tantamount to participating in their wedding? I would think that Newt Gingrich got a wedding cake when he married Calista. I think that trump got a wedding cake when he married melania.

The difference between pork and beef isn't the same as the difference between a SSM wedding cake and a traditional wedding cake? The reason for not "stocking" both is because it conflicts with their morality.

It can be seen as an endorsement of acceptance of the ceremony/event, and these people don't want to do that. They are not preventing it from happening, or from the couple going to get another cake from another baker.

The main issue is the abusive use of the State over something as trivial as not getting the wedding cake a couple wants, and the consequence being the ruin of people just following their own moral code based on their religion. That you don't see yourself, by advocating this, as a fascist asshole just shows how much of a hateful twat you are.

Again with the personal insults. The main issue is following laws that apply to everyone regardless of religion, gender, or anything else, a concept that plays a large part in keeping our society from descending into chaos.

You seek to transfer the burdens of discrimination away from the person who chooses to discriminate and onto his or her victims, to drive around and waste their time and energy all because they have been the victims of discrimination and false advertising. This is just plain wrong. People like phillips have to own their actions..

The main issue is government force should be used only when there is a compelling reason, and in cases where people have constitutional rights, only when there is an overriding compelling reason, and even then the government is mandated to use the least intrusive method to fix the situation.

Ruining someone over not baking a cake is not a compelling reason, nor is it using the least intrusive method to remedy the situation.

having to spend a hour or so finding and going to another baker is not the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines or mandates to follow the ruling or go out of business. The only reason you feel this is "justice" is your hatred of people who disagree with you.

Actually, I think Conservative Christians should all embrace the party that sanctions infanticide, and gay marriage, promotes sloth, envy, sexual promiscuity, reproductive irresponsibility, and greed, abhors traditional marriage and sexuality, and is openly antagonistic to traditional religious institutions, demanding that they accept their perverted world view or lose their tax-exempt status.

Don't you?

They are embracing the Party of racism and misogyny, which promotes anti-family policies, and the transfer of wealth to the 1% at the expense of the poor and the middle class. A party which increases poverty, and which promotes policies making it impossible for workers to care for their family without government support. I'm sure that Jesus, who said it is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, who said that the love of money was the root of all evil, and who said that poor shall inherit the earth, would vote for the party of hate, repression and greed - NOT!

You are pro-abort so when you meet Jesus, what will you tell him?

I'm not "pro-abortion", I'm "pro-choice".

Since God the Father, gave all of us "free will" to make our own choices, I would assume that Jesus would be good with giving other's the right to make their own choices based on their beliefs, as God intended.

Since God the Father created women and gave them the choice to have a baby or end the pregnancy, I'm assuming God knew what he was doing.

The choice of continuing a pregnancy or ending it came from GOD. Not man.

And this right here is why I keep saying that you should stop attempting to think when you so manifestly are unequipped for the activity.

"Changing the label changes the act. It DOES!!!"

"Since God gives us free will to make choices, that means He thinks all choices are equally good! Since God made it possible to kill other people, I assume He's okay with us doing it! The choice of murder came from God, because He didn't make it impossible to do!!"

Is that what passes for religion in your half-assed, parasitic, second-tier wilderness of a country? No wonder they shit on the idea of allowing religious freedom, if your countrymen are as pig-stupid about it as this.

Seriously, spend less time congratulating yourself on how "moral" and "nice" you are, and a little more time on vaguely attempting to deserve it.