Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
A cake is a cake. Pork is not beef. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
meat is meat. you are trying to create distinctions that suit your fascist force desires, but it doesn't fly.
It's not cake#34 that's the problem. again they are not refusing point of sale services. They are against having to endorse something they do not support, and by custom making something for said ceremony, they see themselves as endorsing it.
It doesn't matter the law in these cases, because the use of government force to deny free exercise, in this case, is unconstitutional.
You dodged the question. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
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.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.
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..
in 53 years i don't think i've ever seen a catholic commercial.I'm disappointed that Catholic bishops are still on the side of the party of infanticide . You never see a Catholic commercial regarding the policy differences between the parties.
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.
A cake is a cake. Pork is not beef. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
meat is meat. you are trying to create distinctions that suit your fascist force desires, but it doesn't fly.
It's not cake#34 that's the problem. again they are not refusing point of sale services. They are against having to endorse something they do not support, and by custom making something for said ceremony, they see themselves as endorsing it.
It doesn't matter the law in these cases, because the use of government force to deny free exercise, in this case, is unconstitutional.
You dodged the question. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
I. Don't care. if it's legal or not.
It's a violation of free exercise if religion is involved and it's a contracted service that is non timely, non nessasary, and not point of sale.
A business is not a citizen and does not have religious rightsThe 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.
A cake is a cake. Pork is not beef. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
meat is meat. you are trying to create distinctions that suit your fascist force desires, but it doesn't fly.
It's not cake#34 that's the problem. again they are not refusing point of sale services. They are against having to endorse something they do not support, and by custom making something for said ceremony, they see themselves as endorsing it.
It doesn't matter the law in these cases, because the use of government force to deny free exercise, in this case, is unconstitutional.
You dodged the question. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
I. Don't care. if it's legal or not.
It's a violation of free exercise if religion is involved and it's a contracted service that is non timely, non nessasary, and not point of sale.
No, it really isn't. A business isn't a religion. Thanks for your opinion on it, but that's all it is, your opinion. The interpretation by the SCOTUS is very different.
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.
A cake is a cake. Pork is not beef. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
meat is meat. you are trying to create distinctions that suit your fascist force desires, but it doesn't fly.
It's not cake#34 that's the problem. again they are not refusing point of sale services. They are against having to endorse something they do not support, and by custom making something for said ceremony, they see themselves as endorsing it.
It doesn't matter the law in these cases, because the use of government force to deny free exercise, in this case, is unconstitutional.
You dodged the question. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
I. Don't care. if it's legal or not.
It's a violation of free exercise if religion is involved and it's a contracted service that is non timely, non nessasary, and not point of sale.
No, it really isn't. A business isn't a religion. Thanks for your opinion on it, but that's all it is, your opinion. The interpretation by the SCOTUS is very different.
A business is not a citizen and does not have religious rightsA cake is a cake. Pork is not beef. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
meat is meat. you are trying to create distinctions that suit your fascist force desires, but it doesn't fly.
It's not cake#34 that's the problem. again they are not refusing point of sale services. They are against having to endorse something they do not support, and by custom making something for said ceremony, they see themselves as endorsing it.
It doesn't matter the law in these cases, because the use of government force to deny free exercise, in this case, is unconstitutional.
You dodged the question. Couple A orders wedding cake #34 and is provided service. Couple B orders cake #34 and is denied service because they are interracial. Legal in all 50 states yes or no?
I. Don't care. if it's legal or not.
It's a violation of free exercise if religion is involved and it's a contracted service that is non timely, non nessasary, and not point of sale.
No, it really isn't. A business isn't a religion. Thanks for your opinion on it, but that's all it is, your opinion. The interpretation by the SCOTUS is very different.
If it wants to close on Sunday or any other day, they are entitled. If they want to discriminate they must follow the law
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
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.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.
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.
You are pro-abort so when you meet Jesus, what will you tell him?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!
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.
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.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.
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.You are pro-abort so when you meet Jesus, what will you tell him?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!
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.
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 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.
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.You are pro-abort so when you meet Jesus, what will you tell him?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!
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.
Free will also allows us to murder our fellow man. Your theological basis here is pretty shaky.
As a hasty rationalization, whatever allows you to sleep at night.
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.
What do the Dems offer them besides persecution?
Sorry, the party of "Bake that cake, peasant" isn't going to win over these people.
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.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.
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.You are pro-abort so when you meet Jesus, what will you tell him?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!
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.
Free will also allows us to murder our fellow man. Your theological basis here is pretty shaky.
As a hasty rationalization, whatever allows you to sleep at night.
It's hardly a "hasty rationalization".
If every sperm were as "sacred" as right wingers would have us believe, why do 1/3 of all pregnancies end in a "spontaneous abortion"? When he created women to give birth, he gave us the option of continuing the pregnancy or ending it. This wasn't an accident. God understood that having a baby was a very big deal, and not to be taken lightly.
In times of famine, of war, during difficult journey, these are not times to be pregnant. God gave us an out.
The real reason Republicans are so opposed to abortion because nothing speaks to failure of Republican economic policies like the rate of abortion among poor women. Nothing exposes hypocrisy of the party of "Family Values" like the inability of poor families to bear and care for their children. So instead they lie and blame the abortion rate on a lack of morality among women.
Republicans are to blame for abortion. No mandated maternity leave - Republicans oppose it. No universal health care - Republicans oppose it. No mandated vacation time - Republicans oppose it. No national child care policy - Republicans oppose it. No increase in the minimum wage - Republicans oppose it. No overtime pay for minimum wage workers - Republicans and Donald Trump opposed it.
Every policy which would help poor families bear and raise their children, and which would reduce abortion, is opposed by Republicans. Every.Single.One.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok.
Just a quick question…
If it comes out that Mara-Lard-Ass paid for some abortions when he was spilling his baby batter, should that change anything as far as Christian Conservatives go?
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.
Ok.
Just a quick question…
If it comes out that Mara-Lard-Ass paid for some abortions when he was spilling his baby batter, should that change anything as far as Christian Conservatives go?
Theoretically it might.
But again, where would the Evangelicals go in 2020 when its Trump against some Dem who supports abortion outright, and would support federal legislation similar to the law passed in New York.
Is the strategy here to win over Evangelicals, or make them stay home in November 2020?
By all means as soon as the "poor" living in all those African shit hole countries "inherit the earth" by all means let us know.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!
It’s true. Trump is appointing conservatives to the courts.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
