Should AZ Force Gay People To Promote Christian Ideals Against Homosexuality?

[Syriusly]

What Syriusly and her cult are trying to do is to push various states to create a superior set of (a)moral edicts over established religious ones (PA laws that require people to worship gay sex values over Judeo/Christian ones specifically, though on muslims they've remained quite restrained on the legal kabuki theater.. )

The Constitution forbids this. And so the issue of inborn vs behaviors will be the final focus on this ruse and outright attempt at sedition of one of the basic building blocks of American freedoms (freedom of religion and separation of church and state). They use the separation laws to force people to remove crosses etc. And on the other hand they ignore it when it serves their purpose of forcing Christians to adopt their perverse sex lifestyle values.

It's a very transparent and weak legal position and they're going to lose it. People have had enough. It's like Germany in the 1930s, no lie.

A lot of people see the writing on the wall but the blind still walk in their own darkened shadows.

So...both of you threaten us with a NAZI-like regime. Fascinating. We don't go down so easily anymore.

Hyperbole but I'd expect nothing less from you. You are free to be a sexual deviant and remain that away as long as you follow the law and I am still free to call you one.

And you are free to be a bigot and remain that way as long as you follow the law- and I am still free to call you one.

Obviously one of your demon filled atheist buds did not consider that a whole group included babies and children were free to enjoy their Christian lives as they saw fit the other day and the law meant nothing to him as he slaughtered them.

It is a tragedy that one of your Christian raised gun loving buds decided to kill a bunch people in Texas.

Not sure how you think that a murderer disobeying the law justifies why you think you get to disobey Romans 13.

 

[Syriusly]

It is still a country with free speech and telling you that you as an atheist and an obvious perverter has no legal authority over me or my beliefs and my mind is perfectly legal.

People have had enough. It's like Germany in the 1930s, no lie.

Poor little baby.

When Christians used to have the legal authority to throw homosexuals in jail- that was like Germany in the 1930's.

Telling business owners that they have to do business with Jews and homosexuals is the antithesis of Nazi Germany.

Isn't it telling that you are taking the side of Nazi Germany in this argument?

More telling that you believe you have the right to alter the word

What word have i 'altered'?

Why do you ignore the clear instructions of Romans 13?

What other parts of the Bible ignore as you cherry pick to rationalize your bigotry?

You need to get a real Bible if you are going to read one instead of an altered Communist one written expressly to indoctrinate children into believing "government" should be their authorities of God.

What version of the Bible do you have that doesn't have Romans 13?

Do you ignore all of Romans- or just the parts you don't like?

 

[RodISHI]

A lot of people see the writing on the wall but the blind still walk in their own darkened shadows.

So...both of you threaten us with a NAZI-like regime. Fascinating. We don't go down so easily anymore.

Hyperbole but I'd expect nothing less from you. You are free to be a sexual deviant and remain that away as long as you follow the law and I am still free to call you one.

And you are free to be a bigot and remain that way as long as you follow the law- and I am still free to call you one.

Obviously one of your demon filled atheist buds did not consider that a whole group included babies and children were free to enjoy their Christian lives as they saw fit the other day and the law meant nothing to him as he slaughtered them.

It is a tragedy that one of your Christian raised gun loving buds decided to kill a bunch people in Texas.

Not sure how you think that a murderer disobeying the law justifies why you think you get to disobey Romans 13.

I do not go by your altered version of the Bible written to indoctrinate people to believe like you that "government" is their god. You are free to practice Communism and believe 'the government is your god' but you will have to do so in a Communist country. Run quickly to the nearest airport and get to one of those Communist regimes if you are not already in one.


Your killer was a self proclaimed denier of God. That makes him an atheist. He should have moved to a Communist country also instead of killing innocent people.

 

[bodecea]

So you admit that you would discriminate against people of a different religion or no religion in your day to day dealings.....don't get a business license in any state then. It's illegal to discriminate like that in business.

When the gay cult can discriminate against Christians you seem to have no problem with that. But when it's reversed on issues of marriage and baking cakes, you fly into a righteous frenzy. Care to explain the reason one set of moral values is legally dominant to the other?

You are lying again....no pesky 10 Commandments is gonna stop you from lying, is it? Gays in business can no more discriminate against people based on their religion or their sexuality than anyone else can. It's against PA laws and should be.

Let me ask you.....what have you ACTIVELY done to get rid of the PA laws in your state? What state ARE you in?

 

[Silhouette]

What version of the Bible do you have that doesn't have Romans 13?

Do you ignore all of Romans- or just the parts you don't like?

Please cite in the Bible where God commands that mens' laws are superior to His Law? Jude 1 pitted against Romans 13 = Jude 1 wins. Now that we've established that Christians must resist "gay marriage" by command of their God (unless you can find a NT quote that says mens laws are superior to God's commandment against mortal sin in Jude 1), what right does the gay cult value system has to command the state to force Christians to blaspheme Jude 1?

 

[Syriusly]

So...both of you threaten us with a NAZI-like regime. Fascinating. We don't go down so easily anymore.

Hyperbole but I'd expect nothing less from you. You are free to be a sexual deviant and remain that away as long as you follow the law and I am still free to call you one.

And you are free to be a bigot and remain that way as long as you follow the law- and I am still free to call you one.

Obviously one of your demon filled atheist buds did not consider that a whole group included babies and children were free to enjoy their Christian lives as they saw fit the other day and the law meant nothing to him as he slaughtered them.

It is a tragedy that one of your Christian raised gun loving buds decided to kill a bunch people in Texas.

Not sure how you think that a murderer disobeying the law justifies why you think you get to disobey Romans 13.

I do not go by your altered version of the Bible written to indoctrinate people to believe like you that "government" is their god..

How odd that your Bible doesn't include Romans.

What other parts of the New Testament does your Bible cut out?

 

[Syriusly]

So...both of you threaten us with a NAZI-like regime. Fascinating. We don't go down so easily anymore.

Hyperbole but I'd expect nothing less from you. You are free to be a sexual deviant and remain that away as long as you follow the law and I am still free to call you one.

And you are free to be a bigot and remain that way as long as you follow the law- and I am still free to call you one.

Obviously one of your demon filled atheist buds did not consider that a whole group included babies and children were free to enjoy their Christian lives as they saw fit the other day and the law meant nothing to him as he slaughtered them.

It is a tragedy that one of your Christian raised gun loving buds decided to kill a bunch people in Texas.

Not sure how you think that a murderer disobeying the law justifies why you think you get to disobey Romans 13.

Your killer was a self proclaimed denier of God. That makes him an atheist. He should have moved to a Communist country also instead of killing innocent people.

Your gun loving killer was a hater raised by Christians r- he shouldn't have killed anyone.

Not sure how you think that your murderer disobeying the laws justifies why you get to disobey the word of your God in Romans.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly is injecting vitriol to divert the untrained eye from the points I'm landing about one value system taking over government to force another value system to its knees. Either you believe DOMA should've been struck down because the fed can't force states to ratify or not to ratify marriage based on their constituents or you don't. Can the fed adopt a certain preference for this set of values over another and then use that preference to force states to ratify certain types of marriage against their Will? Yes or no?

In Windsor the USSC said that because New York chose on its own to adopt gay value systems as qualifying for a new type of motherless/fatherless "marriage", then Windsor is "legally married". ie, the fed can't tell states what marriage is or isn't.

Then in Obergefell the USSC said "no matter what a state chooses on its own, the gay value system of motherless/fatherless (gay) marriage must be allowed against that state's will". ie the fed CAN tell states what marriage is or isn't.

This fundamental reversal (of ancient collective human culture) happened in just two years' time, thanks to just five rogue un-elected lawyers, two of which expressed overt bias pro-gay marriage before the Hearing even happened. And this earth-shattering fundamental change in human culture (legally depriving children involved of either a mother or father for life "in marriage") happened not legislated by elected representatives of the People.

And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again, I'll remind readers that race is not equal to behaviors. And where race is expressly protected as to discrimination in the Constitution, random, vaguely-defined, shifting values of deviant sex practices are NOT expressly protected therein.

 

[Syriusly]

What version of the Bible do you have that doesn't have Romans 13?

Do you ignore all of Romans- or just the parts you don't like?

Please cite in the Bible where God commands that mens' laws are superior to His Law?

Romans 13 says that Man's law is God's law.

Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

And what is God's law? Romans tells you that also:

9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”a]">[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”b]">[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say 'don't bake cakes for gay weddings'

 

[Lysistrata]

In the end, why does any person have any valid interest in whom another person is married to under civil law? Religious factions may fight among themselves all they wish, but what does this have to do with the general population? If you don't want to marry someone of your own sex, then don't. Nobody is forcing you to get married or to marry someone or your own sex. If you want to marry someone of the other sex, then go for it. Nobody's stopping you.

 

[Syriusly]

And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.

I cited Windsor-which cited Loving- as an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited.

And Obergefell- cited both Windsor and Loving- was like Loving- an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.

I cited Windsor-which cited Loving- as an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited.

And Obergefell- cited both Windsor and Loving- was like Loving- an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited by the U.S. Constitution.

Limited as to race, not behaviors. You're going to see this come up so you'd better get your cult's lawyers sharpened up on the argument now. Loving never anticipate butt-sex addicts. Sorry to put it so bluntly but blunt is how it's going to be parsed out in the end to put a stop to gays forcing Christians to bend to the new state-sanctioned cult values. Butt sex addiction isn't mentioned at all in the 14th Amendment.

 

[bodecea]

So...both of you threaten us with a NAZI-like regime. Fascinating. We don't go down so easily anymore.

Hyperbole but I'd expect nothing less from you. You are free to be a sexual deviant and remain that away as long as you follow the law and I am still free to call you one.

And you are free to be a bigot and remain that way as long as you follow the law- and I am still free to call you one.

Obviously one of your demon filled atheist buds did not consider that a whole group included babies and children were free to enjoy their Christian lives as they saw fit the other day and the law meant nothing to him as he slaughtered them.

It is a tragedy that one of your Christian raised gun loving buds decided to kill a bunch people in Texas.

Not sure how you think that a murderer disobeying the law justifies why you think you get to disobey Romans 13.

I do not go by your altered version of the Bible written to indoctrinate people to believe like you that "government" is their god. You are free to practice Communism and believe 'the government is your god' but you will have to do so in a Communist country. Run quickly to the nearest airport and get to one of those Communist regimes if you are not already in one.


Your killer was a self proclaimed denier of God. That makes him an atheist. He should have moved to a Communist country also instead of killing innocent people.

And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.

I cited Windsor-which cited Loving- as an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited.

And Obergefell- cited both Windsor and Loving- was like Loving- an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited by the U.S. Constitution.

Limited as to race, not behaviors. You're going to see this come up so you'd better get your cult's lawyers sharpened up on the argument now. Loving never anticipate butt-sex addicts. Sorry to put it so bluntly but blunt is how it's going to be parsed out in the end to put a stop to gays forcing Christians to bend to the new state-sanctioned cult values. Butt sex addiction isn't mentioned at all in the 14th Amendment.

Where in the ruling of Loving v. Virginia does it limit the ruling to by race? If, as you want, marriage can be limited by behaviors....even LEGAL behaviors by law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....how long will it be before christers like you try to keep divorced people from remarrying? After all, divorce is a behavior. How about preventing people of other religions or of mixed religions from marrying? After all, religion is also a behavior.

(Again, I see that christers like to think and talk about gay sex way more than even gays do)

 

[Syriusly]

What version of the Bible do you have that doesn't have Romans 13?

Do you ignore all of Romans- or just the parts you don't like?

Please cite in the Bible where God commands that mens' laws are superior to His Law? Jude 1 pitted against Romans 13 = Jude 1 wins.

Feel free to quote where Jude 1 says that Christians are to break the law and not bake wedding cake for a gay couple.

The difference between you and I is that I quote the actual bible- not the bible the voices in your head tell you about.

Romans 13 is very clear and precise in instructing Christians to follow the law.

Jude 1 doesn't once say not to obey the law.

 

[RodISHI]

What version of the Bible do you have that doesn't have Romans 13?

Do you ignore all of Romans- or just the parts you don't like?

Please cite in the Bible where God commands that mens' laws are superior to His Law? Jude 1 pitted against Romans 13 = Jude 1 wins.

Feel free to quote where Jude 1 says that Christians are to break the law and not bake wedding cake for a gay couple.

The difference between you and I is that I quote the actual bible- not the bible the voices in your head tell you about.

Romans 13 is very clear and precise in instructing Christians to follow the law.

Jude 1 doesn't once say not to obey the law.

You are definitely a liar. You quoted a communist propaganda bible trying to usurp God's authority.

 

[Syriusly]

And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.

I cited Windsor-which cited Loving- as an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited.

And Obergefell- cited both Windsor and Loving- was like Loving- an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited by the U.S. Constitution.

Limited as to race, not behaviors.

Again- stop pretending like the voices in your head are real.

Windsor cited Loving as an example of when State's control over marriage law was not absolute. Not because of race- but because Loving violated the constitutional rights of the Loving's to marry each other.

And then Obergefell cited both Windsor and Loving, when Obergefell ruled that the States were violating the constitutional rights of Obergefell and his partner.

 

[Syriusly]

What version of the Bible do you have that doesn't have Romans 13?

Do you ignore all of Romans- or just the parts you don't like?

Please cite in the Bible where God commands that mens' laws are superior to His Law? Jude 1 pitted against Romans 13 = Jude 1 wins.

Feel free to quote where Jude 1 says that Christians are to break the law and not bake wedding cake for a gay couple.

The difference between you and I is that I quote the actual bible- not the bible the voices in your head tell you about.

Romans 13 is very clear and precise in instructing Christians to follow the law.

Jude 1 doesn't once say not to obey the law.

You are definitely a liar. You quoted a communist propaganda bible trying to usurp God's authority.

How can I be lying when I am using the exact words of the Bible?

What kind of bastardized Bible do you use that doesn't have Romans 13 in it?

 

[Syriusly]

Hyperbole but I'd expect nothing less from you. You are free to be a sexual deviant and remain that away as long as you follow the law and I am still free to call you one.

And you are free to be a bigot and remain that way as long as you follow the law- and I am still free to call you one.

Obviously one of your demon filled atheist buds did not consider that a whole group included babies and children were free to enjoy their Christian lives as they saw fit the other day and the law meant nothing to him as he slaughtered them.

It is a tragedy that one of your Christian raised gun loving buds decided to kill a bunch people in Texas.

Not sure how you think that a murderer disobeying the law justifies why you think you get to disobey Romans 13.

I do not go by your altered version of the Bible written to indoctrinate people to believe like you that "government" is their god. You are free to practice Communism and believe 'the government is your god' but you will have to do so in a Communist country. Run quickly to the nearest airport and get to one of those Communist regimes if you are not already in one.


Your killer was a self proclaimed denier of God. That makes him an atheist. He should have moved to a Communist country also instead of killing innocent people.

And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.

I cited Windsor-which cited Loving- as an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited.

And Obergefell- cited both Windsor and Loving- was like Loving- an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited by the U.S. Constitution.

Limited as to race, not behaviors. You're going to see this come up so you'd better get your cult's lawyers sharpened up on the argument now. Loving never anticipate butt-sex addicts. Sorry to put it so bluntly but blunt is how it's going to be parsed out in the end to put a stop to gays forcing Christians to bend to the new state-sanctioned cult values. Butt sex addiction isn't mentioned at all in the 14th Amendment.

Where in the ruling of Loving v. Virginia does it limit the ruling to by race? If, as you want, marriage can be limited by behaviors....even LEGAL behaviors by law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....how long will it be before christers like you try to keep divorced people from remarrying? After all, divorce is a behavior. How about preventing people of other religions or of mixed religions from marrying? After all, religion is also a behavior.

(Again, I see that christers like to think and talk about gay sex way more than even gays do)

She is certainly obsessing about butt sex....which is not mentioned in Loving, Windsor or Obergefell.

 

[RodISHI]

And you are free to be a bigot and remain that way as long as you follow the law- and I am still free to call you one.

Obviously one of your demon filled atheist buds did not consider that a whole group included babies and children were free to enjoy their Christian lives as they saw fit the other day and the law meant nothing to him as he slaughtered them.

It is a tragedy that one of your Christian raised gun loving buds decided to kill a bunch people in Texas.

Not sure how you think that a murderer disobeying the law justifies why you think you get to disobey Romans 13.

I do not go by your altered version of the Bible written to indoctrinate people to believe like you that "government" is their god. You are free to practice Communism and believe 'the government is your god' but you will have to do so in a Communist country. Run quickly to the nearest airport and get to one of those Communist regimes if you are not already in one.


Your killer was a self proclaimed denier of God. That makes him an atheist. He should have moved to a Communist country also instead of killing innocent people.

And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.

I cited Windsor-which cited Loving- as an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited.

And Obergefell- cited both Windsor and Loving- was like Loving- an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited by the U.S. Constitution.

Limited as to race, not behaviors. You're going to see this come up so you'd better get your cult's lawyers sharpened up on the argument now. Loving never anticipate butt-sex addicts. Sorry to put it so bluntly but blunt is how it's going to be parsed out in the end to put a stop to gays forcing Christians to bend to the new state-sanctioned cult values. Butt sex addiction isn't mentioned at all in the 14th Amendment.

Where in the ruling of Loving v. Virginia does it limit the ruling to by race? If, as you want, marriage can be limited by behaviors....even LEGAL behaviors by law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....how long will it be before christers like you try to keep divorced people from remarrying? After all, divorce is a behavior. How about preventing people of other religions or of mixed religions from marrying? After all, religion is also a behavior.

(Again, I see that christers like to think and talk about gay sex way more than even gays do)

She is certainly obsessing about butt sex....which is not mentioned in Loving, Windsor or Obergefell.

I haven't said a word about your butt sex you nasty little communist but I will definitely point out that you are a demon filled liar from hell attempting to overcome my constitutional rights, breakdown the society here in the United States and you are trying to claim that a bogus rendition of the bible gives your government as god authority to rights over and above the top of my rights. Get back into hell where you belong.

 

[Syriusly]

Obviously one of your demon filled atheist buds did not consider that a whole group included babies and children were free to enjoy their Christian lives as they saw fit the other day and the law meant nothing to him as he slaughtered them.

It is a tragedy that one of your Christian raised gun loving buds decided to kill a bunch people in Texas.

Not sure how you think that a murderer disobeying the law justifies why you think you get to disobey Romans 13.

I do not go by your altered version of the Bible written to indoctrinate people to believe like you that "government" is their god. You are free to practice Communism and believe 'the government is your god' but you will have to do so in a Communist country. Run quickly to the nearest airport and get to one of those Communist regimes if you are not already in one.


Your killer was a self proclaimed denier of God. That makes him an atheist. He should have moved to a Communist country also instead of killing innocent people.

And before Syriusly erroneously cites Loving again,.

I cited Windsor-which cited Loving- as an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited.

And Obergefell- cited both Windsor and Loving- was like Loving- an example of how State's control of marriage law is limited by the U.S. Constitution.

Limited as to race, not behaviors. You're going to see this come up so you'd better get your cult's lawyers sharpened up on the argument now. Loving never anticipate butt-sex addicts. Sorry to put it so bluntly but blunt is how it's going to be parsed out in the end to put a stop to gays forcing Christians to bend to the new state-sanctioned cult values. Butt sex addiction isn't mentioned at all in the 14th Amendment.

Where in the ruling of Loving v. Virginia does it limit the ruling to by race? If, as you want, marriage can be limited by behaviors....even LEGAL behaviors by law-abiding, tax-paying citizens....how long will it be before christers like you try to keep divorced people from remarrying? After all, divorce is a behavior. How about preventing people of other religions or of mixed religions from marrying? After all, religion is also a behavior.

(Again, I see that christers like to think and talk about gay sex way more than even gays do)

She is certainly obsessing about butt sex....which is not mentioned in Loving, Windsor or Obergefell.

I haven't said a word about your butt sex

Are you a 'she'? I was commenting about Silhouette- not about your butt sex.