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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Churches pay no prop tax. All donations are not only not taxed as income, but actually are tax deductible by the donor. Churches are free to not hire people of other faiths, and actually may refuse to hire because of sexual orientation. (though some gLBt would like that to change, though I doubt it will). Churches are free to marry those who they deem worthy, and to deny those they deem unworthy. Churches are even pretty free to use the pulpit to call a politician a sinner, and even to shun them.
I'm just not seeing the cross that Andrew and Ullyses claim to be nailed upon.
Good heavens.... How many times do I have to say this over and over.
The title of the thread is.....
"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
Does it say "Should we repeal laws infringing Religious freedom?"
No, it does not.
That said, there is the case of the Christian owned and operated wedding cake business, and that's the same deal. If I open a shop selling wedding cakes, and a homo couple shows up, they are not getting a cake.
There is nothing you can do to stop me from selling cakes, or refusing customers that are asking me to violate my faith.
Click on the image for a look at how Ulysses and Androw consider the right of Christians to make others do as they want.
Churches pay no prop tax. All donations are not only not taxed as income, but actually are tax deductible by the donor. Churches are free to not hire people of other faiths, and actually may refuse to hire because of sexual orientation. (though some gLBt would like that to change, though I doubt it will). Churches are free to marry those who they deem worthy, and to deny those they deem unworthy. Churches are even pretty free to use the pulpit to call a politician a sinner, and even to shun them.
I'm just not seeing the cross that Andrew and Ullyses claim to be nailed upon.
Good heavens.... How many times do I have to say this over and over.
The title of the thread is.....
"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
Does it say "Should we repeal laws infringing Religious freedom?"
No, it does not.
That said, there is the case of the Christian owned and operated wedding cake business, and that's the same deal. If I open a shop selling wedding cakes, and a homo couple shows up, they are not getting a cake.
There is nothing you can do to stop me from selling cakes, or refusing customers that are asking me to violate my faith.
And AGAIN. The OP is a STRAWMAN. No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.
Click on the image for a look at how Ulysses and Androw consider the right of Christians to make others do as they want.
Only in leftard land, does it make logical sense, that demanding other people pay for abortions, is somehow a 'right'.
That's not even a 'Christian' issue in my book. That's economic oppression. What about my travel rights. You need to pay for my car.
Why not? You can just make up 'rights', why not the freedom to travel. I want a car now. Send your check to me right away.
Good heavens.... How many times do I have to say this over and over.
The title of the thread is.....
"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
Does it say "Should we repeal laws infringing Religious freedom?"
No, it does not.
That said, there is the case of the Christian owned and operated wedding cake business, and that's the same deal. If I open a shop selling wedding cakes, and a homo couple shows up, they are not getting a cake.
There is nothing you can do to stop me from selling cakes, or refusing customers that are asking me to violate my faith.
And AGAIN. The OP is a STRAWMAN. No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.
And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll. So apparently it's not exactly a strawman. And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all. I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do. That's what people do on forums. Don't like that? I don't care. Have a nice day.
Good heavens.... How many times do I have to say this over and over.
The title of the thread is.....
"Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?"
Does it say "Should we repeal laws infringing Religious freedom?"
No, it does not.
That said, there is the case of the Christian owned and operated wedding cake business, and that's the same deal. If I open a shop selling wedding cakes, and a homo couple shows up, they are not getting a cake.
There is nothing you can do to stop me from selling cakes, or refusing customers that are asking me to violate my faith.
And AGAIN. The OP is a STRAWMAN. No one EVER suggested churches would be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. It's a strawman argument to get you wannabe victim/martyrs to become OUTRAGED .... over nothing at all.
And yet some people voted in favor of it in the poll. So apparently it's not exactly a strawman. And I'm not "OUTRAGED" at all.
I am simply telling you straight up my position, and what I'm going to do. That's what people do on forums.
Don't like that? I don't care. Have a nice day.
Agreed...with one caveat...as long as I cannot discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status...they shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just sayin...
I don't disagree with your caveat.
I opinion is that, in this day and age, Public Accommodation laws are not needed today to the degree that they were needed 3-generations ago. That it's time to repeal them in general.
>>>>
Agreed...with one caveat...as long as I cannot discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, marital status, parental status, or veteran's status...they shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just sayin...
I don't disagree with your caveat.
I opinion is that, in this day and age, Public Accommodation laws are not needed today to the degree that they were needed 3-generations ago. That it's time to repeal them in general.
>>>>
I believe you'd find we aren't as far along as you think. Imagine what Muslim Americans would have to deal with without PA laws.
Fact: there is no war against Christianity in this country; if there were, we would flatten the opposition in a heart beat. Listen up, atheists, and don't be stupid.
Fact: there is a struggle in the American community of Christians, which the social conservatives are losing, and screaming like a bunch of pigs as they foresee the end of their nonsense. Tough to be them.
I don't disagree with your caveat.
I opinion is that, in this day and age, Public Accommodation laws are not needed today to the degree that they were needed 3-generations ago. That it's time to repeal them in general.
>>>>
I believe you'd find we aren't as far along as you think. Imagine what Muslim Americans would have to deal with without PA laws.
I'd pretty much believe no where near what Black American's dealt with 3-generations ago when it when it wasn't just private businesses that discriminated it was government entities also.
As I've said before, in addition the corporatization of American business is much greater than during that time and big business isn't going to stand for that kind of PR and will keep non-discrimination policies in place.
>>>>
I believe you'd find we aren't as far along as you think. Imagine what Muslim Americans would have to deal with without PA laws.
I'd pretty much believe no where near what Black American's dealt with 3-generations ago when it when it wasn't just private businesses that discriminated it was government entities also.
As I've said before, in addition the corporatization of American business is much greater than during that time and big business isn't going to stand for that kind of PR and will keep non-discrimination policies in place.
>>>>
I like your optimism...but then I see mosques being burned in the south.
I'd pretty much believe no where near what Black American's dealt with 3-generations ago when it when it wasn't just private businesses that discriminated it was government entities also.
As I've said before, in addition the corporatization of American business is much greater than during that time and big business isn't going to stand for that kind of PR and will keep non-discrimination policies in place.
>>>>
I like your optimism...but then I see mosques being burned in the south.
Mosques are being burned in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the southern USA.
BTW, Christian churches are also being burned in those countries. But I guess thats just hunky dorry with you-------------moron.
U and A sound as silly as a son of mine did when he was a fourteen year old and decided not to go to church anymore.
I told him that was his choice but he had to certain chores to do that had to be finished by noon each Sunday.
He said 'no'.
I forfeited his allowance.
He said 'no.'
I took 10% of his saving as a fine and divided it in the savings of his siblings.
He finally said 'yes'.
A and U can do what they want, but there always consequences for such nonsense.
I said that people who read the Bible and manipulated it to mean that it speaks against interracial marriage, have taken the bible "out of context". The bible however is very explicit and detailed when describing homosexual acts, such as in Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful
There is no way to misinterpret a scripture that is so detailed in nature as one which describes to the point of leaving a vivid picture. There is no scripture as detailed, however, in explicitly pointing the finger to marriage with a different color. Tribe could mean Jews mingling with Amish, clearly both are of the same race as it doesn't specifically isolate and identify those of a different skin color. Sorry but generalities aren't the same as specifics.
You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
I said that people who read the Bible and manipulated it to mean that it speaks against interracial marriage, have taken the bible "out of context". The bible however is very explicit and detailed when describing homosexual acts, such as in Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful
There is no way to misinterpret a scripture that is so detailed in nature as one which describes to the point of leaving a vivid picture. There is no scripture as detailed, however, in explicitly pointing the finger to marriage with a different color. Tribe could mean Jews mingling with Amish, clearly both are of the same race as it doesn't specifically isolate and identify those of a different skin color. Sorry but generalities aren't the same as specifics.
You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically condones the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically condones the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
That's a bit of a red herring. Some believe Paul was speaking to the Hellenic branch of the church where homosexuality (bisexuality) was prevalent among many men. And, it wasn't the sexual act so much as the emphasis on earthly pursuits rather than the great commandment. Paul found no place in his life for sexual expression, but also found that some people needed that as well as a loving relationship. There view is that Paul wasn't commenting upon two consenting and loving committed same sex people, because such unions didn't exist ... at least openly. Rather, he argued for chastity, or if not that then fidelity. They may be wrong or right, but people who thing that are entitled to their view, so long as they don't force their view on your religious observance.
Whether you agree is also irrelevant, because you too are entitled to your view, just the same as they, unless you try to force your view on their religious observance. Or their right to contract to marry, for that matter.
I said that people who read the Bible and manipulated it to mean that it speaks against interracial marriage, have taken the bible "out of context". The bible however is very explicit and detailed when describing homosexual acts, such as in Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful
There is no way to misinterpret a scripture that is so detailed in nature as one which describes to the point of leaving a vivid picture. There is no scripture as detailed, however, in explicitly pointing the finger to marriage with a different color. Tribe could mean Jews mingling with Amish, clearly both are of the same race as it doesn't specifically isolate and identify those of a different skin color. Sorry but generalities aren't the same as specifics.
You're just reiterating my point. YOU think they are wrong, but they KNEW they were right.
And there are people who think you take the bible out of context when you use that passage, unrelated to consenting adults who love each other, and apply it to today's gays and lesbians.
I would be taking the Bible out of context only when you can provide a passage of scripture that specifically condones the act as acceptible to today's gays and lesbians - book, chapter, and verse specifically.
