Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Of course they did...just by walking in and ordering a wedding cake. They were a gay couple ordering a wedding cake just like a straight couple. The only difference in the transaction was the people, not the cake...hence the discrimination and the lawsuit. They broke the law.

The cake is just a cake it was the people ordering that the baker objected to, which was a violation of the law.

Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?

I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ? The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ? If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.

They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.

You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?

I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.

Once again you demonize and call names. That's not "criticism". You don't get it.

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.

A private club IS a place of business you idiot.

But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.

Not according to the Supreme Court

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE

Held: Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.

Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire. Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609, 623. Such forced membership is unconstitutional if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York,487 U.S. 1, 13. However, the freedom of expressive association is not absolute; it can be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. Roberts, 468 U.S., at 623. To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system. See id., at 636. Thus, the Court must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean,” and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts’ assertions regarding the nature of its expression, see,Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette,450 U.S. 107, 123—124. The Court then inquires whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the expression of those viewpoints. Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have become community leaders and are open and honest about their sexual orientation. His presence as an assistant scoutmaster would interfere with the Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. See Hurley, 515 U.S., at 576—577. This Court disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determination that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message would not be significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale. First, contrary to the state court’s view, an association need not associate for the purpose of disseminating a certain message in order to be protected, but must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, its method of expression is protected. Third, the First Amendment does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” Given that the Boy Scouts’ expression would be burdened, the Court must inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law here runs afoul the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association, and concludes that it does.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Do you have the transcript of the lawsuit and/or the event as it is told by both sides, because I would sure like to know if your assertions are true or not. I mean were you there, and do you know that this is what happened exactly between them all or did you read this somewhere ? How were the two acting while in the shop ? Were they taunting the baker with their actions, and therefore causing the baker to pull his beliefs and moral standards out on them, and this in order to deprive them of the service in which they had required of the baker, and in which are standards that are based upon the beliefs and standards that the baker lived by?

I mean isn't there are all sorts of lead ways in the laws that go on between a business giving their services willingly or even in denying their services based upon the rules set forth by a business owner (shoes and shirt required or no service), and upon the attitudes that causes gaps to form between a person or persons that are doing business together or to even be ousted from a business if necessary when things don't work out between all parties involved ? I mean this happens all the time doesn't it ? Otherwise a business if things go wrong will not be doing business with the person or persons anymore by it's choosing right, and this if it is the persons fault that things went wrong and not the business owners fault instead ? If I go into a business, and I think that can conduct myself in anyway that I want to or if I demand from that business anything that I want, then does the business have any rights to deny me their service if I am unreasonable in my demands or if my actions go against everything that a citizen and/or business owner doth believe in ? If the owner thinks that I am offensive or belligerent as a customer, then does that business have any rights in America any longer to deny me their services ? The window once believed in within America, is closing faster than a speeding bullet now, and the box is getting smaller and smaller that the American people are being placed into. I guess it all comes down to who is getting into the box, the believers or the attackers of the believers in this nation ? If the government has anything to do with it, it will be the Christians who will be forced into the box, so get ready Christians because their coming for you now.

They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.

You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?

I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.

Once again you demonize and call names. That's not "criticism". You don't get it.

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.

A private club IS a place of business you idiot.

But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.

Not according to the Supreme Court

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE

Held: Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.

Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire. Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609, 623. Such forced membership is unconstitutional if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York,487 U.S. 1, 13. However, the freedom of expressive association is not absolute; it can be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. Roberts, 468 U.S., at 623. To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system. See id., at 636. Thus, the Court must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean,” and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts’ assertions regarding the nature of its expression, see,Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette,450 U.S. 107, 123—124. The Court then inquires whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the expression of those viewpoints. Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have become community leaders and are open and honest about their sexual orientation. His presence as an assistant scoutmaster would interfere with the Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. See Hurley, 515 U.S., at 576—577. This Court disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determination that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message would not be significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale. First, contrary to the state court’s view, an association need not associate for the purpose of disseminating a certain message in order to be protected, but must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, its method of expression is protected. Third, the First Amendment does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” Given that the Boy Scouts’ expression would be burdened, the Court must inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law here runs afoul the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association, and concludes that it does.

Correct, but the faggot DID sue and force the issue all the way to SCOTUS instead of being reasonable and saying "okay a private group doesn't want me, so be it"

 

[Syriusly]

Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.

Learn about religious freedom in America.

Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.

oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?

Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.

There's the race card. How convenient. There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.

Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.

It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.

I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.

But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that.

 

[Syriusly]

They ordered a cake. If it had been an item the business didn't provide, there would have been no lawsuit.

You're ignoring, on purpose, the point. Why be a child? Why not just go elsewhere?

I'm stating the facts, not homophobic hyperbole.

Once again you demonize and call names. That's not "criticism". You don't get it.

No!!!

The Black Panthers don't allow whites.
The Boy Scouts don't allow girls.
The Girl Scouts don't allow boys.
Christian churches don't participate in anti-biblical activities.

Learn the difference between a private club and a place of business.

A private club IS a place of business you idiot.

But, since you brought it up, please give the legal reason you differentiate between a "private club " and a business in regards to the unconstitutional public accommodation laws.

Not according to the Supreme Court

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE

Held: Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.

Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, one of which is intrusion into a group’s internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire. Roberts v. United States Jaycees,468 U.S. 609, 623. Such forced membership is unconstitutional if the person’s presence affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York,487 U.S. 1, 13. However, the freedom of expressive association is not absolute; it can be overridden by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms. Roberts, 468 U.S., at 623. To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in “expressive association.” The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system. See id., at 636. Thus, the Court must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect the Boy Scouts’ ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts’ viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean,” and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts’ assertions regarding the nature of its expression, see,Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette,450 U.S. 107, 123—124. The Court then inquires whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the expression of those viewpoints. Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have become community leaders and are open and honest about their sexual orientation. His presence as an assistant scoutmaster would interfere with the Scouts’ choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs. See Hurley, 515 U.S., at 576—577. This Court disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determination that the Boy Scouts’ ability to disseminate its message would not be significantly affected by the forced inclusion of Dale. First, contrary to the state court’s view, an association need not associate for the purpose of disseminating a certain message in order to be protected, but must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues, its method of expression is protected. Third, the First Amendment does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” Given that the Boy Scouts’ expression would be burdened, the Court must inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law here runs afoul the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association, and concludes that it does.

Correct, but the faggot DID sue and force the issue all the way to SCOTUS instead of being reasonable and saying "okay a private group doesn't want me, so be it"

An American used his lawful right to file a lawsuit. I don't agree with lots of lawsuits, and find many of them unreasonable.

You asked for the legal distinction- the Supreme Court's decision provided that legal distinction for you.

You claimed:
A private club IS a place of business you idiot.

And I showed that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

I hope you enjoyed your lesson.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Learn about religious freedom in America.

Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.

oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?

Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.

There's the race card. How convenient. There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.

Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.

It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.

I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.

But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that.

People say a lot of things, not just Christians. My point is it is not a Christian doctrine. Condemnation of homosexuality is.

 

[Syriusly]

SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.

Can't even be honest in a discussion

Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......

not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.

Can't even be honest in a discussion

Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......

not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

 

[beagle9]

It's about submission. The queers want Christians to shut up.

They've got to be after the Christians wouldn't you think ? I mean because the Christians belief in sin is one thing that includes their lifestyle in that belief in sin.

 

[Syriusly]

Religious freedom is not infringed upon by public accommodations laws. You can't use your religion to discriminate against blacks or Muslims and in some places gays.

oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?

Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.

There's the race card. How convenient. There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.

Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.

It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.

I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.

But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that.

People say a lot of things, not just Christians. My point is it is not a Christian doctrine. Condemnation of homosexuality is.

LOL....thats what Christians always say when they oppose something.

Lets talk about that 'condemnation of homosexuality' as a Christian doctrine.

I will assume we are not speaking of Leviticus- because that is the Old Testament and if we go with Leviticus you should be condemning lots of other things that you aren't.

So lets stick with the New Testament.

Where is homosexuality condemned in the New Testament?

Clearly Jesus never mentions it.

Jesus specifically condemns all adultery, and specifically condemns remarriage after divorce as adultery, EXCEPT in the case of adultery by the wife(not the husband).

Do you spend as much time condemning divorce as you do homosexuality? It doesn't get much more explicit than the words of Jesus himself:

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.9And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.d”

Where is homosexuality 'condemned' in the New Testament?

Really only in Romans

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 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:

27 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 unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So God puts men who have sex with men in the same category as the 'inventors of evil things' and those ;disobedient to parents'

And boasters and the proud.

It has been my observation that those who most condemn Homosexuality based upon Biblical claims, rather cherry pick what Biblical condemnations to promote.

And just like the issue of race- Christians have been willing to use the issue of homosexuality to promote discrimination against a group that they just think should be discriminated against.

 

[Syriusly]

SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.

Can't even be honest in a discussion

Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......

not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

SeaBytch was no doubt "born a lesbian" when she realized ALL men found her repulsive, she's a nasty piece of work.

Can't even be honest in a discussion

Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......

not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......

not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

 

[koshergrl]

Who the hell seriously believes those Scandanavian barbarians are enlightened?

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

Y

oh,so separation of church and state is right out the window when convenient for you eh SeaBytch?

Nope...it's quite safe. If you wanted to discriminate against blacks, can you using your "religious freedom"? No, you can't.

There's the race card. How convenient. There is nothing in Christianity that instructs Christians to discriminate because of skin color.

Yet Christians have argued that the Bible does instruct Christians to discriminate.

It was a common argument during Jim Crow days all the way back to the days of slavery.

The Southern Argument for Slavery ushistory.org

It was an argument for segregation- even as ministers said that segregation was not discrimination

Is Segregation Scriptural by Bob Jones Sr 1960 A Time To Laugh

Yes- the founder of Bob Jones University explaining why it was scripturally correct to exclude blacks from the University.

I would agree that there is nothing in the Bible which says that people should be discriminated against because of their skin color.

But lots of Christians have said the Bible says just that.

People say a lot of things, not just Christians. My point is it is not a Christian doctrine. Condemnation of homosexuality is.

LOL....thats what Christians always say when they oppose something.

Lets talk about that 'condemnation of homosexuality' as a Christian doctrine.

I will assume we are not speaking of Leviticus- because that is the Old Testament and if we go with Leviticus you should be condemning lots of other things that you aren't.

So lets stick with the New Testament.

Where is homosexuality condemned in the New Testament?

Clearly Jesus never mentions it.

Jesus specifically condemns all adultery, and specifically condemns remarriage after divorce as adultery, EXCEPT in the case of adultery by the wife(not the husband).

Do you spend as much time condemning divorce as you do homosexuality? It doesn't get much more explicit than the words of Jesus himself:

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.9And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.d”

Where is homosexuality 'condemned' in the New Testament?

Really only in Romans

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 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:

27 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 unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

So God puts men who have sex with men in the same category as the 'inventors of evil things' and those ;disobedient to parents'

And boasters and the proud.

It has been my observation that those who most condemn Homosexuality based upon Biblical claims, rather cherry pick what Biblical condemnations to promote.

And just like the issue of race- Christians have been willing to use the issue of homosexuality to promote discrimination against a group that they just think should be discriminated against.

You forgot First Corinthians 6:9-10.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

My constitution trumps your law.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah- your post is all about honest discussion......

not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to accept anything. No one will force you into a 'queer marriage' as you so quaintly put it.

You are free to practice your religious beliefs, but if you own a business you have to follow the law. That means you can't use your religious beliefs as an excuse to refuse to do business with Jews for instance when it comes to Federal law.

 

[koshergrl]

Homosexuality isn't a religion. Or an ethnicity. It's a behavior.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

not with her it isn't because she's a vile disgusting piece of crap. Sorry you idiots on the left believe you should be able to "debate" however you would like and then cry foul when the other side responds in kind,, but put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to accept anything. No one will force you into a 'queer marriage' as you so quaintly put it.

You are free to practice your religious beliefs, but if you own a business you have to follow the law. That means you can't use your religious beliefs as an excuse to refuse to do business with Jews for instance when it comes to Federal law.

Nope. My constitutional rights do not go away because I own a business. How silly.

 

[Skylar]

I am just pointing out what a hypocrite you are- whining about 'honest debate' and then lying about Seawitch.

Not that it is a shock to anyone, but its fun to point out.

Do you think denying constitutional rights is fun?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And if you don't quite get my point- you haven't said anything about beating your wife- and I haven't said anything about denying constitutional rights.

Yes, you have. My constitution protects my religious beliefs. You can't force me to accept queer marriage.

You don't have to 'accept' a 'queer marriage'. The law does that.

My constitution trumps your law.

If we consulted you personally on who as allowed to be married, perhaps. But you alone are pretty much irrelevant. The law recognizes marriage even if you don't.

 

[Skylar]

Homosexuality isn't a religion. Or an ethnicity. It's a behavior.

Speech is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Religion is a behavior.

So what?