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.
Exactly. The publishers of the books went round and round about it with the gay lifestylists. Visit the link in my signature for the link to the story about that. Seems that the gays were trying to "out" people that the publishers weren't certain were gay and it was causing issues. Still is. As far as I know though, CA is green lighting the gay-propaganda course mandate for this Fall in public schools. Wonder if they'll make kids take its equivalent (neutrality) in "famous Christians in history' where the person's Christianity is tied to their accomplishments; just like its counterpart?Seems a bit odd to me in either case. I am not aware of the "test" that confirms homosexuality?
I like your argument on how sexual orientation isn't necessarily the deal killer for the baker. That's another topic too, but it is related here. It's true. There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all. The baker's objection can just simply be that he does not consider two people of the same gender ever qualifying "as married". A LOT of people feel the same way about that.
There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all.
why would anyone? So why the judgement against the cake baker?I sure as hell wouldn't want someone to bake a cake for me who hated me.
still can't believe it's a sin to believe in what you believe in. If I believe marriage is between a man and woman, how am I wrong?Exactly. The publishers of the books went round and round about it with the gay lifestylists. Visit the link in my signature for the link to the story about that. Seems that the gays were trying to "out" people that the publishers weren't certain were gay and it was causing issues. Still is. As far as I know though, CA is green lighting the gay-propaganda course mandate for this Fall in public schools. Wonder if they'll make kids take its equivalent (neutrality) in "famous Christians in history' where the person's Christianity is tied to their accomplishments; just like its counterpart?Seems a bit odd to me in either case. I am not aware of the "test" that confirms homosexuality?
I like your argument on how sexual orientation isn't necessarily the deal killer for the baker. That's another topic too, but it is related here. It's true. There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all. The baker's objection can just simply be that he does not consider two people of the same gender ever qualifying "as married". A LOT of people feel the same way about that.
There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all.
Bingo! The reality as to what constitutes a marriage today is far differ than the assumptions as to what a marriage was 20 years ago.
It's as though those that fight against the spiritual aspect of marriage want that aspect retained somehow?
Completely absurd thinking on their part.
still can't believe it's a sin to believe in what you believe in. If I believe marriage is between a man and woman, how am I wrong?
Wow I wonder if the Nazis called Jews "hypersensitive douchebags"? Left wing sissies really get their panties in a twist when It comes to the feelings of sodomites who were trolling for a discrimination issue. The left wing sissies conveniently forget that the bakers offered to bake a cake depicting anything the sodomites wanted except a wedding cake. It was an overwhelming Supreme Court decision so live with it or find a more liberal baker.
What in the hell are you going on about? You've entirely missed the point of my post. Did you even read it?
It's like there's a legion of idiot foot-soldiers ready to drop into any thread with certain key words and just start chanting their team 'cheers'. Do any of you people have the capacity to think critically?
my sincere conviction? it's my belief, why do I need to be sincere? has nothing to do with religion. I am a human and I find same sex shit as disturbing. Two people wish to live together, good for them. if they are the same sex, good for them. They don't get to be married. Civil union I was good with to get them federal assistance. It isn't marriage. Not in the definition I grew up with. it is my belief and it doesn't need to be sincere. It just needs to be mine. BTW, if a gay individual was a famous person, I don't care if he or she was gay. has nothing to do with anything. leave it alone.still can't believe it's a sin to believe in what you believe in. If I believe marriage is between a man and woman, how am I wrong?
You aren't wrong if it's your sincere conviction. This sort of parallels Pop23's argument in that is there really a religious requirement to strongly object on principle to a same-sex wedding? You can object for secular reasons if those are strongly held. I think the military's "conscientious objector" status doesn't hinge on a person identifying as of a particular faith. I could be wrong. Does anyone have info on that?
my sincere conviction? it's my belief, why do I need to be sincere? has nothing to do with religion. I am a human and I find same sex shit as disturbing. Two people wish to live together, good for them. if they are the same sex, good for them. They don't get to be married. Civil union I was good with to get them federal assistance. It isn't marriage. Not in the definition I grew up with. it is my belief and it doesn't need to be sincere. It just needs to be mine.
still can't believe it's a sin to believe in what you believe in. If I believe marriage is between a man and woman, how am I wrong?Exactly. The publishers of the books went round and round about it with the gay lifestylists. Visit the link in my signature for the link to the story about that. Seems that the gays were trying to "out" people that the publishers weren't certain were gay and it was causing issues. Still is. As far as I know though, CA is green lighting the gay-propaganda course mandate for this Fall in public schools. Wonder if they'll make kids take its equivalent (neutrality) in "famous Christians in history' where the person's Christianity is tied to their accomplishments; just like its counterpart?Seems a bit odd to me in either case. I am not aware of the "test" that confirms homosexuality?
I like your argument on how sexual orientation isn't necessarily the deal killer for the baker. That's another topic too, but it is related here. It's true. There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all. The baker's objection can just simply be that he does not consider two people of the same gender ever qualifying "as married". A LOT of people feel the same way about that.
There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all.
Bingo! The reality as to what constitutes a marriage today is far differ than the assumptions as to what a marriage was 20 years ago.
It's as though those that fight against the spiritual aspect of marriage want that aspect retained somehow?
Completely absurd thinking on their part.
I understand you are. No need to feed the trolls with words such as sincere conviction. if it is a conviction, one can assume it is sincere.my sincere conviction? it's my belief, why do I need to be sincere? has nothing to do with religion. I am a human and I find same sex shit as disturbing. Two people wish to live together, good for them. if they are the same sex, good for them. They don't get to be married. Civil union I was good with to get them federal assistance. It isn't marriage. Not in the definition I grew up with. it is my belief and it doesn't need to be sincere. It just needs to be mine.
Now you're just fighting just to fight. lol If it is your belief, born from strong upbringing, then it is sincere by definition. I'm on your side here.
Your OP was about neutrality as much as I could glean. You said the right to object to another lifestyle applies equally. That's why I brought up my bit about the CA schools forcing kids to take "important gays in history" while forbidding anything in public schools like "important Christians in history". That violates neutrality as the Court mandated recently.
my sincere conviction? it's my belief, why do I need to be sincere? has nothing to do with religion. I am a human and I find same sex shit as disturbing. Two people wish to live together, good for them. if they are the same sex, good for them. They don't get to be married. Civil union I was good with to get them federal assistance. It isn't marriage. Not in the definition I grew up with. it is my belief and it doesn't need to be sincere. It just needs to be mine. BTW, if a gay individual was a famous person, I don't care if he or she was gay. has nothing to do with anything. leave it alone.still can't believe it's a sin to believe in what you believe in. If I believe marriage is between a man and woman, how am I wrong?
You aren't wrong if it's your sincere conviction. This sort of parallels Pop23's argument in that is there really a religious requirement to strongly object on principle to a same-sex wedding? You can object for secular reasons if those are strongly held. I think the military's "conscientious objector" status doesn't hinge on a person identifying as of a particular faith. I could be wrong. Does anyone have info on that?
Exactly. The publishers of the books went round and round about it with the gay lifestylists. Visit the link in my signature for the link to the story about that. Seems that the gays were trying to "out" people that the publishers weren't certain were gay and it was causing issues. Still is. As far as I know though, CA is green lighting the gay-propaganda course mandate for this Fall in public schools. Wonder if they'll make kids take its equivalent (neutrality) in "famous Christians in history' where the person's Christianity is tied to their accomplishments; just like its counterpart?Seems a bit odd to me in either case. I am not aware of the "test" that confirms homosexuality?
I like your argument on how sexual orientation isn't necessarily the deal killer for the baker. That's another topic too, but it is related here. It's true. There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all. The baker's objection can just simply be that he does not consider two people of the same gender ever qualifying "as married". A LOT of people feel the same way about that.
they thrive attention. they are attention whores. they shout me me for an audience to show themselves off. then when shunned scream foul and not being treated equal. Attention whores is all they are. it is what that couple did to the baker. attention whores. And the objective was to out the baker and his business. they had an actual objective.my sincere conviction? it's my belief, why do I need to be sincere? has nothing to do with religion. I am a human and I find same sex shit as disturbing. Two people wish to live together, good for them. if they are the same sex, good for them. They don't get to be married. Civil union I was good with to get them federal assistance. It isn't marriage. Not in the definition I grew up with. it is my belief and it doesn't need to be sincere. It just needs to be mine. BTW, if a gay individual was a famous person, I don't care if he or she was gay. has nothing to do with anything. leave it alone.still can't believe it's a sin to believe in what you believe in. If I believe marriage is between a man and woman, how am I wrong?
You aren't wrong if it's your sincere conviction. This sort of parallels Pop23's argument in that is there really a religious requirement to strongly object on principle to a same-sex wedding? You can object for secular reasons if those are strongly held. I think the military's "conscientious objector" status doesn't hinge on a person identifying as of a particular faith. I could be wrong. Does anyone have info on that?
I think gays do this, outing famous people, mostly long dead who can't defend themselves as a way to justify their own being. They believe, if successful, it makes them appear more normal.
Wow I wonder if the Nazis called Jews "hypersensitive douchebags"? Left wing sissies really get their panties in a twist when It comes to the feelings of sodomites who were trolling for a discrimination issue. The left wing sissies conveniently forget that the bakers offered to bake a cake depicting anything the sodomites wanted except a wedding cake. It was an overwhelming Supreme Court decision so live with it or find a more liberal baker.
What in the hell are you going on about? You've entirely missed the point of my post. Did you even read it?
It's like there's a legion of idiot foot-soldiers ready to drop into any thread with certain key words and just start chanting their team 'cheers'. Do any of you people have the capacity to think critically?
but they were attention whores and had to out the guy.Exactly. The publishers of the books went round and round about it with the gay lifestylists. Visit the link in my signature for the link to the story about that. Seems that the gays were trying to "out" people that the publishers weren't certain were gay and it was causing issues. Still is. As far as I know though, CA is green lighting the gay-propaganda course mandate for this Fall in public schools. Wonder if they'll make kids take its equivalent (neutrality) in "famous Christians in history' where the person's Christianity is tied to their accomplishments; just like its counterpart?Seems a bit odd to me in either case. I am not aware of the "test" that confirms homosexuality?
I like your argument on how sexual orientation isn't necessarily the deal killer for the baker. That's another topic too, but it is related here. It's true. There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all. The baker's objection can just simply be that he does not consider two people of the same gender ever qualifying "as married". A LOT of people feel the same way about that.
Do not ignore the fact that the baker was willing to offer any other product he has, other than the wedding cake. To me, tolerance dictates they shoulda just gone to another baker, they didn't have to literally make a federal case out of it. Which makes me think that was in fact what they really wanted in the 1st place.
Wow I wonder if the Nazis called Jews "hypersensitive douchebags"? Left wing sissies really get their panties in a twist when It comes to the feelings of sodomites who were trolling for a discrimination issue. The left wing sissies conveniently forget that the bakers offered to bake a cake depicting anything the sodomites wanted except a wedding cake. It was an overwhelming Supreme Court decision so live with it or find a more liberal baker.
What in the hell are you going on about? You've entirely missed the point of my post. Did you even read it?
It's like there's a legion of idiot foot-soldiers ready to drop into any thread with certain key words and just start chanting their team 'cheers'. Do any of you people have the capacity to think critically?
Yes. In this case I, a conservative has posted very progressively. Is that open minded enough?
Wow I wonder if the Nazis called Jews "hypersensitive douchebags"? Left wing sissies really get their panties in a twist when It comes to the feelings of sodomites who were trolling for a discrimination issue. The left wing sissies conveniently forget that the bakers offered to bake a cake depicting anything the sodomites wanted except a wedding cake. It was an overwhelming Supreme Court decision so live with it or find a more liberal baker.
What in the hell are you going on about? You've entirely missed the point of my post. Did you even read it?
It's like there's a legion of idiot foot-soldiers ready to drop into any thread with certain key words and just start chanting their team 'cheers'. Do any of you people have the capacity to think critically?
Yes. In this case I, a conservative has posted very progressively. Is that open minded enough?
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
Wow I wonder if the Nazis called Jews "hypersensitive douchebags"? Left wing sissies really get their panties in a twist when It comes to the feelings of sodomites who were trolling for a discrimination issue. The left wing sissies conveniently forget that the bakers offered to bake a cake depicting anything the sodomites wanted except a wedding cake. It was an overwhelming Supreme Court decision so live with it or find a more liberal baker.
What in the hell are you going on about? You've entirely missed the point of my post. Did you even read it?
It's like there's a legion of idiot foot-soldiers ready to drop into any thread with certain key words and just start chanting their team 'cheers'. Do any of you people have the capacity to think critically?
Yes. In this case I, a conservative has posted very progressively. Is that open minded enough?
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
Then you've obviously not read my posts. I use only secular arguments to show how the Baker did not discriminate. That my friend, is the very ideal of progressive thought.
