The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[boedicca]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

State laws versus the Constitution...............Which is the higher authority..................

SCOTUS needs to clear it up.

Freedom of religion does not mean you can use it to discriminate. That is a BOGUS claim. It means you can practice your religion without interference from government. That does not apply to secular laws when you go into business. When you open a business, you had better be aware of the fact that you have to treat everyone the same, regardless of your own personal views.

This is a pretty good example of the decline of civilization due to Secular Relativism. An individual may no longer refuse to perform an action which is contrary to his conscience and religious beliefs if The Mob insists that he participates.

Someday you'll be sorry when you see the seeds you are sowing sprout.

 

[boedicca]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

That is the recent Prog modfication. Here is the original. It does not encompass all retail businesses, but rather the ones where a service is consumed onsite or engaged in interstate commerce.

A local bakery providing only take out goods to the local community doesn't fall under this original definition.

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More detail at this link:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Accommodation

They were held liable under state law, not federal law..

Which came first : 1964 or 2013?

Moron.

 

[paperview]

boedicca doesn't think the BOLI in OR doesn't understand the Public Accommodation Laws.




Such whack.

 

[eagle1462010]

EAGLE1462010 SAID:

“The Bakers are a small business.............and their Religion is an extension of their business as well..........And to say they must Bake or decorate cakes that is against their beliefs is discrimination against their personal beliefs.”

This is both ridiculous and wrong:

“Although a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.
[…]
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute

This means that the sole intent of state and local public accommodations laws is to regulate markets, not disadvantage religion, and as such they do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Moreover, state and local public accommodations laws are valid measures “prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate,” in this case regulate local markets where state and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause. (Wickard v. Filburn, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US)

EAGLE1462010 SAID:

“They are receiving funding and SCOTUS will see this again.”

Actually not.

Employment Division v. Smith was unanimous, predicated on settled, accepted case law dating back to the 19th Century; no Federal court or appellate court is going to ignore that case law, so no such case will ever make it to the Supreme Court.

The Court is not going to rule in a manner which will allow criminal suspects to attempt to avoid being convicted by claiming that obeying a given law 'violates their religion.'

Apples to oranges..........1st case was a wrongful firing case..........fired for using drugs.........saying they were allowed based upon religious beliefs..............

Other case back in the 19th century.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

That is the recent Prog modfication. Here is the original. It does not encompass all retail businesses, but rather the ones where a service is consumed onsite or engaged in interstate commerce.

A local bakery providing only take out goods to the local community doesn't fall under this original definition.

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More detail at this link:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Accommodation

They were held liable under state law, not federal law..

Which came first : 1964 or 2013?

Moron.

Oh, I see. You're a retarded conservative who is wrongly making an argument AGAINST states' rights.

Hilarious.

 

[eagle1462010]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

That is the recent Prog modfication. Here is the original. It does not encompass all retail businesses, but rather the ones where a service is consumed onsite or engaged in interstate commerce.

A local bakery providing only take out goods to the local community doesn't fall under this original definition.

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More detail at this link:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Accommodation

They were held liable under state law, not federal law..

Which came first : 1964 or 2013?

Moron.

Oh, I see. You're a retarded conservative who is wrongly making an argument AGAINST states' rights.

Hilarious.

Constitutional rights versus state rights........................Conservatives have always pushed the Constitution........your side not so much........................if you have a pen and a phone the Constitution need not apply.

 

[paperview]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

State laws versus the Constitution...............Which is the higher authority..................

SCOTUS needs to clear it up.

Freedom of religion does not mean you can use it to discriminate. That is a BOGUS claim. It means you can practice your religion without interference from government. That does not apply to secular laws when you go into business. When you open a business, you had better be aware of the fact that you have to treat everyone the same, regardless of your own personal views.

This is a pretty good example of the decline of civilization due to Secular Relativism. An individual may no longer refuse to perform an action which is contrary to his conscience and religious beliefs if The Mob insists that he participates.

Someday you'll be sorry when you see the seeds you are sowing sprout.

How'd that work out for Piggie Park?

As posted earlier in the thread:

There was this racist guy who didn't serve blacks in his restaurant - he thought he could legally discriminate - claimed his religion told him black and whites needed to be segregated.


What happened?

"In its 8-0 decision in Piggie Park, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling against the restaurant chain and found that it was not exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply because its owner had religious objections to the law. "

 

[NYcarbineer]

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

That is the recent Prog modfication. Here is the original. It does not encompass all retail businesses, but rather the ones where a service is consumed onsite or engaged in interstate commerce.

A local bakery providing only take out goods to the local community doesn't fall under this original definition.

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More detail at this link:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Accommodation

They were held liable under state law, not federal law..

Which came first : 1964 or 2013?

Moron.

Oh, I see. You're a retarded conservative who is wrongly making an argument AGAINST states' rights.

Hilarious.

Constitutional rights versus state rights........................Conservatives have always pushed the Constitution........your side not so much........................if you have a pen and a phone the Constitution need not apply.

Which dressing would you like with that salad ?

 

[boedicca]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

State laws versus the Constitution...............Which is the higher authority..................

SCOTUS needs to clear it up.

Freedom of religion does not mean you can use it to discriminate. That is a BOGUS claim. It means you can practice your religion without interference from government. That does not apply to secular laws when you go into business. When you open a business, you had better be aware of the fact that you have to treat everyone the same, regardless of your own personal views.

This is a pretty good example of the decline of civilization due to Secular Relativism. An individual may no longer refuse to perform an action which is contrary to his conscience and religious beliefs if The Mob insists that he participates.

Someday you'll be sorry when you see the seeds you are sowing sprout.

How'd that work out for Piggie Park?

As posted earlier in the thread:

There was this racist guy who didn't serve blacks in his restaurant - he thought he could legally discriminate - claimed his religion told him black and whites needed to be segregated.


What happened?

"In its 8-0 decision in Piggie Park, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling against the restaurant chain and found that it was not exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply because its owner had religious objections to the law. "

Piggie Park was a restaurant, so your point is?

 

[eagle1462010]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

State laws versus the Constitution...............Which is the higher authority..................

SCOTUS needs to clear it up.

Freedom of religion does not mean you can use it to discriminate. That is a BOGUS claim. It means you can practice your religion without interference from government. That does not apply to secular laws when you go into business. When you open a business, you had better be aware of the fact that you have to treat everyone the same, regardless of your own personal views.

This is a pretty good example of the decline of civilization due to Secular Relativism. An individual may no longer refuse to perform an action which is contrary to his conscience and religious beliefs if The Mob insists that he participates.

Someday you'll be sorry when you see the seeds you are sowing sprout.

How'd that work out for Piggie Park?

As posted earlier in the thread:

There was this racist guy who didn't serve blacks in his restaurant - he thought he could legally discriminate - claimed his religion told him black and whites needed to be segregated.


What happened?

"In its 8-0 decision in Piggie Park, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling against the restaurant chain and found that it was not exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply because its owner had religious objections to the law. "

That is another animal..............Not the one we are arguing.................

This is about Religion and whether they should be forced to do business against what they consider to be offensive to their Religion................

 

[boedicca]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

That is the recent Prog modfication. Here is the original. It does not encompass all retail businesses, but rather the ones where a service is consumed onsite or engaged in interstate commerce.

A local bakery providing only take out goods to the local community doesn't fall under this original definition.

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More detail at this link:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Accommodation

They were held liable under state law, not federal law..

Which came first : 1964 or 2013?

Moron.

Oh, I see. You're a retarded conservative who is wrongly making an argument AGAINST states' rights.

Hilarious.

You sad little booby. I didn't say that the states had no right to make these laws. I pointed out that they had modified the definition of Public Accommodation far beyond the original intent.

Why are you loons So Insecure in your Identities that you cannot handle the fact that someone else may not wish to participate in your actvities? And what type of people would wish their marriage ceremony to include the participation of people who are there only due to the government forcing them to do so?

 

[eagle1462010]

That is the recent Prog modfication. Here is the original. It does not encompass all retail businesses, but rather the ones where a service is consumed onsite or engaged in interstate commerce.

A local bakery providing only take out goods to the local community doesn't fall under this original definition.

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More detail at this link:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Accommodation

They were held liable under state law, not federal law..

Which came first : 1964 or 2013?

Moron.

Oh, I see. You're a retarded conservative who is wrongly making an argument AGAINST states' rights.

Hilarious.

Constitutional rights versus state rights........................Conservatives have always pushed the Constitution........your side not so much........................if you have a pen and a phone the Constitution need not apply.

Which dressing would you like with that salad ?

Do you have a Salad dressing of Impeachment at your diner......................
Hang on.........I have a call..........yes...........its against the law to do so..............who cares.........put some red ink on the Constitution again........yes I'm on the back 9...............end call.

You were saying...............

 

[JoeB131]

Actually eating shellfish isn't an abomination, and never was for the Gentiles. They quote Mosaic ceremonial and dietary laws that were long done away with by the New Covenant. It's hilarious to hang them out in the wind with it

What verse of the Gospels specifically revokes the Mosaic Dietary laws?

Because no one told the Seventh Day Adventists.

 

[paperview]

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

State laws versus the Constitution...............Which is the higher authority..................

SCOTUS needs to clear it up.

Freedom of religion does not mean you can use it to discriminate. That is a BOGUS claim. It means you can practice your religion without interference from government. That does not apply to secular laws when you go into business. When you open a business, you had better be aware of the fact that you have to treat everyone the same, regardless of your own personal views.

This is a pretty good example of the decline of civilization due to Secular Relativism. An individual may no longer refuse to perform an action which is contrary to his conscience and religious beliefs if The Mob insists that he participates.

Someday you'll be sorry when you see the seeds you are sowing sprout.

How'd that work out for Piggie Park?

As posted earlier in the thread:

There was this racist guy who didn't serve blacks in his restaurant - he thought he could legally discriminate - claimed his religion told him black and whites needed to be segregated.


What happened?

"In its 8-0 decision in Piggie Park, the Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling against the restaurant chain and found that it was not exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply because its owner had religious objections to the law. "

Piggie Park was a restaurant, so your point is?

Sweetcakes was a place of public accommodation you fucking idiot.

========================================
"Place of public accommodation defined
(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:


(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.


(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.


(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Actually eating shellfish isn't an abomination, and never was for the Gentiles. They quote Mosaic ceremonial and dietary laws that were long done away with by the New Covenant. It's hilarious to hang them out in the wind with it

What verse of the Gospels specifically revokes the Mosaic Dietary laws?

Because no one told the Seventh Day Adventists.

Hebrews 8:13

 

[JoeB131]

What a Special Snowflake place it must be. MOM!!!! Johnny won't play with me! WAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

What kind of person is so thin-skinned that she can't just find another bakery? It must suck to go through live with such an Aggrieved Boulder on one's Shoulder.

WHy should she have to find another bakery when the first bakery promised a service?

Point is, her bakery was a public accommodation. She offered a service, she has to provide it, not just to people who share her beliefs or race or whatever.

 

[paperview]

Actually eating shellfish isn't an abomination, and never was for the Gentiles. They quote Mosaic ceremonial and dietary laws that were long done away with by the New Covenant. It's hilarious to hang them out in the wind with it

What verse of the Gospels specifically revokes the Mosaic Dietary laws?

Because no one told the Seventh Day Adventists.

Hebrews 8:13

Love those conflicts, eh?

New International Version
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

New Living Translation
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.

English Standard Version
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

New American Standard Bible
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

King James Bible
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.

International Standard Version
because I tell all of you with certainty that until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.

◄ Matthew 5:18 ►

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Actually eating shellfish isn't an abomination, and never was for the Gentiles. They quote Mosaic ceremonial and dietary laws that were long done away with by the New Covenant. It's hilarious to hang them out in the wind with it

What verse of the Gospels specifically revokes the Mosaic Dietary laws?

Because no one told the Seventh Day Adventists.

Hebrews 8:13

Love those conflicts, eh?

New International Version
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

New Living Translation
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.

English Standard Version
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

New American Standard Bible
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

King James Bible
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.

International Standard Version
because I tell all of you with certainty that until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.

The shellacking you took yesterday wasn't enough? Once again, you are Biblical illiterate and not to be taken serious on such matters

 

[boedicca]

What a Special Snowflake place it must be. MOM!!!! Johnny won't play with me! WAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

What kind of person is so thin-skinned that she can't just find another bakery? It must suck to go through live with such an Aggrieved Boulder on one's Shoulder.

WHy should she have to find another bakery when the first bakery promised a service?

Point is, her bakery was a public accommodation. She offered a service, she has to provide it, not just to people who share her beliefs or race or whatever.

So you think it is better that someone be forced to perform work against his will than that someone else should find another bakery? The bakery is not a Public Accommodation in the original sense - turning EVERY RETAIL establishment into such is just part of the Prog Agenda to destroy private property rights.

Someday these legal abominations will be used against you; then perhaps you'll understand how you conspired in your own demise.

 

[paperview]

Actually eating shellfish isn't an abomination, and never was for the Gentiles. They quote Mosaic ceremonial and dietary laws that were long done away with by the New Covenant. It's hilarious to hang them out in the wind with it

What verse of the Gospels specifically revokes the Mosaic Dietary laws?

Because no one told the Seventh Day Adventists.

Hebrews 8:13

Love those conflicts, eh?

New International Version
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

New Living Translation
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.

English Standard Version
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

New American Standard Bible
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

King James Bible
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.

International Standard Version
because I tell all of you with certainty that until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.

The shellacking you took yesterday wasn't enough? Once again, you are Biblical illiterate and not to be taken serious on such matters

You shellacked nobody, fruitcake.