Fighting Back!

[Cow Poke]

The problem is that these folks believe that the those doing business in the public square should be able to discriminate. If they don't want to serve African Americans, Jews, Gays, Christians, Muslims, Canadians or whomever, then they feel that they shouldn't be required by the government to do so. They are all for discrimination, but probably don't consider themselves to be bigots.

And you probably consider yourself to be literate.

[Tassman]

So...

Today, when the courts say that gay marriage is legal, moral and constitutional, they are correct and we all should meekly submit to their expert judgment.

It's really very straight forward: The role of SCOTUS is to interpret and uphold the intent of the Constitution.

Of course, back when the courts said homosexual behaviour was illegal and immoral, they were wrong about that. Just like back when slavery was legal, they were right about that, but now that it's not legal, they're still right about that too...

Indeed! Values change and this is reflected in the interpretations of the SCOTUS. Or do you think that values change over time and that slavery should still be legal and homosexuality should still be considered a criminal offence?

Country Sparrow's moral views are just as valid as anyone's, except that they're wrong and 'bigoted'... Because all moral values are subjective, and equally valid, except for Christian ones, which are based on supernatural woo.

Country Sparrow is entitled to hold to any moral values he wants. What he cannot do is demand that his beliefs be given special treatment in Law to the detriment of equality for all before the law.

Terms like 'misogynist'; 'bigot'; 'whining Christian'; 'homophobic' are perfectly reasonable and neutral ways to refer to someone who disagrees with you. Terms like 'sodomy' and 'obscene' are revealing indications of an underlying hatred... Atheists like Dawkins who advocate ridicule and being intentionally offensive about religion, and to religious people, don't hate anyone or anything, because they're not religious bigots like you.

Stop whining.

Christians who supported slavery, opposed women's suffrage, and oppose gay marriage are wrong and should be prevented from foisting their religious views on anyone in the public square.

Christians who opposed (and overturned) slavery, struggled for women's suffrage and support fair treatment of gays are... uh... well, they're wrong too, because they're Christians and their views are religious. Besides, some other self-professed Christians disagree with them, so there! Anyway, just shut up all you God-botherers!!

And atheists like Dawkins, who say things like being sexually abused as a child is not that bad,... uh... well, they're, uh.... At least they're not religious bigots and homophobes like you!

Is this mini-rant making a point?

[Tassman]

What is missed by some is that Christians have civil rights as well. And they do not have to abdicate their religious civil rights, when religion/and the religious, are a protected class.

Nonsense! Every citizen is entitled to full equal rights. There is NOcan be made to regulate some religious practices if they interfere with the rights of others. To rule otherwise

Now it is true that this woman's voice could peel paint. But if you have a volume control you can learn why Christian business owners, and per the USSC upholding the Christians right to their core values under the civil rights act, do not have to serve homosexuals wedding cakes, perform marriages on their private properties that are open to such ceremony, allow homosexual couples to register at their bed and breakfast, etc...

This woman obviously thinks she has a case for special treatment for Christians, but as her shrill protests indicate, several court rulings have found differently. She does not have a case.

To JimL

And you probably consider yourself to be literate.

...and with good reason. Jim is highly literate.

[Tassman]

There is nothing in the constitution that demands non-discrimination of the private sector.

Not so. The Civil Rights Act was drawn up in the spirit of the Constitution and interpreted by SCOTUS, the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, to be constitutional.

Actually there is no freedom from religion protected in the constitution. It's an interpretation, one that can (and should, to punish people like you for abominations like the CRA) easily be discarded in another political climate.

Wishful thinking!

The Civil Rights Act arose out of the evolving worldwide demand for social justice and equal rights. This trend was embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 70 years ago (of which most countries are signatories) and in turn spawned similar declarations.

You're on the wrong side of history.

[Cow Poke]

...and with good reason. Jim is highly literate.

Jim is dumber than a coal hod!

[seer]

The problem is that these folks believe that the those doing business in the public square should be able to discriminate. If they don't want to serve African Americans, Jews, Gays, Christians, Muslims, Canadians or whomever, then they feel that they shouldn't be required by the government to do so. They are all for discrimination, but probably don't consider themselves to be bigots.

No Jim, it couldn't be that some of us crave freedom, and hate these unconstitutional laws that violate the founding principle of freedom of association. I don't think that any man should be forced - under threat of law - to serve another man. Obviously you do...

[Psychic Missile]

No Jim, it couldn't be that some of us crave freedom, and hate these unconstitutional laws that violate the founding principle of freedom of association. I don't think that any man should be forced - under threat of law - to serve another man. Obviously you do...

How do you see this as a different case from situations involving article 92 of the UCMJ?

[Country Sparrow]

The problem is that these folks believe that the those doing business in the public square should be able to discriminate. If they don't want to serve African Americans, Jews, Gays, Christians, Muslims, Canadians or whomever, then they feel that they shouldn't be required by the government to do so. They are all for discrimination, but probably don't consider themselves to be bigots.

By definition homosexuals intolerant of Christians and their Biblical values are bigots.
Homosexual behavior is contrary to natural law. Sodomy, for all that homosexuals oppose that term, is a definitive description of their sexual behavior, was worthy in the pronounced unrepentant sin demonstrated in Sodom and Gomorrah, among other sins, that God burned the entire two towns to the ground.
Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Christians God.

Bigots opposed to holding respect for the religious and their freedoms, while arguing those who are opposed to homosexuals having special rights, don't make a fair concise point with regard to civil rights. And it is special rights. Because homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality and homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals.

The behavior, the predilection, has been condemned in most civilized societies since recorded history. There is no thing on a man that is meant to penetrate another man. Homosexuals left to their own couplings are incapable of producing offspring. Special compensation has to be made for them to achieve that. Homosexual males have to adopt, or employ a surrogate.
Lesbians have to adopt of employ a donor for sperm. That in itself is evidence that homo-sexuality violates natural law. Circumventing natural law doesn't make for proof of normality.

What should be noted is when those opposed to Christian values presume to arrive at a religious forum and call Christians bigots because they're Christians. I think it is evidence of the agenda the homosexual community has in targeting Christians and their faith so as to make mockery and to assault their civil rights.
It's what happened when a lesbian and her mother targeted a Christian baker, whom they said they intended to make an example of. It's an example of homosexuals that target businesses they know to be Christian owned and managed by Christian values.

What homosexual intolerance and bigotry demonstrates in their zeal to assault Christians is that while they argue for their civil rights, they're intent on violating the civil rights of Christians.
Transsexual pictured. ((Use your imagination)) <<<<<That is a man. And if you listen to homosexuals and Transsexual proponents, that man on a public street, in the midst of children and adults, is to be tolerated. He's to be embraced. And Christians aren't to have a thing to say about it unless they want to be bullied by his supporters and called bigots for finding that to be obscene.

Now, Christians, before you consider what some Homosexual proponents will interject in their argument about, 'love thy neighbor', (Which actually pertains to that neighbor within the Christian church(community)) , ask yourself: Would you want that man to be your child's school teacher? How would you feel if a gay male teacher dressed like that and came to class so as to teach a lesson that day about tolerance and gay pride?


Would you object? Risk being called a bigot by those who support his right to do that?

I think Christians in this forum have to pay attention to what's transpiring in this microcosmic religious community. We're witnessing homosexuals, transsexuals, and/or their supporters enter in and attempt to condemn our religious values in the name of civil rights for homosexuals.
The bullying and intolerance for Christian values, while arguing for tolerance of homosexuality, speaks for itself as to the agenda unfolding here. It is the same one that propelled a lesbian and her mother to target a known Christian baker and his family in Oregon. It's the same one that targets Christian businesses so as to get them shut down, punished by radical violent homosexuals who issue death threats, commit to vandalism, deliver vile notes, or threatening messages on that business' social media page.


Object to gay pride parades that parade abominable images before our children and you're a bigot!

This is what expects to parade with pride down American streets and demand the civil right to be accepted for who they are and what they do. If moral principles can be overcome and a nation can be sent, by law, into the depths of immorality and devalue the family model, what's next?
Parading on public streets before our children. That, in some states, a minor number thank God, has the right to enter into public bathrooms, showers, gym locker rooms, and changing rooms at.....wedding dress shops. Because he's getting married in that state.

I saw a tee shirt the other day that cracked me up: IF GOD DOESN'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT GAY SODOMY IN THE USA HE'S GOING TO OWE THE WORLD AN APOLOGY FOR SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

God shouldn't have to do something when we the activists and the voters have every opportunity and right to.
Stand now. Because very soon hate groups like GLAAD and others in the LGBTQ (The "Q" in that acronym stands for 'Queer'. But if a straight refers to a homosexual as a queer they're a bigot. While a queer referring to themselves as that are liberated.), will pursue a new agenda. To force churches to perform homosexual weddings or lose their 501(c)3 status on the basis of that designation must comport with federal laws that forbid discrimination. A stretch yes, but not beyond their agenda.

It's already been tried in Great Britain where a rich gay couple threatened suit against the Church of England for the exact same thing. We're next. Bet on it.

[Psychic Missile]

Now, Christians, before you consider what some Homosexual proponents will interject in their argument about, 'love thy neighbor', (Which actually pertains to that neighbor within the Christian church(community))

Sparrow, I just want to point out that this is wrong. When the lawyer asked Jesus who his neighbor is, Jesus told him the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus wanted all people to be kind to one another.

[Country Sparrow]

Sparrow, I just want to point out that this is wrong. When the lawyer asked Jesus who his neighbor is, Jesus told him the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus wanted all people to be kind to one another.

Jesus admonition to be kind didn't include forgoing right behavior and the laws that command that.

Jesus took a whip to the Jewish money changers in the temple. A whip he fashioned for the occasion. He, a Jew, whipped his own people because they violated the temple by consenting to oblige the Romans when they demanded the Shekel be changed for Roman coin so as to purchase unblemished stock for sacrifice to the Hebrew God.

[Sparko]

Jesus admonition to be kind didn't include forgoing right behavior and the laws that command that.

Jesus took a whip to the Jewish money changers in the temple. A whip he fashioned for the occasion. He, a Jew, whipped his own people because they violated the temple by consenting to oblige the Romans when they demanded the Shekel be changed for Roman coin so as to purchase unblemished stock for sacrifice to the Hebrew God.

1. The bible doesn't say Jesus used the whip on any people.
2. It had nothing to do with the Romans. It was because they had turned the Temple into a marketplace, and it was the Jews themselves that made people exchange money, not the romans.

Our neighbors ARE our fellow human beings. And PM is right, we are to be kind to all of them. If they are being a sinner, is that any different than YOU? You are a sinner too. We all are. No, we don't condone sin, we fight against it, but we don't hate those who sin, or we would hate ourselves too. How can you hope to change a heart if you don't show them kindness, love and mercy?

[Bill the Cat]

Or bikers?

This is religion-based bullying and no longer acceptable behaviour; end of story.

No. It's homosexual bullying and enforced servitude.

[Country Sparrow]

When scripture says Jesus fashioned a whip and took that whip to the money changers, he used the whip on the money changers. It had everything to do with the money changers and the Roman's. It was Roman law that created the office of money changers. The synagogue only existed because they paid Rome.

1. The bible doesn't say Jesus used the whip on any people.
2. It had nothing to do with the Romans. It was because they had turned the Temple into a marketplace, and it was the Jews themselves that made people exchange money, not the romans.

Our neighbors ARE our fellow human beings. And PM is right, we are to be kind to all of them. If they are being a sinner, is that any different than YOU? You are a sinner too. We all are. No, we don't condone sin, we fight against it, but we don't hate those who sin, or we would hate ourselves too. How can you hope to change a heart if you don't show them kindness, love and mercy?

[Cow Poke]

When scripture says Jesus fashioned a whip and took that whip to the money changers, he used the whip on the money changers.

He could have popped it in the air, or smacked it on the tables or whatever -- it doesn't say he STRUCK the moneychangers with it.

[Sparko]

When scripture says Jesus fashioned a whip and took that whip to the money changers, he used the whip on the money changers. It had everything to do with the money changers and the Roman's. It was Roman law that created the office of money changers. The synagogue only existed because they paid Rome.

The money changers would change foreign currency to local currency. It wasn't roman law, but the jews who claimed that only certain coins were worthy of being donated or could be used to purchase sacrifices. The Romans could not care less about what they took into the temple. They just wanted their taxes when tax time came. At which point, the money could have been exchanged for local currency outside of the temple.

and the bible never says Jesus whipped anyone. Go read it again. It says he drove out the sheep and cattle but it doesn't even say he struck them.

John 2:13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

The other gospels don't even mention a whip.