Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Yep. gays get chapel shut down for not condoning perversion "marriage"

calfoxwc

By calfoxwc
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

and of course,

 

the gays didn't go to a mosque.

 

Nope. that doesn't get a win in the left's culture war against America.

 

and they got to make money to boot !

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/22/christian-owned-wedding-venue-that-had-to-pay-5000-after-refusing-to-host-gay-wedding-will-shut-down/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

Did any of the above examples violate the law in Iowa?

 

"Iowa law prevents any business offering services to the public from discriminating based on sexual orientation. Legislators added sexual orientation to the state's civil rights law in 2007"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

The gay agenda does not allow for a dissenting point of view. Recently a cable show about two brothers who built homes for the poor was shelved when the gay community found out they were Christians who stood for traditional marriage and forced the show to be canceled. It doesn't seem to take much for them to get their way, just threatening boycotts of sponsors usually does the trick. That show had NOTHING to do with anything but building homes for the poor but according to the militant gays you can't have anyone having those personal views. Liberal judges are being used as a hammer many times such as the Christian bakery that was fined 150 grand for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding due to religious convictions. No doubt with that amount of fine the judge was trying to close down the Christian bakery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

The gay agenda does not allow for a dissenting point of view. Recently a cable show about two brothers who built homes for the poor was shelved when the gay community found out they were Christians who stood for traditional marriage and forced the show to be canceled. It doesn't seem to take much for them to get their way, just threatening boycotts of sponsors usually does the trick. That show had NOTHING to do with anything but building homes for the poor but according to the militant gays you can't have anyone having those personal views. Liberal judges are being used as a hammer many times such as the Christian bakery that was fined 150 grand for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding due to religious convictions. No doubt with that amount of fine the judge was trying to close down the Christian bakery.

They don't force anything on anyone. Last I checked chik-fil-a is still open.

 

These companies make business decisions. It is bad business to be associated with discrimination. To be against a growing portion of the population.

 

And in the case of the OP, you can't break the law in your state. You can't hide behind religious freedom as a means to discriminate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

And the last I checked the gay community did everything to shut them down including have Chick Fil A banned in some cities.

 

What is happening in America is an increasing hostility and intolerance toward Christian beliefs and values that many perceive to be an attack on religious freedom. In current American culture, you are free to be a Christian as long as you don’t actually live out your faith, vote your faith, take a stand in relation to your faith, or believe others should embrace your faith.

In other words, it can be privately engaging, but must remain socially irrelevant.

 

There is a real concern that the growing insistence that faith be privatized has now become a demand for faith to be compromised. It’s not enough that your beliefs can’t influence society; you must also embrace society’s beliefs. As Jonah Goldberg noted in USA Today, the opposition to many Christian values has become an “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality.

 

The recent decision to require most religious institutions – including Catholic hospitals and schools – to pay for contraception, sterilizations and the “morning after” pill is simply the most current case in point. For many this was about government coercion of religious individuals and institutions.

 

The developing fear is that government will make people choose between obeying the law and following their faith. Of course, the real flash point is the one between religious liberty and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights. For example:

*Catholic Charities in Illinois shut down its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples (as the state required).

 

*A Christian counselor was penalized for refusing to advise gay couples.

*A court clerk in New York was told to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite religious reservations.

*A wedding photographer was sued for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding.

In each case, the Christian(s) involved were not attempting to impose their religious views on others. They simply didn’t want to be forced to participate or offer tacit support for something they felt was in violation of their religious conscience.

The argument is, of course, that such stands are discriminatory. But this is disingenuous. For example, refusing to serve a person of color has little in common with refusing to support a particular lifestyle that your religious beliefs deem immoral.

Even further, the argument which states “If you don’t want to serve the public, don’t open a business saying you will serve the public” is equally flawed. And frightening.

 

What aspect of religious life isn’t, in one sense or another, “public”? A worship service is a service to the public, is it not? Does that mean it, too, should be subject to government oversight in terms of who it is forced to accommodate and how it is demanded to operate? Will it come to the point that to maintain integrity, all public events of a religious nature will have to become non-public, and thus effectively end any and all outreach? That might be the very desire of some, but it would drive the heart of the church’s mission underground every bit as much as it is in countries where persecution is taking place.

 

http://www.christianity.com/christian-life/political-and-social-issues/are-christians-in-america-under-attack.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

"What is happening in America is an increasing hostility and intolerance toward Christian beliefs and values that many perceive to be an attack on religious freedom. In current American culture, you are free to be a Christian as long as you don’t actually live out your faith, vote your faith, take a stand in relation to your faith, or believe others should embrace your faith.

In other words, it can be privately engaging, but must remain socially irrelevant."

 

For centuries, this was the case for being gay. I mean really - you are free to be gay as long as you don’t actually live out your sexuality, vote your sexuality, take a stand in relation to your sexuality, or believe others should embrace your sexuality.

In other words, it can be privately engaging, but must remain socially irrelevant.

Now that's not the case, and christians are losing their shit. And to be fair, being gay is not a choice, being a christian is, so we should probably give priority to the former when in doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

For centuries, this was the case for being gay. I mean really - you are free to be gay as long as you dont actually live out your sexuality, vote your sexuality, take a stand in relation to your sexuality, or believe others should embrace your sexuality.

In other words, it can be privately engaging, but must remain socially irrelevant.

Now that's not the case, and christians are losing their shit. And to be fair, being gay is not a choice, being a christian is, so we should probably give priority to the former when in doubt.

 

Again with the argument that anything that is not a choice is good and must be universally accepted.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's part of the left's culture war against conservatives. The left has admitted it's part

of their "transform America" campaign. And that comes from way, high up in the

corrupt Obamao regime.

 

That's why they go after Christian businesses. In a way, gays are now like Islamic terrorists - they

will not be happy until their flag flies at our WH.

 

No matter how, the left demands to be allowed to control and win. It's all they have - a mental disorder.

 

And a local bakery is hardly to be compared to Chik-fil-a. Woody seems to be unaware of the relative size of those

companies.

 

If I were the bakery's attorney, I would argue that the bakery is fine with baking cakes for gays,

just not for what violates their FREEDOM OF RELIGION - as in, natural marriage vs perversion.

 

Look at this - if some guy walks into a Christian bakery, orders a cake, they make him a cake. He

can write whatever he wants on his own cake. But this leftwing gov forcing a bakery to write pro-

satanic verses or something?

 

Nope. That's a line that, when crossed, violates the Christian bakery owners' civil rights.

 

At every possible chance, Obamao and co. are pushing our country into turmoil. Now, why would a regime

push their entire country into turmoil? What would be the benefit of that? Benefitting from a crisis?

Who was it - an advisor to Obamao.... said "never let a crisis go to waste" ? Well, Obamao is CREATING

crises to benefit from, as well as politicizing every tragedy that he chooses. which has always been a pro-gay,

pro-black, pro-dem, pro-leftwing agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

Again with the argument that anything that is not a choice is good and must be universally accepted.

 

WSS

What exactly about being gay is inherently bad and affects you or anyone in any way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Again with the argument that anything that is not a choice is good and must be universally accepted.

WSS

****************************************

I suppose being a pedofile is not a choice? Being drug addicted? Sexually attracted to water buffalo?

 

I say, magnetism is a natural rule of law, and in principle, natural law should be protected in society.

 

Gays and liberals are science deniers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

What exactly about being gay is inherently bad and affects you or anyone in any way?

 

Absolutely nothing. Doesn't affect me in the slightest. I'm just saying your arguments that since its not a choice it must be good is a stupid argument. More worthy of, well other posters, than you.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

Absolutely nothing. Doesn't affect me in the slightest. I'm just saying your arguments that since its not a choice it must be good is a stupid argument. More worthy of, well other posters, than you.

 

WSS

So you'd agree that people are born gay (or bisexual or whatever), and that it's not harming anybody, but you still have some issue with it?

 

What would be an example of someone being 'born that way' that wasn't good? I mean, apart from mental illness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

Government shouldn't be involved in how a business is run. If someone wants to be a backwards dolt, they should have the right to have their business reflect those beliefs. Let the market correct it. If customers want to boycott, let them. But don't let the government get involved.

You then get businesses refusing to serve gays, blacks, muslims, young people, old people, whatever. No, sorry, you need anti-discrimination laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

So you'd agree that people are born gay (or bisexual or whatever), and that it's not harming anybody, but you still have some issue with it?

 

☆ what issues do you think I have with it?☆

 

What would be an example of someone being 'born that way' that wasn't good? I mean, apart from mental illness?

Apart from mental illness? Let's just say I believe you will categorize any behavior you don't like as mental illness.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

And you don't think in the age of social media that the market wouldn't punish them harshly for doing that?

That's essentially mob law, though, and while 'the people' would generally be right on most things, they're not always right.

 

Would you seriously just remove all anti-discrimination laws? I mean, you'd basically be segregating the country again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LogicIsForSquares Apprentice

LogicIsForSquares

Posted
Posted

That's essentially mob law, though, and while 'the people' would generally be right on most things, they're not always right.

 

Would you seriously just remove all anti-discrimination laws? I mean, you'd basically be segregating the country again.

The mentality that existed when the laws were created is not nearly as prevalent today. We also live in an age where the market will slap you if you act like a turd and discriminate against a particular demographic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StinkHole Newbie

StinkHole

Posted
Posted

They don't force anything on anyone. Last I checked chik-fil-a is still open.

 

 

These companies make business decisions. It is bad business to be associated with discrimination. To be against a growing portion of the population.

Bullshit. Yeah, a bad business decision only because you may be forced to shut down.

Last I checked chik-fil-a is still open.

 

You can't hide behind religious freedom as a means to discriminate.

Really? You believe the main objective is to discriminate?...then to use religion to do so?

 

Discrimination against a group may result because of the religious beliefs of another group, yes I'll give you that.

 

Lol you're still a dork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...