Intimidation and harrassment of Christian businesses and moral Americans by Obamao's gays and the left must stop

[calfoxwc]

Bible passages used by the KKK ? You have to quit emotionally venting

long enough to differentiate between a bogus, out of context invalid

attempt at justifying killing and terrorizing people just because they have black skin...

 

and real marriage, which throughout history, which has been consistently defined

as between a man and a woman.

 

Civil unions were a gentle understanding by society. But the left will fight battles

where there should be none.

 

 

 

Taken out of context so badly no other American would not cringe ?

 

Inventing a fraudulent religion that discriminates based on race, etc, is bs.

 

So is forcing a Christian baker to condone gay false "marriage".

 

The institution of marriage is long standing, biologically based definition.

 

It's ansine to pretend that it "should" be gender neutral, and that Christians and Muslims

had better go along with it in every way, or else be destroyed.

 

Just because the left and leftist courts try to force the rest of America to be different for no

Constitutional reason, doesn't mean it will fly.

 

How do you come up with the KKK to have an analogy to historical, Biblical, and universal real marriage?

 

Smokie-smokie ? LOL.

[Clevfan4life]

can bakers refuse interracial marriage cakes?

[LogicIsForSquares]

Bible passages used by the KKK ? You have to quit emotionally venting

long enough to differentiate between a bogus, out of context invalid

attempt at justifying killing and terrorizing people just because they have black skin...

 

and real marriage, which throughout history, which has been consistently defined

as between a man and a woman.

 

Civil unions were a gentle understanding by society. But the left will fight battles

where there should be none.

 

 

 

Taken out of context so badly no other American would not cringe ?

 

Inventing a fraudulent religion that discriminates based on race, etc, is bs.

 

So is forcing a Christian baker to condone gay false "marriage".

 

The institution of marriage is long standing, biologically based definition.

 

It's ansine to pretend that it "should" be gender neutral, and that Christians and Muslims

had better go along with it in every way, or else be destroyed.

 

Just because the left and leftist courts try to force the rest of America to be different for no

Constitutional reason, doesn't mean it will fly.

 

How do you come up with the KKK to have an analogy to historical, Biblical, and universal real marriage?

 

Smokie-smokie ? LOL.

Cal, because the klan used to use passages from the bible to justify their behavior. If the book is open to interpretation then a racist shithead could easily argue in court why they can discriminate by race due to their religious affiliations.

 

Hell, go to Google for 2 seconds and you can find stuff just like this.

 

http://www.wckkkk.org/eql.html

 

According to how some people want to apply their religious freedoms, these guys could make the case that they don't have to serve blacks, jews, or hispanic people.

[calfoxwc]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Egad, you're dense.

 

Is the interracial wedding between a MAN AND A WOMAN?

 

Then it's all good.

 

The Institution of Marriage still remains legit.

[calfoxwc]

So, Logic, you are playing devil's advocate with interpretations of the Bible?

 

So, by the illogic you present, I could pick two words out of the Bible, add some of

my own, and make

anything I do moral?

 

Stop it. You are making yourself look foolish. There is no historical precedence

of skinheads being racists as a major institution in the structure of society.

 

That's stupid, and worse than devil's advocate, it's nonsense.

[LogicIsForSquares]

So, Logic, you are playing devil's advocate with interpretations of the Bible?

 

So, by the illogic you present, I could pick two words out of the Bible, add some of

my own, and make

anything I do moral?

 

Stop it. You are making yourself look foolish. There is no historical precedence

of skinheads being racists as a major institution in the structure of society.

 

That's stupid, and worse than devil's advocate, it's nonsense.

Cal, did you not just read the link I put up above. I didn't make up that klansman choose to use parts of the bible out of context to justify their behaviors. They could easily refuse service to minorities on the grounds that the Bible instructs them that they shouldn't associate themselves with "lesser races". You may not agree with how these dummies choose to see it but that doesn't change their behavior or their interpretations.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Cal, you love google. I didn't make this stuff up. Look up "kkk bible verses" and report back.

[LogicIsForSquares]

If religious freedom is the argument and religion is open to individual interpretation then you could use it however you wish to refuse service to whomever you wish. Muslim? You could refuse service to non-muslims unless they pay more for products (a jizya) because they are infidels. That would be completely kosher (*insert rimshot*) because it is infringing on their religious beliefs to serve non-muslims.

[Browns149]

Why is it, when one person thinks the Bible says something, it is OK, but when another person thinks the Bible says something else, it's not OK?

 

It is the same book, right?

[calfoxwc]

A. Based on what? Where is the "don't provide any service for other religions" crap?

 

B. I know the KKK used Bible verses. A serial killer can misuse Bible verses. A serial rapist

can misuse Bible verses.

 

That has nothing to do with BASING one's actions and bad attitudes on the Bible. The use of

Bible verses to justify unBiblical actions is a travesty. The nazis did the same thing. They took

stories and verses completely out of context, as a sick "justification" to their violence, racial hatred,

and war crimes against Jews, etc.

 

It certainly doesn't mean diddley that they took the Bible and distorted it for their own use.

 

C. Real marriage is between a man and a woman. Plain and simple, always has been.

And THAT is legitimately BASED on TRUTHS in the Bible.

[calfoxwc]

Why is it, when one person thinks the Bible says something, it is OK, but when another person thinks the Bible says something else, it's not OK?

It is the same book, right? 149

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

A. You have to differentiate between legimate beliefs in what the Bible says, and selfserving twisted

ignorant misues, whether deliberate or not....

B. You have to remember that the Bible was written, originally, in Hebrew and Greek.

The various translations are simply a result of people's perspectives, some perspectives self serving, some

just erroneous.

The most notable example, is the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill".... that isn't the Commandment.

In the original Hebrew and/or Greek, it actually says "Thou Shalt Not MURDER".

The difference being, "You shall not unjustifiably take someone's life." The word for "kill" was a different word,

that does not show up in the original Hebrew and Greek. The word used is specifically "murder".

I learned that from a Biblical Scholar - pacifism at all costs in nonsense. It's erroneous - not in the Commandments.

[Browns149]

So your belief's are legitimate, and people who don't have those same belief's are selfserving?

[calfoxwc]

You are just being ridiculous. I thought you libs wanted "serious conversations".

 

The legimate beliefs are precisely based on the original Hebrew and Greek that the

Bible was written in.

 

You think nazis and the kkk were correct about the Bible assuring them it was

okay to murder blacks and Jews?

 

You are just being contrarian for attention's sake.

[Browns149]

You are just being ridiculous. I thought you libs wanted "serious conversations".

 

The legimate beliefs are precisely based on the original Hebrew and Greek that the

Bible was written in.

 

You think nazis and the kkk were correct about the Bible assuring them it was

okay to murder blacks and Jews?

 

You are just being contrarian for attention's sake.

No I don't think those people are correct,

 

But why do we get to decide?

 

Do you speak Hebrew?

 

We are just taking somebody else's word for it.

 

Maybe those people back then wanted women to be property, and lesser people to be slaves

 

To just blindly beleive one side of a really really old book, is kind of strange IMO

[calfoxwc]

well, marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that's how God created us.

 

Adam and Eve.

 

Not woody and cleve.

[Browns149]

well, marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that's how God created us.

 

Adam and Eve.

 

Not woody and cleve.

Humans have been on this planet for millions of years, according to WAIT FOR IT........................... SCIENTISTS.

 

and the Bible was started about 3500 years ago.................WAIT FOR IT...............................................................................

 

Marriage has "ALWAYS" been between a man and women, since the bible was started

 

HOLY CRAP.................... I sound like Woody

[LogicIsForSquares]

The greater argument is over the unintended consequences of allowing religious people of all stripes to use their own interpretations of their religious texts to determine whether or not they will refuse service to patrons.

[LogicIsForSquares]

It would then become the job of judges to determine what passages from the bible/koran/(insert religious book) really meant.

[LogicIsForSquares]

 

Adam and Eve.

 

Not woody and cleve.

While I disagree with you on this subject, that was funny.

[Browns149]

The greater argument is over the unintended consequences of allowing religious people of all stripes to use their own interpretations of their religious texts to determine whether or not they will refuse service to patrons.

Shouldn't the Supreme Court rule on the law? Not the unitended consequences?

 

That's what liberals do? isn't it?

[calfoxwc]

While I disagree with you on this subject, that was funny. Logic

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

I may be funny more often than I am correct about things...

 

maybe.....

[Legacy Fan]

Lets say I simply follow the Golden Rule and deem that my faith. Ergo, I would find moral grounds that I do not HAVE to serve you.

[calfoxwc]

LOLLOL !

 

Oh, my....

[calfoxwc]

I hope our gov takes the same stand. Most governors, even.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-governors-order-shields-clergy-same-sex-marriage-215922001.html

[LogicIsForSquares]

If the legislation protects religious institutions from having to do weddings under threat of legal or civil retaliation, I don't see a problem with it. But I also don't see why someone would want to be a jerkoff and sue someone else to force them to make things or offer services to you.

[OldBrownsFan]

What can be given can be taken away with those in the black robes. One of the conservative Supreme court justices even said in his dissent there are going to be many cases coming before them in the future because of their gay marriage ruling and that religious people would have little hope of rulings in their favor. I am paraphrasing but they were words to that effect.

 

“People of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses. Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples… Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today. -

Chief Justice John Roberts

[MLD Woody]

 

What can be given can be taken away with those in the black robes. One of the conservative Supreme court justices even said in his dissent there are going to be many cases coming before them in the future because of their gay marriage ruling and that religious people would have little hope of rulings in their favor. I am paraphrasing but they were words to that effect.

People of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to advocate and teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to exercise religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses. Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriagewhen, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today. - Chief Justice John Roberts

Yes, what if people were no longer able to discriminate against gay couples and use their faith as an excuse...

 

What a terrible world that would be

[OldBrownsFan]

Yes, what if people were no longer able to discriminate against gay couples and use their faith as an excuse...

 

What a terrible world that would be

 

Such horrible persecution. A Christian baker, photographer or florist doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding. The Christian baker who got sued and lost for 135,000 dollars and got put out of business...it served them right.

 

The poor gay couple could not go to another bakery, florist or photographer? Still waiting to see the Muslim bakery get sued and a judge give out damages like they did with the Christian bakery.

[tiamat63]

If the legislation protects religious institutions from having to do weddings under threat of legal or civil retaliation, I don't see a problem with it. But I also don't see why someone would want to be a jerkoff and sue someone else to force them to make things or offer services to you.

 

We arrive at the duality of the situation. If someone doesn't want to do business with you and miss out on profit, go right ahead. Makes zero sense to me.

 

However to sue someone who wants no part of your money is equally as confusing.

[The Cysko Kid]

Bear in mind, I think all businesses should be able to be ran as they wish. I just think it would be pretty damn hypocritical if Christians were o.k. with refusing service to gays based upon religious freedom but then throw a fit if they are refused service.

The point that gets lost is that they didn't necessarily refuse service. The lezzies could have gone in and bought a dozen cupcakes and I bet they would have gotten them. By your logic black bakeries would be forced to make kkk themed cakes because, hey, you can't refuse to make anything based on your personal beliefs