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

[calfoxwc]

Sad,

 

A good list, and a half good point. The problem half, is none of the examples redefines a major institution

of society, and none of those examples is blatantantly perverted.

 

I would refuse to make a cake with a man and a sheep on the top of it. That's perverted.

 

There is a difference between differences of belief systems, etc. But when the difference crosses the line

into sick perversion, that's when the crap hits the fan.

 

1. Doctors could refuse to deliver a baby b\c the mother is unmarried and having sex out of wedlock is a sin

Everybody sins. Deny service to everybody? That's stupid. PERVERSION, and the forced REDEFINITION

of MARRIAGE is the issue.
2. Muslim\Jewish doctors could refuse to treat swine flu, since its a sin to eat pork(or any disease connect to pigs)

Would you have a young daughter help you back a cake for a customer with man humping a pig, for

some satanic cult? Would you think they would be justified in suing you for a hundred and a half thousand

bucks because they were "discriminated" against?

3. Hindu doctors could refuse to treat anything related to cows.

Is the Hindu person a vet? Does the cow want to redefine MARRIAGE?

4. Taxi drivers could tell you they won't take\pick up to\from a strip club.

They aren't redefining an institution, and they aren't taking you into the stupid club.

5. Drug store employes could refuse to sell condoms or other contraception.

This one is iffy. Those are over the counter. They used to be behind the counter. Now, refusing to sell

to anybody doesn't violate any groups rights. Refusing to sell to a couple of the same sex declaring that

they are perverts.... I'm fine with that, after they are arrested for disturbing the peace and society,

and send to siberia.

6. Anybody could refuse service to a doctor that works at planned parent facility.

The doctor is the one providing the service. But patients would be right in refusing to have

that doctor as their doctor. But everybody is a sinner. Just because you disagree isn't cause for

refusing service. And refusing to condone perversion and the redefinition of marriage isn't just "disagreeing".

7. Anybody could refuse service to anyone who works in an industry that supports beauty

that's the dumbest point by far.

8. Vendors could refuse to sell jerseys or bobble head dolls, since that could be consider idol worship

Did the jerseys and bobble heads demand that all Americans accept perversion? NO? then is is also dumb.

Okay, it ties with #7 for being "dumb".

9. All business should be closed on Sunday(or saturday if jewish)

That was the point of the "Blue Law" I think it was. That is infringing on the rights of business owners

who know that is a bunch of malarkey.

10. Divorced people could be refused service anywhere.

So, how do you know they are divorced? Different people have different views on religious practices.

Remember, freedom of religion? Customers and business owners both have that right.

 

There is no perversion to disagreeing, or being different. But perverted behavior is not just "different", and forcing

97% of Americans who are NOT gay, to accept them and redefine MARRIAGE is not "disagreeing".... It' s soft tyranny.

 

I haven't heard one lib define the word " perversion". As most of the time, they think they get to define words, and change

those definitions, any time it is politically expedient.

[sadbrownsfan]

Sad,

 

A good list, and a half good point. The problem half, is none of the examples redefines a major institution

of society, and none of those examples is blatantantly perverted.

 

I would refuse to make a cake with a man and a sheep on the top of it. That's perverted.

 

There is a difference between differences of belief systems, etc. But when the difference crosses the line

into sick perversion, that's when the crap hits the fan.

 

There is no perversion to disagreeing, or being different. But perverted behavior is not just "different", and forcing

97% of Americans who are NOT gay, to accept them and redefine MARRIAGE is not "disagreeing".... It' s soft tyranny.

 

I haven't heard one lib define the word " perversion". As most of the time, they think they get to define words, and change

those definitions, any time it is politically expedient.

 

Why do you always fall back to its perverted and compare to a man and sheep or a pedophilia? Do you not understand this is still between 2 consenting adults? There is a huge difference.

 

Quite a few times you add "Everybody Sins" Deny service to everyone? But yet you are willing to deny service to people because they are different sexually? Do you not see a double standard with that? Baking a cake and placing 2 dudes\ or 2 woman on top does not mean you are supporting gay marriage or condoning a sin, it means you made a stupid cake.

 

Also 7. would be tied to lust\envy and 8. Idol worship is a sin

[OldBrownsFan]

Most businesses don't want to turn away sales as they go into business to make money including a Christian business. The Christian florist who got sued had sold the gay person flowers on many occasions but did not want to attend the wedding due to her beliefs. She gave the gay person names of other florists who would not have the religious convictions she had but it didn't matter and she got sued anyway. So much for trying to make accommodations.

 

I would not attend a gay wedding. If I was in the florist business I would probably just have to have a hard and fast rule that I don't do any weddings period. I don't see how I could get sued then? I would not do special arrangements for anyone and customers could choose from a list of the flower arrangement they wanted. If they wanted to do anything special with the flower arrangements they can have at it after the flower left the store.

 

If I had a bakery I would probably have a set amount of standard wedding cakes I made for all weddings, I would not make any specialty cakes. I would not offer to cater any weddings and anyone buying a cake from me after it left the store can top it or decorate it to whatever they wanted. Would I still get sued? maybe but if I have rules that apply for all I would think I would be safe.

 

As for the Christian photographer I don't know how then can get around it other than finding another line of work. I was going to say they could do other events than weddings but the first time they refused to be a photographer at any gay event they would probably be open to a lawsuit. With the conditions today I just don't see any other solution.

[sadbrownsfan]

Well, sad, most of those are to the point but not all. Taxi drivers don't have to pick you up or take you to any place they don't want to as it is. Drugstore employees don't have the right to demand their employers do anything but if the owner decided not to carry contraceptives I think he'd be fine.

And it would be more like the government forcing a Jewish or Christian business to stay open on Sunday. They don't have to as it is but...

 

Also there were certain religions exempt from the military draft remember? And you can't say cock sucker on the radio.

And we give special perks to Negros women Hispanics an American Indians right? I mean if the aim is to be 100% egalitarian.

 

WSS

 

Most of them I just thought up as an what if scenario "what if the religious freedom laws(think that was the name) were passed in ohio?"

 

Though the second part not sure where you were going with it? FEC, draft laws, and support for minorities? I mean there where draft exemptions for teachers and people in already in the national guard also, FEC just sux, and you can also get scholarships for being left handed.

[calfoxwc]

Because perversion is revulsion.

 

Sin is sin. We all sin. But the perverted behavior, and the militant

forcing of hundreds of millions to accept a redefinition and warping

of a universally accepted definition of marriage, that isn't just sin.

 

It's soft tyranny, and demanding that others who are not perverted ACCEPT

the perversion.

 

I don't accept the idea that it's justified to reject people because they are just different.

 

But it's the perverted behavior, and redefinition of Marriage that you don't get, that is the problem.

 

Because gay "marriage" is just as much a perversion as a lot of other perverted behaviors. I just listed a couple

of other common examples.

 

You see it your "new age" way, and I'll stick to seeing it my way. I know perversion is repulsive, and I reject the

"voting block for the liberals" acceptance of it.

 

Once again, I never treat gays any differently than I do anybody else...professionally.

 

But outside of treating them like anybody else, trust me, I don't have anything to do with it.

 

And forcing me to accept it socially is not going to happen, even if I were a cake baker or a justice of the peace, etc.

[calfoxwc]

IOW's....

 

the left wants to intimidate everybody who isn't "left"... by making them not be allowed to be who they are.

 

they insist they accept gay "marriage" etc.

 

But, make the left not be who THEY are? All hell gets raised, the guarantees of freedom in our Constitution

gets thrown up as a shield.

 

But, liberals get to decide who gets to use the Constitution, and then when they decide "it's just an old document",

it's because the conservatives are wanting to use it for the same freedoms.

 

Not buy it. Never goin to.

 

Here's a question. Gays don't necessarily.....look any different than most folks... so how the bleep does a Christian

baker KNOW gays are buying a cake?

 

Because the gays make sure they know. That's why. they make a point of being "victimized" as most liberals do,

so they can glean sympathy, and free stuff. Like big money settlements from an activist, dishonest, bigoted judge.

[sadbrownsfan]

IOW's....

 

the left wants to intimidate everybody who isn't "left"... by making them not be allowed to be who they are.

 

they insist they accept gay "marriage" etc.

 

But, make the left not be who THEY are? All hell gets raised, the guarantees of freedom in our Constitution

gets thrown up as a shield.

 

But, liberals get to decide who gets to use the Constitution, and then when they decide "it's just an old document",

it's because the conservatives are wanting to use it for the same freedoms.

 

Not buy it. Never goin to.

 

Here's a question. Gays don't necessarily.....look any different than most folks... so how the bleep does a Christian

baker KNOW gays are buying a cake?

 

Because the gays make sure they know. That's why. they make a point of being "victimized" as most liberals do,

so they can glean sympathy, and free stuff. Like big money settlements from an activist, dishonest, bigoted judge.

 

Your entire argument here can be summed up as such, "We are being oppressed by being forced to accept someone who is different".

 

 

Because perversion is revulsion.

 

Sin is sin. We all sin. But the perverted behavior, and the militant

forcing of hundreds of millions to accept a redefinition and warping

of a universally accepted definition of marriage, that isn't just sin.

 

It's soft tyranny, and demanding that others who are not perverted ACCEPT

the perversion.

 

I don't accept the idea that it's justified to reject people because they are just different.

 

But it's the perverted behavior, and redefinition of Marriage that you don't get, that is the problem.

 

Because gay "marriage" is just as much a perversion as a lot of other perverted behaviors. I just listed a couple

of other common examples.

 

You see it your "new age" way, and I'll stick to seeing it my way. I know perversion is repulsive, and I reject the

"voting block for the liberals" acceptance of it.

 

Once again, I never treat gays any differently than I do anybody else...professionally.

 

But outside of treating them like anybody else, trust me, I don't have anything to do with it.

 

And forcing me to accept it socially is not going to happen, even if I were a cake baker or a justice of the peace, etc.

 

I disagree with your definition of perversion obviously, to me an act between 2 consenting adults is not a perversion(even if I do not agree with it).

[MLD Woody]

By quoting his posts I ended up reading them. It let me remember why I'm trying to take a break from that this summer.

 

 

I also enjoy the double standard. Man and woman kiss in public, it is just a sign of affection. Man and man kiss, "Ugh! They're throwing their lifestyle in our faces! They need to be respectful! It would be better if they didn't do that at all, I shouldn't know they're gay!"

[Clevfan4life]

 

 

Here's a question. Gays don't necessarily.....look any different than most folks... so how the bleep does a Christian

baker KNOW gays are buying a cake?

.

 

Did you ever watch the Highlander movies and/or the series on TV?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+10000 to anyone who can tell where i'm going with this

[calfoxwc]

Your entire argument here can be summed up as such, "We are being oppressed by being forced to accept someone who is different". Sad

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

Only if you want to mischaracterize what I'm saying and you didn't read my entire post.

 

Black-white-green-yellow-red-tan.... skinned people are only "different".

 

men-women.... just "different".

 

etc etc.

 

But gay behavior is not just "different". It's against natural law, and science, and universally,

against the historical definition of genuine marriage. But they are still human beings.

 

But they do not have the right to intimidate with soft tyranny - about 97% of Americans, and force them

to renounce their religious beliefs, and lose their genuine religious freedom.

 

Failure to understand that, is liberal emotional kneejerky, and part of the culture war on conservative America.

[StinkHole]

 

 

You will see all sorts of creative ways to refuse service to people if the religious folks are allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. You can make up any old religion you want and refuse service to whoever you wish. That will also apply when some guy becomes an honorary church of Satan member and begins refusing service to Christians. After all, it would be against his religion to give service to Christians.

Now you're really reaching lol. The country has a largely Christian majority. Muslims and Jews also believe in a God.

Who's the atheist going to sell to? Buddhists and other Satanists?

[StinkHole]

By quoting his posts I ended up reading them. It let me remember why I'm trying to take a break from that this summer.

 

 

I also enjoy the double standard. Man and woman kiss in public, it is just a sign of affection. Man and man kiss, "Ugh! They're throwing their lifestyle in our faces! They need to be respectful! It would be better if they didn't do that at all, I shouldn't know they're gay!"

How can you post something so untrue? Kissing in public regardless of orientation is acting out being liberal. Only a lib would be OK with a man and woman kissing in public. To normal people, kissing in public is frowned upon.

I don't like it. I like to tell them to go get a room.

[StinkHole]

I disagree with your definition of perversion obviously, to me an act between 2 consenting adults is not a perversion(even if I do not agree with it).

 

The only part "consent" plays in this is that they both consented to perform a perverted act.

 

Homosexuality fits one definition of perversion quite well... the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

 

The intent or the ultimate reason for the human emotion of love or the attraction of opposite sexes is for the purpose of procreation. In some people this has been corrupted causing a physical alteration from its original course.

 

Since two men cant procreate, it makes their love meaningless. Homo love has no rhyme or reason.

[calfoxwc]

Sad, Cleve and Woody are science deniers.

 

Who woulda thunk it......

[Westside Steve]

And again all your examples are politically correct. I have no doubt you would support the black bakery that refused to make Klan cookies or the Jewish delicatessen that refused to cater a Nazi rally. ( remember the old Saturday Night Live in which Nora Dunn refused to perform with Andrew Dice Clay?)

But people on the left usually dislike Christians so they feel it's okay to fuck with them.

 

WSS

[gftChris]

And again all your examples are politically correct. I have no doubt you would support the black bakery that refused to make Klan cookies or the Jewish delicatessen that refused to cater a Nazi rally. ( remember the old Saturday Night Live in which Nora Dunn refused to perform with Andrew Dice Clay?)

But people on the left usually dislike Christians so they feel it's okay to fuck with them.

 

WSS

And that's a perfect comparison because the gay movement wants to kill Christians right?

[The Cysko Kid]

The gays aren't numerous or powerful enough to openly advocate killing christians yet. But they are openly trying to destroy their values and paint them with the latest label of bigotry whether or not they are. If you're being honest you probably know that behind the bath house doors there's a good amount of loose talk about how much better it would be if all the christians were dead.

[gftChris]

Do you actually know any gay people? Like, at all?

[The Cysko Kid]

Yeah I know many. I went to school with many and I still communicate with them via social media because my life is too busy to socialize with my historical best friends let alone just people I went to school with. I accept their lifestyle and sexual identity without complaint and I'm also not too stupid to glean the tone and message from every thread I read concerning homosexuality from it's major proponents.

[Westside Steve]

And that's a perfect comparison because the gay movement wants to kill Christians right?

No it means exactly this: that oftentimes people don't give a flying fuck about somebody else's rights if they don't like them. Its cool to fuck with Christians but it's not cool to fuck with [insert protected group] and nothing much more complicated than that.

Everybody here is probably offended by something.

 

WSS

[gftChris]

Yeah I know many. I went to school with many and I still communicate with them via social media because my life is too busy to socialize with my historical best friends let alone just people I went to school with. I accept their lifestyle and sexual identity without complaint and I'm also not too stupid to glean the tone and message from every thread I read concerning homosexuality from it's major proponents.

And of the many you know, how many would want to kill all christians? There's a whole world of difference between thinking the world would be better without a group of people and actually thinking about killing them. The world would be better if the steelers didn't exist, but I doubt many browns fans would actually think about exterminating them.

[The Cysko Kid]

Thinking that life for them would be better if all the christians would just die already and saying we're going to kill all the christians is two different things chris. I thought you were smart enough to understand nuance.

[The Cysko Kid]

The tolerance mafia already has the mentality that YOU have to tolerate OUR rights but WE don't have to tolerate YOURS.

 

Somewhere along the line the meaning of tolerance has been confused with forced acceptance.

[gftChris]

Thinking that life for them would be better if all the christians would just die already and saying we're going to kill all the christians is two different things chris. I thought you were smart enough to understand nuance.

That's what I was trying to say. Compare with the nazis who I *think* had some kind of thing for killing jews? Yeah, not even close to the same level. And it's not even close to the KKK/black people thing. Most gay people wish the religious anti-gay types would just leave them alone already.

[gftChris]

The tolerance mafia already has the mentality that YOU have to tolerate OUR rights but WE don't have to tolerate YOURS.

 

Somewhere along the line the meaning of tolerance has been confused with forced acceptance.

No, it hasn't. Tolerance is letting other people live the lives they want to live. You won't find very many gays saying christians (or other religious types) shouldn't be able to worship; you'll find plenty of christians (or other religious types) who are saying gays shouldn't be able to be gay.

 

That is the point that seems to be lost on many, not just in here.

[BrownsKidd]

Christians, and I am one of them, have no ground to stand on when a large number of "Christian" marriages themselves fail for various reasons. When Christians themselves can begin to actually be a moral compass for society, only then will religion be taken seriously. Until then, we can stand on our "faith" for justification, yet many of the actions of Christians defile the very faith that we stand on.

 

Let me mention this, should Christians be allowed to refuse service, sure. I believe that is backed by our own freedom that is backed by the constitution. HOWEVER, is that the right choice. Christians on this board hear me out. Gay marriage, regardless of who performs it, who signs the marriage certificate, does not mean that the Christian God has to honor. The only thing happening is a civil union so that two people can have the same rights that a man and a women get LEGALLY. If two men want to be together so that they can have the same health and social benefits, then so be it. There is absolutely NOTHING that qualifies it nor makes it spiritually binding in ANY religion.

 

Also, Christians that refuse to serve gays, let me point out the woman at the well. Jesus had no reason to talk to the woman. By all accounts, she was a samaritan and Jews were to have nothing to do with them. Yet, Jesus gave the woman the opportunity for eternal life. If Jesus can give her eternal life, why can't we bake a cake? I understand that some people act like their actions would be condoning what they are doing, I get that, BUT IT'S A CAKE. If Jesus can offer eternal life, we can bake a friggin' cake.

[MLD Woody]

No it means exactly this: that oftentimes people don't give a flying fuck about somebody else's rights if they don't like them. Its cool to fuck with Christians but it's not cool to fuck with [insert protected group] and nothing much more complicated than that.

Everybody here is probably offended by something.

 

WSS

Does that happen on this board?

[The Cysko Kid]

No, it hasn't. Tolerance is letting other people live the lives they want to live. You won't find very many gays saying christians (or other religious types) shouldn't be able to worship; you'll find plenty of christians (or other religious types) who are saying gays shouldn't be able to be gay.

 

That is the point that seems to be lost on many, not just in here.

Forced acceptance is forcing businesses to take business they don't want or morally agree with. You used to be able to refuse service for any reason. I don't know any christians that say gays shouldn't be able to be gay just that they want no part of it.

[MLD Woody]

Christians, and I am one of them, have no ground to stand on when a large number of "Christian" marriages themselves fail for various reasons. When Christians themselves can begin to actually be a moral compass for society, only then will religion be taken seriously. Until then, we can stand on our "faith" for justification, yet many of the actions of Christians defile the very faith that we stand on.

 

Let me mention this, should Christians be allowed to refuse service, sure. I believe that is backed by our own freedom that is backed by the constitution. HOWEVER, is that the right choice. Christians on this board hear me out. Gay marriage, regardless of who performs it, who signs the marriage certificate, does not mean that the Christian God has to honor. The only thing happening is a civil union so that two people can have the same rights that a man and a women get LEGALLY. If two men want to be together so that they can have the same health and social benefits, then so be it. There is absolutely NOTHING that qualifies it nor makes it spiritually binding in ANY religion.

 

Also, Christians that refuse to serve gays, let me point out the woman at the well. Jesus had no reason to talk to the woman. By all accounts, she was a samaritan and Jews were to have nothing to do with them. Yet, Jesus gave the woman the opportunity for eternal life. If Jesus can give her eternal life, why can't we bake a cake? I understand that some people act like their actions would be condoning what they are doing, I get that, BUT IT'S A CAKE. If Jesus can offer eternal life, we can bake a friggin' cake.

Amen?

[gftChris]

Forced acceptance is forcing businesses to take business they don't want or morally agree with. You used to be able to refuse service for any reason. I don't know any christians that say gays shouldn't be able to be gay just that they want no part of it.

The attitude from the more conservative christians varies from cal's "it's perverted and they are sub-human" stance to "I don't like it, but as long as they completely hide who they are and I have no inkling of anything out of the ordinary it doesn't bother me"

 

Does that sound like people are happy to let gay people be gay people?