Another Bigoted Liberal Law Illegally Discriminating Against Only One Religion

iolo said:
If you advertise something you are expected to provide it in most countries. Your Nazi prejudices are for your private life.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, you want to force people to do things against their will, while I favor liberty. And I'M the Nazi? Oooo-kay :screwy:
 
I asked a question earlier and no one has answered so I ask again: If you engage in a civil ceremony are you married in the eyes of God?

This is open to everyone.
 
kudzu said:
Is their business open to the public or not? A print shop really isn't about art work.. The customer chooses paper, print, color, size and message from a menu..
Click to expand...

Their attorney said they're artists, but that's beside the point.

Libs won the battle against gay marriage, but you can't just win gracefully, you must PUNISH those who dare to step out of line?
 
Frank Apisa said:
I am saying that Christianity is full of shit regarding the homosexual question. Jesus NEVER SAID A SINGLE WORD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY...NEVER UTTERED A WORD CONDEMNING IT.
Click to expand...

Since you won't let this diversionary BS go, I will accommodate your need to embarrass yourself and then move on.

-Jesus doesn't specifically condemn pedophilia, bestiality, or rape. According to your logic, that means he supported all of these things.

-Jesus identified the Old Testament as the literal Word of God (e.g., Matt 22:43), identified it as infallible (John 10:35) and it specifically condemned homosexuality as an abomination (Lev 18:22; 20:13). Jesus also confirmed that him offering a new perspective on God in no way implies that the old one is invalidated. Matthew 5:17: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

-His apostles emphatically condemned homosexuality (Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 1 Tim 1:9–10).

-In condemning divorce, Jesus identified marriage as being between one man and one woman: In Matthew 19, he stated: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So again, your diversion of acting like Christianity doesn't actually oppose homosexuality, and that this falsehood somehow legitimizes violating the religious beliefs of Christians (and only Christians) holds zero water. But by all means, continue talking crap and acting like a pontificating douche.

GetAttachmentThumbnail


You were saying?
 
Arminius said:
Since you won't let this diversionary BS go, I will accommodate your need to embarrass yourself and then move on.

-Jesus doesn't specifically condemn pedophilia, bestiality, or rape. According to your logic, that means he supported all of these things.

-Jesus identified the Old Testament as the literal Word of God (e.g., Matt 22:43), identified it as infallible (John 10:35) and it specifically condemns homosexuality as an abomination (Lev 18:22; 20:13). Jesus also confirmed that him offering a new perspective on God in no way implies that the old one is invalidated. Matthew 5:17: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

-His apostles emphatically condemned it (Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 1 Tim 1:9–10).

-In condemning divorce, Jesus identified marriage as being between one man and one woman: In Matthew 19, he stated: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Click to expand...

The only thing the Bible did was define marriage as between a man and a woman. And that's fine. But...that doesn't mean the Word of God ordered anyone to be bigoted.
 
Guille said:
The only thing the Bible did was define marriage as between a man and a woman. And that's fine. But...that doesn't mean the Word of God ordered anyone to be bigoted.
Click to expand...

The Bible also does the other things cited in your own post. And since no one is talking about bigotry toward homosexuals, this is irrelevant. This is not about doing business with homosexuals. It's about being forced at gunpoint to endorse and participate in their lifestyle...something that no one but Christians is being forced to do. Because the actual bigots are liberals.
 
Arminius said:
And since no one is talking about bigotry toward homosexuals, this is irrelevant. This is not about doing business with homosexuals. It's about being forced at gunpoint to endorse and participate in their lifestyle.
Click to expand...

I disagree, your OP is about bigotry. I ask again, is a civil ceremony a marriage in the eyes of God?
 
Guille said:
I disagree, your OP is about bigotry. I ask again, is a civil ceremony a marriage in the eyes of God?
Click to expand...

You calling it bigotry for the only religion being forced to violate its beliefs to accommodate the non-existent right of homosexuals to force others to endorse their lifestyle doesn't make it bigotry. It makes you bigoted. Unless you're for violating the rights of every religion. Should Jewish bakers be forced to cater Nazi events? Or are you just bigoted against Christianity?
 
Arminius said:
You calling it bigotry for the only religion being forced to violate its beliefs to accommodate the non-existent right of homosexuals to force others to endorse their lifestyle doesn't make it bigotry. It makes you bigoted. Unless you're for violating the rights of every religion. Should Jewish bakers be forced to cater Nazi events? Or are you just bigoted against Christianity?
Click to expand...

Is a civil ceremony a marriage in the eyes of God? Why is this question so fucking hard for you people to answer? It's a yes or no question.
 
Guille said:
If you don't want to deal with the public then don't open your doors to the public. Not being allowed to force your religious views on others in the public domain is not an infringement of free exercise of religion.
Click to expand...

You've got it all wrong. Where does the Constitution suggest that one has a right to not be offended? I can wait.

While you're at it; try to find the "separation" clause so oft repeated by brain dead liberal hacks. HINT: It doesn't exist.

Meanwhile; how does one do business if NOT in the public? Dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top