Another Bigoted Liberal Law Illegally Discriminating Against Only One Religion

Truth Detector said:
Why do you want to construct a strawman and then demand we pretend it is fact based? If I own a business and a gay couple come in and ask me to make them something that goes against my religious principles, why should I be compelled to defy them? Where does the Constitution say I must accommodate anyone who walks into my business?
Click to expand...

Our society is a strawman? You still won't answer a simple yes or no question. And you wonder why the rest of us hate Christians.
 
kudzu said:
First thing you learn in Domestic law.. Marriage is a contract between two people and the State is not a party..

Your problem is lack of education.
Click to expand...

You're problem is a lack of intelligence. Marriage has NOTHING to do with the State or a mere contract between two people, you dumb fuck.
 
Arminius said:
Ah, so now we're playing the hair-splitting game. Okay, use the word "tolerate" instead of "support." Meaningless distinction for the point you are making, but you want to play kids games, there it is. You arguing that Jesus would TOLERATE homosexuality because he didn't specifically condemn it means he would also TOLERATE pedophilia, bestiality, and rape.
Click to expand...

Because a person does not specifically condemn something...does not mean they SUPPORT it...and it does not even mean they would TOLERATE it. It simply means they have not condemned it.

If you want to infer something from that...be my guest.

In any case...Jesus did not condemn homosexuality...which is a significant thing. Jesus actually condemned "thinking" about committing adultery!

But...you are now digging deeper into a hole in which you are already deep enough. Hey, it happens to people who are not ethical enough to simply acknowledge an error.

Better, oh petty one? Speaking of poor logic. :laugh:
Click to expand...

C'mon. Don't lose it this early. We've got a long way to go.



First you hyperventilated over Jesus not clearly opposing Christianity, as if that somehow invalidated objecting to religious discrimination. Now that it can be shown that you were wrong about that, you shift gears to hyperventilating about Jesus' anti-homosexuality views being antiquated.

Pssst. Your stupidity is showing. ;)
Click to expand...

Read that first sentence...and then we can talk about whose stupidity is showing.

.
Back to the hair-splitting game. Meaningless distinction. People who legitimately spoke for Jesus on things condemned homosexuality. This changes no part of that. Try again.
Click to expand...

Name three. You've already named Paul...so you only have two to go.


Hence all the evidence I posted showing that your argument was incorrect and irrelevant. Try to keep up.
Click to expand...

You have not shown anything that I have said is incorrect...but for good reason.

What I have said is correct.


Um, again, because you aren't, as has already been demonstrated. Geez.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I really am correct.
 
Guille said:
I asked a yes or no question. Why do you people have problems answering it? Is a civil ceremony a marriage in the eyes of God? Can one of you gutless little fucks give a yes or no answer to this simple question?
Click to expand...

I gave you an answer, Guille. If two people say they are husband and wife...THEY ARE IN THE EYES OF THE CHRISTIAN GOD.

No minister...no official of any kind is needed.
 
Oh, wait a second.

I think Guille has me on IGNORE.

If someone could do me the honor of posting my answer so he can see it...I'd be obliged.
 
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...

They are not forcing their beliefs on anyone this is just another attempt by the radical left homosexual tyrants to get their way!
 
Guille said:
And that's the crux of the issue. What is religious liberty? No one is telling those two women they can't be Christians. No one is stopping them from going to church or holding the beliefs they hold. They're not being forced to condone a life style they disagree with. They were asked to print some invitations...correction, the business was asked to print some invitations and the business is not a religious entity, it is a public entity. The Constitution doesn't say a whole lot about religious freedom, on purpose, but we do have a body of law dealing with what you can and cannot do when dealing with the public.
Click to expand...

As soon as you can show me in the constitution where marriage is mentioned we will talk, it is a religious institution. Ruling in any way shape or form on it was overstepping.
 
Wolverine said:
As soon as you can show me in the constitution where marriage is mentioned we will talk, it is a religious institution. Ruling in any way shape or form on it was overstepping.
Click to expand...

How convenient for you, it isn't, it's a state issue...or at least it was. So fuck you. Asking me to prove a negative is pretty fucking gutless.
 
Guille said:
Our society is a strawman? You still won't answer a simple yes or no question. And you wonder why the rest of us hate Christians.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this moronic lie; I answered you without equivocation. It was NO. You cannot engage in a "civil" ceremony and be married under the eyes of God. That requires a RELIGIOUS ceremony conducted with witnesses.

What part of "NO" are you having so much difficulty understanding. Once again you want to conflate the idea of "public" with "government" and refuse to identify where in the Constitution it says anyone has a "right" to not be offended which is basically what this thread is about.
 
Truth Detector said:
You keep repeating this moronic lie; I answered you without equivocation. It was NO. You cannot engage in a "civil" ceremony and be married under the eyes of God. That requires a RELIGIOUS ceremony conducted with witnesses.

What part of "NO" are you having so much difficulty understanding. Once again you want to conflate the idea of "public" with "government" and refuse to identify where in the Constitution it says anyone has a "right" to not be offended which is basically what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

It's not a lie. I ask again...is a civil ceremony a marriage in the eyes of God? Don't be a pussy, answer it. It's a yes or no question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top