Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on December 29, 2017, 11:52:49 AM
-
Doesn’t get much more f**ked up that this
https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/12/1041525-court-rules-bakery-owners-refused-make-cake-gay-couple-must-pay-135000-emotional-damages/
-
i thought it was accepted that if an owner of their own company did not feel comfortable serving someone they had the right to say so and act upon it. this gay couple could have went anywhere else instead of being so stubborn but with the culture today they knew they would have a backing. if a homosexual couple owned a bakery and refused to make a straight cake no one would care. why? because that is what we see as normal nowadays. really messed up and disgusting if you ask me. where is our freedom? all these people stepping down from positions of power as well, just as soon as allegations of rape come up. the only backbone left is the spirit of President Trump and the proud Americans who stand tall behind him. all the others can go live in democratic disguised communist china, or go over to democratic socialist countries in europe. America is for the free, not the equal except equality in our bill of rights.
-
So can I sue a halal deli for not making me a BLT?
There aren't enough adjectives in all of the world languages combined to describe how sick I am of the Left.
-
Doesn’t get much more f**ked up that this
https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/12/1041525-court-rules-bakery-owners-refused-make-cake-gay-couple-must-pay-135000-emotional-damages/
Free country my ass. And i don't mean free country my ass as in no gay or lesbian freedoms and SJW. I mean free county my ass as in you can't freely get away from these fuckers and ignore them if you don't want to be around them and don't agree with their point of views. Simply get out of the shop i don't want to serve you two homos.
What's the problem? If it was a liberal cookie palace they'd refuse service to police and straight white males who have their shit together. But they wouldn't have to pay a fine would they? Not that they could afford it anyway.
This place should tell them to fuck off and make a huge deal out of being asked to pay and call it a breach of free speech. Maybe there will be enough outreach to the top and Trump will get involved and give them a pass like they did to Lavar Ball's son when he was caught STEALING in China. Funny how a Republican hard working business can get fined 135k but a teenage thug can steal designer and then bash the president and be praised and let free.
-
And in Colorado:
"Ironically, Colorado bakers who are gay are allowed to refuse service to Christians. In April 2015, the Civil Rights Division of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies ruled Azucar Bakery in Denver did not violate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when owner Marjorie Silva refused to bake a cake decorated with Bible verses about sin and homosexuality."
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/end-of-the-legal-road-colorado-baker-who-refused-service-to-same-sex-wedding-loses-again/50642.htm
::)
-
Supreme Court Reverses Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Scotusblog ^ | 6/4/2018 | Scotusblog
Posted on 6/4/2018, 10:17:18 AM by CFW
"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."
link to decision
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
-
I know, I know, "Lincoln Shot", but this deserves its own thread.
Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/JYHyGP3oD7yO_3EOC3Z5AA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDUwO2g9Mjk1/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2018-06-04T142505Z_1_LYNXNPEE5313U_RTROPTP_2_USA-COURT-KENNEDY.JPG)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/542vMgTB2wI9o3Rjc.fDqg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDUwO2g9Mjg3/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2018-06-04T142645Z_1_LYNXNPEE53144_RTROPTP_2_USA-COURT-BAKER.JPG)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html
WTF? Since when is 7-2 a "narrow" decision? Liberal MSM math?
-
I know, I know, "Lincoln Shot", but this deserves its own thread.
Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html
WTF? Since when is 7-2 a "narrow" decision?
The main reason I voted for Trump was his pick vs Hillary's pick to replace to Scalia
And this is why I never understood the never-trumpers...
MAGA !!!!!
Even Beck has come around:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Vf9dZqWAIJI/WwA9uZxKQiI/AAAAAAABC0A/PQc_OoQ097cwPqIDtsdyDE71WrGA9vFAgCLcBGAs/s1600/blenn%2Bbeck.jpg)
-
The main reason I voted for Trump was his pick vs Hillary's pick to replace to Scalia
And this is why I never understood the never-trumpers...
MAGA !!!!!
Even Beck has come around:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Vf9dZqWAIJI/WwA9uZxKQiI/AAAAAAABC0A/PQc_OoQ097cwPqIDtsdyDE71WrGA9vFAgCLcBGAs/s1600/blenn%2Bbeck.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6pZ8_FVsAAi6_U.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCz0WwBW0AAJT1B.jpg)
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/fb42102e9af76b598768f214d5f3a96f/tenor.gif?itemid=10344637)
-
Listened to Shapiro's podcast today on this and (if correct) its a win but not an overwhelming one after hearing why the decision was made. More so based off of how the baker was treated/time period and not free enterprise/religious rights, etc. Believe Thomas and Gorsuch wrote their thoughts on it and both where not in line with how the conclusion was reached even though it was the correct conclusion so this may not be a complete victory.
-
I know, I know, "Lincoln Shot", but this deserves its own thread.
Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/JYHyGP3oD7yO_3EOC3Z5AA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDUwO2g9Mjk1/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2018-06-04T142505Z_1_LYNXNPEE5313U_RTROPTP_2_USA-COURT-KENNEDY.JPG)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/542vMgTB2wI9o3Rjc.fDqg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDUwO2g9Mjg3/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2018-06-04T142645Z_1_LYNXNPEE53144_RTROPTP_2_USA-COURT-BAKER.JPG)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html
WTF? Since when is 7-2 a "narrow" decision? Liberal MSM math?
-
I know, I know, "Lincoln Shot", but this deserves its own thread.
Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/JYHyGP3oD7yO_3EOC3Z5AA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDUwO2g9Mjk1/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2018-06-04T142505Z_1_LYNXNPEE5313U_RTROPTP_2_USA-COURT-KENNEDY.JPG)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/542vMgTB2wI9o3Rjc.fDqg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDUwO2g9Mjg3/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2018-06-04T142645Z_1_LYNXNPEE53144_RTROPTP_2_USA-COURT-BAKER.JPG)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html
WTF? Since when is 7-2 a "narrow" decision? Liberal MSM math?
Nope
Just more confirmation you're a moron
Try reading your own post again. Pay special attention to the sections you actually highlighted
See if you can figure it out
-
Nope
Just more confirmation you're a moron
Try reading your own post again. Pay special attention to the sections you actually highlighted
See if you can figure it out
So the headline is wrong. Will they bake you that cake after all?
-
So the headline is wrong. Will they bake you that cake after all?
Why am I not surprised you have no idea what I'm referring to
loco asked a stupid question which is answered for him in the very sections that he bolded
go flip a tire dumbass
-
Why am I not surprised you have no idea what I'm referring to
loco asked a stupid question which is answered for him in the very sections that he bolded
go flip a tire dumbass
There are plenty of other bakeries for you and your husband
-
I know, I know, "Lincoln Shot", but this deserves its own thread.
Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/JYHyGP3oD7yO_3EOC3Z5AA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDUwO2g9Mjk1/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2018-06-04T142505Z_1_LYNXNPEE5313U_RTROPTP_2_USA-COURT-KENNEDY.JPG)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/542vMgTB2wI9o3Rjc.fDqg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDUwO2g9Mjg3/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2018-06-04T142645Z_1_LYNXNPEE53144_RTROPTP_2_USA-COURT-BAKER.JPG)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-baker-over-gay-142233685.html
WTF? Since when is 7-2 a "narrow" decision? Liberal MSM math?
;) If it said narrow decision, then the number of judges on each side would matter. If it said narrow grounds, the number of judges would be unimportant, the decision to vote one way of the other would be closely weighted. Since it says grounds and not decision, it's not a contradiction nor is it MSM math.
-
;) If it said narrow decision, then the number of judges on each side would matter. If it said narrow grounds, the number of judges would be unimportant, the decision to vote one way of the other would be closely weighted. Since it says grounds and not decision, it's not a contradiction nor is it MSM math.
You mean like all those news stories calling it a "narrow decision"?
In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html
NPR had the same headline, but changed it from "decision" to "ruling."
Still, they should have worded it differently because the media did make it sound like it some kind of 5-4 decision.
-
You mean like all those news stories calling it a "narrow decision"?
In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html
NPR had the same headline, but changed it from "decision" to "ruling."
Still, they should have worded it differently because the media did make it sound like it some kind of 5-4 decision.
I was just reading the one posted. I agree, it could be confusing.
-
If the baker doesn't like you he'll put his booger in your cake...or worse things.
Yuck!
-
Looking forward to the first time a bakery refuses to make a cake for a christian who has been married 2 or 3 times on the same grounds
-
Looking forward to the first time a bakery refuses to make a cake for a christian who has been married 2 or 3 times on the same grounds
Unfortunately You're going to be waiting a while since Christians don't view divorce with the same disgust as they view faggotry.
-
Unfortunately You're going to be waiting a while since Christians don't view divorce with the same disgust as they view faggotry.
Seems Jesus did... maybe Christians should read their book
-
Looking forward to the first time a bakery refuses to make a cake for a christian who has been married 2 or 3 times on the same grounds
Nonsensical hypothetical. Unless the Christian who has been divorced 2 or 3 times asks the baker to put something on the cake celebrating something that violates the baker's conscience.
-
Seems Jesus did... maybe Christians should read their book
No he didn't. He responded to someone asking him a stupid question about divorce. And when did Jesus ever talk about homosexuality?
-
Nonsensical hypothetical. Unless the Christian who has been divorced 2 or 3 times asks the baker to put something on the cake celebrating something that violates the baker's conscience.
Here is the irony.. Jesus spoke about people who divorced and remarried. He said that if you divorced and remarried. You are committing adultery and the person you marry is committing adultery and adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Why would a baker be more appalled by something in the old testament that Jesus never speaks of, but ignores an obvious affront to Jesus and God from the New Testament? Jesus' only exception to this was adultery. You could divorce for adultery.
-
Just more confirmation you're a moron
LOL...typical Straw Man. Can't post without personal insults.
-
Here is the irony.. Jesus spoke about people who divorced and remarried. He said that if you divorced and remarried. You are committing adultery and the person you marry is committing adultery and adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Why would a baker be more appalled by something in the old testament that Jesus never speaks of, but ignores an obvious affront to Jesus and God from the New Testament? Jesus' only exception to this was adultery. You could divorce for adultery.
Wrong. He spoke to one person trying to set him up with a stupid question.
It's not your place to decide whether something violates someone's conscience.
Since you are so obsessed with the Bible, which is really weird for an atheist, you should go focus on what the Bible says about judging people.
-
Wrong. He spoke to one person trying to set him up with a stupid question.
It's not your place to decide whether something violates someone's conscience.
Since you are so obsessed with the Bible, which is really weird for an atheist, you should go focus on what the Bible says about judging people.
You probably are misreading the judging quote anyway. And I'm not wrong. Read it for yourself.
Sermon on the mount.. in this instance, there were no questions, he did a monologue of rules.
Matthew 5-32 " It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
-
You probably are misreading the judging quote anyway. And I'm not wrong. Read it for yourself.
Sermon on the mount.. in this instance, there were no questions, he did a monologue of rules.
Matthew 5-32 " It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
No, I'm not misreading what the Bible says about judging people.
Yes, I was wrong about there being a question. I was thinking about the man who asked Him what happens when someone has multiple wives.
Still a stupid point. :)
-
No, I'm not misreading what the Bible says about judging people.
Yes, I was wrong about there being a question. I was thinking about the man who asked Him what happens when someone has multiple wives.
Still a stupid point. :)
If you say so. I will defer to your expertise in the bible.
-
If you say so. I will defer to your expertise in the bible.
You should defer to my common sense. Never too late to grow as a person. And maybe studying the Bible in an effort to grow, rather to try and disparage people of faith, will help you grow.
-
You should defer to my common sense. Never too late to grow as a person. And maybe studying the Bible in an effort to grow, rather to try and disparage people of faith, will help you grow.
If that works for you, go for it. For me, when I see Christians being hypocritical, I like to point it out. It's a hobby
-
If that works for you, go for it. For me, when I see Christians being hypocritical, I like to point it out. It's a hobby
Actually it's just weird.
And I never study a work of fiction based on characters who don't exist so I can argue with and impugn them. Just weird.
-
Seems Jesus did... maybe Christians should read their book
My statement still stands. Christian or not, divorce is and always will be, more acceptable in society than homosexuality.
-
My statement still stands. Christian or not, divorce is and always will be, more acceptable in society than homosexuality.
I don't know about that. I've said the gay lobby is the most powerful lobby I've ever seen, given how small the gay population is what they have accomplished in such a short period of time. We have not only turned the corner as a society on things like gay marriage, etc., people cannot even joke about anything gay. Any negative or perceived negative comment results in people getting fired. They are going after pastors and anyone else who has a faith-based belief as bigots engaging in hate speech. I'm not sure any other minority group gets as much protection at this point.
-
LOL...typical Straw Man. Can't post without personal insults.
boo hoo
stop getting your panties in a twist Nancy
everyone on this board (including a moderator) attacks me with personal insults all the time
Often their posts are NOTHING but personal insults
-
Any man who chooses to bake cakes for a living is probably a bit queer
Given that he's a fundie it doubles the odds
-
I don't know about that. I've said the gay lobby is the most powerful lobby I've ever seen, given how small the gay population is what they have accomplished in such a short period of time. We have not only turned the corner as a society on things like gay marriage, etc., people cannot even joke about anything gay. Any negative or perceived negative comment results in people getting fired. They are going after pastors and anyone else who has a faith-based belief as bigots engaging in hate speech. I'm not sure any other minority group gets as much protection at this point.
I know, but I feel like the political correctness and social acceptance of everything queer being shoved down our throats (I know) is wearing itself out slowly and society as a whole will right itself and trend away from what has become "normal".
-
I know, but I feel like the political correctness and social acceptance of everything queer being shoved down our throats (I know) is wearing itself out slowly and society as a whole will right itself and trend away from what has become "normal".
I haven't seen evidence of that? I doubt it happens. But who knows?
-
My statement still stands. Christian or not, divorce is and always will be, more acceptable in society than homosexuality.
It is more acceptable, but it shouldn't be for Christians.
-
It is more acceptable, but it shouldn't be for Christians.
BS.
-
BS.
Not really., in the Sermon on the mount, Jesus doesn't pull any punches. If you divorce for any reason other than adultery, and you remarry, you are committing adultery. No ifs ands or butts. I can also pull of the section where he says adulterers will NOT go to heaven. So only in Christians minds, mostly those who haven't even read their religious book, they think homosexuality is a worse sin than what probably 60% or better of what the "good" christians are doing. If you want to argue homosexuals will go to a "more worser" ;) hell than a person who has divorced and remarried for any reason other than adultery, then you aren't very knowledgeable about the bible.
The reason I know more about the bible is that for 25 or more years I studied it as a believer. I actually read it.
-
Here is the irony.. Jesus spoke about people who divorced and remarried. He said that if you divorced and remarried. You are committing adultery and the person you marry is committing adultery and adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Why would a baker be more appalled by something in the old testament that Jesus never speaks of, but ignores an obvious affront to Jesus and God from the New Testament? Jesus' only exception to this was adultery. You could divorce for adultery.
While this part of scripture is true, acceptions can be made according to scripture that in certain cases divorce is allowed such as hard heart or sexual immorality. A lot Athiests like to use that quote of scripture like you just used as some kind of a "gotcha" when a Christian gets a divorce. I went through it with morons on here when I went through mine and before I divorced I sought out my pastor.
-
While this part of scripture is true, acceptions can be made according to scripture that in certain cases divorce is allowed such as hard heart or sexual immorality. A lot Athiests like to use that quote of scripture like you just used as some kind of a "gotcha" when a Christian gets a divorce. I went through it with morons on here when I went through mine and before I divorced I sought out my pastor.
Uh...if you read the conversation you will see I listed the exception. ::)
-
Matthew 5-31
It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Mark 10-2
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied. 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Luke 16-8
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Romans 7`2
For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.
Mathew 19-8 speaks of the hard heart coach mistakes as a reason. That was under Moses' law. Jesus changed it with
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Maybe they weren't the morons you thought they were... ;)
-
Not really., in the Sermon on the mount, Jesus doesn't pull any punches. If you divorce for any reason other than adultery, and you remarry, you are committing adultery. No ifs ands or butts. I can also pull of the section where he says adulterers will NOT go to heaven. So only in Christians minds, mostly those who haven't even read their religious book, they think homosexuality is a worse sin than what probably 60% or better of what the "good" christians are doing. If you want to argue homosexuals will go to a "more worser" ;) hell than a person who has divorced and remarried for any reason other than adultery, then you aren't very knowledgeable about the bible.
The reason I know more about the bible is that for 25 or more years I studied it as a believer. I actually read it.
You can read something all you want, but if you don't understand it then its kind of pointless. You have shown countless times that you have a very shallow understanding of the Bible. This is just another example.
Yep, you are committing adultery. Not perpetually though, lol. This is why you don't cherry pick and look to other verses where it is clear that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery. They have a duty to repent as with any sin and it is forgiven. An unrepentant adulterer, murderer, etc. wallowing in their sins will clearly not go to heaven.
They aren't "doing" it if they repented. They "did" it. Murderers can go to heaven. Paul was a very, very wicked man before his conversion and killed people. Yet, he repented (turned from his ways) and clearly went to Heaven.
You are essentially claiming that those who ask for forgiveness, repent, and mean it are still bound to Hell because of a past offense. Contrary to the whole of Scripture.
I have no idea what sort of "Christians" you hang out with. They seem very odd.
Basic stuff here for someone who feels the need to brag about knowing about the Bible yet clearly does not.
-
You can read something all you want, but if you don't understand it then its kind of pointless. You have shown countless times that you have a very shallow understanding of the Bible. This is just another example.
Yep, you are committing adultery. Not perpetually though, lol. This is why you don't cherry pick and look to other verses where it is clear that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery. They have a duty to repent as with any sin and it is forgiven. An unrepentant adulterer, murderer, etc. wallowing in their sins will clearly not go to heaven.
They aren't "doing" it if they repented. They "did" it. Murderers can go to heaven. Paul was a very, very wicked man before his conversion and killed people. Yet, he repented (turned from his ways) and clearly went to Heaven.
You are essentially claiming that those who ask for forgiveness, repent, and mean it are still bound to Hell because of a past offense. Contrary to the whole of Scripture.
I have no idea what sort of "Christians" you hang out with. They seem very odd.
Basic stuff here for someone who feels the need to brag about knowing about the Bible yet clearly does not.
Thanks for joining the discussion. I'll be happy to address your contention.
I have listed out numerous scriptures, quoting Jesus word for word. Anyone will any intellectual integrity would have to conclude what I stated is correct. Ok, you agree you are committing adultery. Your position is you are just committing adultery on the day you are married? But if you ask forgiveness, then it wipes out every day after that as adultery? Yet a person is homosexual, asks forgiveness for any sins, and they are somehow to be held to a higher standard than the heterosexual. It's a ludicrous argument not supported in scripture. They are essentially committing adultery every time they have sex unless you can supply a mulligan scripture. But be careful, any loophole you produce will likely apply to homosexuals. My point which I have clearly set out for you is the bakery, if they are not going to bake a cake for homosexuals due to their religion, should not bake a cake for anyone who is divorced and remarried unless they are offered proof it was for adultery. That's consistent, but christians tend to be a little hypocritical about sins they are committing.
-
Not really., in the Sermon on the mount, Jesus doesn't pull any punches. If you divorce for any reason other than adultery, and you remarry, you are committing adultery. No ifs ands or butts. I can also pull of the section where he says adulterers will NOT go to heaven. So only in Christians minds, mostly those who haven't even read their religious book, they think homosexuality is a worse sin than what probably 60% or better of what the "good" christians are doing. If you want to argue homosexuals will go to a "more worser" ;) hell than a person who has divorced and remarried for any reason other than adultery, then you aren't very knowledgeable about the bible.
The reason I know more about the bible is that for 25 or more years I studied it as a believer. I actually read it.
If you studied the Bible for 25 years then you must have a learning disability based on the crap you keep posting. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
-
You can read something all you want, but if you don't understand it then its kind of pointless. You have shown countless times that you have a very shallow understanding of the Bible. This is just another example.
Yep, you are committing adultery. Not perpetually though, lol. This is why you don't cherry pick and look to other verses where it is clear that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery. They have a duty to repent as with any sin and it is forgiven. An unrepentant adulterer, murderer, etc. wallowing in their sins will clearly not go to heaven.
They aren't "doing" it if they repented. They "did" it. Murderers can go to heaven. Paul was a very, very wicked man before his conversion and killed people. Yet, he repented (turned from his ways) and clearly went to Heaven.
You are essentially claiming that those who ask for forgiveness, repent, and mean it are still bound to Hell because of a past offense. Contrary to the whole of Scripture.
I have no idea what sort of "Christians" you hang out with. They seem very odd.
Basic stuff here for someone who feels the need to brag about knowing about the Bible yet clearly does not.
Yes. Exactly.
You also have to use common sense. No, Christians aren't required to stay married and only divorce if there is adultery. That would mean a battered spouse would be unable to divorce their spouse without sinning. That's retarded.
And Agnostic if you actually understand that 25 years of Bible study, you would know that you cannot determine what is in a person's heart and shouldn't be judging people.
-
Yes. Exactly.
You also have to use common sense. No, Christians aren't required to stay married and only divorce if there is adultery. That would mean a battered spouse would be unable to divorce their spouse without sinning. That's retarded.
And Agnostic if you actually understand that 25 years of Bible study, you would know that you cannot determine what is in a person's heart and shouldn't be judging people.
Ok guys, I see we are going to play the "I feel it should be this way" game rather than the "Scripture says" reality. I know I would be spinning my wheels...
As far as the judging people... would that apply to the Baker as well?
-
If you studied the Bible for 25 years then you must have a learning disability based on the crap you keep posting. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
If I had a dollar for every time a "christian" who didn't know the bible tried to tell me what it says.. I could have retired long ago :)
-
Ok guys, I see we are going to play the "I feel it should be this way" game rather than the "Scripture says" reality. I know I would be spinning my wheels...
As far as the judging people... would that apply to the Baker as well?
No, using common sense isn't about feeling a certain way.
Regarding judging, no. 1, you are being incredibly judgmental and whether the baker is too has absolutely nothing to do with you constantly trying to talk like you know what's in a person's heart.
No. 2, no the baker refusing to violate his conscience isn't him passing judgment on someone else. That makes no sense.
-
If I had a dollar for every time a "christian" who didn't know the bible tried to tell me what it says.. I could have retired long ago :)
Reading and understanding are two completely different things. You may have read a bunch of stuff on the internet, but you don't really understand squat.
And how exactly did you retire from arguing about something you don't believe exists when you repeatedly do it on this website??
-
Reading and understanding are two completely different things. You may have read a bunch of stuff on the internet, but you don't really understand squat.
And how exactly did you retire from arguing about something you don't believe exists when you repeatedly do it on this website??
Again you misunderstand what I said. I didn't say I retired from arguing about anything.
Look, I laid out my argument, supplied ample proof via quotes from Jesus, If you disagree with Jesus that's fine with me.
-
If you studied the Bible for 25 years then you must have a learning disability based on the crap you keep posting. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
;D
-
boo hoo
stop getting your panties in a twist Nancy
everyone on this board (including a moderator) attacks me with personal insults all the time
Often their posts are NOTHING but personal insults
Boo hoo, "everyone" on this board insults you. Cry me a river.
Not everyone on this board insults you, but you proceed to take it out on those who don't? I bet you beat and belittle your kids for spilling the milk, and you beat your wife for folding your panties wrong. I bet you beat them all and belittle them when you have a bad day at work.
Since you're the one insulting me for no reason, you're the one with your panties in a twist, likely because of this Supreme Court decision, which is a defeat to liberals and a victory to conservatives. Then again, you're angry all the time. So who knows?
-
Here is the irony.. Jesus spoke about people who divorced and remarried. He said that if you divorced and remarried. You are committing adultery and the person you marry is committing adultery and adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Why would a baker be more appalled by something in the old testament that Jesus never speaks of, but ignores an obvious affront to Jesus and God from the New Testament? Jesus' only exception to this was adultery. You could divorce for adultery.
Incorrect. Jesus said
Matthew 19:4-5
4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
-
If you studied the Bible for 25 years then you must have a learning disability based on the crap you keep posting. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Well he does support demoncrats.
-
Incorrect. Jesus said
Matthew 19:4-5
4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Is this the same Jesus who never married and who traveled around with a bunch of other men?
-
Is this the same Jesus who never married and who traveled around with a bunch of other men?
Luke 8:1-2
1 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him.
2 Also, some women were with him.
-
Luke 8:1-2
1 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him.
2 Also, some women were with him.
whew!
-
whew!
Luke 8:3
These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
-
Luke 8:3
These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
so the women provided financial support for the men
any idea how they earned money or why these men couldn't support themselves
-
so the women provided financial support for the men
any idea how they earned money or why these men couldn't support themselves
You just got owned again, liar.
-
You just got owned again, liar.
delusional much
I said Jesus never married and traveled around with a bunch of men
that's what he did
Did I say there were "no women"
Did I say it was "only men"
Remind me again how many of the twelve disciples were women
This is the type of thread where you reveal you're a desperate idiot
-
Again you misunderstand what I said. I didn't say I retired from arguing about anything.
Look, I laid out my argument, supplied ample proof via quotes from Jesus, If you disagree with Jesus that's fine with me.
I don't disagree with Jesus, who you don't believe existed. I disagree with you. You're not proving anything other than you have this weird fascination with something you don't believe exists.
-
You just got owned again, liar.
lol
-
delusional much
I said Jesus never married and traveled around with a bunch of men
that's what he did
Did I say there were "no women"
Did I say it was "only men"
Remind me again how many of the twelve disciples were women
This is the type of thread where you reveal you're a desperate idiot
You just got owned again, liar.
-
Incorrect. Jesus said
Matthew 19:4-5
4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
IF you are arguing that Jesus was against homosexuality, I'm not arguing that. I understand Jesus thought men shouldn't be with men. Women shouldn't be with women, though he probably wasn't as appalled by that.. My point which is still correct, is that Jesus DID speak of marrying after divorce for any reason other than adultery, would be a no no. He took the time to address that so it must have been important. What happens is, most Christians, not all, are good with the homosexual is a no no rule. What they don't like is being told their 2, 3rd or 4th marriage could also be a no no. No no's (sin) is bad. Just like Christians who demand or insist on praying at public secular events ignore Jesus' teachings on that in Matthew 6:5. They follow the rules they like and pretend the others don't exist. Typical conversation
Me: Divorcing and remarrying for any reason other than infidelity causes the persons to be adulterers and adulterers are on the list of people who won't get into heaven according to Jesus
Them: No, that's not true.
Me: {Providing half a dozen specific scriptures that say exactly that}
Them- Well I think...
Me- No, what you think is wrong, the bible clearly says as I pointed out what is true
Them- You don't understand, you're just stupid
Me- ::)
-
You just got owned again, liar.
apparently your lack of reading comprehension is what constitutes a lie in your Trumptarded brain
-
apparently your lack of reading comprehension is what constitutes a lie in your Trumptarded brain
A post so nice you responded twice.
-
A post so nice you responded twice.
Scroll up Trumptard
You need to work on your own reading comprehension
Your fellow Trumptard made the same post two different times so I replied to both
-
IF you are arguing that Jesus was against homosexuality, I'm not arguing that. I understand Jesus thought men shouldn't be with men. Women shouldn't be with women, though he probably wasn't as appalled by that.. My point which is still correct, is that Jesus DID speak of marrying after divorce for any reason other than adultery, would be a no no. He took the time to address that so it must have been important. What happens is, most Christians, not all, are good with the homosexual is a no no rule. What they don't like is being told their 2, 3rd or 4th marriage could also be a no no. No no's (sin) is bad. Just like Christians who demand or insist on praying at public secular events ignore Jesus' teachings on that in Matthew 6:5. They follow the rules they like and pretend the others don't exist. Typical conversation
Me: Divorcing and remarrying for any reason other than infidelity causes the persons to be adulterers and adulterers are on the list of people who won't get into heaven according to Jesus
Them: No, that's not true.
Me: {Providing half a dozen specific scriptures that say exactly that}
Them- Well I think...
Me- No, what you think is wrong, the bible clearly says as I pointed out what is true
Them- You don't understand, you're just stupid
Me- ::)
Again, you're not proving anything. As someone else tried to explain to you, you don't just look at verse out of context. It's like looking at the commandment that says do not kill and concluding all killing is wrong. Actually, wouldn't surprise me if you've made that equally horrible argument.
-
Don't care about the bible part of this discussion. Simple fact if someone comes into my bakery and I don't want to bake them a fucking cake, I shouldn't be forced to do business with someone I don't want to. And what kind of person would go into an establishment that doesn't want your business and try to force them to do business with you?
-
Again, you're not proving anything. As someone else tried to explain to you, you don't just look at verse out of context. It's like looking at the commandment that says do not kill and concluding all killing is wrong. Actually, wouldn't surprise me if you've made that equally horrible argument.
Lets just agree to disagree. Seems the logical thing to do here. This thread confirms my suspicion that no amount of evidence matters to some people.
-
Don't care about the bible part of this discussion. Simple fact if someone comes into my bakery and I don't want to bake them a fucking cake, I shouldn't be forced to do business with someone I don't want to. And what kind of person would go into an establishment that doesn't want your business and try to force them to do business with you?
A person that believes in an America where people can't discriminate against others based on stupid criteria like color of skin or sexual preference. Just my opinion...
-
If I'm in a service based industry and I decide for any reason not to provide my services, why should I be forced? What about the vendors rights and freedoms?
-
If I'm in a service based industry and I decide for any reason not to provide my services, why should I be forced? What about the vendors rights and freedoms?
When you open a business in America it is assumed and expected by law you won't discriminate. Civil Rights 1964 made that pretty clear.
-
When you open a business in America it is assumed and expected by law you won't discriminate. Civil Rights 1964 made that pretty clear.
What part of the 64 Civil Rights Act talks about gays and public accommodations?
-
Lets just agree to disagree. Seems the logical thing to do here. This thread confirms my suspicion that no amount of evidence matters to some people.
Your comments confirm that you are disingenuous, have a weird fascination weird with something you don't believe exists, and your 25 years of Bible study didn't teach you much.
-
When you open a business in America it is assumed and expected by law you won't discriminate. Civil Rights 1964 made that pretty clear.
So refusal of service on any grounds is automatically discrimination?
-
Your comments confirm that you are disingenuous, have a weird fascination weird with something you don't believe exists, and your 25 years of Bible study didn't teach you much.
and... your inability to say you were wrong is telling.. I gave you multiple scriptures.. you gave me "I don't think thats the way it should be" and then you accuse me of being wrong, without providing anything to support your contention other than.. guess what....your opinion that I'm wrong. Don't worry, lots of Christians who don't know the bible do the same thing. you are no different. While I would love to say "I don't think God would send someone to hell just for not believing Jesus died on the cross etc etc... because honestly, it sounds like an asshole move... thats exactly what the bible says. Christians hate when they are faced with what the bible actually says vs what they thought it said. Do yourself a favor... read it sometime.
-
So refusal of service on any grounds is automatically discrimination?
nope....
-
and... your inability to say you were wrong is telling.. I gave you multiple scriptures.. you gave me "I don't think thats the way it should be" and then you accuse me of being wrong, without providing anything to support your contention other than.. guess what....your opinion that I'm wrong. Don't worry, lots of Christians who don't know the bible do the same thing. you are no different. While I would love to say "I don't think God would send someone to hell just for not believing Jesus died on the cross etc etc... because honestly, it sounds like an asshole move... thats exactly what the bible says. Christians hate when they are faced with what the bible actually says vs what they thought it said. Do yourself a favor... read it sometime.
Unlike you, I don't have a need to be right. And I have experienced your kind many times. You are full of crap. You don't care about the Bible, Jesus, Christianity, etc. You just want to try and belittle something you don't even believe in.
You are pretty thick headed so I know you will still not get this, but quoting scriptures doesn't prove anything. Context is everything. Common sense is vital. But drive on with your attempts to try and show how superior you are when it comes to a book that you believe is a fairy tale. lol
-
Unlike you, I don't have a need to be right. And I have experienced your kind many times. You are full of crap. You don't care about the Bible, Jesus, Christianity, etc. You just want to try and belittle something you don't even believe in.
You are pretty thick headed so I know you will still not get this, but quoting scriptures doesn't prove anything. Context is everything. Common sense is vital. But drive on with your attempts to try and show how superior you are when it comes to a book that you believe is a fairy tale. lol
Again you offer nothing other than your "I think" when you have a bible you could easily access. So you go in the not worth responding to list.. you have no credibility.
-
When you open a business in America it is assumed and expected by law you won't discriminate. Civil Rights 1964 made that pretty clear.
What part of the 64 Civil Rights Act talks about Queers and public accommodations?
So refusal of service on any grounds is automatically discrimination?
If I'm in a service based industry and I decide for any reason not to provide my services, why should I be forced? What about the vendors rights and freedoms?
Their Shop / Business of course they should be able to turn away / refuse business.
It happens to me & everyone at times - nope not nice just part of life & dealing with
Different people & there opinions & ideals.
A person that believes in an America where people can't discriminate against others based on stupid criteria like color of skin or sexual preference. Just my opinion...
And likes / dislikes of each other based on looks / religion / color / height / weight / queers / faggotts / hair styles / style of dress / rich / poor etc etc is always going to happen just as it always has.
Absolutely Ridiculous to believe otherwise it’s human nature.
Just look all around the world and you can plainly see it happening everywhere.
Oh but not in enlightened liberal America it can’t. ::)
Try legislating against Nature.
-
Their Shop / Business of course they should be able to turn away / refuse business.
And likes / dislikes of each other based on looks / religion / color / height / weight / queers / faggotts / trans
/ hair styles / style of dress etc etc is always going to happen just as it always has.
Absolutely Ridiculous to believe otherwise it’s human nature.
Just look all around the world and you can plainly see it happening everywhere.
Oh but not in enlightened liberal America it can’t. ::)
Try legislating against Nature.
In the 60's in America, Blacks couldn't eat in the same diners, attend the same schools etc of whites. This was rectified with the Civil Rights act of 1964. Of course there are still a minority of Americans who think this is a mistake and they should never have allowed blacks the same rights as whites. But it's the law and I happen to agree with it. I'm weird that way
-
In the 60's in America, Blacks couldn't eat in the same diners, attend the same schools etc of whites. This was rectified with the Civil Rights act of 1964. Of course there are still a minority of Americans who think this is a mistake and they should never have allowed blacks the same rights as whites. But it's the law and I happen to agree with it. I'm weird that way
Good for you.
I believe in nature & try to see how it works
That includes human nature.
I’m weird that way.
I concede you made a good point ref the treatment of blacks.
I’m talking about individual personal likes and dislikes and We All
Have them Good & Bad.
-
Good for you.
I believe in nature & try to see how it works
That includes human nature.
I’m weird that way.
I concede you made a good point ref the treatment of blacks.
I’m talking about individual personal likes and dislikes and We All
Have them Good & Bad.
True we do...
-
True we do...
Thank you.
Point Proven.
-
Again you offer nothing other than your "I think" when you have a bible you could easily access. So you go in the not worth responding to list.. you have no credibility.
Stop with the projection. You have zero credibility. Your analytical ability on this topic sucks. Ok. I'm going to stop repeating myself because you are a knucklehead. But I'll say for the last time, that quoting a few Bible verses is a simplistic and inaccurate way to try and understand the Bible. But have fun arguing about something you don't believe exists and pounding your chest over your perceived superiority.
-
Stop with the projection. You have zero credibility. Your analytical ability on this topic sucks. Ok. I'm going to stop repeating myself because you are a knucklehead. But I'll say for the last time, that quoting a few Bible verses is a simplistic and inaccurate way to try and understand the Bible. But have fun arguing about something you don't believe exists and pounding your chest over your perceived superiority.
::)
-
In the 60's in America, Blacks couldn't eat in the same diners, attend the same schools etc of whites. This was rectified with the Civil Rights act of 1964. Of course there are still a minority of Americans who think this is a mistake and they should never have allowed blacks the same rights as whites. But it's the law and I happen to agree with it. I'm weird that way
What part of the 64 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against gay people in public accommodations?
-
Thank you.
Point Proven.
If your point is.. people have bias, racial prejudices, I agree. However, for good reason (in my opinion) those racial prejudices can't be exercised if you are operating a business.
-
If your point is.. people have bias, racial prejudices, I agree. However, for good reason (in my opinion) those racial prejudices can't be exercised if you are operating a business.
That was my point. Thank you.
Also those prejudices will be exercised & are under many different excuses
You not going to force everyone to like everyone else.
-
I've always felt that my first amendment rights include my right to hate anyone for any reason.
I should be allowed to hate if I want to.
-
In the 60's in America, Blacks couldn't eat in the same diners, attend the same schools etc of whites. This was rectified with the Civil Rights act of 1964. Of course there are still a minority of Americans who think this is a mistake and they should never have allowed blacks the same rights as whites. But it's the law and I happen to agree with it. I'm weird that way
This isn't large scale discrimination, this is personal choice.
-
If your point is.. people have bias, racial prejudices, I agree. However, for good reason (in my opinion) those racial prejudices can't be exercised if you are operating a business.
should a black baker be forced to make a cake celebrating the KKK? Or a muslim saying Mohammed is a pedo?
-
I've always felt that my first amendment rights include my right to hate anyone for any reason.
I should be allowed to hate if I want to.
Well seems you were born 100 years too late
-
I've always felt that my first amendment rights include my right to hate anyone for any reason.
I should be allowed to hate if I want to.
Well seems you were born 100 years too late
No he’s being honest.
I would say we all hate someone or some people - be they white / black / queers / Peadophile’s / muslims etc
Are you saying you honestly don’t hate anyone ?
-
Thanks for joining the discussion. I'll be happy to address your contention.
I have listed out numerous scriptures, quoting Jesus word for word. Anyone will any intellectual integrity would have to conclude what I stated is correct. Ok, you agree you are committing adultery. Your position is you are just committing adultery on the day you are married? But if you ask forgiveness, then it wipes out every day after that as adultery? Yet a person is homosexual, asks forgiveness for any sins, and they are somehow to be held to a higher standard than the heterosexual. It's a ludicrous argument not supported in scripture. They are essentially committing adultery every time they have sex unless you can supply a mulligan scripture. But be careful, any loophole you produce will likely apply to homosexuals. My point which I have clearly set out for you is the bakery, if they are not going to bake a cake for homosexuals due to their religion, should not bake a cake for anyone who is divorced and remarried unless they are offered proof it was for adultery. That's consistent, but christians tend to be a little hypocritical about sins they are committing.
You really need verses from the Bible on whether a sin that is repented for causes you to be damned to eternal Hell? No, you don't. You are simply deflecting/being a troll. If you really do then you need to read the Bible a bit more and not contend that you know so much about it. You ignored answering this in your reply as to how you reconcile your belief with what Scripture says on sin,forgiveness, etc. I have reconciled my belief and it is a much more logical conclusion.
It is very simple to see that your BELIEF as to what those verses mean/conclusion you have made is completely contradictory to the rest of Scripture therefore what you believe it to be saying is wrong when taken into context (as Dos Equis pointed out).
Who is saying that a homosexual is damned to Hell if they repent from their sins/turn from their ways? That argument is yours. Not mine. If they continue unrepentantly in their ways then of course they are most likely not a Christian (just as someone who continues to murder unrepentantly, commit adultery unrepentantly, etc.) and will not be going to Heaven.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is just one of your "mulligan"s, btw. The second marriage is as binding as the first. In order to avoid committing adultery again they must remain faithful in their new marriage after repentance.
Can't believe that that murdering/adulterous David went to Hell. No idea why he is "a man after God's own heart" knowing this enlightening fact that you have discovered which belies every Biblical scholar.
You are claiming that a person must commit another sin (divorce) in order to be cleansed from the first sin (divorce/adultery). God does not work that way and this is supported no where. That is like claiming that a murderer must commit another murder (or suicide) to be forgiven from the first. Ludicrous thought pattern.
Not going to try that hard to convince you as if you truly wanted the answers they are right there for you to see/research. Also, you don't seem to be the type to really want to see beyond what you have convinced yourself of judging by your forum name.Your heart is hard.
Your last point is more thought provoking/what you should stick with in this argument(why are they baking cakes for something else that is clearly a sin according to the Bible) but my contention is with your conclusion on adultery and what I had replied to originally I believe.
-
My daughter would give me flak for stating this, but proprietors should retain the right to choose their clientèle. When they do, they may lose business, thus hurting their bottom line. That's their choice though.
-
No he’s being honest.
I would say we all hate someone or some people - be they white / black / queers / Peadophile’s / muslims etc
Are you saying you honestly don’t hate anyone ?
The law can never force anyone to like (or not hate) anyone else, but it can control people's behavior.
-
You really need verses from the Bible on whether a sin that is repented for causes you to be damned to eternal Hell? No, you don't. You are simply deflecting/being a troll. If you really do then you need to read the Bible a bit more and not contend that you know so much about it. You ignored answering this in your reply as to how you reconcile your belief with what Scripture says on sin,forgiveness, etc. I have reconciled my belief and it is a much more logical conclusion.
It is very simple to see that your BELIEF as to what those verses mean/conclusion you have made is completely contradictory to the rest of Scripture therefore what you believe it to be saying is wrong when taken into context (as Dos Equis pointed out).
Who is saying that a homosexual is damned to Hell if they repent from their sins/turn from their ways? That argument is yours. Not mine. If they continue unrepentantly in their ways then of course they are most likely not a Christian (just as someone who continues to murder unrepentantly, commit adultery unrepentantly, etc.) and will not be going to Heaven.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is just one of your "mulligan"s, btw. The second marriage is as binding as the first. In order to avoid committing adultery again they must remain faithful in their new marriage after repentance.
Can't believe that that murdering/adulterous David went to Hell. No idea why he is "a man after God's own heart" knowing this enlightening fact that you have discovered which belies every Biblical scholar.
You are claiming that a person must commit another sin (divorce) in order to be cleansed from the first sin (divorce/adultery). God does not work that way and this is supported no where. That is like claiming that a murderer must commit another murder (or suicide) to be forgiven from the first. Ludicrous thought pattern.
Not going to try that hard to convince you as if you truly wanted the answers they are right there for you to see/research. Also, you don't seem to be the type to really want to see beyond what you have convinced yourself of judging by your forum name.Your heart is hard.
Your last point is more thought provoking/what you should stick with in this argument(why are they baking cakes for something else that is clearly a sin according to the Bible) but my contention is with your conclusion on adultery and what I had replied to originally I believe.
Well said.
-
No he’s being honest.
I would say we all hate someone or some people - be they white / black / queers / Peadophile’s / muslims etc
Are you saying you honestly don’t hate anyone ?
No, not saying that at all. I'm aware though that there are protected classes of people out there that if I am a business owner I would have to deal with or risk getting sued.
-
You really need verses from the Bible on whether a sin that is repented for causes you to be damned to eternal Hell? No, you don't. You are simply deflecting/being a troll. If you really do then you need to read the Bible a bit more and not contend that you know so much about it. You ignored answering this in your reply as to how you reconcile your belief with what Scripture says on sin,forgiveness, etc. I have reconciled my belief and it is a much more logical conclusion.
It is very simple to see that your BELIEF as to what those verses mean/conclusion you have made is completely contradictory to the rest of Scripture therefore what you believe it to be saying is wrong when taken into context (as Dos Equis pointed out).
Who is saying that a homosexual is damned to Hell if they repent from their sins/turn from their ways? That argument is yours. Not mine. If they continue unrepentantly in their ways then of course they are most likely not a Christian (just as someone who continues to murder unrepentantly, commit adultery unrepentantly, etc.) and will not be going to Heaven.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is just one of your "mulligan"s, btw. The second marriage is as binding as the first. In order to avoid committing adultery again they must remain faithful in their new marriage after repentance.
Can't believe that that murdering/adulterous David went to Hell. No idea why he is "a man after God's own heart" knowing this enlightening fact that you have discovered which belies every Biblical scholar.
You are claiming that a person must commit another sin (divorce) in order to be cleansed from the first sin (divorce/adultery). God does not work that way and this is supported no where. That is like claiming that a murderer must commit another murder (or suicide) to be forgiven from the first. Ludicrous thought pattern.
Not going to try that hard to convince you as if you truly wanted the answers they are right there for you to see/research. Also, you don't seem to be the type to really want to see beyond what you have convinced yourself of judging by your forum name.Your heart is hard.
Your last point is more thought provoking/what you should stick with in this argument(why are they baking cakes for something else that is clearly a sin according to the Bible) but my contention is with your conclusion on adultery and what I had replied to originally I believe.
I will refrain from making disparaging remarks about you are your position because it brings nothing positive to the table. I will just say that once again, you are arguing from a position of what you think should be in the bible, or what you think should happen. I have supplied ample scripture (which is the way most people would debate a biblical point) that supports my position. To sum it up, remarrying after divorce for any reason other than adultery is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Christians, if they are going to refuse one due to their religion, should be consistent. Otherwise they are being hypocritical
-
If I'm in a service based industry and I decide for any reason not to provide my services, why should I be forced? What about the vendors rights and freedoms?
because we aren't living in the 1800's?
-
because we aren't living in the 1800's?
So vendors have no rights?
-
So vendors have no rights?
They do. For example, in Texas you can refuse service for no shirt, no shoes..abrasive attitude, etc. You just can't refuse service because of someones race color religion or national origin.
-
I will refrain from making disparaging remarks about you are your position because it brings nothing positive to the table. I will just say that once again, you are arguing from a position of what you think should be in the bible, or what you think should happen. I have supplied ample scripture (which is the way most people would debate a biblical point) that supports my position. To sum it up, remarrying after divorce for any reason other than adultery is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Christians, if they are going to refuse one due to their religion, should be consistent. Otherwise they are being hypocritical
^
In other words: "I will refrain because I have no answers and when Biblical support was provided to prove me wrong on my stated position of perpetual adultery through remarriage and everlasting damnation to those who do it (including David). I am now just going to continue with an argument that wasn't argued against to begin with. My feelings know better and I have rarely opened up the Bible that I have claimed to know so well."
You were claiming that it was perpetual adultery/sin and that they were damned to Hell. You are wrong. You have acknowledged my position is the right one by no longer claiming this it looks like.
And actually, just so others are not swayed by your lies "remarrying after divorce for any other reason other then adultery is a sin." You must have skipped I Cor. 7:14-16 in your pouring over the Scriptures.
-
^
In other words: "I will refrain because I have no answers and when Biblical support was provided to prove me wrong on my stated position of perpetual adultery through remarriage and everlasting damnation to those who do it (including David). I am now just going to continue with an argument that wasn't argued against to begin with. My feelings know better and I have rarely opened up the Bible that I have claimed to know so well."
You were claiming that it was perpetual adultery/sin and that they were damned to Hell. You are wrong. You have acknowledged my position is the right one by no longer claiming this it looks like.
And actually, just so others are not swayed by your lies "remarrying after divorce for any other reason other then adultery is a sin." You must have skipped I Cor. 7:14-16 in your pouring over the Scriptures.
;)
answer this question and I will expend time and effort giving your post the time it would deserve
If a baker without asking any questions of their customers refuses to bake a cake for 2 people who are homosexual, and bakes a cake for 2 people on their 5th marriage, are they within the teachings of Christ?
-
;)
answer this question and I will expend time and effort giving your post the time it would deserve
If a baker without asking any questions of their customers refuses to bake a cake for 2 people who are homosexual, and bakes a cake for 2 people on their 5th marriage, are they within the teachings of Christ?
-
You really need verses from the Bible on whether a sin that is repented for causes you to be damned to eternal Hell? No, you don't. You are simply deflecting/being a troll. If you really do then you need to read the Bible a bit more and not contend that you know so much about it. You ignored answering this in your reply as to how you reconcile your belief with what Scripture says on sin,forgiveness, etc. I have reconciled my belief and it is a much more logical conclusion.
It is very simple to see that your BELIEF as to what those verses mean/conclusion you have made is completely contradictory to the rest of Scripture therefore what you believe it to be saying is wrong when taken into context (as Dos Equis pointed out).
Who is saying that a homosexual is damned to Hell if they repent from their sins/turn from their ways? That argument is yours. Not mine. If they continue unrepentantly in their ways then of course they are most likely not a Christian (just as someone who continues to murder unrepentantly, commit adultery unrepentantly, etc.) and will not be going to Heaven.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is just one of your "mulligan"s, btw. The second marriage is as binding as the first. In order to avoid committing adultery again they must remain faithful in their new marriage after repentance.
Can't believe that that murdering/adulterous David went to Hell. No idea why he is "a man after God's own heart" knowing this enlightening fact that you have discovered which belies every Biblical scholar.
You are claiming that a person must commit another sin (divorce) in order to be cleansed from the first sin (divorce/adultery). God does not work that way and this is supported no where. That is like claiming that a murderer must commit another murder (or suicide) to be forgiven from the first. Ludicrous thought pattern.
Not going to try that hard to convince you as if you truly wanted the answers they are right there for you to see/research. Also, you don't seem to be the type to really want to see beyond what you have convinced yourself of judging by your forum name.Your heart is hard.
Your last point is more thought provoking/what you should stick with in this argument(why are they baking cakes for something else that is clearly a sin according to the Bible) but my contention is with your conclusion on adultery and what I had replied to originally I believe.
Add this verse to your list! 8)
-
Add this verse to your list! 8)
you were so close to being put in the "not worth responding to" list, but then.. you go and redeem yourself with this!
-
Add this verse to your list! 8)
LOL! ;D
-
Add this verse to your list! 8)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=641370.0;attach=761761;image)
;D
-
;D
;D
-
Sign in front of a Denver church, located not far from the bakery in this case.
-
Sign in front of a Denver church, located not far from the bakery in this case.
Nah. He was a carpenter, not a baker. :)
-
It wasn't the cake itself it was the penis on the cake that made the baker nauseous.
-
Matthew 19:4-5
4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
-
Matthew 19:4-5
4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
Again.. the argument wasn't that the bible considers homosexuality a sin. But that it also considers divorce and remarrying a sin, and being consistent with your values should be important
-
Again.. the argument wasn't that the bible considers homosexuality a sin. But that it also considers divorce and remarrying a sin, and being consistent with your values should be important
Not what this case is about, not what this Supreme court decision is about, and not what this thread is about.
You could start your own thread in the religion board about being consistent with your values.
-
Not what this case is about, not what this Supreme court decision is about, and not what this thread is about.
You could start your own thread in the religion board about being consistent with your values.
Fair enough. I thought the conversation evolved in this direction. I'll leave it alone
-
;)
answer this question and I will expend time and effort giving your post the time it would deserve
If a baker without asking any questions of their customers refuses to bake a cake for 2 people who are homosexual, and bakes a cake for 2 people on their 5th marriage, are they within the teachings of Christ?
It's about freewill as well. I know they said religion but maybe they were just disgusted or maybe they saw that they were being put in a trap due to their beliefs or reputation(as was the case).
The stance on this case could very well identify if you are a statist/socialist or not...
-
Again.. the argument wasn't that the bible considers homosexuality a sin. But that it also considers divorce and remarrying a sin, and being consistent with your values should be important
Do you think the case would of gone to court Had the bakers been Muslims
It’s a very real question ??
-
Do you think the case would of gone to court Had the bakers been Muslims
It’s a very real question ??
If they refused for the same reason, I don't see why not.