Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

[Agnostic007]

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 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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??

[Agnostic007]

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.

[Yamcha]

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.   

 

[loco]

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?

[loco]

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’?

[chaos]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[loco]

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.

[Agnostic007]

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!

[loco]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[loco]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

You just got owned again, liar.

lol 

[loco]

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.

[Agnostic007]

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- 

[Straw Man]

You just got owned again, liar.

apparently your lack of reading comprehension is what constitutes a lie in your Trumptarded brain

[Yamcha]

apparently your lack of reading comprehension is what constitutes a lie in your Trumptarded brain

A post so nice you responded twice.

[Straw Man]

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

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[chaos]

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?

[Agnostic007]

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.