Today, a majority of states in the U.S. have marriage equality, but in some states it's getting harder for LGBT people to go about their lives. In a growing number of places around the country, businesses run by people who morally object to homosexuality are attempting to deny services to same-sex couples and even individual non-straight people. Many pieces of legislation protecting this bigoted behavior have come through state congresses, and recently Indiana was the latest to make such a bill into the law of the land.
The fight for LGBT rights has enjoyed victory after victory in the past few years, though there are still many challenges ahead. Losing in the sphere of marriage, opponents of equal treatment for all non-heterosexual people have recently turned their attention to other discriminatory efforts. The contested right to deny non-straight people service stems from what are known as religious exemption laws.
Classically, religious exemptions are intended to protect the livelihoods of employees whose religious practices may interfere with work. For example, if an employee's prayer schedule overlaps with his or her work schedule, it is illegal to fire them for praying instead of working. In most states, religious exemptions require the employee and the employer to find a workaround to accommodate the religious practice, like creating an alternative work schedule.
But denying services to customers for religious reasons is an entirely different subject. The law passed in Indiana this month and similar laws in other states aren't intended to protect people from discrimination, but to legalize certain kinds of discrimination. There is no substantive difference between denying someone service because they are gay and denying someone service because they are black.
And yet our constitutional law hasn't caught up with this line of thinking. The landmark Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees full and equal access to goods, services, and facilities without discrimination or segregation based on race, color, religion, or nationality. Sexual identity is conspicuously missing from that list of protections, which is the loophole that anti-LGBT activists are using to justify the new religious exemption laws.
Not all states have allowed denial of service to LGBT people, though. Washington State struck down an argument by a florist called Sweet Cakes that it was allowed to deny services to a same-sex couple for their wedding. Multiple denial of service bills in states like Georgia, Arizona, and Arkansas have failed to pass muster between 2014 and today. Though many legislatures in conservative states are likely to pursue or even pass such bills in the year to come, this fight is far from one-sided.
We're only months away from the U.S. Supreme Court's expected decision on several same-sex marriage cases. The court's ruling on those cases isn't certain, though many signs and precedents from the past several years suggest that the highest court in the land will side with supporters of equality. As soon as that decision comes down, we can expect the next round of legal challenges to target the discrimination of religious exemption laws. Opponents of equality are running out of legal ground and more people every year are refusing to allow a bigoted minority misappropriate religion for their own, hateful ends.
Here the problem with your stance. ULC is a act to protect freedom of religion. Ordains many different type of preachers. I think that is a fine thing to do,but I being a minister dont agree with homosexuality. I do not wish to perform any gay marriage. Your line of thinking would violate my freedom of religion,and force me to quit. Which makes the efforts of ULC wasted. Business or people should have the right to offer or denie services based on their beliefs. Just like homosexual Should have the right to live life the way they believe is right. Not everyone will denie and not everyone will serve,but its still freedom of religion. If you will denie their right for your own. The only answer is to denie both sides. No rightd for anyone. Except the fov.
This is where the freedom of religion gets muddled. The freedom of religion is the right to practice whatever faith you want and not have that infringed upon. It does not nor should not be taken as if someone is doing something against your own personal belief, then you have the right to deny them things. Think of it as a bubble. Your belief system, everything about you, the laws that you govern yourself by, is all inside that bubble. Your bubble does not envelop other people. So denying people service of any kind based off of your own personal beliefs is discrimination. There is no excuse for it. We as the American culture had to get over our own personal beliefs when we had to give women the right to vote and own property. We as the American culture had to get over our own personal beliefs when we had to give African Americans equal rights. So we've already had to confront the sex and ethnicity of people. Why is this any different? I'm pretty sure people's religions were brought up in those cases as well. I know I'm probably not gonna convince you of anything but the fight against marrying people who love eachother is a farce at best. This shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is. Why we allow it to be is far beyond me.
I believe that everyone should have equal rights. Gay people should have the right to marry. At the same time. I should have the right to say. No. I will not marry you. That is equal rights. The right to chose is the back bone of america,and the main argument of the gay community. Gay people, and straight people both have the right to buy a steak at the local restaurant. The business owner should have the right to deny sevice To either group.or both. Thats equal rights. You want to protect equal rights. Then you must protect the right to chose. With out the right to chose. There are no equal rights.
Yes Roy i agree gay people should have thier right to live their life as they see fit for them. I agree any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, without the goverment or some right wing group telling them what they can an can not do. many places want serve a person if they are not dressed a certain way so what is the difference. If you use the BIBLE as a foundation to your life then let other fall by the side of the road they have a choice the same as the rest of us. The Bible says DO UNTO OTHER AS YOU WANT DONE UNTO YOU. What we need is get GOD back in our schools, homes and our churches and our goverment is not GOD that is forsure. And they need to stay out of GOD'S BUSINESS. PEOPLE GROW UP GOD WILL BE THE JUDGE ONE DAY REMEMBER THAT!!!!!!!!
And given your comment, I would assume you wouldn't want people to NOT serve you, or throw you out of their store or deny you services because you are a pastor. Do unto others....
Yes, do unto others, so you would like people to treat you like a second class citizen since you feel it is appropriate to do to others, right?
Unlike the days when the Bible was written, God speaks to few of us directly about what to do. Societies, need governments, and governments need to serve all people, not just those who believe in God, but those who believe in Allah, in Buddha, are Hindu, Wiccan, Pagan, the whole lot.
If you don't like that, feel free to buy yourself an island and rule it as you see fit, letting in only those who think like you do. It wouldn't have to be a very large island, I'm sure.
First of all Roy, no ordained minister will ever have to perform a same sex marriage if it goes against their faith. Unless you are Presbyterian, since the main authority of that faith has decreed that it shall be done. Of course, if you are Presbyterian, and disagree, you can change faiths.
Businesses on the other do not have these rights. You mentioned that a "steak house" should have the right to deny service to a homosexual couple. How do you know they are homosexual without asking? Asking them about their sexuality is against the law. So no, a business can't deny service based on sexuality, not on service and not on employment. It is a clear violation of law.
Perhaps if you learned how to spell, you might also learn how to understand what the laws mean.
Ministers of the Church of Denmark are now compelled to perform same sex "marriages". It won't be long before it is compulsory in the USA, whatever the First Amendment says.
No they're not, Allen. "Under the law, ministers can refuse to carry out a same-sex ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church building." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Denmark#Same-sex_marriage
Also, Church of Denmark is a state church, so the state does have say over it.
Wikipedia is not always a reliable guide to the law.
Individual Danish pastors are not (yet) compelled personally to perform same-sex marriages, but they are required by law to make their sacred church building available for the ceremony to take place and their bishop is required to provide a pastor to conduct it.
This is religious freedom. Not.
Coming to the USA some time soon, when it will apply to all churches.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. It is religious freedom within their context as they voted to accept SSM, and they're a state church. Nice try, though. Fear mongering doesn't really work when facts don't support.
you know being immoral does have everything to do with it, and for your information is am very literate, and educated, you don't know me or you would know that, infact as I have said before not only am I educated but my father and mother were/are too. my brother was top in his class in premed, and he also know about disgusting homos are, he always had to watch out for them always trying to hit on him, just because you are blind doesn't mean that we all are.
of course you deny being immoral, you have to have morals to know what immoral is, you don't have them so you don't know what it is.
Cast those stones, Mary...just as Jesus commanded you to.
(somewhere there's a village missing their mary. someone want to let them know we found her, please?)
again deb you are wrong about racism and bigotry being born out of ignorance and you are also wrong about the fact that you thing that maybe there is nothing wrong about it if somebody want to thing a certain way about them, just maybe a person knows more about these that others just aren't seeing and they have good reasons for feeling the way they do. and as this is a country with free speech and freedom of I can even say I want to or will kill somebody in this country, but if I don't act on it there is nothing wrong with it. expression, I can think or say anything I want to. as long as I don't act out any thing with regards to it then I am free to think and say what I want. it is not from a stand point of ignorance that is just a tool that is used to try to shame people into submission. as I know different. there are times when certain points of views are not only necessary, but very constructive and if there is truths in it then a person should have to right to express it. which you have demonstrated that you cant deal with that kind of info. so there is no point into me going through it with you. you see every thing like your homosexual is a perspective. the bible is not necessarily a comfort, it is a tool, the holy ghost is the comforter.
the golden rules works for the homosexuals, they would not like somebody to force them to do something they don't want to believe in and they would not like it if people though they had the right to drive them out of business for not doing it either.
I meant to say that the golden rules works both ways, too with regards to the homosexuals.
If folks are violating the law with regard to discrimination against homosexuals, the they deserve whatever consequences of those illegal actions the law permits. What happens within your church is up to you and your church. What happens out here in the real world is a matter of law. Don't want to follow the law, stay within the confines of your church (or move to a theocracy).
Fine Joey, then you have no problem with the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution that says no local-state or federal law can be made that would infringe on a persons right to practice their religion, or the Boy Scout decision that clearly says that companies CANNOT be made to accept or be forced to do business with another company; or the Employment decision or the Hobby Lobby Decision which both say that you cannot force business owners to violate their religious beliefs or tenants. Or the federal RIFA law signed by no less then Bill Clinton. ALL of which clearly say that there is no law that can be written or made to force a person or a business owner to deal with or accept homosexuals or any other person that has a lifestyle that is in violation of their religion or religious tenants.
Glad to see you starting to smarten up and glad to see you finally state that you have to follow the law.
Or did you open your mouth and shove your foot down your throat when you walked into a trap with your eyes open?
Attacking Roy? Again you attack and insult others with your opinions. Nothing good to say Pastor Deb? You put down someone's spelling? I have to say is your Good with the insults, disrespects and coldness. Pastor for God? I'm beginning to wonder. Your river run's dry Pastor, for you are shallow.
you know what deb, you are really ignorant to think that your way is the only way, when infact you just as ignorant about the ways of the cosmic and the majority of people are. and you have no rights trying to tell others that they are ignorant. how anybody who doesn't know anything about theology or other religions like you can think that you know what God wants is arrogant. I have requested several times for you to go look into the Ensigns and you refuse to do so. Let me tell you something, neither God nor any of his angels would ever tell you to never listen to ensigns. as they are the closest teachers we have to the God head that there is on the planet. they are the same group of people that were mentioned in the Bibles and they are the great white brotherhood. they are the ones of who Jesus himself came out of. they were the ones who wore there hair long to show they were ensigns. and we belong to that group of philosophical teaching so I think I know a lot more then you want to give me credit for. and just because you don't want to accept them doesn't mean that you know everything, what it does mean is that you are soooooooo stupid and closed minded that you don't want to learn about them. And their view point is that God and the cosmic did not make a mistake when these people were created in the uterus, they were made to be a particular sex for a reason. they believe that the person needs to live the life that they were born as because they need the experiences of being that sex, and if they deny themselves that experience it is only going to hold them back. when they go to lodge they have to act and dress the sex they were born as or they are not going to be allowed to attend. And if they want to belong to this enlightening philosophical organization they are to have to obey by the rules. if they are not ready which you would not be, then they can just keep listening to like you, and not get all the facts not get the correct fact, and not get the who facts. if you want to learn about the akashik records, karma or any of the other teachings of Jesus, the ancient Egyptians of auknotin and Nefertiti and even people like ben franklin and Thomas Jefferson sought knowledge from and belonged to the organizations of the ensigns. and if they say that the homosexuals and cross dressers say they need to learn to be in the body they were bon as, then you are never going to convince me or any of them otherwise no matter how abusive you get with trying to brow beat your primitive animalistic views.
Well said. I hope that people will understand it.
First of all, using proper english and grammar is not simply a sign of intelligence and education, it makes things easier to read.
The Hobby Lobby decision was about providing birth control, it wasn't about hiring or providing service to homosexuals which would have given a totally different decision.
Did it open the door for nonsense like this? Sadly, yes. That simply means that the law will become more specific. Incidentally, while they were awarded the right to not have to pay for birth control pills in their health plan (you DID know this case was about the Affordable Care Act, right? Not about religious freedom), it also provided that they set up something that would allow the employees to get their birth control paid for by an outside source.
The average lay person will read a Supreme Court or Superior Court decision and misunderstand at least some part of it. The people here understand less than half. Considering I was in that field for twenty years, I can read them, and tell you how they will get overturned because just because SCOTUS makes a decision doesn't mean that decision can't later be overturned when it is clearly shown that it was a wrong decision to start with.
But please continue to tell me I'm immoral, not a Pastor for God and all that nonsense. I'm far from shallow, and my river runs quite deep. Deep enough for you and your ignorant friends to drown in with Bull Sharks lurking on the bottom waiting for you.
This is my main concern. People who manipulate
The laws to cause harm. Thats why I say with out the right to chose there are no equal rights. For example. A couple of scam artists come to me and say. we would like you to marry us. I say no I can not. My religious faith prevents me. Then the couple Using unclear equal rights laws drag me to court. Sue me me,take all I have and destroy my name. Even though there were no hate or racisim intended on my part. Only religious convition. Then the law meant to protect frredom,and equal rights. Has now become a weapon. As bad as it sounds. Thats the reason I support a individual or business right to chose. The right to say no. Equal rights laws need to be written very carefully to close such loopholes.. I hope this clears up my position.
While I can't speak to other states' laws, I can tell you that Iowa has appropriate (IMHO) provisions exempting bona fide religious institutions from certain aspects of our anti-discrimination statutes. coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83&input=216.#216.7
first of all Joe, Christians are not the only religion that chooses religious wars in fact I think the Muslims are doing plenty with having a religious war right now, but they have been for centuries anyway. Secondly Joe, there is a little thing that know body wants to address, they keep skipping over it and that is that the federal law has already established that businesses, stores, motels and other businesses already do have the right to refuse services to any dam body they want for what ever reason they want. so this should invalidate what you are saying. it has been that way for decades. and it was made by the supreme court so it cant be undone.
First of all, Mary, no one said Christians were the only murdering bastards on the planet. That they've been up to their shenanigans for a couple of millennia is another topic... Second of all, Mary, federal laws covering civil rights have been in force for quite some time...same with many states. If you discriminate against members of protected classes s on the basis of those particular attributes, you're in violation of federal/state law, and you get to suffer the consequences. No, that hasn't been undone by SCOTUS. Your religion does not trump law. Third, Mary, proper nouns and the first words in sentences are capitalized. Third grade grammar should have taught you that...perhaps circle back around after you successfully complete that grade.
Also, prior SCOTUS decisions can be changed. Here is a list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions
The major problem with your statement Joe, is that homosexuals are NOT a federally protected class like the disabled or Veterans or races.
Nice try but no dice.
Sorry Joey, but wrong AGAIN. The ONLY two ways for a US Supreme Court decision to be overturned is with the US Congress doing it as they have the authority under Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 last sentence of the US Constitution, or for the Supreme Court to do this. Now according to the US Supreme Court Archives (http://www.supremecourt.gov/) the court has only overturned itself/over ruled itself/changed their decision a grand total of only TEN TIMES since its inception
That means that out of the thousands of cases it has heard since 1789, it has only overturned or reversed itself a grand total of 0.00000010%
So your chances of getting Congress to overturn a court decision is far better then having the court overturn their decision, and even then your chances of this happening is about 1 in 20,000.
Nice attempt at spin but it wont work. And hint? NOBODY with any brains or sense uses wikipedia as a source as that can be changed at the whim of the editor, and anyone can be an editor. A source is something that CANNOT be changed, and wikipedia has been changed more times then Carter has liver spots.
Sorry Joey, only the Congress or the Supreme Court can change the courts decision (Article 3 Section 2 Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution)
And the Supreme Court has only changed their decisions 10 times since 1789 according to the Supreme Court Archives.
nice try but no dice. you need to give the whole story, not just the part you think you need.
now Joe, first of all for a sight that is supposed to be a sight fostering love, you all seem to have a chip on your shoulders. it seems odd that even though you guys seem to know about the murdering bastards in some of the other religions, you only seem to want to focus on the Christian religions, how come? next I am quite aware of the discrimination laws for the protected classes, but as have been trying to get your guys to understand, is the law that says that businesses can refuse services to anybody period it does not matter about protected class or not. if a customer did not break the law but the store or restaurant or other business want to refuse service to anybody, they can and do and I remember it was ruled on by the supreme court that they could to that since the 1970's it has been that way for decades. why don't you guys want to address this. and lastly I know about the capitalization but I really don't think its that big of a deal, we are casual here, we are not presenting a paper to the united nations or something. so I don't see what the big deal is. I capitalize the important words. so take a chill pill and stop having a chip on your shoulder. we are suppose to be having chats here not starting wwIII.
"...Carter has liver spots"? Can't even get the metaphor correct. As Bugs Bunny says, "What a maroon!"
As for the rest of it, I'm too busy laughing at you to put any effort into a meaningful response. Coproencephaly is such a terrible scourge...I hope you get the treatment and care you so desperately need.
Oh, Daniel, BTW, Veterans are not a protected class under federal law. Sexual orientation and gender identity are both protected classes under Iowa law, as well as the laws of other states. Do you not even bother to research any of those talking points you're being fed?
Thats nice Joey, as everyone else is laughing at you and your idiotic remarks.
Oh and to continue to show how ignorant you really are...here is another backhand across the face from federal law
"In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:
Hmmm, seems that Veterans ARE a protected class under federal law. And you said they were not. But the US Federal Government says you are a moron and a liar besides.
This is becoming way too easy to show that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just flapping your gums to see the air move.
If you dont know what you are talking about Joey, then do us all a favor and please just shut up.
Oh, you noticed that, did you Daniel?
As a Veteran, I know that I am a member of a protected class under federal law.
I also remember someone posting this: "And hint? NOBODY with any brains or sense uses wikipedia [sic] as a source as that can be changed at the whim of the editor, and anyone can be an editor." themonastery.org/blog/2015/03/religious-freedom-laws-and-the-new-battle-for-equality/#comment-126139 How absolutely hilarious that the bulk of your post was a direct copy from Wikipedia (without crediting them). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
Unfortunately, this commenting tool has no editing capability. I had inadvertently put federal when I intended state...If you'll notice, that post was clearly about Iowa law. See: goo.gl/tL4UwM
I noticed you have been destroyed and as per the federal law, proved to be a liar as well. YOU said vets were not a protected group, Federal law says you are a liar.
So now that you have been proved to not know anything, why should anyone listen to anything you say?
what a pitiful excuse for a human being you have turned out to be.
You're too funny, Daniel! Ha ha ha ha ha! Seriously, dude, you are a riot! Ha ha ha ha! Wow, hilarious! You should be on The Daily Show!
And if the ULC set an intelligence level here for posting, you would be gone in an instant Joey.
YOU claimed Vets were not a protected class, I gave you federal law showing they WERE.
YOU claimed that you couldnt discriminate, I gave you a plethora of US Supreme Court cases as well as the 1st Amendment that says you CAN.
So far Joey everything you have stated has been proved either completely wrong or an outright lie.
So why should anyone believe anything you say again when you cant even tell the truth to start with?
Thanks for playing, Daniel. (someone get him some lovely parting gifts and show him the door, please)
I have already showed you to lie when you think it helps you, and to be ignorant on the subject that you are posting on.
We have shown you the door many times and yet you keep sneaking back in and posting your myths and hoping that this one time someone might believe the mess you claim.
Mary, Please help me to understand something, you repeatedly have said: "have been trying to get your guys to understand, is the law that says that businesses can refuse services to anybody period it does not matter about protected class or not"
I believe that, as a statement is categorically untrue.
Please cite the law, federal or state, that permits business to refuse service to anybody. Are you saying that as a small business owner, I can refuse service to someone who is Bkack? Or someone who is a Female?
Are you calling homosexuals "scam artists?" Because other than that, I can't think of a single type of scam that involves two people getting married.
Equal Rights does not have anything to do with choice, if it did, then you could refuse to serve a black couple because it is your choice. You could refuse to serve any ethnicity because you are a bigot and that is your choice. That is NOT equal rights.
Churches are the only ones that receive the religious exemption, which is as it should be. You don't want to marry gay people? Fine, don't do it. No one is going to sue you and I doubt there is much they can take from you. As for ruining your name, what you post on the internet is here for all the world to see. Forever. All someone has to do is a google search of your name, and all your illegitimate reasons for trying to strike down a law (along with every other bigoted thing I'm sure you say) is right there in black and white for the world to see, straight, gay, transgendered, and any other thing you can think of.can see who you are. So in essence, you are ruining your own reputation.
you get a grip deb, it's isn't about if there a matter of if they take any money out of my pocket, it's a matter that all this immorality it is getting harder to raise children with all the immorality in the world, and that affects the break down of society. don't you get it. a lot of the evil things that happens in the world would not be so likely if we didn't allow so many other immoral things that seem lesser at that moment, but you allow some immorality now and a little more immortality a decade down the road and a little more later and it all adds up. once the veil of tolerance is lifted then pretty soon people no longer knows right from wrong, and by that time the morality of the country becomes a sodom and Gomorrah,and soon no body knows right from wrong, maybe that does not bother you to life in sodom and Gomorrah but it bothers some of us. lack of morality also brings on a lack of character. I would hope that you would like to live in a country with morals and character. but maybe you don't have and understand about morals anyway. but you can not have character without morals. and civil law does not teach morals or character. Jesus and his mother were the most moral people to live. and we are supposed to be emanating them. and from the stand point of Christianity, God want all His children to come back home to His kingdom and they cant do that if they don't do what God says to do, and as Christians we are supposed to be spreading the word. and with people around like you, it countermand the Christian effort. and if your a Christian at all you should want you and your friend to be able to enter into Gods kingdom. the holy ghost will testify as Jesus said, and the holy ghost would guild us to making the right decisions, but immoral acts causes the holy ghost to leave and then there is no guidance. the they get lost in the world of materialism. and to support this even in business says we don't care what kind of immorality goes on around us or we don't care about helping our brothers and sisters return back to Gods kingdom. that's what business it is to me, and us. to call us bigots you will have to call God a bigot too, because we are just passing on the message that God and Jesus told us to pass on. as for going and finding me on lime, I have nothing to hide, I am not doing anything wrong, so you cant find anything on me, can you say that, how many skeletons are in your closet. I call homosexuals fakers and whiners and childish as they want things that they don't earn. they saw the win blowing for special rights and they want in on it. if they were not fakers they would not advertise that they were homos, heterosexuals don't, they also would not jump back and forth from being homosexuals to bi to heterosexuals, and back to on or two of the others again. they act insecure. if you are the psychologist you say you are you should see how abnormal of a behavior that is. as pointed out before you don't have any our last names.
Yep, all the immorality. Christians seeking to deprive people of their Constitutional Rights, Christians killing to please their god, Christians talking smack about other Christians as well as folks who don't share their faith traditions.... Yep, Mary, y'all have issues. Perhaps you should take them back to whence you came from.
I don't advocate killing, true Christianity does not advocate killing, history records it but the true God does not advocate killing, however sometimes you have to protect yourself, from those who seek to do you harm, then you have to resort to it, but a true Christian does not advocate killing. they cant deny that it doesn't happen, as many of them don't practice what they preach, or many times because of the evils in the world people end up being force into things they don't have any choice in you aren't suppose to glorify these times you are supposed to learn from them so you don't repeat them, and when you do have to kill like for self defense you need to be remorseful and not be proud or swelled headed over it. as it was not a good dead but it had to be done for survival, but only for that issue. so when you look at all the killings in the bible, you have to remember that even though those people aren't not living the ideal we still need to try to live up to those ideals when we can. so don't tell me about the killing in the bible, it is clear that you havent studied the teaching in the scriptures to come up with that conclusion. if people tried to live up to Gods laws and standards, maybe there would not be so much warring. you pick and choose what you want to focus on from the bible, you want to focus on the bad stuff, and ot the good stuff, that's why you havent learned anything from it. sure there is a lot of evil in the bible, it is what Satan started with the war in heaven which he lost. so when he was kicked out of heaven he took many of his followers with him and they do every thing they can from the unconscious to undermined what God is wanting us to learn here on the school called earth. or did you not learn about that too. and in order for us to learn write from wrong so that we don't want to follow Satan anymore when we get back to Gods kingdom we have to learn to make better choices, not like the ones that brought us down here in the first place. but that might be too advance for you so you probably are blind to it, too. as for what you post it can come back to haunt you, also. all the world can see how immoral you are. they will just see how moral I am. actually you are wrong, I can delete my info on my Facebook page and it will be gone if I felt a need or desire to do so. I can even delete my whole account if I were worried about it and it would be gone, but I'm not worried about it.
That I don't agree with you does not show my supposed immorality nor does it show that you are right and I am wrong. It merely shows that I disagree with you. Being literate does give me an advantage here, as does having critical thinking skills. But do go on...you're interesting to observe.
very mature deb, for a supposed well educated professional that is really mature, isn't that unethical for somebody who is suppose to be in phsychology? oh maybe you don't take a Hippocratic oath, or maybe you forgot to take yours. or did you just not understand it. but what would you expect from a liberal with no morals. that's so typical. supposedly a crusader for people and you resort to tasteless and mean hateful bullying tactics. is that what your education taught you to do? and you think other people would be worried out their reputation. how about yours? and you say you are a Christian, too. aren't you afraid of looking bad, no, oh that's because you have no ethics. you have to have morals to have ethics.
Charles your premise is wrong, freedom of religion does not require you to go against your beliefs because a government tells you it wants you too. Mandated service based on deviant sexual behavior, which is sexual behavior which deviates from the natural order of things, does infringe on ones freedom to practice their beliefs. Race and sexual preference are apples and oranges, you can not compare the two. Homosexuality, transexual behavior, bestiality, NAMBLA, pedophilia, etc.,,,,should not be thrust upon anyone who is not comfortable with it, or does not agree with that type of lifestyle. Especially when it comes to the practice of imposing your belief system on someone else, or harming their business if they do not agree. You forget the standing premise of ULC,, "Do No Harm to Others"
Well Charles, here's what's wrong with this type of thinking. If sexuality is considered a "protected class" the next obvious step will be for polygamist, brothers and sisters, sons and fathers, etc., will want the right to marry because they love each other. Where do we draw the line? Your reasoning only promotes these types of relationships and as we all know if we are truly Bible believing pastors, that all of these relationship are abominations to God. So, who get to decide what we believe and how we want to practice those belief--I surely don't want our broken down government making those decisions for us. Thank you for your listening and all Glory be to God. Pastor Steve
Polygamy and Polyandry already exist throughout the world legitimately. As for the rest that you grouped in with same sex relationships (transgender/transexuality is an entirely different thing), do you have any reasonable documentation that it would the the "next obvious step?"
I happen to know that no legitimate statistics exist to express such a thing, so perhaps your mind is simply in the gutter so deep you can't see the light of day or the true glory of God. Because you sure don't speak like someone who truly knows God or the Bible.
The problems exist in multiple beliefs and only one truth and that truth is God and thus the Bible given to us by God, for it is the absolute truth and word. Theory and Hypothesis allow room for deception, thus many diffrent beliefs. Moral is the word and to change or alter the word is abominable, just to fit ones needs and justifications for their actions, to do this changes what was once moral to immoral (from good to evil. We as children of God are not Judges of others, for it is up to our God who Created all of us with the Greatest of love. No need to fight amongest yourselves brothers and sisters for it is God who has the last Word. Just thank God for the life he has given unto you and for all he does for us and for all he has give us, for the most important thing is his word. My love is for God and for all of you my brothers and sisters and my love is eternal. I might not like what one does but you are all children created by God, for I do not judge thee, for I Prof. Roy Allen Desmazes am not perfect before the eye's of God. From the heart of your Spirit is where you'll find God and Truth, Wisdom and love will be found.
Roy I do not understand why this would force you to quite. from what you say then if the person that supplies your power or water or other things do not agree with you then on religion believes they should be able denie you service this would also apply to DR. Hospitals ect.......
david you are mixing up a needed business with a not needed business. you have to have electricity, you have to go to the hospital for life and death medical needs, you do not have to go to a particular bakery to have your wedding cake made, it is not a life and death thing if you don't end up with a cake or a cake from that bakery. so go to the competition. and stop being a baby stop whining and being a spoiled brat.
Who decides what is a needed service and what is not? You? My area has 5 hospitals, one of which is Catholic. Should they be able to refuse service or employment to homosexuals? After all, it is against their faith (for the moment). There are other public hospitals nearby, so why should they have to serve me? Also, many hospitals are private institutions, so why can't they choose?
What if that is the best bakery in town? Or worse, if you live in a small town and they are the only bakery? They are a business, which means they leave their religious opinions outside the door. Period. There shouldn't even have to be a discussion about such nonsense. Churches receive a religious exemption. That's it.
you are being stupid again deb, there are by most agencies only like five absolute needs in life, the need for shelter, none discriminatory, the need for basic nutritious foods, water, clothing, and utilities if you have a place to live, and safety. bakeries are not a need, esp. pastries, and if a town is too small they probably don't get enough business to keep a bakery in business, and you can still go over to the next town over, this is not then 1700 or the 1800 where it would be hard to get to and from other near by towns quickly. you are still trying to twist things around to justify your irrational thinking.
And you're being a rude bitch, Mary. You're also displaying incredible ignorance of law, lack of basic human decency, and a persistence in spewing your hooey that is rivaled by the likes of Old Faithful. Why don't you be a dear and run along back to whatever cult you wandered off from. Thanks.
Any church or ministry is free to refuse to perform a marriage for any reason WITHOUT this legislation. Your argument is unfounded. So there's no problem with ULC's stance. The problem with your argument, is your argument.
I agree with your comment and also remember there is separation of Church and State for this reason.No State should be involved with enacting "Religious Freedom Laws" The First Amendment protects our practice of religion. Bad Religions promote bigotry and discrimination and it is actually the State that enacts equality protections.Our country was NOT founded on religion and State Law should be supreme law of the land without religious influence. In the USA if you have a business open to the public you serve the public-period.
Amen and Amen to that! Too much PR and BS is given to those who have drunk the Poisen Coolaid of liberalism. Not much different now than when Lot invited the two Angles into his home and the local men wanted to have sex with them. Just thinking about two same sex adults having sex disgusts me.What's next, with animals. Deep draws unto deep. Be not deceived God is not mocked.....This whole thing about being associated with this type of so called "freedom" coming from ULC goes against my grain, and naturally so when indwelled with the Holy Spirit.
Liberalism is not exactly th eproblem, Liberal thinking is. While currently in Oklahoma people of the same sex are free ot marry, I am not marrying a man. I know many that aren't doing it just because its legal. The true problem lies iwthin the heart. The heart is where our God judges us. If there were no freedoms except the right to worship God then people would be doing it just to do it and even though the went to church every sunday and broke no laws, they would not have eternal life, because it is not in their hearts. I don't agree with a lot of what most everyone I meet does, but it is our job to change their ways. We are Christianity. by that I mean what people see from us is how they believe Christians to be. If we do our jobs right they should be able to legalize murder and there should be no murderers.
Perhaps you have never read the scripture in Matthew that refers to a a mother hen never leaving its chicks, or perhaps Ps. 139 which states that before you were knit in your mother's womb I knew you and I love you. You have gone against God's command that we love one another as I have loved you - remember the woman at the well. And don't give me that Leviticus stuff as there are 144 laws and many religions have decided that only one counts. If we don't keep kosher, wear red, mix fabrics, etc., then that is disgusting!
rev.roy williams I agree completely with you. Just where do we draw the line?
rev.roy why not give those what they wish and consider their rights. Gay people did not choose to be gay but they are so let them be. Everyone should have equal rights and when you refuse to accommodate them because of your individual beliefs you are in effect trying to force them to support your belief. Everyone is soul let them be. Love all creations of life including all species.
I can't help but disagree with people not choosing to be gay. However if we have freedom of religion then it only stands to reason we also have freedom from religion. As a pastor my duty is to spread the word. It is not my responsibility to force anyone to accept it. Homosexuality is in my bible a sin and nothing will convince me differently. To say you have no choice in no way makes it less of a sin. Of course we all have a choice in all that we do. God loves all his children whether sinners or not and who of us have not sinned. It is also a sin to discriminate against others because they are different so I wholeheartedly feel this bill is no more than a law making discrimination legal. Personally I feel as a people we tend to make much out of little. It is only an issue if we make it an issue. It is not for us to judge. Laws are supposed to be meant to protect us. This law protects no one. It is a license to discriminate which will harm many people.
the bible has very little to do with God the so called bible was remade by the Emperor Constantine and various other authors that were Jewish priest's. so if you follow the king James version or the catholic version or any version your barking up the wrong tree, Gods internal you are a perfect child of God as everyone else. its your ego that will not let you see this you must be free of your ego to to live with others in love of God, hate is the alter ego of GOD
I agree that your job as a pastor is to spread the word, not force people to belief it. Discriminating people for not believing in what you do is wrong and does not fall in line with loving thy neighbor. Unless you are gay yourself, you could never know if one is born that way or not. Where in the bible does it say that u can not exchange goods with sinners, if it did your business would go under. Christians are sinners too, don't marry or sell to them, it is against your religious beliefs.
To Brother Tim and Troy: I hate to disagree with you, but the present Canon of the Bible was put together from a variety of scriptural books, the Codex Vaticanus being completed in the 8th Century. It is comprised of Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament and Psalms) and various Christian sects in existence the. The King James Version was to be a modern interpretation of the Latin Vulgate from which the early Catholic version was created. In the 19th century, Boltman led the way for biblical scholarship and Pope Pius XII lifted the ban on biblical exegesis in the middle of the 20th century. The bible has since gone through a number of different translations based on studies of ancient Greek and other languages and the practices of the age in which the book was written.
To address the issue of "choice to be gay," I cannot anyone would choose this life given the discrimination and pain it can bring. Current genetic studies heavily lean toward it being inherited. Only time will tell about this issue and you may believe that which fits your personal views. But that does not make them so. As another commentator so aptly put it, if you wish a biblical condemnation of homosexuality, let us look at divorce, sex prior to marriage, having affairs while being married, capital punishment, and war (aren't these two murder?).
Last thought: computers have spell check - I wish more people would use it. As a former English teacher, I am overwhelmed at the number of errors made in this area and sentence construction so poor it is difficult to read that which is written.
Calling discrimination "a violation of your religion" doesn't make it so. BUSINESSES should not have the right to deny services based on sexual orientation. This was the excuse offered to segregate services and offer inferior goods and services to African Americans. Why don't you see this is the same thing? Also, your rights as a minister is a very different matter than public services in the marketplace.
Apples and Oranges, Race and sexual preferences or orientation you can not compare the two. A lifestyle and a deviation from the natural order of life can never be compared to the race of a person that is why it is not seen as the same thing. Public service in the market place should never be mandated by government agencies unless a monopoly is involved. All businesses should be allowed to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, whether it is a pedophile, National Man Boy Love Association Member, Homosexual, Transgendered, Beastialitist, or same sex couple, drunk, etc.,,, If you do not like the way someone does business, don't buy from them, it's that simple!!!
I think I can safely assume you aren't a minister through the Universal Life Ministry, which brings into question your agenda here. I do not think you are in a position to judge the efforts of ULC.
Never assume. Ass/u/me. To assume is to be intimate with anothers thoughts, not yet shared. Shaky ground. Be blessed!
Deny. If you think it's OK to Deny people you should at least spell it correctly.
HAHA! Oh thank you! Finally....and that alone makes me suspicious of the writer's intent.
God created everyone so when you deny a brother or a sister you are denying God
Ok, here I go. Before you judge this opinion, please take a moment and try to see it... First, Let's set some ground rules... 1) Services such as water, power, ect, are regulated by federal, state, and local municipalities and are therefor not subject to this debate because of the basic separation of church and state. Simply put, these services may not be denied to anyone for any religious reasoning. 2) Most major hospitals are non-profit organizations and therefor also may not deny pretty much for ANY reason. 3) Businesses that are privately owned are usually for-profit based systems and therefor by their very nature will go after as much business as they can get, whether it be large department store chains or more localized neighborhood store fronts. Simply put, all they see are dollar signs, so no one is left out here either. 4) Now here is where the rubber meets the road. You have a few smaller shop owners who have made their own business, and run it as they see fit. They will never see huge profits, but for them it is not about profit, it is simply about providing for their family and being their own boss. These people have every right to refuse business to anyone. They won't get rich doing that, and in fact will probably lose more business in the long term, but THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT. We do not have the right to tell others how they should believe, no matter how just we think we are.Laws have been created to protect citizens and new ones are coming up even as I am writing this. I do not believe that anyone is going to suffer if one cake maker refuses to participate in a wedding, there are MANY MORE who will, (they like money). To be honest, this debate has become less about protecting people, and more about persecuting people who will not accept the gay life style. We need to be very careful here, before we turn religion into politics. Once that happens, we will go down a very steep and dangerous road. The separation of church and state must remain unchanged. We cannot use government to dictate religious belief. So, my comment is...get over it. Stop throwing a tantrum and simply shop businesses that like your money. Don't worry about those that do not, they will not last long anyway.
BRIEN, right on. i agree 100% with your reasoning. perfect thought out reply's to all judgmental haters that show their true ignorance about god, politics and pretty much every thing else as well. when WILL they see the true LIGHT?
Here's some light: learn to read.
Eventualy there will be a meeting of the minds so to speak. But it is very important that we do not get embroiled in the tid-bits of what is a much larger concern. I try to keep it as simple as possible for myself...."Politics is for the society as a whole. Religious beliefs are for the individuals heart. The first must never be allowed to dictate the second." If the right to happiness, free speech, and religion are the fundamentals we all live by, why do we attack them so often?
Seems like, Christian businesses who want to abide according to their morals are being chided for doing so-and when they STOP doing so, will be criticized for "Not really living/working according to their Christian Bible." So, that is a set-up for confusion, which is directly from somewhere evil. That attack will come from both ends of this, because the point is to attack Christianity, not to make the world a better place for both groups. FORCE is never the way to breed Acceptance-it only breeds more hostility. Not the way to go.
It would be discrimination, even for that small, family owned business, to refuse service to a black person because they didn't like how they looked. It would also be discrimination to refuse service to a Jewish person who was wearing a yarmulke, or a Muslim based on how they were dressed. Small business or not, if you are open to the public, then it is the public you service. My best friend from college is a lesbian, and I knew it the second I laid eyes on her, but I certainly didn't ask her. She was very out of the closet, so as we became better friends she told me. I didn't care. She was and is a good person. But should a business have the right to refuse her service based on how she looks? Absolutely not. And if they have the audacity to ask, they deserve the lawsuit they get that will ultimately close their business.
I agree that mixing religion and politics is wrong. In fact, one of the reasons I left my former church was because the Assistant Pastor had a habit of preaching about "voting the right way" (staunch republican). A church is no place for that.
But a business is not a church and therefore, by law can not be granted the same exemptions as a church because then religion IS running politics.
Everyone talks about marriage being a "sacred act." In the United States, marriage is a legal act, not a sacred one, whether the ceremony is performed in a church or by a Justice of the Peace. Everything having to do with what goes on in a marriage is covered by state statute. You don't have to like that, but it is a fact. I worked in the legal field for twenty years, specializing in family law. The license for a marriage must be obtained from the municipality or county where the ceremony is held or the couple will live. The rights of the couple as married people is governed by law, not religion.
Discrimination is discrimination whether it be due to ethnicity, religious belief, the way one is dressed, or how you perceive them to conduct their lives behind closed doors.
As others have said, it is not our place to judge, that is up to God. What is in the Bible is what was chosen to be included. Never forget that. There were a lot of writings that were decided NOT to be included and you should ask yourself why that is. The answer is simple. It didn't fit the agenda of those putting the Bible together.
I promised myself that I was not going to do this, and yet here I am. I will try not to waste your time. 1) Actually, the idea of "marriage" was in fact originated from religion. It is a religious term, whether you see it that way or not. In todays' society it has simply become a descriptive term. Civil unions are done by a judge in a court setting, but we still use the term marriage. This word gets misused alot. Ok enough on that. 2) I do not agree that government can dictate to a private business what services to provide, nor when it can or cannot refuse service. I believe that most businesses like MONEY and therefor will provide as much as they can to get it. The businesses that refuse service lose money, and by its' very nature losing money equals losing business. Again, this will take care of itself. This discussion is NOT about providing services, it is simply a three year old's' temper tantrum that is getting out of hand. I have said my peace at the end of this blog and I stick by that. If I do not like someone, or they do not like me, I will not be forced to hang out with them, nor will I force them to hang out with me. For the record, I do not care if someone is gay or not. It is not something I look at when I see a person.
Marriage (n.) c.1300, "action of marrying, entry into wedlock;"
Wedlock (n.) Old English wedlac "pledge-giving, marriage vow," from wed + -lac, noun suffix meaning "actions or proceedings, practice," attested in about a dozen Old English compounds (feohtlac "warfare"), but this is the only surviving example. Suffix altered by folk etymology through association with lock (n.1). Meaning "condition of being married" is recorded from early 13c.
The word "marriage", as with many words, can and has changed/evolved over time. We're not locked in to one definition, certainly not one dictated by Brian or any other one person nor faith.
The concept of marriage is far broader than any one person or faith dictates.
No faith owns the concept of marriage, and no person owns the right to define words, we're left dealing with secular law to deal with the issue.
As I live in the United States, and specifically in the state of Iowa, I am bound by law to work within the definition provided by statute and case law.
As a minister, I follow the definition and requirements of the law when considering officiating a wedding/marriage ceremony. I also follow the tenets of my faith, which presently fit nicely with law.
Other ministers may chose differently, as their laws and faith tenets may differ.
Businesses are not religious institutions, and are bound by the laws in force where they conduct business.
It's pretty simple.
Joe, you may attach whatever webster definition you wish, the fact is that when people wish to be married, they look for ministers which implies religion whether or not the ceremony will be a religious one. They may instead chose a judge to perform the ceremony, or even a friend who becomes ordained for this purpose. But usually it is a minister that is chosen. Why is that? Even if they do not subscribe to a religion, most will still seek out a minister. Why? If we were talking about a government institution or service, then I would be the first to jump up and shout discrimination. But we are talking about private businesses that should have the right to accept or reject business. I now copy something I wrote at the end of this worthless discussion: There is a whole lot of talk here, such a waste. To the religious true believers: You have evoked “Gods law”, “The word of God”, and “Scriptures” in just about every argument so I ask this then, if you truly are about Gods law where do you stand on the religious wars that are taking place right now? Muslim leaders that are using their religion to justify the way their people are treated, (women, girls), and have called for war on any that do not believe? How do you justify that one hmm? “Thou shall not kill”..did I miss that one in your belief structure? Food for thought.
To the gay community: Your rights have been violated..huh? What right are you referring to again? The right to act like a spoiled 3 year old? if the PRIVATE business does not want your money, then the answer is very simple…listen closely now….are you listening? “DON’T GIVE THAT BUSINESS YOUR MONEY!” See? It is very simple, because there are soooo many that will happily take your money..you should support them instead of wasting your money on a business that is probably GOING TO FAIL anyway. Now about all the outrage that is left over, I direct your attention to the same place I pointed out to the religious folk, maybe you could express your outrage at the senseless LOSS OF LIFE that is currently going…food for thought
To all of you I say…ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Get over it.
Read more at http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2015/03/religious-freedom-laws-and-the-new-battle-for-equality/#ilSmVSMvWubk68ku.99
I agree with you basically. Still, I don't agree with homosexuals being married. Do they have rights as people, absolutely. I can only ask the simple questions, are there gay males and females in the animal kingdom? Promoting homosexuality is not my position and by our society promoting this, it moves an already decaying society only that much faster in a negative direction.
Yes Alan, there are animal who exhibit same gender relations. Google it.
Approximately ten percent of all animal species if I remember correctly. So, logic (which is lacking is so many here) should tell you that it is a genetic issue not a "choice." Unless of course you think animals have the intelligence to make such choices.
FACT: Yes, there are gay animals in the animal kingdom. A lot more than you would think. And what about two gay people getting married threatens your relationship if you are in one? I have heard all this drivel before about the downfall of the Roman Empire ad nauseam. Give it a rest.
So, yes actually there are studies showing that with in the "animal kingdom" not only are animals gay, but it is part of a natural selective process...that is as far as I will go with that as the studies involved are very lengthy. Now, I wanted to touch on something else you have said, " Promoting homosexuality is not my position..... ", that term is the slippery road I was referring to. Do not politicize a belief. Please refer to the history of our world and see how much DEATH and DESTRUCTION has been caused, and IS being caused by using a belief as a political weapon. We must strive to do better. I cannot deny people the right to be people. I can only hope to do the best that I can do. I cannot see that a subject of love and commitment will decay society. I see plenty of killing, crime, and war doing that. Perhaps we should channel this outrage in the direction it belongs.
This isn't a minister refusing services. I can see where that would make sense. I agree with a ministers right to deny services such as marriage, pre-marital counseling, couples counseling and any other service that perpetuates same sex relationships. What I cant see as reasonable is to deny flowers to a same sex couple. Or a cheeseburger. If the couple is making out and it offends the proprietor I can agree with that. But as Christians we are to love one another, regardless of our sins. This is the main point of Christianity. I do not know your personal religion, but I am a Christian Minister and I am to LOve my neighbor as I do myself. That means offering my goods and services to them. I am aminister to serve my God. I do other things for money, and while my religion is against homosexuality I also see it as against denying services to homosexual individuals. After all didn't Jesus sit with the sinners?
I agree with your comment and would like to add a relevant story. When Jesus was asked why he stayed with the sinners instead of avoiding them, his response was, "Does a physician only tend to those who are well?" Personally I think some excellent points have been made in this discussion, and I, for one, have no problem with performing same sex marriages if they are allowed by law. Jesus also said "Give unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's (sorry if I misspelled that)." This applies not only to taxes, but also to the laws of men, which in my understanding Jesus taught that the laws of men are to be obeyed even if sometimes they violate the laws of the Church, and note that I did not say "the laws of God." Those rules and laws have been changed so many times it is ridiculous, from Constantine, to the Catholic church, to King James. All had there own personal agendas. Period. While I have not seen it in recent publications, I have seen Bibles from the past that, at the end of the Book of Revelations, made a very simple and concise statement. "This is presented as the Word of God, all who change this Word, and all those who follow the changed Word are damned before my eyes." As my father, a 17 year minister himself often puts it, when the Rapture comes, there will be a LOT of surprised people sitting in churches. Those that promote hate or discrimination in any form will be among them.
The bakery in question is not refusing to sell baked goods to gay people. They didn't want to be part of /participate in a ceremony that they believe goes against God's law, spiritual law Making a wedding cake specifically for a gay wedding is not the same as selling soneone a cheeseburger or a dozen donuts- which they would be happy to do. We're in a gray area here/-redefining a several thousands year old tradition : "marriage". I think it's unfair to call it " bigotry " .
I am very careful when invoking the term.."Gods' law" . The printed word that we accept as God's law was written by men, during a time I might ad of great suffering, slavery, injustice, ect. To me, Gods' law is less about what is written in the bibles of the world, and more about simply being true to myself, my loved ones, and others that are a part of my life. You see, at the end of the day, the last face you look at will be your own. You have to at least like what you see. It is that simple. I am neither for nor against the gay subject. I am not qualified to judge who can commit to who. I can only do the best that I can. That means that I cannot tell one they cannot marry another, and likewise I should not be forced to participate in something that may be against what I believe, as long as what I believe causes no injury to another.
JESUS......SAID....."AND, GO AND SIN NO MORE".......SO I'M THINKING THAT HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T ENJOY THE COMPANY OF SINNERS.... He was trying to get them to see the light .....the wrongs of their ways....and, where the behavior would take them.....the end result....raither it be gaydom...or infidelity...whatever the sin.....the whole point of his forgiveness....was....GO AND SIN NO MORE! So a BIBLE believer would be held to this standard....regardless the sin....an athiest ....not a problem to break one of these sins ...nor the 10 comandments...because their mastermind of the universe...doesn't care about whats moral only what its legal! I REALLY THINK THAT WE HAVE BIGGER FISH TO FRY....and, should not be so offended if whomever or whatever is not our cup of tea.....GOD GAVE US ALL FREE WILL.... USE IT AND MOVE ON.....
This is so sad to read. Christians as bigots, the group that claims to love Jesus, the man who loved all no matter their belief, position in life, disease, etc. Christianity has turned into a religion of hate , not love and Christ has had his second coming, but the Christians missed it because of their hate for what Jesus Christ taught and spoke of.
Either you follow the Bible or you don't. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe, it does not work that way. King David slept with his male friends and slaves, do you hate him? You serve many divorced people, is that not hypocritical? If you truly believed what you say your would be out of business because there were so few customers you could serve.
There are so many excuses you come up with for not serving one group, sad. Why do you serve women who have had abortions, or men who have children out of wedlock? What about people who have had premarital sex or adultery? It seems you never answer those questions when responding to comments here. Why is that?
Christians are not being persecuted no matter how you try to spin it. Christians want to impose their beliefs on the rest of the USA, a country founded on no religion, but accepting of all. There are many of us that do not believe the same as you, in fact there are many Christians who do not believe the same as you. Whose "brand" of Christianity should be the one to follow?
All of these questions are impossible to answer without descriminating against a group of people, which is not turning the other cheek or loving your neighbor as yourself. I am saddened for the decay of love in the USA brought on us by religion.
Bigotry has no place in a learned society and one would think that enlightened people would believe that, but alas it is worse now than in the past. The end of US as a country is coming, brought down by the ones who claim to love.
By all means, follow the bible, which makes it clear in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that homosexual sexual relationships are sinful. King David did not have male lovers, but those who want to re-write the Bible insist that he did. Fortunately the Scriptures are not up for revision or for the Hollywood treatment.
How do you know that king David didn't have secret male livers? I'm not saying he did or did not but it was not uncommon for men to have secret male lovers at bath houses in those times. Do not judge, I'm pretty sure the bible enforces that rule, even tho Indiana does not
Whether David had male lovers (which was common at that time in history by the way) is not an issue. None of us alive today lived then so we cannot be sure of what did or didn't happen based on a text that has been revised and rewritten so many times. However, if you are wanting to look at known history, how about the fact that the same church that now claims to be abhorred and strictly vilifies LGBT lifestyles, accepted it when the church was young and all the way up to at least 1100 AD. That is historical fact. Check with Cambridge University's Department of Religious Studies. The only thing the Church promoted at the time, in the case of same sex relationships, was that the people in them also went out and produced children.
There is no evidence of any kind that King David engaged in homosexual intercourse, which was strictly forbidden by the Law. It was common among pagans and idolaters in the surrounding nations, and was one of the reasons why they were regarded as unclean. Again, homosexuality has always been forbidden among Christians - it is made crystal clear by St Paul that it is a form of idolatry which excludes people from salvation. It is explicitly named and prohibited by the Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents. The Council of Elvira (305) passed a canon forbidding homosexual intercourse.
Dr Alan, With all respects, the information you refer to was written by man. I am curious as to what man can decide what God is thinking? The problem right now is that political policy is trying to be based on a belief based on superstition written a couple of thousand years ago by fearful men during a time of great suffering. I do not take away your belief, I am a God fearing person, but I fear no man, nor what he may write.
Brien, this discussion is in response to some very remarkable assertions about the alleged sex life of King David for which there is no evidence, and a context in which such such activity is manifestly unlikely. This was the Law in Israel in the 9th century BC, remained the Law right up to the Jewish diaspora, and has remained the teaching of the Christian church for two millennia. You are of course free to ignore the evidence.
With respect sir, again you evoke ideals that came from a time of great ignorance compared to todays standards. Two hundred years from now, this conversation will be thought of as great ignorance. Beliefs are wonderful things. They help keep us civilized, sometimes they even make us think. They can also blind us and keep us from moving forward, such as this very conversation has done. I am somewhat surprised that someone with the title of Dr. could so easily become embroiled in a dead end conversation. This has nothing to do with whatever "evidence" you wish to hold on to. I honestly do not care what you believe in or not believe in. I simply believe that way too much effort has been spent on the subject. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is still in sad shape.....
Brien, you appear not to have followed the thread, so let me explain it for you.
An assertion was made about King David, as if it were historical fact, when it is nothing of the sort.
You however confuse historical fact with belief, as if any aspect of objective reality can be wished away by what you choose to believe or not to believe.
History and evidence are not changed simply because you wish to close your eyes and your mind to them.
Dr Alan, With respect you seem to flaunt history as the law of the land. While I believe that history teaches much, I do not believe it is the end all be all when it comes to making modern decisions. Also, I did read the thread, point of fact, I DO NOT CARE. I am simply sick of seeing what are probably considered to be reasonably intelligent people embroiled in such a small minded topic as to make it a major ordeal. If it were up to me, I would take all of you children and stick your noses in a corner for awhile. This entire argument is pointless. I do not believe in trampling the rights of a private business owner. I also do not believe that someone is less of a person because of who they chose to love. You have missed my points entirely, and that does not surprise me at all. I do not care about your facts, I do not care about any facts that have been spewed forth in this most wasteful topic. But by all means, continue to fuel this hate driven topic, I am finding people on both sides to be very funny. You see, neither side comes to the table with solutions, only reasons to continue to be childish. Have a good day.
In other words, Brien, you don't like facts to get in the way of your opinions. If you decree that what happened 2,900 years ago does not fit with your preconceptions, then you will have no hesitation in declaring it irrelevant.
Your qualifications to teach as a minister (other than ULC registration) are.....???
You're quibbling over what happened some three millenia ago? With poor historical records, and countless translation and editorial errors? Were you there? As for ministerial qualifications, this is the ULC. What would make you think something other than ULC qualifications would be of any special relevance here? (perhaps you're better off trolling a medical forum where your alleged 'doctor' credentials would be of some relevance)
Joe Stutler, The meaning of the bible is of great importance for many millions of Christians, and very considerable resources go into biblical scholarship in every generation in order to understand it better. As one of the central figures of the Old Testament, King David is not a minor character to be overlooked, nor is discussion about him a "quibble", for he plays a key role in establishing the kingdom of Israel and its laws. Any minister of any church who wishes to be taken seriously needs more than an online certificate - they need to be able to demonstrate that they have committed themselves to serious study of the Scriptures. A PhD is not necessary, but evidence of study certainly is.
Yes, Alan, quibbling. The historical and theological interpretations of the Bible are not agreed upon by the some 41,000 various sects of Christianity. Indeed, there are many variations and translations and interpretations of the Bible itself, and no one authoritative source to which all others may be compared. Certainly David is a significant figure in Christianity. I don't believe that was ever questioned in this thread. What is questioned is interpretation, and you are not authoritative in that regard. You have an opinion, just as countless millions of Christians (and non-Christians alike) have. So? Your "No True Scotsman" fallacy further exposes your sloppy thinking. This is the ULC, not some church which has but one doctrine and dogma and one central authority for determining what is and isn't applicable or appropriate. No, one doesn't need to study your interpretation of Scripture to be a credible minister. No, your alleged PhD gives you no special privilege here, no significant authority here, no extraordinary credibility here. Instead, your arrogance and ignorance diminish any credibility you might otherwise have had were you showing you understand and respect this church.
Thank you dr Allan Marsh , I completly agree with you as before I applied for a ministers degree here I spent most of my life studying the bible from 4 years old through my life time . I'm 52 and I still have many questions as I have also studied old Archelogical studies along with several other belief structures . Spent years in the mission fields in Mexico , South America and in the streets of America . I don't take meddling in ones life lightly it's a very serious life changing ideals we attempt to explain . I am however shocked how terrible so many have commented on things they don't understand . That's all I have to say , God is real and Christanity is Not the only path to God . It's One of the most with the highest recorded history . But there are others that can't be dismissed . Bless be to all and please please try and love one another
Joe Stutler, for some people, ignorance is bliss. In your case it appears to have become your deity.
It is a sure bet that no self-respecting gay couple would ask you to marry them, so I don't think you need to worry about that.
Personally I dont see this as a religious topic. Just as I have the right to open a business, i have the RIGHT to refuse my services. Politically correct is an oxymoron. This whole subject is politics, which has nothing to do with the spirit. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.
Frank, I agree with your comments. Not religion and not homosexuality. This is about the State interfering with individuals right to choose. Morality should not be legislated. People make moral decisions when they have the freedom to do so, otherwise it is simply complying with the law (or violating the law).
Businesses are not individuals. They are not persons , have no direct Rights nor faith. They are a legally-created entity. As such, they must abide by laws...can't dump toxic waste, can't sell alcohol to children, can't discriminate against protected classes. If you don't want to follow business laws and regulations, don't go into business.
Sorry Hobby Lobby says they are, and if you do a small google search you will see that there has been at least 45 different decisions from 1900 to 1999 that say businesses DO have the same rights as individuals. And all of these are from the US Supreme Court. As such, the Supreme Court has the final say on this and they dont agree with you
Obvious Troll Is Obvious.
First off, you've missed an entire education somehow. Your thoughts are the illiterate maundering of a defective mind. Secondly, no one's listening to you--nor should they be.
So many people are misinterpreting the law (and its purpose) in these comments. If the law were limited to religious practice, there would be little uproar. No one is suggesting Catholic priests be forced to marry gay couples - that's a specious example. What is troublesome about these so-called "religious freedom" bills is that they apply religious tests to entirely secular matters, and are already being used to deny gays and others equal access to public services and accommodations that have nothing to do with religion. As Americans, we adhere to a Constitution that enshrines a separation between Church and State and has given rise to Civil Rights laws that prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, services, etc. Marriage is a legal matter, legitimized by the state, and no one should be denied equal access to this right. This DOES mean that court clerks, etc. must uphold the law and issue licenses, perform ceremonies, etc. in a non-discriminatory fashion. If they have a problem following the Constitution, they should not be in that job. I think Civil Rights history shows that, when blacks were allowed equal access to polls, a lot of racist poll workers changed careers. And that was a good thing. Maybe that needs to happen in some cases around the gay marriage issue. I also believe that the winds of change are blowing strong on gay marriage, and in a generation or less, these illegal objections will be settled law. To me, these misnamed "religious freedom" laws are a kind of Christian Sharia - imposing one set of beliefs on secular society. I also believe the discomfort some people have should be openly discussed and acknowledged. People are human after all and prejudice comes out of ignorance and fear of the unknown. Once good people realize that gay marriage strengthens families and is good for communities, especially enhances the lives of children of these unions - while in no way harming traditional male/female marriage - the furor will die down. Just as, today, marriage between persons of different races is commonplace and generally accepted.
Well, sadly you seem to miss the point. The 'illegal' law deals with public situations that do not impose upon religion. However, this disgusting matter is to use 'religion' as a belief in discrimination. For example, in no way would the repeal of "religious freedom" laws require an institution of religion to abandon its tenants; i.e., an Orthodox Jewish Synagogue would not be required to marry two Baptists. No Irish Catholic Parish would serve as the place for a muslim couple either. HOWEVER, a Baptist church member, who is a taxi driver, should not be allowed to refuse a male couple a ride to their wedding 'due to his faith' anymore than Gov. George Wallace would/should be allowed to keep Blacks from voting in his state as he tried way back then . . .
Furthermore, and the real test of this issue is - JUST change the terms Gay/Lesbian or Same Sex Couple, with, as per 1950/60s terminology of Negro Persons or Interracial People and you, as well as anyone able to comprehend logic, will see the arguments are the exact same and philosophically identical issues kin to Brown v. Bd of Ed, etc.
Hope this explains what you need to know in order to allow you to know that religion should not be a form of discrimination but a force for equality. AMEN!!!
You don't have to agree with homosexuality. Personally, I don't agree with being left handed but I was born that way as well. Nobody, prior to this law, ever forced you to perform a same gender ceremony. Nobody ever will. The law in Indian does not protect your right not to perform same gender weddings because you already had that right. What this does is make it legal for a hotel manager to prohibit same gender couples from checking in. What it does is make it legal for a grocery store owner to refuse to sell food to a woman he thinks might be a lesbian. It makes it legal for an apartment complex owner to evict a tenant on grounds they don't think the tenant is masculine enough all based on religion. The problem is these forms of bigotry are invalid.
For a restaurant owner to refuse to serve a gay couple because it is "against his religion" is an invalid and vague argument. What you have the right to do is this. You have the right to perform acts that your religion requires you to perform. You have the right to choose not to commit a sin. You do NOT have the right to discriminate against people who do not share your beliefs. I am speaking of businesses NOT religions. Of course, as a minister you can set standards for who may join your congregation. You can set rules within that context for who can marry. But owning a business is different. If you own a hotel you may not refuse to let a person check in simply because the woman is wearing pants which you perceive makes her lesbian. Why is this so? Because letting a same gender couple check into your hotel does NOT constitute a sin. There is no scripture that states it is. If you are going to claim that by letting a same sex couple spend the night in your hotel you are creating a situation where they may sin extending the guilt to you then you must equally apply the argument for any two people who are not married to each other. Few hotel owners these days require proof of marriage to allow a couple to check in.
If you own a bar and two men walk in and you refuse to serve them because you believe they are gay and your religion is against homosexuality you do not have justification. This is because serving them does not constitute a sin. No place in any scripture does is state "thou shalt not feed gay people."
People need to stop reading into scripture that which is not there. Just because you feel a certain way does not make that feeling a religious belief.
Using the argument that your religion permits you to believe as you wish and therefore you have decided that serving a gay couple is a sin is an invalid argument as well. The law does not recognize personal variations in religious beliefs, only beliefs shared by other members of a religion based on codified theology. Since the ULC does not have a codified theology, no minister of same can justify personal bigotry by claiming "its against my religion."
First of all the premise of the article is that the law was intended to allow discrimination against the LGBT community. Perhaps you could explain how you come to such a conclusion. That seems to be a popular talking point but I haven't heard anyone document why it is true. Second, here's a theoretical scenario I heard posed. If you are the owner of a Jewish Deli and a customer who has been marching in the street with a "Death to Israel. Death to Jews" sign wants to come in and buy a sandwich, should you have the right to refuse service? Give me time and I can come up with dozens of examples where a retailer should have the right to refuse service. Is it wrong to refuse service to gays? I'd say yes in most instances. And it would probably be a counter productive business move. It would alienate many people who would turn to your competitors. And that should be the punishment for bad behavior. For that we don't need government to hold our little hands and show us the way.
You don't 'agree' with 'homosexuality?' Do you agree with red hair? How about freckles? Being gay has been proven over and over again to be a part of a person's makeup from birth. No choice is involved. Having lived in Southern California for over 35-years before returning to Northern Illinois, and having encountered and enjoyed close relationships with people in the 'Gay Community,' to a man, it is maintained being Gay is something you are born with. How about discriminating against people with big feet? Have you ever enjoyed a friendly, platonic relationship with a Gay person? I am not Gay myself, but I am happy to say that the finest individuals and most reliable friends I have are Gay men. So many 'straight' people are miserable homophobics. How about discriminating against people with deep voices?
As this issue is a 'legal' point, this info may separate "church and state, as the false statement used so often. (taken from a personal correspondence not anything of legal status). We all should have the unalienable right of God given right of free choice---it is not 'one world'.
The full email can be sent if you PM me.
excerpt:STARE DECESIS (to abide by, or adhere to, decided cases) This is the greatest testament of the legal system to assure continuity, consistency and fairness. The judicial system must respect the past and to adhere to these precedents and not unsettle things which are established. (Ballard County v. Kentucky County Debt Commission, 290 KY 770, 162 S.W.2d 771, 773).
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 10 No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43(1906)
Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states, in part:
Page 201 U. S. 44 "There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation, and the latter, being a creature of the State, has not the constitutional right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State;"
If we are allowed to deny service to individuals based on what we 'believe', then a Muslim utility company could deny service to those not following their brand of Islam, or a baptist hospital could turn away Catholics, or perhaps companies could produce products and refuse to allow stores to sell to Christians or any other group they don't agree with. Our country was based on belief that all are equal, and if you have a business license, you need to uphold our countries foundation and treat others equally or we will end up like many Muslim countries where only the 'in' group has freedom and liberties are denied for those who do not follow the rules of those in charge. Jesus said that we are only to judge others when we ourselves are perfect, but frankly, he probably wouldn't be welcome in most christian churches now days. He hung with the wrong crowd, didn't like the church leaders because of their pompous and condescending behavior, and didn't walk around condemning others when he is the only one that really had that right according to Christians. Those setting themselves up to judge others are placing themselves above Christ. Individuals need only worry about their own lives, sins, and salvation. God did not set them up to be judgmental of others, but clearly pointed out that they are not pure enough to do that and should not do that. Jesus said we were to love one another, and what most people see from laws like those recently past is not love, but hate. What would Jesus do? Reach out and love those whom many seem to only judge and condemn.
Good points when it comes to Jesus and Christians. However could I force a devout Muslim in a restaurant to serve me alcohol? Or should I sue them because their religion does not allow them to do so? This is where Religious freedom comes into play. As Jesus would have asked us, Respect one another, your freedom stops where mine begins.
Since a Muslim restaurant would not be serving alcohol to anyone, there is no discrimination involved. Just like there is no discrimination involved in a vegetarian restaurant not serving meat. If it is a restaurant that does serve alcohol, and a Muslim server won't serve it, the business needs to have another server serve the alcohol.
Actually, Muslims are not allowed to DRINK alcohol, there are not rules about serving it. I know this to be a fact because I worked in a restaurant where one of the managers was Egyptian and Muslim and extremely nice. We discussed how serving alcohol interfered with his religious beliefs, and he admitted he would rather not serve it, and when other managers were present, they took care of it. When he was the only there, he did it. It was considered a sin to his faith in any way. After all, it isn't like he licked his fingers of any they may spilled on them.
This is not where religious comes into play. He knew what his job entailed when it took the job. He made a rational decision and that's the end of it.
I'm pretty sure that Jesus never said "your freedom stops where mine begins." I believe that came from the NRA over gun laws.
Once again though, a business for profit does not deserve a religious exemption because they don't believe in homosexuals. Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in any holidays, including birthdays, but those working in fields like retail or food service don't get to take off during those times because it interferes with their beliefs. They grasp the concept, that soars far over the heads of the redneck fundamentalists here, that their beliefs are theirs, and when they are are work they put it aside and do their job.
Paula I think you are missing the point re-examine this part of your statement; and didn’t walk around condemning others when he is the only one that really had that right according to Christians.
@Paula, Excellent reply!
People already forget the incident where a teen boy tried to shoplift from a convenience store, and the clerk chopped off the hand he grabbed the stolen item with. When this went to court, the store owner explained that he, and everyone at the store were Muslim, and the clerk was merely practicing his religious beliefs by enforcing Sharia law in the store. They cited the "Hobby Lobby" ruling as their SOLE defense. The charges were IMMEDIATELY dropped, and the clerk went free. The boy was still prosecuted for shoplifting. Be careful what you wish for, as it looks like a back door for something not intended.
Name the case. I have searched all over the net and have not found one mention of a case like this anywhere in the US.
It looks like the original paper archived the report (Maybe they are a RIGHT WING rag wanting to hide the dark part of these "Religious Freedom" laws.), however, I did find ONE site that at least kept a FRAGMENT of this up. http://lockerdome.com/6551011611382081/6765168512353300
Sorry, My quote comes directly from the original paper. The info you are using come from the left wing rewrite of same.
Your source does not amount to more then a sneeze in a high wind. After checking with the Peoria police, they stated this never happened. And the site you are using clearly says it is a satire site.
Sorry but your story is not true.
How childish Joey. I proved you completely ignorant of anything you have posted here and the best you can do is whine and cry "troll"
Exactly how can it be a trolling if I give you exact court cases proving you are wrong-exact copies of the 1st Amendment proving that you are wrong? If I am making a statement and backing it up with facts and sources, then it clearly seems that I am not the one that is wrong. Its the childish little poster like you Joey who has to call names as he cannot refute a thing I have said no matter how hard he tries.
Do you or anyone else for that matter have the citation from the 6th circuit out of Ohio? Or the Courts opinion regarding ULC?
I haven't bothered to search for that yet, as we only have Obvious Troll's assertion that it's an issue...and the onus is on OT. I did find info on all four states in the 6th Circuit right here on the ULC site. I would think their info is up-to-date and more reliable than the rantings of Obvious Troll. themonastery.org/wedding-laws/ohio
Hi Joe, I have a Pacer account and did not find any FED cases from the 6th circuit regarding allegations of ULC fraud. Just looking for info to dispel the posers and naysayers.
Thanks for checking. I was guessing Obvious Troll was doing his usual posting of male bovine excrement. Apparently he has an overabundance of the stuff from his "bakery" (as if) as that's a key ingredient in all of his products.
It has not been handed down yet. As I said numerous times, the 6th is in the PROCESS of ruling this site is a diploma mill, I have never said they HAD ruled anything on this issue.
But if you want proof of this being a diploma mill
And even the famous left wing site the Daily Kos, has proved this is a diploma mill
Sorry Daniel, but your certification isnt worth the power to blow your nose with.
yet again joey, and I will say it one more time in hopes that it sinks into whatever you use for a brain, the 6th has NOT handed down the decision yet and until they do it wont be posted. Now if you want to contact them and ask them, they are located in Cincy Ohio and I am sure they will be happy to tell you that there IS a case there that has yet to be ruled on.
If you are going to say something joey, at least be adult and truthful enough to get it correct.
Obvious Troll Is Obvious.
Daniel Gray, As I said I have a Pacer account. For everyone that don't know what a Pacer account is; It is a an account that allows you access to all US Federal Court Cases are located! Civil, Criminal, and Bankruptcy cases that are on file, pending, adjudicated, or dismissed. The fee is nominal per page and billed quarterly. If you do not download to many pages then they wave the fees for that billing cycle and start with a zero balance on the new billing cycle. So, Daniel Gray, You state it is pending in the Federal Court system, yet I can find no such case with ULC. Maybe I am looking for the wrong defendants. Maybe you can enlighten us all, by going to Pacer.gov yourself go to look up cases, register to get the service, then post a link to the pages that show what your state is true and factual. Other wise please stop spreading misinformation in an attempt to damage everyone working with ULC. All that we need to know here at ULC is our ULC document and Ordinations are as Real as the First amendment and GOD so until the FED Court tosses the FIRST or declares there is no GOD then ULC is good to go. ULC is in Washington State and under Washington's statute RCWA §28b.85.040 ULC is exempt as a religious organization to issue religious related diplomas at will so to speak. For the rules on all states regarding Religion and Diplomas go to
Yet AGAIN for the peanut gallery. I never said anything about any case, as you have to have someone complain and the case be brought up from a lower court.
What I HAVE said repeatedly, is the 6th US District Court is MOVING to have this site ruled as a diploma mill. A court can be asked to rule on an issue even IF a case has not been brought before it, its called a "graveman" issue or clarifying a decision from an earlier case, or even revisiting a case and clarifying the point of the case.
So says the 6th US District Court Public Affairs Office.
Sorry Daniel, but they can make a ruling without a case.
Sorry ULC, but this is the most obtuse claim I have ever read. Where were you or all the others that were complaining about this law when bakeries in Seattle-Portland and Denver were run out of business by Homosexuals because they would not make a stupid SSM wedding cake. There were plenty of other bakeries in these cities that these homosexuals could have went to, but instead they sued the bakers and not only put three businesses out of business (and one had been there for over 100 years) but they also put 128 people on the unemployment line. This law will stop that from happening in Indiana.
Not to mention that over 26 states have a form of this law on their books, not to mention that the US Supreme Court has already heard cases like this and has ruled that they are not only legal laws, but constitutional as well. And not to mention that 16 more states have laws like this getting ready to be voted on and placed on their books as well. What this means is right now over half of the US agrees with Indiana, and soon it will be 42 states out of 50 that agree. And as I said, since the US Supreme Court has already ruled on cases like this that they are legal and Constitutional, that is why you dont see any threatened lawsuits to stop this law as there is no lower judge who has any authority to overturn a US Supreme Court decision. And before anyone claims otherwise, need I remind them about the Employment decision in 2003 where a company in Washington State was required to rehire back two Navaho men whome they fired for use peyote in their religious services on their own time. Cost that company quite a lot of money when the Supreme Court told the company that they could NOT violate these men's religion or religious beliefs. The Supreme Court did the exact same thing in the Hobby Lobby case and that is why the ACLU or the Human Rights campaign has not stepped into this as they cant. And need I also remind you that in the Boy Scout case, the Supreme Court clearly stated that no law can make a person NOR a business associate with another person or business. sort of a federal "we reserve the right to refuse service". And even Indiana cannot amend the law to violate that.
Now if the homosexuals want this law changed, then they have to agree not to sue any business out of existence that refuses to deal with them based on their religious beliefs like they did in Portland-Seattle and Denver. Otherwise they are going to have to deal with this form of a law in 42 states in less then 4 years. Going to be a very small area to do business in if these fools refuse to go into states that have this form of a law now wont it?
So the law justifies discrimination? Since when is discrimination okay? Jesus walked with lepers, but drew the line at the gays? If you want to be hateful toward a group, you need to own it. You can't be a majority (christian) and discriminate against a minority (homosexuals) and then claim to be persecuted. That's not how it works.
This is not discrimination. All this says is exactly what the Boy Scout-Employment decisions and the 1st Amendment says.
If you dont like the results, then get the Constitution changed. But until you do you will follow what the law says or you can be arrested and suffer the results for not following the law.
Its all up to you
@Daniel, Very good points in both of these comments, but something that I have yet to hear expressed is the fact that the businesses are not required to refuse service, just guaranteed the right to in this case. You mentioned the idea that a business has the right to refuse service to anyone within certain guidelines, the other side of that coin is that they also have the right to accept, and if they so choose, encourage patronage. Makes me wonder how many "Gays Welcome" signs we will see in the near future. Also, @ Frank, based on a survey done across the country a few years ago (not sure which agency, I just recall reading about it), only 36% of US households reported having even one Christian member, and less than 24% reported going to services regularly. Hmm, doesn't sound like much of a majority. It just so happens that Christians seem to raise their voices and complain more than anyone else, possibly because most (though not all) other religions have a live and let live attitude. As has been pointed out before, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religious practice for all faiths, not just Christianity as so many churches seem to try to teach people. I am not against Christians, but I am against anyone who uses there faith to promote hatred and inequality.
Thats my whole point. IF a business wishes to deal with homosexuals, then that is the businesses right to do so, no harm no foul. But on the other side of the coin the homosexuals do NOT have the right to force themselves on any one or any business. If the business says no, then go somewhere else. You are not going to tell me that there are not other businesses that would not deal with you.
Homosexuals didn't put these companies out of business, but good people chose to take their business elsewhere. People quit using these businesses because they didn't want to support the bigotry these companies displayed. Yes, they were sued, just like they would have been if they denied service to anyone else because they didn't like their color, sex, or anything else. These companies appear to be run by the same type people and used the same excuses used when blacks were trying to get equal treatment under the law. The repercussions of allowing people to pick and choice who they think are 'good enough' to use their services could end up being life threatening (think doctor, nurse, emergency personnel). Does the public truly condone allowing someone to die because they are christian or maybe non christian, and a person of another faith chooses not to assist them because they are 'unworthy'? Religions that believe in a theocracy are taking over countries all over the world, so what happens when one that isn't your faith tells you that you are not worthy to be a full citizen and takes away your rights and denies you services like in many other countries? There isn't a place for bigotry in a civilized country but it is rampant in many countries where women and some religious groups like Christians are not considered equal and are denied services all the time. Is this the type of government many 'Christians' would prefer? One that allows woman or other minorities to be treated so badly, even killed without legal repercussions because they are not equal citizens? Is this really the type of country that these people would choose to create? I know I don't want to live in such a society!
Sorry Paula, but yes they did.. Instead of going to another of the plethora of bakeries in the cities mentioned, the homosexuals sued these bakeries and forced them to close. This is fact and can be seen by the legal documents filed in the courts.
Thats why Indiana and now 30 states have passed laws that prohibit actions taken in Portland-Seattle and Denver. There is no excuse for this and the people doing this need to be slapped down and slapped down hard.
Are you saying that the government closed the bakery? I thought they were fined.
Two were, one was shut down and the two that were fined had to pay such a large fine that they shut down as well. This would not have happened if the homosexuals had just accepted this and went to a different bakery.
So they cant whine and complain about this law when they did the exact same thing to others.
that is exactly my point, the homosexuals didn't have to have the stuff from that bakery, they could had went to any bakery and yet, they wanted to prove something, or something. I thought that businesses were supposed to have the right to refuse business to anybody for whatever reason they thought they wanted too, now it turns out that they are in trouble if they do? mean while I know a store that is discriminating on mentally disabled people and kicking them out of stores and they are allow to do that, nothing seems right here. And if a business has convictions, they are supposed to deal with people that goes against their conviction? You can bet if the tables were turned that the homosexuals would think that was awful if they had to do business with people that they didn't want to for whatever reason.
it might help Paula to read what the homosexuals are doing. Now how can she attack this law of Indiana's and somehow not attack this as well?
http:// shoebat. com /2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/
remove the spaces and get ready for a shock
Easy, Daniel... He wasn't asking them to make a pro-traditional marriage cake, he was asking them to make an anti-same-gender-marriage cake. Quite a vast difference between those two concepts.
Now tell that same story, only replace each instance of "homosexual" or "gay" with "Black." Still think it isn't discrimination?
Yes I DO NOT think it is discrimination. And you should be ashamed of yourself for even making this post. A black-yellow-brown person has no control over their skin color. On the other hand there is NO such thing as a gay gene meaning that homosexuals are NOT born this way. And before you try and claim they are, tell your myth to these experts:
"Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, along with his team of over 150 of the top geneticists in the world, who sequenced and decoded the human genome, three years ahead of schedule, have emphatically said, ad nauseam, that there is NO gay gene.The American College of Pediatrics also maintains this position"
Now since they are far more knowledgeable about this then you or I, you cannot dispute what they say.
And here the US Supreme Court ruled just as I said, that you CANNOT stop a person from acting on his religious principals and tenants. Its called the Santeria decision out of Florida in a 9-0 decision against the city of Hialeah Florida when the city decided you could not use live animals in the Santeria religion on June 11th 1993.
The Justices Blackmun and O'Conner stated and I quote "The First Amendment's protection of religion extends beyond those rare occasions on which the government explicitly targets religion or a particular religion for disfavored treatment"
The name of the decision is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Now tell us Deb, exactly HOW are you going to still say that we have to accept homosexuals when the plethora of US Supreme Court decisions including the one above, have all said that citizens cannot be forced to void their religious faiths or tenants of same, and the 1st Amendment agrees. And again the 1st Amendment is the highest law in the land.
You can whine and complain and try and say this is discrimination, but science and the law and the US Constitution all say you are completely wrong.
Oh and you have a very high opinion of yourself by claiming you are a Pastor. If you received your ministerial credentials from here you got them from a diploma mill, and NO state worth its salt is going to let you practice with these fake credentials. How do you think REAL pastors feel when they go to school to earn their degrees for years, and you got yours with a click of a mouse? The 6th US District Court is in the process of ruling this site a diploma mill and when that happens, the federal government will come in and shut it down and all your paperwork you received from here will be able to be used as tissue to blow your nose with.
Ignore Daniel, Deb. He's not a lawyer, nor a baker, nor even slightly cognizant on issues of law. His research is lacking, his 'facts' absent, and he just makes stuff up as he goes along. He trots out discredited hooey (such as his claims regarding Collins' alleged statements on homosexuality. [ patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2008/09/30/what-did-francis-collins-really-say-about-homosexuality ] ) Obvious Troll is Obvious
Hi Joe, Yup Daniel is still making crap up. Glad you saw the Dr. Collins story. It is so easy to fact check that I am surprised that anyone would continue to spew such dribble. Regarding the Supreme Court case he cites (at least he cited something) it has no bearing except in his mind. The case "Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah ... was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption", was unconstitutional.
The difference in that case that is lost on Daniel is that it was the local Government that made the ordinance, and that ordinance was made only as a result of that particular Church announcing a relocation to Hialeah FL. I agree the City was wrong, you cannot pass an ordinance that targets s particular group, that is discrimination. The Supreme Court also agreed. The incident in Indiana is agredious and completely unrelated because it allows persons to discriminate.
Sorry Joey, I have proved you wrong and completely ignorant on this subject more times then you would like as anyone can see by looking at my previous posts where I not only quote from the Constitution, I give you US Supreme Court decisions that back me up as well.
You are just angry that you cannot refute a thing I said and that you have been shown as nothing more then a know nothing blowhard who refuses to accept the facts even when they are laid out in front of you with links and the names of the Supreme Court cases. Not to mention that you have such a big ego, that you are insisting that everyone is wrong and you are the only one that is correct, seemingly thinking that you and only you have the right to overturn US Supreme Court decision because you dont like them. Or because they disagree with your view.
News flash Joey, you dont and you never will. What I posted is law and fact and there is not one thing you can do that is going to change that so you might as well learn to live with it is it is going to be the laws you have to abide by.
Sorry Quinn, I am making NOTHING up. The case in which you are quoting was the local government trying to pass a law that violated the 1st Amendment. They lost big time.
Facts are facts quin. Neither you nor Joey can prove what I said is wrong and both of you are trying oh so determined to try but failing miserably each and every time.
But hey, please continue as you are destroying yourselves with every misguided post you make and every pitiful attempt you try to refute federal law or what is in the Constitution, not to mention making a laughingstock of yourselves with every post.
Oh, Daniel Gray, there is such little here you have not made up. Why don't you address my comments regarding your claims of the 150,000 dollar fine of the Just Cookie Shop, that was not true, or the closure of Just Cookies, that was not true, or the length of time they had been in business, that was not true, or the shop in Seattle you claim was fined and closed, that does not exist, or the misquote from Dr, Collins, that was not true, or the Death Threats you alledge politicians received as a result of the Indiana incident ( which by the way I agree would be criminal, but again, not true.
I will give you credit though, you are consistent, just keep making crap up and push on. Not a bad strategy...just admit that is what you do, and do it, stop making crap up that is too easy to research.
Sorry Quinny, I have given you US Supreme Court cases to back up exactly what I said. I have copied and posted the 1st Amendment that says exactly what I said.
So I take it you are still upset that you had your rear handed to you in another thread on this site and was embarrassed so badly that no one would listen to you in that thread? What a long time to carry a grudge. You do know that would never have happened there or here if you actually had some idea of the subject you are talking about. Just like what is again happening here. So the only person you can blame for being made look like a fool is the person you see in your morning mirror.
Obvious Troll Is Obvious.
My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts, eh?
Nice try at the liberal re-write of what was said, but it isnt going to cut it. Collins has repeatedly stated that he NEVER disagreed with what he originally said. Your statement came from the left wing site "The Nation"
Sorry Joey BUSTED yet again
I guess so Quinny, if the facts destroy your view, then I guess you can continue to be so pig headed that you refuse facts when they are starting you in the face. Just dont expect anyone else to follow you down the road of lies.
So I guess its safe to say that free will should not be given to us and that GOD should just make us do what he wants?
If I were forced, against my religious beliefs to create an event cake or stage an event, such as a same sex wedding, (I can think of other examples besides that one also), Forced under penalty of law or lawsuit, mind you, yes I could do what I am forced to do, violating my first amendment rights. I wonder though, how much I should charge for a sawdust cake? For butcher paper table covers? For plastic table settings? In our secular society, if same sex, deviant sex, multiple partner relationships want to marry, who am I to stop them? Though, I will not violate my religious beliefs and constitutional rights to accomodate and endorse by enablement of said union because someone else wants me to bend to thier will or suffer consequences. I stand personally accountable to my Father Creator for all of my actions someday. Violating the clear teachings of His word is one less thing I wish to not have to account for. My ccoice based on my freedom to exercise my faith. I find the use of so many of the adjectives and descriptives in the article juvenile, purile at best and beneath the standards of an orginazation that promotes nutrality in all things concerning the spiritual. So, to sum up, Yes, I have several friends who are homosexual, and no they are not militant about thier lifestyle. I respect them and love them, just as they, me. They would never ask me to violate my morals to accomodate them. I respect them in likewise manner. Now comes the usual rhetorical rants from the militant homosexuals and the God-haters. I've got thick skin and an open heart.
Blessings to all!
exactly. If I were forced to violate my religious beliefs, then I would make the cake but it would be the worst tasting cake ever and I would give them a prune cake.
Very nice. Very loving. Very Christian.
That goes right along with what Jesus said about turning the other cheek, doesn't it?
I am turning the other cheek, and I am giving them what they want, a cake. Nobody said that it had to be edible or that it had to be the way they wanted it. If they are forcing me to violate my beliefs then they deserve what they get.
Jesus also forgave and said "sin no more". Why does one person have to be forced to accept another person's activities the first person sees as sin?
Well, since everyone sins, guess you couldn't really accept anyone.
Daniel why not give those who wish a cake what they wish and consider their rights. Gay people did not choose to be gay but they are so let them be. Everyone should have equal rights and when you refuse to accommodate them because of your individual beliefs you are in effect trying to force them to support your belief. Everyone is soul let them be. Love all creations of life including all species.
Sorry, that is just not right. Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, along with his team of over 150 of the top geneticists in the world, who sequenced and decoded the human genome, three years ahead of schedule, have emphatically said, ad nauseam, that there is NO gay gene. The American College of Pediatrics also maintains this position.
Now if the top geneticists in the world could not find a homosexual gene, that strongly leads that there is no such thing. And if there is no such thing, that means they did in fact choose this as their lifestyle. As such I love the sinner, but I hate the sin.
Sorry science says you are incorrect.
I believe you are correct! There is a difference between genetic predisposition and proclivity
Homosexuality is not genetic. Hormones or something happened to change fetus brain. No one chooses. It just is. Like all Birth Defects
"Birth Defects"? Wow. So anything deviating from the exact center of the bell curve is a birth defect? Wow, Nancy.....just....wow. (are you sure you're not one of Obvious Troll's sockpuppets?)
Whats wrong Joey, cant refute what I said so you call names like a child? Guess that says a lot about you and your posts.
Really? Check these out and try to pass that statement off again.
That's the first page from more than 17 MILLION results.
So while Joe may not be bothered to take the time to refute your claims and show you how foolish you come off, I have no problem doing so.
Sorry Deb, but your first link to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is hot air as this group has NO scientific credentials to speak of.
The Guardian is even worse as it is a left wing socialist newspaper out of England. hardly a thing to be used as a source. Especially when they just parrot the same quotes from the first discredited source you mentioned.
WebMD? You are really going to try and use a website that even the AMA called ignorant as a source? How low do you want to scrape the bottom of the barrel Deb?
Your "New Scientist" link shows complete ignorance. This is not and never was intended to be a scientific journal, if you will look it is owned and operated by Reed Business Institute. And if you do a check on them you will find that not one employee has a background in medicine or genetics, meaning their statement isnt worth the power to blow your nose with.
And finally, your Washington Post link is so laughable that I wonder how you even had the courage to post it. The author of the story is a professor at La Trobe University, which is in Victoria Canada, a country that already has laws on the books that will put you in prison if you dare to speak out against homosexuals. Not to mention that her claim has never been "peer reviewed" as is required to be done before she posts it. She is now on probation at he university and if she does this again (posting without peer review) she could be sacked or terminated.
Nice try Deb, but not one of your sources has any background in genetics or medicine and the single one that actually does is in deep trouble for violating her conditions of employment and could be terminated. And these pitiful sources are what you want to try and use?
Deb, minor correction to your comment. I am no longer being bothered to refute Daniel. I tried, but he's too bloody effing stupid for anything resembling fact to sink in, and he's too rude to be worth making any additional effort. Obvious Troll Is Obvious. (so are his sockpuppets)
No Joey, you are fast becoming frustrated that you cannot refute a thing I have said and have resorted to childish name calling because of it. You are showing your true self and thus are sowing the rest of us why we should ignore you and anything you say as you have been destroyed with facts and court cases so much you are the living equal to swiss cheese with all the holes that have been put in your posts and statements
I'm still waiting for facts from you, Daniel. You're ripe with opinion (overripe, it seems), but bereft of fact and reason.
Then reread the posts child. I have given plenty of links and court cases that prove I am correct. And I have posted them here. If you cant find them that means you are either ignorant or blind. Now which is it?
That would be problematic. Unless they ordered a prune cake, you'd be failing to deliver on your contract. If it was the worst tasting cake ever, and that was not your standard level of quality, you'd be failing to comply with equal protection under law. Also, you know that folks are going to talk....delivering a crap product will tarnish your reputation. Not really a smart or decent thing to do. But then, bigots are not known for their intelligence or decency.
No it wouldnt. They ordered a cake, they got a cake nobody said I would have to make it edible. And if I had told them no and they insisted anyway, they have to accept what they are given.
No one just orders "a cake". That's a stupid idea. Please let me know when you open the bakery...ad be sure to buy top quality equipment. I look forward to seeing you play that silly game and end up losing everything.
Sorry Joe, I live in Ohio and we dont tolerate any of that stupidity or foolishness here. Its already been tried and tossed out of court. And the last gay couple that tried it went clear to the Ohio State Supreme Court and they slapped him down so hard he is still bouncing. And the 6th US District Court refused to hear the appeal.
And I already do own a bakery, and on the front door it clearly says that we do NOT do any form of SSM or Homosexual unions. And considering that there are bakeries in walmarts, as well as almost every grocery store and each city has two or three, it sort of makes it VERY difficult for anyone to claim they have been discriminated against when they have other options to use.
Ah, Ohio. That hooey doesn't fly in Iowa, and many other states. That Ohio hasn't yet included GLBT allows you to discriminate against them. Good for you...you can share your bigotry with folks in your state.
Sorry Joe, its in our Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman. Something that was upheld by not on the Ohio State Supreme Court, but the 6th US District Court which is one step below the US Supreme Court.
So I guess you are now insulting them because they disagree with your position, something that you do on a regular basis it seems
Let's see what SCOTUS has to say on the issue. Until then, enjoy being able to legally discriminate and share your bigotry with your fellow citizens. (I can only imagine what your cakes taste like)
Our Constitution makes absolutely no mention of marriage. Such defectives.
Sorry Joe, SCOTUS is not going to change their opinion just because you want them to. You have four who will vote that the states decide Gay Marriage, and Kennedy has already signaled that he is leaning in that direction. So if he stays true, then gay marriage is over in the US as all the judges that overturned the will of the people, their decisions will be null and void, and that includes California.
I guess then you will come back here whining and crying because it didnt go your way.
And even by some chance, that the SCOTUS votes the way you want it, it still wont amount to a hill of beans as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution clearly says that the US Government CANNOT pass a law or make a law that interferes with a citizens religious practices. Which means that people can STILL refuse to rent to or refuse to hire a homosexual, and there is not a thing you can do to change it.
Hopefully this will sink in sooner or later
You are right W.J Chaput. that means that there is NO constitutional right for same sex marriage. As such homosexuals have nothing to hang their hats on and also as such no law saying that you cant refuse to serve a person because of their sexual orientation is valid as it cant be based on anything
Daniel, I am not gifted with prognostication, so I don't know how SCOTUS will rule. Many analysts seem to be leaning towards SSM becoming law of the land. If that is indeed what happens, all your whining to the contrary won't amount to the aforementioned hill of beans. We shall just have to wait and see... Meanwhile, with very limited specific exemptions, in Iowa you cannot discriminate against protected classes (including GLBT) with regard to employment, housing, etc. Good thing you don't live here, right? I don't suppose you're bright enough to understand that, considering your apparent end-stage coproencephaly... but we don.t play your hater game here.
Neither am I. I go by the answers that the Justices give and how they phrase the questions. And I go by what the US Constitution clearly says.
So no matter how the SCOTUS rules, you still lose as the 1st Amendment clearly says exactly what Indiana's law says.
Case closed, game over.
You aren't the interpreter of the Constitution, SCOTUS is. Should they rule in favor of SSM, that becomes the law of the land. Perhaps you weren't paying attention in elementary school civics class, perhaps you're blinded by your faith, perhaps youre just bloody effing stupid. (none of these are mutually exclusive, so I'd guess all three are factors) Time will tell...regardless of your silly rantings.
Dont need to be Joey,
the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ...
Now if my religion says not to deal with homosexuals, and the 1st Amendment clearly says that the Government CANNOT imped or deny my exercise of my religion even IF it violates another law...then exactly HOW are you go to get around that 800 ton gorilla in the middle of the room?
The answer is YOU CANT. So as I said it makes NO difference how the SCOTUS rules, they CANNOT enact a law without the approval of Congress (article 1 section 1 US Constitution) as they dont have that authority. And even if they do enact a law, they cannot be in conflict or violation of the 1st Amendment as the law would be invalid and unenforceable.
Sorry Joey, busted yet again
Again, you aren't the arbiter of Constitutional matters, regardless of your delusions of grandeur. Have you considered wandering back to whatever fundinutter site you came from? You really don't seem a good fit for ULC.
Nice try Joey, but I dont need to be the arbiter of anything. I just posted exactly what the constitution says in black and white and it is so simple that even you can understand it.
Again the 1st Amendment clearly says that the federal government and the states as well, CANNOT make a law that would stop me from practicing my religion INCLUDING its mandates. Which means that if my religion says I shall not have anything to do with homosexuals, then no law....be it state local or federal; can stop me from doing so under the 1st Amendment.
This is not rocket science Joey, and as long as you live in the United States you are BOUND by the Constitution to accept this and follow it. Your only choice is to try and get a Constitutional Amendment to change the 1st Amendment, and that isnt going to happen.
And as for Justice Kennedy? Sorry again, I can only take him by what he says and the questions he was asking as well as the statements he made on C-Span, clearly show that he is not leaning tword the homosexual side of the fence.
You can whine and cry all you want, but you have a big nasty surprise coming at the end of June of this year. Thats when all the decisions for the US Supreme Court will be handed down for this term.
Clearly you don't understand how our Constitution and Rule Of Law works. Time will tell. Say, where is your bakery, what's the name of the place?
what joey? Are you now saying that the Constitution does not mean what it says and you can just change it to suit what you want it to say?
Uh Uh Uh Joey, the only way to change the constitution is by a constitutional amendment.
And here you go again Joey, the US Supreme Court ruled just as I said, that you CANNOT stop a person from acting on his religious principals and tenants. Its called the Santeria decision out of Florida in a 9-0 decision against the city of Hialeah Florida when the city decided you could not use live animals in the Santeria religion on June 11th 1993.
The Justices Blackmun and O'Conner stated and I quote "The First Amendment's protection of religion extends beyond those rare occasions on which the government explicitly targets religion or a particular religion for disfavored treatment"
The name of the decision is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Now tell us Joey, exactly HOW are you going to still say that we have to accept homosexuals when the plethora of US Supreme Court decisions including the one above, have all said that citizens cannot be forced to void their religious faiths or tenants of same, and the 1st Amendment agrees. And again the 1st Amendment is the highest law in the land.
BUSTED yet again Joey.
You keep saying "busted" (and being rude, how very 'Christian' of you), yet all you've done (aside from the aforementioned rudeness) is express your opinion....and those opinions are poorly founded. Again, time will tell. Meanwhile, in my state, your opinion has already lost...discrimination against protected classes is illegal. I'd suggest if you want to continue to engage in your bigotry, you stay in whatever backwards, inbred state in which you currently reside.
Not being rude at all joey, I am stating fact and backing it up with links and names.
On the other hand YOU are the one that is being childish as even with the facts looking you in the face, you still whine and moan that everyone else is wrong and you seemingly are the only one who is right. Not a high sign for confidence in anything you post and being truthful or factual.
Now as for the term "busted" my apologies if you have offense at that. The term just means that you have been proved wrong as you usually are. Therefor its quite accurate in dealing with you.
Actually, Daniel, you are indeed being rude. My name is Joe, he you keep referring to me as "joey"... both diminutive and failing to capitalize the proper noun. As for me being " childish" for rejecting your "facts", that doesn't really apply. I'm rejecting your opinions that you claim are facts. There's a great deal fference between those two things, and when you come to a forum populated by Cohen people who know the difference you shouldn't be surprised when you're called on conflating the two. Clearly you are not of all he brethren H re at ULC, and have no reason to be here aside from trolling. I posit that you act thusly due to a failure on the part of either your maker to make you properly or your failure to live up to your maker's standards. Either way, I wish for you to meet your maker face to face as soon as possible to rectify the glitch.
Actually Joey, I am not being rude. I am stating fact and giving you a plethora of legal decisions and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution that clearly show that you are the one that is totally wrong and has no knowledge of what you are saying on this issue. Its not my problem that you cannot accept fact and reality. And if that makes you upset, then sorry as I am not going to lie to soothe your hurt feelings
All you have done is blow smoke and obfuscate. That will not be allowed.
Obvious Troll Is Obvious.
Daniel Gray, As to your cake, You would have an implied warranty on the selling of a cake under common law and most laws of most nations. If you was selling cakes at eatery it would be implied that it would be eatable unless specified to not be. There are a number of other laws both civil and criminal that would apply to the cake regardless of your so called statement that they did not specify eatable or not. You did not specify a an expressed warranty as to edible or non edible so there would be an implied warranty as to fitness and marketability for the item be sold to be used as implied "A Cake" If you made and sold a cake without disclosing it was made with human or nonhuman excrement or other non-editable stuff; you committed a number of crimes from fraud in the inducement to attempted murder and everything in-between, together with criminal negligence if you stuck to your "Cake" story. ! There was once a company that made millions selling a all natural plant fertilizer that looked like the animal crackers marketed and for kids to eat. This company thought it would market and sell it's product as a joke or gag under the Brand name "Animal Crappers" and they did making millions before something happened! Guess what? Even though the company made full disclosers as to not edible or fit for human consumption and openly noticed it was made from al natural composted animal feces, they got shut down because some little kids found the cute little box with a plastic window and seen the yummy looking animals inside, opened the package, ate them, and ended up in the hospital. A bunch of bad press, movement intervention, prosecutors, and a host of other bureaucratic intervention and litigation, and they was done for. And that is a company that made "Full Disclosers" and it did function as a indoor plant fertilizer as they advertised Buy some Animal Crappers your finds will get a laugh and "This $h!t Really Makes stuff Grow" So, your "Cake" analogy is fundamentally flawed.
Really?? Whatever. When did obvious hyperbole become a matter of the legal eagles among us? Straining at gnats? Swallowing Camels? Man....
D., it's not so obvious hyperbole when one reads the related threads from Obvious Troll. Start reading here:
D., it’s not so obvious hyperbole when one reads the related threads from Obvious Troll. Start reading here: themonastery.org/blog/2015/03/religious-freedom-laws-and-the-new-battle-for-equality/#comment-125023
Pay no attention to the whiners Barron. They cant refute a single thing I said so all they have left is the smoke and mirrors they are trying to obfuscate the thread with.
Yes you ARE an obvious troll Joey, thanks for admitting it.
the whole point is, if we are pushed to accepting what this special interest perverted group does, what about the next perverted, special interest group. doesn't that take away our freedoms to be able to practice our religions and religious convictions, we should not have to bend, the homosexuals don't want to bend, and we should not have to, either.
For people of God, you seem to leave the scriptures behind. If you were making a cake for a divorced person's second marriage, I don't suppose you'd find the same outrage, would you?
Some would and that would be fine with me and I have been married before. I do not think I have the right to force me beliefs onto other people. If they do not want to work with me then I will find another who will. I respect their beliefs.
Don't know. I might. Or not. My choice. God hates divorce because of the destruction it causes. My now ex son in law put my daughter through 6 years of hell with his numerous infidelities and pornography consumption. He commited numerous adultries upon her. She filed for divorce. Scripturally, she is justified for doing so. The one and ONLY reason for divorce according to Jesus. (Matt 19: 8,9), if you wish to look. Knowing the background of this scenario, yes, I would bake a cake for her remairrage. She is of right scriptural standing. He cannot scripturally remarry, so, for him, no I would not. Discrimination? Maybe. I know the facts in this particular instance. Another wedding, I might not know all of the facts. A homosexual wedding, obviously I am going to know that providing services to the happy couple, or triad, etc. would violate my morals. No offense to them, there are other bakers and event planners willing and happy to provide services. I'm great with that. Don't force me to violate my rights to suit what you percieve to be yours. Your rights end at the beginning of my nose (on some days, my belly!) i am very libertarian in many of my views, but in matters of my faith, I am very dogmatic. If that is a dividing issue toward you, so be it. Oh, and I am not outraged. Just standing. I don't need inflammitory rhetoric to state my case. Thank you, and be blessed!
....again I ask, what MAN knows what God hates? What MAN knows what God wants? It is easy to hide behind "scriptures". A fancy word, but still written by men. And truth be told, many parts of the "scriptures" are considered by most to be vile and unheard of by todays standards. The point is, as society as a whole continues to advance and grow, so must our beliefs. For the record, I do not support forcing people to do anything that is against their will, so long as that does not injure someone else. Not getting a cake made by baker A does not cause injury when baker B will be more than happy to take your business.
Cafeteria Christianity...pick and choose your bigotry and hate, and blame it on your god. How attractive that makes your faith....where do I sign up?
INTERESTING that we can't get our heads around the depth of a sin....comparing the homosexual to the divorced.....is like comparing the thief to the killer........common sense must prevail....there are just different levels of doing something wrong....LET GOD BE THE JUDGE
Actually Jo-Ann, Man has decided there are different levels of sin. To God, sin is sin, whether it be stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family or killing the jerk next door for his barking dog. God IS the judge which makes this conversation pretty ridiculous because all here presume to speak for God. Correction, all Fundamentalists presume to speak for God, which in itself is a pretty big sin.
By the way, do you understand the concept of complete sentences, or do you always type fragments with ellipses in between because you can't complete a single thought?
DEB....You were doing great until you found it necessary to get mean...whats up with that....as far as speaking to me...I've already told you ....I respect your views...they are how you feel....I don't expect for you ever to agree with anything I have to say.....its ok...there is no place on this site for anyone to say...."because you can't complete a single thought"......what are you so afraid of that you can't have a conversation without getting rude... How good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity....Psalms 133:1
The government cannot force you to sin. But if you are going to claim that your religion states a particular act is a sin then you should be prepared to back that up by pointing to the bible verse that specifically prohibits you from making a cake depicting two men in tuxedos.
Really?..... Really? Oh , my! You gave me my laugh for the day! Thanks!
Really, you start with implying that you would give someone who was homosexual a sawdust cake and end with blessings to all? Did you really think about that, because you obviously didn't mean 'to all'. If I had a 'friend' who refused me service because of my beliefs, I don't think I would consider them much of a friend.
I wonder if you would provide services to a Muslim or Catholic or Scientologist? Obviously, their beliefs are much different than yours. Surely the way Muslim women are treated doesn't meet your standards, would you provide them service? Are you just picking which 'sins' you choose to exclude people for and which you think are ok? Jesus said none are perfect and didn't rank one sin over another. If someone lies periodically, will you refuse them service too? How about if they were previously married, or and 'been' with someone else before? If you are waiting to provide services only to those who are 'perfect' and meet your standards, you probably have a very small clientele.
Slavery use to be justified in the pulpit, and if you read the bible, it not only condoned it, but spelled out rules. The Israelite's would go in and kill entire cities, women and children included. I was 'raised' Seventh Day Adventist, and was taught that the Seventh Day (Saturday) is the true day of rest. If commandments were put in order of importance, that would be much higher on the list of things to obey than adultery (which refers to married people, unmarried isn't mentioned). Should Adventist refuse service to Sunday Keepers who openly ignore the Ten Commandments? Fortunately, we have progressed beyond these ridiculous injustices, and in the name of Christ we are moving toward keeping his commandment of loving one another. Christ did not lecture on being gay, he spoke of loving one another and allowing the Holy Spirit to draw people to him. He didn't condemn the prostitute but the church leaders that wanted to stone her.
I believe that when a couple comes into your facility, it would be very obviously if you didn't want to provide them services and hopefully they will be smart enough to find someone that would be happy to help them. That said, please remember that many establishments that refused blacks or women ending up going out of business because people quit recommending them because of their companies belief that those people were not 'the kind of people' that were good enough for their services.
And paula, if you had a friend who you forced to violate their religious beliefs just to satisfy you, then sorry; but it would be YOU that would not be much of a friend. I have Muslum friends and I dont invite them over to dinner and then serve them pork and expect them to eat it. I have Hindu friends and I do not invite them over and then serve steak and expect them to eat it. Both would violate their religious beliefs.
You on the other hand sound exactly like someone who would do this and then complain about them not being good friends because they cannot eat what you served them.
"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
maybe you should take that verse to heart before replying.
No, I would not ever do that to a friend. I am vegetarian and have often been invited to peoples houses who are aware that I am vegetarian and then act insulted when I don't eat the meat they provide me. And yes, I have to say that kind of behavior does alienate me from them. I will prepare meat dishes for friends that I know are not fond of the vegetarian options that I provide at meals, and when we eat out, would not hesitate to join friends while they ate things I chose not to. Although I believe that for me it is wrong to eat meat, I do not judge what decisions my friends make about it, as it is not my place.
The truth is, many people just don't like gays and use Christianity as an excuse to treat them differently. The bible says if you have sex with someone even once, you are married to them forever. If you move on, (divorce, or just next boyfriend or girlfriend) you are living in adultery for the rest of your life. If a woman was raped (a man falls upon her), she was then married to him. Imagine refusing to provide services to a woman because at one point she was raped, and later chose to marry but biblically was married to the rapist and would be considered an adulteress. So if you are refusing 'service' to someone because you consider them to be engaging in 'continuing sin', then remember who all you need to include in that. Otherwise, it isn't a religious thing, its bigotry.
Thats the whole point of the law Paula, to stop one from forcing another to violate someones religious beliefs.
Well, mrs. Vegetarian, I don't like to eat meat either. I find it largely tasteless. But if some one else wants to eat meat, i'll eat it with them. If one wants to be homosexual, ok. I don't. It goes against my faith, and the written word of my Father, my Creator. If one wants in our secular culture, to marry another, of whatever proclivity, then I can't stop that. Don't ask me, or my business to endorse it. Jesus, in this world held His judgement. I don't judge. Don't judge me because I have convictions.
Daniel, You go, boy! Don't want to harm any one, but understand my rights also!
The sole function of the law is to facilitate bigotry.
I have studied the bible, the Koran, Avesta and Talmud. These are the primary scriptures of the world's principle book related religions. In no place in any of those scriptures is it written that providing goods or services to same gender couples constitutes a sin. Your only valid religious rights when it comes to operating a business is that you have the right to perform acts that your religion's codified theology requires you to to perform and you have the right to refrain from committing acts that your religion's codified theology forbids as defined sins. There are no valid religious arguments for refusing to do business with people based on sexual orientation.
The truth is that people who are using the pretext of religion to discriminate are doing so solely because of personal bigotry not religious belief.
Using the argument that providing a wedding cake to a same sex couple constitutes facilitating a sin would be the same argument that feeding a blasphemer facilitates their insulting god so one should starve them to death to prevent future insults. If you apply the same argument to a different equally undesirable activity and it sounds ludicrous then the first application is equally ludicrous.
We really need to stop reading into the bible things that are not there and we really need to stop treating personal likes and dislikes as dogma.
Sorry John. The whole point of the law is for the gay mafia not to be able to shut down a business that operates in a way they dont like. And since the US Supreme Court has agree with this principal in numerous different decisions thus overturning any lower court decision, this is why you dont see or wont see the Human rights campaign or the ACLU sticking their noses in as they cant.
And as for bigotry, here is an example that shows that the people who are against this law are the real bigots
CNN’s Sally Kohn runs a small private for-profit business.
Indiana Bob runs a small private for-profit business.
Sally offers a product to the public as a speaker. Her product is inspirational speeches that conform to her worldview.
Bob offers a product to the public as a baker. His product is specialized wedding cakes that celebrate the holy union of marriage.
Sally is a very nice, very smart, very likable gay progressive.
Bob is a very nice, very smart, very likable practicing Muslim.
Sally will tell you she was born a lesbian.
Bob will tell you he was born a Muslim.
Sally’s speech is protected from the government by the First Amendment.
Bob’s religious faith is protected from the government by the very same First Amendment.
Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, Sally cannot be forced by the government to alter her product — her speech — into something that violates her beliefs and conscience.
Although Bob’s religious practices and beliefs are protected by the same First Amendment, Sally is demanding the government force Bob into altering his product — a wedding cake — into something that violates Bob’s beliefs and conscience: a same-sex wedding cake.
Sally believes it is unconstitutional for the government to force her to alter her business product (inspirational speeches) in a way that violates her beliefs and her First Amendment rights. Yet she does not think that it also violates Bobs religious views, she just wants the Government to make Bob follow to her views no matter what.
Now who exactly is the bigot here? Bob or Sally? And if you say Bob, then you are the problem that needs corrected.
Sorry Paula, but you are completely incorrect.
a. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) which clearly stated that no business nor government can make a law or enforce a company policy that violates a persons religious beliefs.
b. Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) where the US Supreme Court stated that a business and person(s) do in fact have the right of their religious beliefs and cannot be forced to associate with a person of another religious belief or lifestyle.
c. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. which ruled "As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."
Now Indiana has a plethora of US Supreme Court Decisions backing them up, as well as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution which clearly says that the Government CANNOT make a law that violates your religious practices. Therefor call it what you will but the US Supreme Court is backing Indiana-the Constitution is backing Indiana and the ONLY way to change this is to amend the US Constitution and that Paula is not going to happen.
And as for all the whiners who are crying about not doing business in Indiana, there are 30 states with this kind of a law enacted according to the US Congressional Library and the US Department of Justice. Another 12 more are moving to enact this kind of a law (11 not that Arkansas has passed it) meaning that you already have well over half the US with this law and soon to be far more then what is needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment (38) as there will be 42 states that have this law. So to all the whiners and businesses that say they wont do business in a state with this law...does your stock holders know that you are saying that you are going to restrict your business to 8 states in less then 4 years?
Open mouth and remove foot and close mouth. You have received a failing grade for this class.
But the business closed because of lack of funds, the government didn't shut them down.
If you want to say that the government should allow all forms of discrimination, OK, then legalize discrimination, but it should be universally legal for any form of discrimination then. You shouldn't be required to serve anyone, no matter race, religion, or whatever. That I could agree with, because it doesn't single out any group. That would put everyone on even footing and people could choose to support who they want to. Companies and businesses should post who wasn't welcome in their stores and let the cards fall where they will.
Sorry Paula, but the lack of funds of which you speak was caused by the lawsuit and the fines the business had to pay.
I'm using hyperbole to make a point. No, I would give reasonable service, while wondering why they have targeted me to prove whatever point they wished to make, knowingly violating my beliefs. Why would a person want to force another person to provide a service that they are obviously, and under their moral conviction, unable to render? Would you demand an Amish farmer to hire himself out to drive a tractor on your farm, knowing that the Amish eschew all mechanized tools? And, this is not a race issue. Sorry. You offend persecuted races by putting all of this into one lump. I don't "choose" one sin over another. The scriptures of Jesus word tells me what to accept and what not to. I do not move outside of that. All judgement is in Jesus' hands. Not mine. The whole issue is about my right to follow my moral conviction, as given me under the U S Constitution. Jesus saw no color or ethnicity. He sacrificed for all, not just straight white males. I belabor the point; reasonable people do business with people who want to do business with them. Otherwise the service and product, factoring in human nature, is surely to be surly and shoddy. Jesus never forced anyone to do business with Him. He just went on down the road. Sorry if this offends, but, again, Blessings to all!
you know what I do totally agree, and I want to add that the homosexual community offends many of us, and yet they don't care. so why should we care if they or anybody else is offended. the rest of us have rights and they are being infringed upon ad that is not right. this is not to contradict anything you d barron is trying to say, I just had something's to add and I just thought that I should add them here. while I was thinking about it.
If Jesus is God incarnated as a human to save humanity and worshiped as the wholly trinity by the multitudes, then how did Jesus actually suffer if he is one and the same? If he is the Son of God and not God himself, then he still did not suffer as he made a choice and knew what he was doing. Although the Bible teaches Jesus suffered, in reality, it was not true suffering, since the outcome was pre ordained and his choice.
So.... an atheist goes to a muslim printer, and asks him to print 1000 posters depicting Mohammed using the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo. According to your logic, the atheist has every right to sue him when he (quite predictably) refuses the order.
I think you guys are missing an opportunity here. The bible says that if you are forced to go a mile with someone, then go two. His point was that you can demonstrate your religion and love by going beyond what is necessary or required of you even when you don't want to do it in the first place. Imagine showing others that although you are doing something you don't want to do, you will go the extra mile to demonstrate Christs love. So, although you don't want to provide services to someone because you feel that you can not support their actions, the bible says, if you are compelled (by law, like the whole unto Caesar thing), go the extra mile, and that doesn't mean serving sawdust, it means demonstrating the character of Christ being loving to those who may not even appreciate that love.
Missing nothing here paula, Hobby Lobby-The Employment decision out of Washington state and the federal law that is EXACTLY word for word like the one in Indiana and was signed INTO law by none other then Bill Clinton, protect people who refuse to serve homosexuals. That is why you dont see the Human rights campaign or the ACLU getting involved because they cant. The Supreme Court has already ruled these laws legal and Constitutional and no lower court can change that. At present there are 30 states (over half the US) that have laws like this on their books, and you have 12 more that are going to have same on their books in less then 4 years, meaning that almost every state in the Union will have a law like this.
Sort of a major slap to the Homosexuals who are demanding that we accept their lifestyles.
Jesus also said, "Go, and sin no more." Was Jesus being judgmental? Bigoted? Misinformed? Discriminatory?
I like this law, because I really think that there is a war on religions in this country, esp. a war on Christian religions. and I feel that this law provides some amount of protections to small business owners with strong religious convictions, regardless of the religion. If a business has the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason, and are still being sued and this same sex marriage thing is being used, will that seems to tell the businesses that they don't have the right to refuse business to anybody after all. So then that law should have been changed, but since it hadn't been changed and since small businesses are being sued, for reasonable business transactions, then there needs to be some effort to protect them.
Hmmm Seems that the site mods dont want people to know what the homosexuals are doing
http:// shoebat. com /2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/
When one looks at this closer, one learns that the "Christian" man isn't asking them to bake a "pro-traditional marriage" cake, he's asking for an anti-same-gender-marriage cake. Quite a different thing entirely.
Sorry, no. Again you can see the forest for the trees.
BOTH were asking for a cake, makes no difference what it said. BOTH were turned down. Only ONE then whined and cried and took it to a judge instead of just going to another bakery.
Nice try at spin but yet again BUSTED!
Actually, since you claim to own a bakery, you should already know this, but apparently you are clueless.
A Wedding cake does not typically include any writing suchs as "Best wishes to the happy couple" or anything. They are beautiful cakes representing a celebratory time in a couple's life.
The other person, who did take at least one baker to court and LOST, was asking for a cake with anti-homosexual statements on them. There is a HUGE difference. That person sued the baker and lost because he was asking for discriminatory messages.
So, see, some of us don't need to "spin" anything. Just tell the truth. You should try it.
Sorry Deb, I am not spinning anything. I find that stating facts is much easier as I dont have to remember what lie I told to who so they dont get mixed up.
Maybe YOU should try that sometime.
Oh and it makes no difference what the cake said, a cake is a cake is a cake. So if a gay bakery can refuse to make a cake, then whats your major malfunction that you want a straight bakery to not have that same right?
as long as they leave everybody else alone, it doesn't matter what they are doing, but they don't want to leave heterosexuals alone. they want to push themselves on to the rest of us, and that just makes more animosities. And can you blame us heterosexual, I sure don't want to be pushed into something that I don't like or want to do, or to even have around me or my family.
And what will you do if your child, or brother tells you they are homosexual? They are born this way just as one born without limbs, or no sight or retarded. Will you Discriminate against everything that makes you uncomfortable? Deny your child your love? This is not the Christian Way
There does seem to be a war on Christians, put forth by politicians claiming to be representing Christians. I find it amazing that those claiming themselves Christian would do anything but call this law what it is, unkind, unloving, and not representative of the loving spirit Christians represent. If you really believe that you should be allowed to discriminate against who you want, OK. But don't call yourself a follower of Christ, because Jesus pointed out that was not what he was about at all. He was open to loving and serving everyone, he didn't discriminate ( even the dogs got crumbs) but lovingly shared his message with all who were there. He didn't kick out the gays or prostitutes (or tax collectors), but ministered to them and didn't condemn them. He was willing to provide service to them and told those who followed him to go the extra mile too. What we read that he really didn't like was the church leaders (politicians of the day) because of their judgmental-ism, pride, and misrepresentation of gods true religion (sound familiar?). He also pointed out that most rich people wouldn't be welcome in heaven because of their lack of love. So again, loving and serving your neighbors was what he stressed most and is why those who love Christ should find this legislation disturbing when being credited to them.
wrong, this legislation allow the non religious to trample on the rights of those who have a religious morality. because even though Christ ministered to the masses, he and God still holds that what they do is wrong and since these people wont allow themselves to be ministered to now days because they don't want to know that they are wrong then those of us who do want to live wholesomely should not have to be dirtied by servicing those who will live dirty.
Wow, Dirty yourself? Do you shun those who have been divorced and remarried and so are living in adultery? Or those who did not marry after having sex with someone else, do you ostracize them for not honoring their 'marriage'? How about those who take advantage of the poor or the weak (that would be most wealthy people according to Jesus), do you 'service' them? Those who are glutenous, service them? Liars maybe, do you provide to them? Do you really think so much of yourself that you believe servicing someone who was probably born gay will get you dirty, you believe you are that pure? Only God and Jesus are able to judge a person according to the Bible, only God knows each persons heart. However people live, married, divorced, gay, whatever, only God can really decide what is in their heart, and we were warned not to judge. There were 10 Commandments, none more important than the others, so, unless you are perfect (which god says none of us are, me included) you are breaking some of them yourself, making you just like those you are condemning in gods eyes,'dirty' according to you. He who is guiltless, cast the first stone. I can't throw stones, I know I have sinned and fallen short, but it appears many people think stone throwing is for them and they can judge others, regardless of gods warnings.
you really don't get it, do you? these are law God and Jesus laid down, the holy ghost wont live in these unclean people. and yes I think twice about becoming involved with many of the above. As the kind of dirty I am referring to is spiritual, God and Jesus both said these were forbidden and that homosexuals are an abomination. furthermore, I find many of them stink, they target innocent to convert them to the subversive live. they don't want to discipline their minds. they are not suppose to give into carnal desires. read your scriptures. I have had motel maid who have said that they go into the bathrooms, flush themselves out with enemas and spray it all in the shower or bath and don't clean the mess up, they are wishy washy as they jump back and forth from homosexual activities to bi activities, and to heterosexual activities and back to homosexuals again, how is that being born to anything, besides even if they have a personality disorder from birth does not mean they should give into the subversive live style. according to the scriptures, divorcing is not permitted, whoring around is not permitted almost all the activities you list above will keep you out of heaven. and so yes I think they are all wrong.
You just sinned the worts sin , judging gods children . Your sins are just as heavy as everyone else's , get on your knees and pray for forgiveness . Your a sinner !
The issue is not condemning the person, rather, it is my being forced under threat of law to participate in a lifestyle that is unscuiptural according to New Testament tenets. Jesus only outrightly condemned Pharisees and scribes as they were deliberately misleading people for thier own gain. All others, He had no condemning words except His admonition to "go and sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you." I don"t judge anyone, as Jesus instructed His disciples to "judge not, for as you judge, so shall you be judged." I'll leave the judging up to Him who judges rightly. Again, I don't want to be forced in my business or personal life to be any party to what violates my faith/convictions. By the way, I believe that calling someone else a sinner is judging, hmmm? Thank you, and be blessed!
And as you just also judged Hmmmmmmm , 11 commandment stated by Christ himself , above all love one another , that 11th commandment is constantly left out . Because it forces you to accept and let God judge . You clearly judged everyone you disagree with , a hatred in your heart hummmmmmm
We as humans we judge things good or bad daily, unless your a mushroom. Read God's Word the Bible Pastor, i.e. Romans 1:17-32 for starters. I'm sure some who consider themselves Pastors or Bishops in the work of Christ's ministry know well 1Tim3. 2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; May the Lord give us "discernment in the Spirit" during these last days so that we can judge what is good or evil, i.e. 1 John 4 (KJV) 4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
any of the "sins" that I am doing are far less and infact, it is my job as well as all Christians to spread the word and the laws of God, and God said we will be held blameless in his kingdom for our acts of "judging" shall we say, so you see I am doing God's work and I don't need to pray as you say.
All of Gods laws? Or just the ones you happen to like?
You like to go back to Old Testament. In New Testament we folloe teaching of Jesus. He said "Judge not least you be Judged. You have violated Jesus law. He also said Love one another as I have loved you. You violate this law also. How can you call yourself a Christian?
Yes, there are people out there like that, some homosexual deviants, some religious fanatics, some just plain bad criminals that target innocent people to convert them to subversive lives. It isn't just homosexuals that act that way, and certainly most homosexuals don't act that way. You have probably met many and simply not realized that they were not like you, because they weren't the militant, in your face kind of people that are rude and pushy and trying to involve everyone in their sex life when no one wants to know about it. I don't blame you for not wanting people like that around, regardless of their sexual orientation. But again, we are all sinners and none are perfect before god, and even judging will keep you out of heaven. You can't possibly know what is in these peoples hearts, what they have lived through, what the Holy Spirit is working on with them. It is all beyond our abilities to comprehend what god can do. It is the Holy Spirits job to draw people to god, but we can certainly mess things up by demonstrating an unloving spirit in ourselves. I know I don't want to have to answer to god that someone was turned away from him because of my unloving actions and that I gave a very bad representation of how god loves everyone and wants to bring all to him. I am sure I will have enough to answer for, don't need to add alienating others when I am no different in gods eyes than they are, a sinner. One type of sin is no better than another, so we are all the same no matter which commandment we break.
you are wrong, it is all Christians job according to the gospel to spread the words of the gospel and to teach sinners that what they are doing is wrong, and that is what some of us that you want to call judger are doing, besides of which, the whole part of this judging bit has been misread for thousands of years. Jesus and God are the judges, true but if they are the judgers, then Jesus could judge before, too. the reason why he didn't was that there was more to that incident then most people realizes, and that is that the main reason that Jesus did not judge to woman was because it was a set up, the men were setting the woman up and they were the ones who committed adultery towards her, and failed to say that, but Jesus knowing that, knew it was wrong what the men had done but also the men wanted to see if Jesus was going to go against the laws to have the woman stoned even though the was all about love, ect and they were trying to find a way to trip him up. but he said it the way he did so that they could not find fault with her or with him, it was the only thing he could do, seeing how the men were just as much or more worse the woman they tried to set up.
so let me ask any of you, should we do away with the old law form the 70's that was ruled from the supreme court that up held that businesses had the right to not do business with anybody they choose to not to do business with. because to undo this law will invalidate that law. I know stores that has kicked out even disabled persons and were not being held responsible for doing it. so if this law is disallowed then that old law should be, too.
The law is not about refusing to serve a customer which you have the right to do but it's based on crucifying a minority group for the sake of being evil . Civil rights are for all not just you .
you are wrong, that law is not protecting the Christians and does not have anything to do with discriminating against those minorities because there are plenty of places they can go to get service. so what if they don't get a cake made form so and so, they can go to another place and get the cake. somebody who doesn't care if they support perverted peoples lifestyle. but it most definitely walks over the religious people's life who don't want to partake in supporting sin. And as a man of God you should understand that stance. if our rights in this are taken way then we wont be any better then the old Israelites who Jesus came to upset their life styles so they don't keep living in the dark ages. and they start to progress. well, we cant progress if we are punished just like the Israel's were when they strayed from the law. this is suppose to be a country of religious freedom, and this law takes that away.
what about doctor, they are good ones about "firing" patients. maybe that should be unconstitutional, too. the point is, where is the limits. and why should the homosexuals think they should have the right to push those that don't want to, to make them conform. it used to be that freaks, that wore tattoos, and had piercings were told that if they didn't want to be considered as freaks and they wanted jobs, they had to conform, so what make the homosexuals think that they are more special that they should not conform. And you caudal the homosexuals and when they get to God's kingdom and they are not let into God's kingdom, they are going to be worse off because they did not learn that they had to when they were here in this existence. well they need to learn it now that God is not going to caudal them. God is not going to change his laws for them and caudaling here and now is going to lead them on for a worse let down when they get want to enter into God's kingdom and not be allowed to.
Your rant describes the very evil in your sin filled heart , you are as much a sinner as everyone else . No sin is greater than any other , the point here is human rights not damnation by you . Please search your sinful heart you will see you to just judged gods children ---- do you understand ?
Why did God Create People he knew he would not accept? It is not your place to make these judgements. God said he loves us all. That is all we need to know and follow his example
Greetings sisters and brothers , I'm in Arkansas and these people in office have passed the most terrible Religous restoration act . It's fully designed to attack our gay brothers and sisters , I'm in shock any person calling him self a governor would fully support this bill yet refer to himself as a Baptist christian . I've read the bill it's Pandora's box ! But at the same time based on our love of all gods children the bill also allows me to marry any couple I choose . 2nd observance if I should want based on Christs rebuking Taxes as he flipped over tax collectors tables hat act means I should also refuse to pay any state taxes , it's as stated in that bill my religous right . Yes they left it wide open and they have yet to realize what they have done to them self . As for refusing to accept gay brothers and sisters turning away people based on personal belief we to can refuse to serve these viscous people , turn the table on them . As for being peaceful and passive ----- no way will I be submissive to a evil government . I stood in our courthouse last fall handing out cash from my own pocket to pay for same sex couples marriage licenses . I'm on their target list of people to harass , I've already been harassed by these so called Christan groups I have noted the majority are Baptist . Note this does not reflect all baptist but in Arkansas that's the majority . I can only think of the Nazzi party Hitlers army reincarnated and ratified by new laws . The nazzi party were highly religous , ultra conservative and hated all but the white people of choice . Gay folks were branded with a pink triangle pinned on their clothing then executed . That's what the pink triangle you see today signifys . Suffering ! Mind you I'm not gay I'm married for 21 years to my wonderful wife , we both completely support same sex marriages , if certain people state being gay or the act is a sin they also are in fact sinners . I will not elaborate on the many sins of these terrible evil people . I am relying on my belief in our wonderful Universal life Church as we are truly loving accepting people . I am going to clearly make it known who we are and who we represent to fight this absurd evil new law . 1228 it the law they pushed and I'm going to force the state to see what they really are . God loves every one of his children not just a thin line of one or a few Christan labled churches . Brenten Stevens , ordaned and praising God above for my life
Sorry Brenten but you are in massive need of a legal and constitutional correction.
a. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) which clearly stated that no business nor government can make a law or enforce a company policy that violates a persons religious beliefs.
b. Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) where the US Supreme Court stated that a business and person(s) do in fact have the right of their religious beliefs and cannot be forced to associate with a person of another religious belief or lifestyle.
c. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. which ruled "As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."
The 1st Amendment also states that a government CANNOT force a person or business to violate their religious beliefs and if they have made a law that requires it, the law is invalid and unenforceable.
And by what right do homosexuals have, when refused service and there are a plethora of other businesses that do the same thing; have to come along and try and put this business out of business? Thats being called a hypocrite. And just recently you had a man contact 13 gay owned bakeries, and all 13 REFUSED him service. Yet he didnt sue.
I think you really need to take a long hard look at your beliefs if you think this is anywhere near correct. As how can you justify complaining about Homosexuals not being served, and then completely ignore the fact that homosexual owned business are doing the exact same thing to straight patrons? Cant have it both ways my friend.
a. Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) which clearly stated that no business nor government can make a law or enforce a company policy that violates a persons religious beliefs. Read more at http://www.themonastery.org/blog/2015/03/religious-freedom-laws-and-the-new-battle-for-equality/
Note No government can make a law ----- stop! That's exactly what this is ! Enjoy your rights sir I carry that bullet in my spine to protect your rights . You've yet to state if you've fought in war for everyone's rights . I'm betting you'd run to the constitution and tout religous rights to avoid sacrificing your life for everyone . God bless and move on this conversation is over .
No, sorry you got it twisted. This is not making any law, this is CLARIFYING the law.
Gee, Paul is guilty of gross sin, and you are his judge, you sinner! (Your label, not mine).See: 1 cor. 6:9, 1 tim. 1:10,NASB. If you want to marry homosexuals, go ahead. I also am ordained, and I choose not to. K?
Force the state to do what you want? Run for state office, hell, run for president! Absurd, evil new law? Is such hyperbole necessary to make a point? Read history. The "Nazzi" party under Hitler was decidedly NOT of Christian faith. Yes they were fanatically religious. It was called aryanism. Still around. And yes they tried very hard to eliminate all openly homosexual people. Wonder why you are moved to equate Naziism and aryanism with Christianity? Hitler absolutely despised "Christians", only tolerating them for political expediency. There were so MANY of the pesky little critters, he had no other choice. Got some issues with The Baptist denomination, hmmm? I' m not a Baptist. Just wondering. And one last thing....Jesus last name is NOT Christ! (Sorry, personal rant, there.) Be blessed, preacher!
We stopped the laws from being passed , it was announced today at noon . It must be rewritten , as for you who are berating us pastors I'm now gathering your online information . Your not members and will be blocked . As for my spelling I'm tapping on a tiny screen while sitting at the State Assembly . Sorry your so judgmental perhaps a little prayer would help . I'm contacting the Monastry to discuss finding each persons membership and have the ones who are not signing up with valid names and phone number removed from the chat board . You don't belong here !
My, that sounds like exclusion... Bigotry. Hmmm....again! So. I don't agree with your stance. So. You are going to develop a docier on me. So. Then what? Mr. Bullet in the back? "Pastor", now you openly judge me. I "don't belong here". Where has that been heard before? Nazi Germany? Poland's Jews? Eugenics? Margret Sanger? The Coptic Christians in the way of the militant islamists, ad infinitum..... I do not know what I am supposed, in your mind to be a member of, and blocked from somewhere or not, not your call. Animosity toward me reveals your own hatred and bigotry toward anyone who doesn't follow lock step with your line of reason. I have a valid name and a valid phone number. If the ULC wishes to divulge that to you so be it. If you would like to contact me, So be it. I don't hide behind rhetoric. You don't need to gather anything online, i'll tell you all you want to know ought-right, about myself. Be blessed!
Thank You and God be with you for following Christ
don't whine to me, I totally support the religious freedom act. infact business have for decades had the right to refuse services to anybody for any reason even physically and mentally disabled, why do you people think you should be so special that the rules that everybody else has lived by for decades should not apply to you and why do you think you should be so special as to try to impose your immoral unrighteous way onto the rest of the world. I will tell you what I tell all those people who want to take Christmases away from us, they can go hibernate, for you guys, if you don't like it shop somewhere else where people like your kinds of unholy way. or better yet stop practicing and advertising your perversions. in fact your guys acts of continually to push yourselves onto others only makes for more animosities', and so if people don't like you and what you are doing, it's because you bring it on. this is a country where we are supposed to have freedom of religion, but yet people like you want think you can take that away. why do you think you have that right? Do you really think God will accept that. He won't. If you are a Christian, and you think you want to go to heaven, well God won't. So if you expect to want to go to where God resides you'll need to change your way anyway.
Well said Mary, Your lack of factual knowledge is only exceeded by your lack of literacy. Pretty sure it was Darwin who said: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." You must be the poster child for "conservative Christians" everywhere.
I think this bill, is unconstitutional, and I think and wonder just how far it will expand, now that discrimination is legal ? most will be able to apply this where ever needed all in the name of ' religion' , I fill as if I have stepped back into the witch hunts of yesteryear's, this meaning anything I dont except , I can yell religion and get away with it . It really breaks my heart to know that we as clergy have come to this ......
this law is definitely not unconstitutional as back in the 70's the supreme court ruled that business had the right to refuse business to anybody they damn will wanted to. and this law take way from morally upstanding business owners who want to keep a morally pure ceremony just the way it wants to. and you homosexuals have no right to think that you are so special to think that you should be able to walk all over everybody else's rights. you can take your business else were or have you never heard of that? if you went into a Jewish temple and you wanted to use their establishment for a Christmas party, and they told you to go jump in the lake, do you think that you have the right to force them to let you have your party their anyway? well, news flash that is morally wrong and so is this.
Really? The Supreme Court made that ruling? That would have been under the tenure of Chief Justice Warren Burger (June 23, 1969 -September 26, 1986). Would you please cite that case, I'd love to read it, if it exists.
Don't try to drag facts and reason into this, Quinn. This is about dining at the Jesus Cafeteria, where one can pick and choose which "sins" to judge others on and which ones can be ignored because we like those things. Time to go nosh on my bacon-wrapped shrimp while wearing my cotton-poly blend clothing, then off to the barber for a quick beard trim and haircut...then heading over to plant a bunch if different veggies in the garden before getting a tattoo. Because, you know, gays! (and Benghazi, fluoride, Bilderberg, Chemtrails!)
You all do realize... This argument is over the preconceived notion that it is mine or your business where another adult decides to place their privates. I don't know about you, but I tend to prefer not to make that sort of thing a part of my day, with the exception of my wife and myself.
I should've said consenting adults, but I hope you catch my drift.
Obviously, who ever wrote this article didn't take the time to actually read the law. It does not advocate discrimination but allows for organizations to refuse service to those who demand they perform services or products to those who go against their respective religious beliefs. For example.... a Jewish couple can't force a Christian minister to perform a wedding. Do yourself a favor, research facts before writing trash. We get enough trash from the so-called media.
This is not "bigotry", no matter how hard people try to redefine the word. Bigotry has to do with the under-esteem of individuals base on their religion, nationality or ethnicity, and the term does not apply in this case. If a person is a pastor or preacher, that person has an ABSOLUTE right to perform a ceremony or NOT, according to their beliefs. If a person is a baker, they have an ABSOLUTE right to bake a cake or NOT, according to their beliefs. This law has nothing to do with housing or everyday business. It does not give a garage special permission to refuse to repair the automobile of an "LGBT" person, or a hospital permission to refuse medical treatment. The market-place decides who gets service and who does not when it comes to BUSINESS. One person's rights end where they begin infringing on another person's. Tolerance only goes so far, and that will HAVE to be far enough. If people want to practice a certain lifestyle, that is their privilege in this country, until the free practice of that lifestyle interferes with the rights of other people. Do you want tattoos? Fine. Get all you want. Piercings? Likewise. Are you a woman who wants to pretend she is a man? I have no problem with that. Just don't DEMAND from me that I participate in your lifestyle. That is all the tolerance you will get from me, and I am not a bigot. If you say I am, you are speaking about things concerning which you have no knowledge, so you should keep your mouth shut, if you have any sense at all. Those on the LEFT, in this particular case, are the hate-mongers, while those on the RIGHT are the persecuted.
Amen, and amen! Well put!
Wrong, you are twisting the definition to suit your argument, this is indeed a Bigotry.
big·ot·ry ˈbiɡətrē/ noun intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Sounds like Bigotry to me.
big·ot·ry ˈbiɡətrē/ noun intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
I so agree, to say that we conservative Christians who hold Gods laws and are being persecuted for it by those liberal. you liberal have a problem with it, go talk to God, he is the one who demands certain laws from his children. and if you don't want to obey his law, that's your right and choice, but let those of us who do alone.
per·se·cute ˈpərsəˌkyo͞ot/ verb past tense: persecuted; past participle: persecuted subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs.
"conservative Christians" are hardly being persecuted to any real definition of the word. No one is being hostil or treating you badly for your racist views.
But help me to understand your point, if I follow your twisted logic, Conservative Christians can offer up their Daughters for Slavery.
Or perhaps Killing babies makes you happy: "Happy is he who … seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." (Psalm 137:9).
Is this how "conservative Christians" get Married, because "conservative Christians" say Marriage is a sacred and only between a Male and a Female: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall ... marry the girl ..." (Deut. 22:28-29)
I guess I'm not violent enough to be a "conservative Christian", even though It's Gods Law.
It must be nice to be able to pick and choose "Gods Law" and twist it to your own perverted form of bigotry.
yes they do, they Christians and gentiles have been persecuted ever since Jesus's time. and gentiles before Jesus's times. you don't know what you are talking about. and if you don't like it then don't be homosexual then, you don't have to you know. its that easy.
You are correct in that historically Christians and gentiles have been persecuted, but so have Blacks, Irish, Immigrants, Native Americans, Jews, Hindus, Samaritans, Muslims, Sikh's, Atheists and every other group that finds themselves at the mercy of the current flavor of racist. But you specifically said that "conservative Christians" are being persecuted by "those liberal" and that is not true. "conservative Christians are an ideological phenomena of this generation and have no historical significance. I noticed in your comments that you bring in to the conversation unrelated facts, but, true to form, ignore my statements of fact, would you like to tell me why you feel you can select which biblical passages you like you live your life by and why you feel you can ignore others, when they are all "Gods law"?
Oh, and I am not homosexual, or gay. But I'm pretty sure it is not as easy as simply deciding not to be gay. But, if you don't like gay people, then don't be racist you know, it really is that easy. :-)
Quin most of the olden days Christians were conservative Christians conservative is a recent term depicting the older Christians as is has only been recent days when many of the Christians have gotten liberal and think they are still Christian, so therefore the conservative Christians are the same ones I am referring to as the old origins Christians whose have been persecuted a lot though out history. so stop trying to make like they havent been. further more, no body here brought up anything about killing and violence, I never said anything about killing or being violet, that is usually reserved for many of you "special people who thinks your so abused" as you well know true Christianity is not about violence or killing. but sometimes you have to push back when as.. holes like you special interest liberal perverts try to push yourselves onto us and push us around. it does not mean racism as you guys are not a race. and it is not about anything but us not wanting you to make this world more perverted by your disgusting ways. you have the choice. if you don't like it change. jus like the hippies who said they didn't like being singled out but they wore weird clothes, had tattoos got piercing's and looked like freaks. how could they help but to not be singled out. us heterosexuals and Christian rather conservative or not are not in the wrong here, and God told us to spread his word and we will not be persecuted by him for doing it. you so we will not change and we will not become perverted because the likes of you perverts and satin lovers wants us too.
Wow, Mary, I did not call you or anyone else a derogatory name, I only asked you to justify why you feel you can pick and choose which of "Gods laws" you want to follow, clearly only the ones that serve your interest. I did not accuse anyone of violence but only referred to Gods written law that that to me appears to condone violence and pointed out that violence is not in my character.
I'm not sure why you called me a pervert, I presume you must think I am Gay, but I'm not, I've been married to the same wonderful woman for 30 years. Not sure what a "satin lover" is, I don't own any satin. You must have meant "Satan" lover. Nope that's not me either, never said I loved anyone except my wife. Never paid homage to Satan.
So you continue to prove my point, when you cannot justify your hatred with facts and answer questions about your beliefs, you dodge questions, resort to name calling and gross generalizations.
Again I make the point that this is a specious argument. No one is suggesting forcing you to perform any ceremony you don't want to perform, according to your definition of "God's law," whatever that may be. The problem with these laws (the Indiana one, etc.) is that they impinge upon people's rights in secular spheres, such as freedom of access. I respectfully suggest you open your mind to the fact that there is not universal agreement on religious doctrine, and remind you tthat this country was founded on the principal of separation of Church and State. And for good reason, too.
I did talk to God about this, Mary. He says you keep missing the point, and that he'd appreciate it if you stopped purporting to speak for him. Besides, he says that as a woman you have no place preaching to men.
This is a whole lot to do about very little. That seemingly unnecessary piece of legislation in Indiana has its origins in the Act by the same name at the Federal level. There are 31 other states who either by enacting the same legislation or in the process of enacting it are trying to be in step with the Federal law. Indiana has become the battleground for these whiny malcontents because it doesn't have a more comprehensive anti-discrimination law. When it eventually does pass the kind of bill that more specifically includes LGBTs as a protected class, this all becomes moot. And I believe they will. Instead of working to get that done in the state legislature with respect and dignity, the LGBT protest movement has chosen instead to make Indiana the battleground for its agenda and smear its reputation. Those that are cowtowing to this political blackmail are sheep, and I include the leaders of the universities and large corporations that have made statements condemning the state of Indiana for doing something that should have been done years ago. The state of Connecticut just banned travel to Indiana by any of its state workers. You must be kidding me! What hypocrites!
Problem is that it is not the same legislation.
The Indiana law was carefully crafted to use the same title and some of the same wording, but the difference is that it explicitly applies the law to for-profit businesses, it also states that individual can assert their religious beliefs “as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." The federal law, and most of the state laws, only concern instances where the government is forcing a person to do something or not do something; the Indiana law directly covers disputes between individuals. There is a chasm of difference in the Federal Gov't interfering with religious freedoms and giving the right to do so to a for-profit business, Just to muddy the waters a bit more don't forget the Supreme Court just ruled that corporations are people. That means the an individual store owner can, for whatever reason real or imagined, refuse service to any select group of people.
Furthermore, there is no requirement under this law that the religion stated be a documented currently accepted religion. the most disturbing part in my opinion is Section 5 which states: “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” So individuals can seek to justify discriminatory practices based on religious practices that are not widely accepted as normal to any current belief system.
Nineteen members of Congress who voted for the the federal law in 1993 have now withdrawn their support for that law sue to recent Supreme Court decisions that were not intended by the Congress at the time of the law’s passage.
Quinn, don't trouble the bigots with facts. That hurts their feelings.
At some point I needed to skip some of this....
First of all - and as we all know - homosexuality is not a belief. Just as being black is not a belief. Or having blond hair.
Paula - it's almost refreshing to feel someone put the energy into defending something.... Anything for that matter.... To try and make others see and feel what could make this world a place of understanding and compassion. However, people carry certain things with them. Over time they choose a path of learning and keeping their mind open and seeing people within their soul or they will get stuck und hung up on certain things and act upon them. These people don't put themselves in the shoes of others: For example- if you go somewhere as either a homosexual couple or an individual - and someone denies you service - you all seem to take his one situation (Someone denying you service) as the only thing that ever has been denied to that person. That would be as saying - the black person is not allowed to ride in the bus - well - why don't they just walk - as if it is the only thing that ever was denied them.
LGBT people get pushed around from the very moment they are open about their sexuality. Not all of them - there are very supportive people in this world and some do get lucky...
Most of LGBT people encounter discrimination all over the world. Most of every day and it doesn't feel good. It does not contribute to a healthy life emotionally, mentally, psychologically, spiritually and physically.
So it is of utmost importance that people cannot on a constant base simply say (Bc they think its right in their opinion - it's not even a belief!) im choosing not to serve you. PERIOD.
All of your arguments are pushing you back to a place of complete chaos. You wouldn't be free at all anymore.
And you only speak BC you think you have the majority standing behind you. If based on your opinion that everyone could do and choose not to do certain things bc of their "beliefs" then good night everyone - tomorrow is going to be the third world war.
I wonder why you even chose to be part of ULC? if it goes so much against your belief? Maybe you should choose a different church ? I wonder why you don't do that ?? Maybe you should be denied service? You don't see yourself in others. Bc you are harmful to them. Or you do see something and you are scared of whatever it is you see??
Concentrate on real issues. Get over yourself. And don't hide behind "I belief" - it is essential to see where this all is really coming from. Obviously some people are not fully aware of themselves. Or what is really going around them.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people are capable of furthering bigotry, hatred and discrimination under the guise of religion. Citing passages and books in the Bible that they choose, while ignoring passages that they don't. If you claim your argument to allow hatred is backed by the Bible, then why don't you stone to death blasphemers, Sabbath breakers, and disobedient sons? Why don't you hold Women "accountable" for wearing men's clothing, it's an "abomination unto the Lord."
Many of our leaders in Washington have crafted this practice to an art form using it to suppress rights, while furthering the agenda of their privileged friends who bought their seats for them. Citing untrue statements like "businesses can refuse service to anyone" in an attempt support their argument. Businesses cannot refuse service because someone is Black, Muslim, Handicapped, Female, or anything else, so that argument does not hold water. All of these arguments, are akin to the rampant arguments of "individual rights" cited during the civil rights movement. Do you have the "right" to ride on a bus with ________confined to the back? Eat at a Diner Counter with no ________ sitting near you? Fill in the blanks with your current favorite group to hate. Do you not think that perfectly justifiable economic arguments were made during the Civil War about the requirement for slave labor to drive an economic engine? We certainly moved beyond that.
It is unfortunate that there are so many bigots and racists still among us, even more unfortunate that you have the "right" to continue your dribbling diatribe and it be popular enough that lawmakers need to legislate hate. Fortunately you are part of a diminishing minority, albeit loud, vocal, and sadly effective, but diminishing non the less.
It is going back to the times where gay people can't be proud of who they are and they will want to go back into the closet It means that they won't be judged and that is disgusting! I know that they can still enter shops and that not all shops will be outlawing them but at the same time this just screams witch hunt but with the LG community.
People who are ga are NOT going to be walking around with a neon sign over their head saying they are Christian or or Buddhist or Muslim just like a hay isn't going to be sporting one that says they are gay because at the end if the day NO- ONE is going to know who is who when people walk I to their shop. Basically this just opens up shop owners to discriminate against EVERYONE! Because if the shop owner just doesn't like the look of your hair color (for example) then they can say that you are fat and ban you from their shop because their allowed to, how fair is that?
The law needs to be abolished because it is there are WAY too many holes in a law like this and besides, when did the American Constitution get rewritten? Because something tells me that no where in that constitution says that people are allowed to be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation. Also Martin Luther King once said that he wanted a nation where his children wouldn't be judged because of his children's skin color but I think this should be added here because I doubt Martin would want his children to be judged by their sexual preferences either.
This is not about LGBT or religion. This is about FREEDOM! If one is not free to associate with who he/she wants (including doing business), one is not free. Sorry, but this trumps all else in my mind.
Agree. Many people try to force other people to violate their beliefs and lifestyles because they are different and try to punish them for standing up for their beliefs. Forcing small business owners to violate their religious beliefs is Biogotry and Hate. In the market place if enough customers do not buy their goods and services then they will be forcrd out oif business. Refusing to do business with them is acceptable. But punishing for their Freedom to not violate their beliefs is WRONG. That is where Homosexuals are Morally Wrong. . .
No one is forcing anyone to become active in anyone's lifestyle , in Arkansas the issue is simple certain group of so called christians HATE GAYS , many are members of the KKK out of Harison , Rogers , Bentonville , Jacksonville Arkansas . Yes they are a Hate group ! Do you want to also be a part of that group ? They also hate Blacks to a point one so called preacher recently stood on the Capitol steps on television stated clearly Niggers are the biggest problem in Arkansas . Our governer is from that same group of Baptist . As far as you stating you don't want to be forced to participate in gay life style ? What in gods name are you talking about ? The gay community are simply asking for Equal rights as per the constitution of the United states . For get your Religous chant give these people their rights, to refuse to do so also places your rights to practice your own religion in jeopardy . Stop blaming others for your own homophobia .
2nd I'm not gay sir you have your homophobia wires crossed , I'm married to my wife for 21 years , how long have you been truly married or are you one of those who divorced to live in sin with another ? 3rd I'm 52 I've fought for my country I have a bullet in my spine and I'm betting you are to much of a house mouse to go and fight for everyone's freedoms . One bullet from a enemy buzzes past your head in battle field you would mess your shorts ! You Homophobic eletus judgmental waste !
Wow! Getting personal here! Bullets in spine? Veteran? House mouse? Coward? (Implied) my, my, someone struck a nerve! Well, that makes defense of your view so much more compelling! One assumes you have homosexual proclivities from the way you react as a militant homosexual when confronted, always misunderstood and lashing out at those (expleteve deleted) straights! I think you were trying to say, "elietist" waste. Better get that bullet looked at, soldier! Again, be blessed!
Sorry spell check stinks sir , again today we stopped the bill from being signed by the governor of Arkansas . And please be more hateful I'm certain your not a member are you ? All this does is seperate all of us and that seems to be your intent . 2nd I'm certain you 2 have not served in our military or you would be respectful . Sorry you are just another poser attempting to be something your not .
Ok. Here we go again. Why are you using military service to hide behind? No, I haven't served in the military due to scoliosis. My own bullet in the back. Oh, well. Though my middle son is a Captain in this nations army, and he doesn't brag or use it as a tool to overween others. He just serves bis duty. I am very proud of him! If you want to call me a "another poser", well, ok. Whatever. I am a son of the Father. I know what I am, and whose I am. I don't attempt. I am His now and forever. It is so. And, since, as you pointed out that I haven't had the priveledge to serve in our military, no official need to refer to me as "sir", except toward common courtesy. Want to judge me some more? If it makes you feel justified, go ahead. I'm a big guy. Be blessed!
Sorry Stevens, you stopped nothing. If the Gov of Arkansas does not sign the bill in less then 2 days, it becomes law without his signature.
So you have accomplished not a darned thing.
"One assumes you have homosexual proclivities from the way you react as a militant homosexual when confronted, always misunderstood and lashing out at those (expleteve [sic] deleted) straights!" I'm heterosexual, and a war Veteran. I fought so that all could enjoy the Rights We The People thanks to our Constitution and folks like me served to support and defend. Businesses are not people. Consequentially, they have no Rights aside from those we grant them under law. Those laws are in place to protect all of us. A business can't dump toxic waste into the streams, can't sell alcohol to minors, can't discriminate against protected classes. In my state (Iowa), unless the business is a bona fide religious institution, discrimination against members of protected classes is illegal. Don't want the fines, don't violate the law. Render unto Caesar.... We are a nation of law. Here is the relevant law in Iowa: coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83&input=216.#216.7
D Barron. Your rant is to inflict pain on another. If you don't agree with a post you have the right. But never try to belittle or shame another for their belief
Paula...Brenton Stevens...I only just now stumbled into this. But I want to say thank you. Thank you for taking the unpopular stance and trying to show Jesus as a loving entity and encouraging true Christians to show love as way to honor Him. I want to know what ever happened to live and let live? If you don't like gay people, don't have sex with a gay person. If you don't like pork, avoid pork. If you don't like guns, don't carry a gun. I personally don't like mean-spirited people, so I choose to keep my personal life very private and I don't go to social-type places, including bars, restaurants, OR...churches. I've lost a lot of Faith in humanity and sadly I find that I'm better off being somewhat reclusive with my husband and a small group of friends/family. However, just because I don't like mean-spirited people doesn't mean I won't serve them in my place of business. I run a hotel, and let me assure you, MOST of the tourists I encounter are impolite, dishonest, and disrespectful. I still smile kindly with them, try to make their experience pleasant, and grit my teeth and deal with it when they treat me or my staff badly for things beyond our control(people these days will curse out a front desk clerk simply because it rained and ruined their plans, or because the IHOP next door ran out of blueberries, or because their favorite show didn't come on TV when they wanted). It makes my heart heavy how cruel others can be and this is why I limit my human encounters on my personal time. And yet, I can set all my own emotions aside and still treat my customers with kindness when I'm on my professional time clock. Be an adult! Sometimes we have to do things we don't want to do! Sometimes we have to be nice to mean people! And sometimes, just sometimes, showing kindness to people we would rather not even talk to can make a difference. Sometimes you find out that somebody disrespected you because they are constantly disrespected at home and don't know another way to deal with people. Sometimes you find out that someone snapped at you because they just buried their loved one and haven't slept well in days and are nearing their wits end. Sometimes you find out that someone lied to you because their truth was too terrible for them to be able to face just yet, like learning they have cancer, or that their child does. And admittedly, sometimes(most times, in all fairness) you find that some people are just unkind because they are unkind. But despite how I am treated, I refuse to treat others badly, because that is not what Jesus wanted us to do! It's really quite simple to understand and yet so many people feel self-righteous because they can easily display superficial goodness and somehow that makes them better than the people who openly struggle. I pray that you will all find love and kindness in your own hearts, and I believe the only way to truly have a relationship with Jesus is to treat all of his children with dignity, respect, and compassion.
Reverend V, your comments are beautiful and this is the reason there is still hope for civilization, somewhere. Thank you for your love of all and trying to understand others.
Gwen Thank you Reverend V. After reading such mean spirited post I was wondering where the love went Paul talked about in 1 Corinthian 13. We should all practice this most excellent way. Love must supersede religion.
Where in this bill exactly does it say it is legal to discriminate against anyone for any reason? Please show us all, if you can not then you are just repeating the rhetoric of the militant LGBT agenda. It is my right to choose who I serve beyond serving my LORD. I choose to serve all but others wont necessarily and that is their right.
I thank you for your Military Service as I myself served. Also, I'm relieved your not gay and have been married to the same woman for 21 short years and hope it continues "till death do you part", specially in this day and age. This word Homophobic is used like confetti today to label those who disagree with the worlds view of what constitutes a relationship. Perhaps when you get as old as I am and been married to the same woman twice 21 years you'll take a different view. In the mean while lets be careful of what we touch others and that it line up with the Word of God. God Bless Capt George
Thank you sir ! Let's pray we all are on a better path , God bless , Brenten
If we only read the Bible for guidance, Then we know what it says about homosexuality. But it also says," Judge not, lest ye be judged". Its not my job to determine a man's final chapter. It's Gods. I don't know if I could officiate an SSM. I've never been asked. If I were asked, I would make a decision, based on what I believe and my interpretation. I don't expect folks that interpret it differently than me, to do something against their religion. Tolerance goes both ways.
Homosexuality wasn't even a word until the late 19th century. Thus, wherever it appears in the Bible, a better choice of word would be "temple prostitution." The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't homosexuality but inhospitality.
I am with Pastor Brenten Stevens: Trying to reason with some of these uneducated, right-wing thugs on here is a total waste of time. Rev. Roy Williams, Mary, and Daniel Gray are all homophobic bigots. Period. What an embarrassment to have them as ULC colleagues. I wouldn't want to meet any one of them in a dark alley...
I question whether they are actually ULC colleagues or merely trolls. They don't seem to hold the values of the ULC. (they also clearly don't understand Civil Rights, our Constitution, case law, etc)
We stopped the law from being signed by the Govnor of Arkansas today at noon it was announced the biggitory that was put in the law will not be acceptable . It must be rewritten so that the Gay community is not attacked by haters . And yes Joe Stuttler we are ministers , I also spent years in the mission fields , my grandfather was a minister till his death . To suggest we are not of God because we follow the teachings of Jesus is incorrect . Only in America have I run into such hateful so called christians . Only Russia and the German army of WW2 have had such hatred followed by the U.S. . . .
Sure, you're a minister, so am I. I question whether those who spout bigotry and hostility towards the LGBT community, who seek to deny Equal Protection Under Law to others, who demand we all adhere to their religious beliefs are actually ULC colleagues. I generally find many of those whom I believe to be naught but trolls also tend to be cafeteria Christians, ignoring various tenets of their faith while wielding others as a club to attack the "other". I'd like to see the blog space here require ULC membership and real, verifiable names in order to comment here.
I second that motion!
I agree completely , I've been attacked by people who can't be members . My first promise is to love everyone , I don't see that today and it's very sanding . Sorry if I came off a bit gray I have had about enough negative comments today . Thank you for being kind and may God bless you endlessly ☺️
I too am an ULC minister, and the level of hate and intolerance I have seen here today is sad to me.
Pastor, I think joestutler was referring to Rev. Roy Williams, Mary, and Daniel Gray, he is likely as taken aback, and perhaps a bit ashamed as I am that folks who have any vested interest in the ULC would possess such attitudes. Pretty sure he was not referring to you or I. They are likely malcontents, not members who's only mission is to incite trouble, When they are successful, they will use some slanted, blatantly untrue or misconceived quote to make their point, and spin your words back at you. We all, including myself, should simply ignore them, but it's hard to do when they are such easy targets....
Keep up the good fight....thanks for the update.
Thank you, Brother Quinn, for your kind and wise words in this post. Forgiveness conquers fear.
Sorry Quinn, but you have no right to claim what we think is wrong just because you think so.
And how do you explain this from your implied loving homosexuals?
2010 an Indianapolis cookie shop was accused of discrimination due to the fact that the owners of the business, who were Christians, refused to produce rainbow cookies for "National Coming Out Day." They were fined over $150,000 and forced to close their business. Now how is that loving or tolerant when I know for a fact that there are over 500 different bakeries and cookie shops in Indianapolis, so why couldnt they have just went to another one? Why did they have to close this business that has been in business for over 50 years?
Same thing happened to bakeries in Portland-Denver and Seattle.
Or how about the death threats the Elected Reps in Indiana and Arkansas have been receiving from the homosexual supporters?
Or how about the High School Coach (an admitted lesbian) who went on twitter and stated that she wanted help to go to a pizza place and burn it down with the owners inside? She has been suspended from Concord High School in Indiana. Now if this was you or me we would have been fired and be in jail and awaiting trial on domestic terrorism, yet this person is sitting at home collecting a paycheck. And this is what you call tolerant?
THIS is why these types of laws are needed. and if you cant see that, then I feel sorry for you as you are blind.
Good, Daniel. Discrimination and bigotry should be very costly and painful. When those businesses violated the law, they paid the price. Eff 'em.
Gee Daniel I have been waiting for you to crawl out from under your rock, since you appear to be literate I presumed you would surface eventually, however your true colors have come out and you are certainly no better, nor any more educated than the illiterate folks posting here. For you have arose to the occasion and proven my point. Twisting the facts to suit your argument.
First you try to paint me into a negative light with your comment that I implied "Loving Homosexuals" Nowhere in my comments do I say or imply that I love anyone. But I will say that I do indeed love my Wife of 30 years and our 6 children.
I do my level best to treat all people with tolerance and acceptance. Even racists. Although I will call them out when they intentionally mislead and twist facts. But heck, I would do the same to a Gay person, for if nothing else, I am consistent.
Regarding the 2010 "Just Cookies" incident. There are significant differences between that event and the current Indiana law in question. First off the Just Cookies business was located within City Owned property. The owners were leasing the space from the City. The question at the time was "were there any city ordnances that would prohibit such discrimination" and of course get the city into trouble. There were not. So, I would like you to cite your sources regarding the 150.000 dollar fine and your allegation that they had to close the business. Because my sources, dated as late as 2014, including the Indiana Law Blog (admittedly it is a blog and not a city record, but hey, at least I cite my source) says:
"in 2010, a cookie shop at City Market faced the possibility of sanctions after its owner refused to fulfill a gay student group's request for rainbow-iced cookies"......."Just Cookies later reached an agreement with the city's equal opportunity office requiring the bakery to post a "no special orders" policy." "
Hmm, no mention of a $150,000 dollar fine, and I am pretty sure if a Mom and Pop Cookie stand were fined 150K it would make the news, yet a search of all local papers from Sept of 2010 to today that are available to me online, mentions no such fine in this incident. . And according to Google reviews and other online review websites there are active reviews as early as a week ago and going back to Sept 2010. There is a phone number listed for them as well. I did not bother to call it to see if they are still in business, but I suspect that they are, and have been continuously since the date you allege that they closed.
You also state that they had been in business for "over 50 years before they were forced to close their business" Please cite your source, as my source indicates they were in business for "two decades", which according to my elementary school education is about 20 years, your version will probably vary, a small point to make, but again I am answering your string of mis-truths.
But you and the "Just cookies" appear to be of the same ilk because according to the local TV Channel, 59's (September 29, 2010 report) website:
Just Cookies owner Lilly Stockon defended her bakery's decision last week, first telling Fox 59 that the shop doesn't make cupcakes, and then telling a reporter that she didn't have sufficient materials to make the rainbow colors.
But her co-owner husband, David Stockton, said he had a different reason for refusing to take the order.
"I explained we're a family-run business, we have two young, impressionable daughters and we thought maybe it was best not to do that," he told Fox 59.
Sound familiar? Change the story to suit the argument? At least her Husband is an honest bigot.
I did a Google search for "Seattle bakery refuses service gay" and received no hits at all for Seattle. So please offer me a link or did you make that up too?
As for Portland, yes, that happened. The facts are that state law is very clear and the laws barring discrimination were in place at the time that she applied for and was granted her business license. In Oregon it is illegal to discriminate. When a business is granted and accepts a license it agrees to follow the laws regarding commerce in that state. If I apply logic to your point that the Indianapolis College student that wanted the rainbow cookies should have "went to another one" then Ms. Klein who owned the Oregon Baker could have set up shop in a state that allows discrimination. There are only 21 States that protect against discrimination, so they had 29 State options available to them, maybe they should have "went to another one".
As for death threats that you allege, I Googled "death threats elected officials Indiana", and again for "Alabama" and could not find any hits regarding any death threats resulting from this incident or even any since January 28th, which is before this incident occurred. I could have missed it, so again, show me the link. IF it did happen then it is blatantly criminal and I don't care if such activity came from a Gay group or a KKK fanatic group, all should receive the same penalty. But death threats to public officials hardly supports your argument that shop owners should be a able to discriminate. Again you are reaching to make a connection where there is none.
As for the High School Coach's Twitter post. Not sure why you think her treatment is softer then yours or mine would be. Putting teachers (and pubic officials) on paid leave pending an investigation to see if there is cause for termination is a pretty common activity. But you and I do agree apparently that her comments were stupid, and likely to incite injury. I do not know if there were criminal or not, but if they State of Indiana finds that they were, then she deserves the appropriate punishment. I am not sure how the incident surrounding her situation furthers your arguments any. Sounds to me like she is a Bigot too. They come in all colors and flavors you know. I don't support illegal activities committed by Gay individual, or Bigots.
So you say that this is why these laws are needed, yet you twist facts and bring in unrelated arguments to make your point. Nothing you offered seems to be accurate nor does it support your point. Except to another racist.
You are right to a point though in your closing sentence, I am blind, in one eye anyway, have been since birth, but I can still see a lie when it is offered, and don't feel sorry for me, I have adjusted to it pretty well.
Sorry Joe and Quinn, but the laws and the facts clearly show that neither of you know what your talking about.
here is an example
CNN’s Sally Kohn runs a small private for-profit business.
Indiana Bob runs a small private for-profit business.
Sally offers a product to the public as a speaker. Her product is inspirational speeches that conform to her worldview.
Bob offers a product to the public as a baker. His product is specialized wedding cakes that celebrate the holy union of marriage.
Sally is a very nice, very smart, very likable gay progressive.
Bob is a very nice, very smart, very likable practicing Muslim.
Sally will tell you she was born a lesbian.
Bob will tell you he was born a Muslim.
Sally’s speech is protected from the government by the First Amendment.
Bob’s religious faith is protected from the government by the very same First Amendment.
Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, Sally cannot be forced by the government to alter her product — her speech — into something that violates her beliefs and conscience.
Although Bob’s religious practices and beliefs are protected by the same First Amendment, Sally is demanding the government force Bob into altering his product — a wedding cake — into something that violates Bob’s beliefs and conscience: a same-sex wedding cake.
Sally believes it is unconstitutional for the government to force her to alter her business product (inspirational speeches) in a way that violates her beliefs and her First Amendment rights. But she has no problem demanding that Bob alter his.
Starting to sink in now? You cant have it both ways.
No Daniel, nothing new here to sink in. If Sally is in business to give inspirational speeches, then she has no more right to discriminate than Bob the Baker does. You can string together all the imaginary " what if's" and "Ya buts" you want but it changes nothing.
So you posted untrue statements and attempted to re-write history regarding the Just Cookies incident and when the facts of the case are pointed out you just move on in another direction with a new argument that is no more valid than the previous.
Well it's been fun, thanks for the entertainment. But once the discussion drops to the level of making stuff up, you win, I can't compete there.
Sorry quin, but it DOES prove my point exactly. This is exactly what the homosexual lobby is doing. You are not going to tell me that in any city they do not have at least 3 or 4 different places where you can purchase baked goods, or pizza or get your photos taken or buy flowers. So by what right does the homosexual lobby have to go into a business and demand that they get served or else they will sue? They could always go somewhere else. That is exactly what I do. When I go into a business and ask for a product, I dont throw a hissy fit and demand they carry it or I will sue, I just tell them "thank you" if they dont have it and I go to the store that does have it. No harm no foul. By suing the stores the homosexual lobby is just showing how big a bully they are and trying to force people to accept them. It isnt going to happen and in fact is turning people against them.
Take for instance the pizza place 30 minutes from South Bend Indiana. The owners have repeatedly stated that they would not refuse service to anyone, but they would not make pies for a homosexual celebration as that violated their religious beliefs as they can legally do under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. There are over 6 different pizza places in that town, yet instead of going to another pizza place, the gay mafia decided to attack this one and try and have them shut down. Guess what, didnt work as backers have raised over half a million dollars for the owners of the pizza shop to retool and reopen so they can protect their customers. Including an updated phone number that clearly shows the telephone number and address of the person making the call for a delivery so the over 20,000 fake delivery calls will stop. it will make a call back to the number and then show the address.
Not to mention that you had a gym coach of the local high school who wrote on twitter that she was wanting people to go with her to burn down this pizza place WITH the owners inside! The school placed her on leave, but now the FBI is involved and classifies this as domestic terrorism. And yes she is an admitted lesbian, and it seems a card carrying member of the gay mafia.
So sorry quinny, but you are going to lose this argument, just like you have lost others.
The "homosexual lobby". What a hoot! Quinn, don't let Daniel get to you. Why he even bothers to hang out here and spout his hooey when he surly doesn't seem to fit with the ULC ideology is beyond me...other than Obvious Troll is obvious. (note: don't eat his cake, either)
Sorry joey. You have been destroyed so many times by fact and law that it is now becoming tiresome.
And as for the ULC. Get real. All this is, is a diploma mill. Are you really going to believe that you can become a minister with just a click on a webpage saying you want to be when actual real ministers take years in college to be able to do what they do? The state of Ohio has already ruled this as a diploma mill, and the 6th US District Court is well on its way to doing the same thing. As a matter of fact not one state under the 6ths authority will allow ANYONE who received their diploma/certification from here to practice any religious services. They cannot marry anyone or anything else and if they try, they are in deep trouble as the marriages are not recognized as valid.
So keep on whining Joey, and people will keep destroying your childish posts.
Baker, huh? Surely not a lawyer, nor a student of the law, nor possessing of anything beyond elementary school level civics class knowledge. The 6th Circuit covers 4 states. themonastery.org/wedding-laws/kentucky themonastery.org/wedding-laws/michigan themonastery.org/wedding-laws/tennessee and, for your reading pleasure themonastery.org/wedding-laws/ohio Imagine being as ignorant and arrogant as you, Daniel.
Too bad for you that you're the arbiter of nothing, arent a baker, aren't a ULC brethren, and aren't accomplishing anything of merit in your clueless and rude rants. What a great example of Christ's love you portray...it must really be a big draw when seeking converts. Have a lovely weekend.
Sigh, Sorry Joey, in ALL of the states that the 6th's covers SSM is ILLEGAL or did you miss the decision that was all over the news where the 6th US District Court UPHELD state bans on SSM? So nobody knows why you posted your unintelligent post but you.
And again you need to learn to READ posts. I never said I was a baker, I said I OWNED a bakery....BIG difference.
But then what can anyone expect from you Joey, when you constantly twist words and then whine and cry when you are proven wrong, or have the audacity to imply that everyone else is wrong but you.
Oh and one more thing Joey, I dont have to be the one that says whats in the Constitution, all anyone with any sense has to do is READ the 1st Amendment where it clearly says that Government CANNOT make any laws that violate the right of a citizen to practice their religion. Its been there since 1787. And no claim that you make can change that as anyone that has a device that can access the internet or a library close by can get a copy of the 1st amendment and see EXACTLY that it says what I said it does. And even the Supreme Court does not have the authority to change what it says to suit you.
Again Joey, you are BUSTED
Daniel, that was a cute attempt to move the goalpost....didn't think anyone would notice?
You claimed ULC wasn't recognized by Ohio or anywhere else in the 6th Circuit. (themonastery.org/blog/2015/03/religious-freedom-laws-and-the-new-battle-for-equality/#comment-125817)
Wrong. One would think you'd be getting tired of consistently being proven wrong, but yet you keep crawling out from under your bridge.
Obvious Troll is Obvious.
Not moving anything Joey, I have stated fact and gave you the who-what-when-where-and why. I have given you US Supreme Court Decisions that say you dont know what your talking about, and I have copied and posted the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution that clearly shows you dont know what your talking about, and yet you still try with the smoke and mirrors in a desperate failing attempt to try and disprove what you cannot disprove.
And you obviously cant read either. I stated "The 6th US District Court is MOVING to classify the ULC site as a diploma mill" Its the Ohio States Attorneys General that does not recognize ULC as a valid site. We have a "gentleman" that lives less then 12 miles from me that tried to marry a local couple, right up till he was found to have received his pastors certification from here and Ohio State Attorneys General DeWine's office sent him a cease and desist order. Not to mention demanding all his records to see if he married anyone else so they can contact the couples and tell them their marriage is not valid as their "pastor" received his certification from a diploma mill.
If you are going to try and claim something, at the very least get it correct. But then name calling is your childish way of trying to make yourself look bigger and failing miserably
Obvious Troll Is Obvious.
Daniel, again, please cite your source for this information, I would like to read it. I did a Google search for:
"Universal Life Church Ohio State Attorneys General DeWine" and: "Universal Life Church DeWine" and: Ohio "Universal Life Church" "cease and desist order"
And did not get a single hit tying AG DeWine to any "cease and desist order". Or any "cease and desist order" involving the Universal Life Church in Ohio.
Sounds like more made up crap to me.... Like 150,000 dollar fines and closed down cookie stores in Indiana and Seattle.....
Yes Joey, you HAVE shown yourself to be an obvious troll. But you can change if you try hard enough.
There is no cease and desist order Quinny, as DeWine cannot stop people from spending their money.
On the other hand he CAN tell the people who spent their money that they are NOT real clergy and as such if they dare to try and marry someone with a valid clergy license, the marriage will be annulled. The local so called ULC Pastor less then 15 miles from me was very upset when he received a notice from DeWine telling him his "license" was not valid.
Oh and BTW, call DeWine and ask him if he has not received a complaint about this diploma mill, and his office will tell you that he has had complaints, numerous ones.
Or are you going to hide behind your computer keyboard and claim it did happen as you usually do?
God please forgive all of us who judge your children , I to am guilty ! Forgive me in Jesus name amen
Forgive me too, Lord Jesus. I know I should not judge. Note to self: Do not take the time to read hateful posts like much of what is found here.
While I totally agree that denying services to a homosexual because of their sexuality is a terrible thing; however I can also see the business's point of view based on the fact that I can't go to a Halal butcher and get pork chops or as a white man can never join a black fraternity like Omega Psi Phi. If a business wishes to be a bigot, they have that right but I don't see them staying in business too long. Trying to force a private business to not be a religious bigot through governmental strong arming, only emboldens them and rallies support for their position. One thing Americans hate more than bigotry is government interference in private lives and commerce.
We are all children of the Universe. Do only right.
Yes Susan. Do what is right. All else will follow. Jesus omitted no one. He expelled no one from his love. He ate with tax collectors. Associated with those outcast by society. I may be wrong, but I believe Jesus would not have appreciated this law or others like it.
Actually you are wrong, many times over. Jesus overturned the tables in the Temple, and called the Pharisees hypocrites, and whited sepulchres. He told sinners to "go and sin no more". He told the temple authorities that he had not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it.
Curious....do you eat pork or shrimp? Wear cotton-poly blends? Have any tattoos? Cut your hair? Work on the Sabbath? Eat fat? grow more than one vegetable in your garden? Mistreat foreigners?
Joe, I totally agree with you, and we've seen this tactic used all too often to justify hatred. This game is called "pick and choose" whatever Scripture suits your fancy.
Theological illiteracy, I am afraid. Jesus certainly upheld the Law and invited repentant sinners to become members of his church. Mark 1.15, "Repent, and believe the good news". Repentance is not optional.
the gays where trying to male a politically and social point by going to where people are not wanting to do business for gay weddings and such, a business should have the right to refuse service to whomever and yes to gays also, and if they should not like it, then let them go and open their own gay wedding store that caters to other gays, problem solved!
The sounds like the old Jim Crow laws to me. No, the problem is NOT solved. Personally, I wouldn't want to pay any homophobic baker, caterer, or florist for his/her services at my wedding, but people who live in rural and lowly-populated areas may not have the luxury of choice.
This sounds like the rationale for the Jim Crow Laws before desegregation.
I am astonished at the hateful comments I have read here. Religious "freedom" is just a detail being used to rationalize held beliefs of homophobia and bigotry. Those who hold these beliefs imprison themselves and cause harm in the world. May ALL Beings Be Happy and Free!
Update Arkansas governor refused to sign the law , he is requesting it be rewritten so that there is no wrtiien langue against the Gay community nor reason for any civil right violations . Finally someone did some praying plus Walmart threatened to act against the state if he signed the biggitory based law . They are billion dollar backed attorneys and Arkansas would have been sunk deep in lawsuits . So there you have it , I understand a bases for religous rights and support that section but when certain haters input hate langue that crossed the line , don't use my father in heaven to push hatred .
I find this subject and comments very interesting as well as disturbing. My personal thoughts on the matter are simply this --you can be no more against homosexuality than you are for slavery.
If you believe that slavery was moral then you have to believe or accept that homosexuality is immoral.
If you believe slavery is immoral then you have reached that conclusion in spite of biblical teachings.
Therefore, in good faith, you cannot condemn someone for reaching an alternative conclusion about homosexuality, regardless of what the bible says...
It is our obligation to treat others with dignity and respect,and time has a tendency to change societal views along with an individuals world view's. These same arguments were made against interracial marriages not so long ago. The church has never held a monopoly on marriage because marriage was an arrangement between parents and families to acquire property and or power. The point here, seems whether are not others whose lifestyle or circumstance you don't agree with should be righteously condemned by you for God.
If God can make rules for how slaves should be treated, I am quite sure it is well within our capacity to make exceptions for those who may not share certain views or lifestyle choices.
Take care of yourselves, and try to treat others accordingly...
Being a bigot is morally reprehensible, but it should not create a cause of action under the law. I am sorry, but forcing someone to provide video services (or other services) against their will (or be sued if they don’t) bothers me even more that idiotic bigotry. If I am forced to provide services that I wish not to provide (for any reason or no reason), then am I not slave!
If the good Christian business owners are not bigots than they also will not serve:
Divorcees. Matthew 19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Anyone who has ever read their horoscope or called a psychic hotline. Leviticus 20:6: "As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."
Anyone with a tattoo. Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."
Anyone born illegitimately. Also, anyone who, back to ten generations, is descended from someone born illegitimately. If you can not PROVE, using appropriate church sources, that ten generations of your family were born in wedlock, I will have to err on the side of caution and not serve you. Deuteronomy 23:2 "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD."
Anyone who makes a practice of praying aloud, or in public. Matthew 6:5-6 "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
Any woman with braided hair or gold jewelry. Just to be on the safe side, NO jewelry at all. 1 Timothy 2:9 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."
Any man who has ever, by accident or not, had his genitals damaged. (Current interpretation of this scripture is under debate, so just to be safe, if you've had a vesectomy, or testicular cancer, I can't serve you. I apologize for the inconvenience but I am worried for my soul.) Deuteronomy 23:1 "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."
Please don't bring your kids in if they have a bowl cut. Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."
For those of you complaining that some of these scriptures are from the Old Testament, and that Jesus came to redeem us from these laws, I refer you to Matthew 5:17-19, where Our Savior himself says: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"
Very true, as I have said, these people pick and choose chapter and verse as it suits their mission. If one were to be completely biblically literal, all Christians would be in trouble,
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you neither shall ye diminish ought from it." Yet the King James version has had books removed from it.
We are certainly not going to stone to death blasphemers, Sabbath breakers, and disobedient sons?
If you find a dead animal carcass you should feed it to a stranger.
If your son is stubborn, the city elders should stone him until he is dead, then hang him in a tree for all to see.
Condensed from Deuteronomy 27:20-23 "Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife" "Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast" "Cursed be he that lieth with his sister" "Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law" All pretty clear rules to live by and not subject to interpretation, yet no passage that reads "Cursed be he that lieth with another man" that would have been the opportunistic place for that abomination to be listed.
"and all the people shall say, Amen."
My point is not to trash verse and text from the scripture, but to point out that for someone to pick out specific phrases and use only them to formulate a believe that justifies discrimination is absurd. The a Bible is full of contradictions, and references to practices that are no longer acceptable. (Selling your daughter into slavery?) Not sure any of us are qualified to determine with authority which ones fit where. None of them are valid to encourage discrimination.
We are no longer under the law that you've quoted. Jesus completed all requirement of the Mosaic law and the 10 commandments. Therefore, we are now free from these laws. The apostle Paul stated that if one wants to apply or adhere to any part of the law, he negates Jesus completed work of the cross and so will be guilty of breaking ALL of the law. We are free indeed, and to refer back to a completed, closed testament/covenant is totally useless, and obviously dangerous. Jesus is my Saviour, not Moses. Be blessed!
Hello D.Barron I would like to understand what you are saying, but admittedly, I do not. I understand that some Christians believe that the 10 commandments are no longer law, but to be honest I am not a student of religion enough to understand the entire theory. Most of the commandments seem to me to be valid, don't kill, steal, lie, sleep with my neighbors wife. But some of them seem to be optional? Such as the Sabbath, or honoring thy Mother and Father. Yet, the commandments are repeated in the new testament, then there are contradictions in Matthew, so there is a great deal that I simply do not understand, and to be honest, have never bothered to look into. I don't live my life based upon the Bible so looking for reasons to live around contradictions has never been an issue to me. I only rise to the occasion when I see folks justifying hate utilizing biblical passages.
Hello back! I applaud your earnestness in trying to understand all of the issues in play here. As Jesus lived and died under the Mosaic law, he kept that law. Though, in his teachings, He raised the standard from merely keeping the letter of the law, to making it a matter of the heart! He told the Pharisees who were trying to trap him in word play, "the law says do not commit adultry. I say, if any man even looks upon a woman with lust, he has already commited adultrey in his heart!" Again, He watched rich Pharisees giving money at the temple, and observed a widow giving her money. They gave great amounts. She gave two half pennies. He said to the rich ones; "you gave your 10%, which is required under the law. But,wait! That woman gave 100%. All she had! With Jesus, it wasn't about law's letter, it was about where's your heart. No need for slave beating or daughter selling and such. He did away with all of that at His sacrifice on the cross. Jesus said "this one thing sums up all of the law and the prophets, Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. That's it! I have no animosity toward anyone, no matter their proclivity. I know several openly homosexual people and have good relationship with them. I am not predudiced against or toward them. They respect my moral stance to not conduct a wedding or provide services for such a religious event. I respect their right to have the relationship they choose. I do business with them. Have a beer with them. Defend them. and they, me. We're ok with that. Anyway, this debate has become, as I see it more about unresolved hurts and anger, rather than honest attempt to understand and honor each others convictions, be they secular or religious. Seems clear now that the "bigotry" is going both ways, huh? Again, thank you for taking effort to see all sides and refraining from slander. Be blessed!
D.Barron Thank you for the explanation. I still don't fully comprehend what you have written, but you put together a well written point and I support your position. Perhaps if I were a true student of religion it would make sense, but admittedly I am not.
Thanks for kind comments, I'm not always successful, but I try hard not to participate in slander, and to always make my positions clear and consistent, while inviting dialog. I enjoy the company of folks who can provide well thought out, consistent, and truthful debate. Whether I agree with them or not.
In regard to much that has been written here over the last couple of days, I have nothing left to offer to the discussion, except to paraphrase Socrates: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
Work hard and do good work....
You missed the part where Jesus stated in verse 19; "whoever shall break one of these least commandments, AND shall teach men so"....... Who was he addressing? The teachers of the law. Time period? Old law still in force, as Jesus, a Jew living under the law had not made the sacrifice yet that ended the rule of the law, and obeying all of it that He might be found blameless under it. They, the teachers of the law could not keep the law either. He did. "It is finished". You enjoy scripture searches, so here are a few to help round out your quest. 1 Cor. 6:12, 10:23-33, Rom. 6:14, 10:4, Gal.2:19-3:14. Heb. 10:1-10. Jas. 2:10-13. Be blessed!
I have always been confused by the thinking that the law was done away with. Didn't Jesus say that he did not come to do away with the law?
The Ten Commandments tell us what sin is; correct? The Law and the Ten Commandments are the same; correct? If Jesus did NOT do away with the Ten Commandments/ Law, then they are still in effect; correct?
So which Commandments/ Laws do you obey?
The Ten Commandments tell us what sin is; correct? The Law and the Ten Commandments are the same;correct? If Jesus DID AWAY with the Ten Commandments/ Law, then they are NOT still in effect; correct?
So there can be NO SIN, no matter what you do; correct?
Thou shalt not commit murder is in the Ten Commandments/ Law. Do we follow that? Do we think Murder is sin? Well I must rethink that if Jesus did away with the Law. Apparently according to some murder would not be a sin.
Perhaps sin is whatever is convenient for an argument?
Some apply the word sin to words like "unclean" or "abomination" or "wrong". Seems others apply the word sin to whatever they personally think is wrong.
I believe that sin is what the Bible says it is; "The breaking of the Law", and the Law is what the Bible says it is; "The Ten Commandments".
All the rest is what is called the "judgments", which are MANS interpretation of how to apply the Ten Commandments. They are man made rules.
The last time I checked, the only thing God wrote in the Bible was the Ten Commandments! Every other word in that Book was written by man. It seems strange that God forgot to put in the Eleventh Commandment that says homosexuality is a sin.
Oh and by the way, for those of you that think we need to follow the entire Bible word for word, without discriminating what to follow. I want to point out that apparently God thinks it's OK to hide in the bushes and kidnap young girls, rape them to get them pregnant and then kill them if they choose.
Now I do not follow that passage in the Bible because I apply the Ten Commandments and a passage from Jesus. (Question all things; hold fast that which is good.) I don't think there's a moron alive that thinks kidnap and rape and murder is NOT a sin; is there?
I have read the first 25-30 comments and see both sides viewpoints. What baffles me is that people claim that defending Gods creation or marriage and Jesus reiteration of that marriage to be between a man and a women, is something hateful. I have known many gays and loved them equally but if you tell me I have to marry them and go against Gods will and design and against Jesus will, now that becomes hateful of their work, not my belief. Who is anyone to say you do not love just as Jesus asked us to do if we choose not to be a part of the act that both Jesus and God said is wrong. As far as the health aspect (Choice-not a choice/born a gay), as a Holistic Health Practitioner for years, that claim has changed with politics from the Gay society. At first it was a choice (right), then not a choice (God/nature made me this way) now who knows. Depends on the situation, the politics and the lawsuit. Fact of the matter it is both and that is simply proven time and again scientifically, There are a 1000 different ways to change a boy into a little girl and visa versa. We do it everyday with massive estrogen dosages in our food supply as well as water and others. One reason why men are 1 in 100 that get breast cancer. As far as testosterone imbalance, the sky is the limit. I don't have time to show this all and i don't have to. Simply Google hormonal changes from baby formula and go from there. One baby formula is like a weeks worth of estrogen rich birth control....in an infant! Point being, this always seems to be a zero sum game. There needs to be full understanding on both sides of the issue while we can all love one another yet disagree and have those disagreements respected. In a natural sense, if you choose to leave God out of the equation, nature always eliminates anatural motions (homosexuality)-(not adapts when it comes to survival) those things that try to stop the continuation of life, which a man and a man do and a women and a women do and a man and an animal do. Nature does not need mans opinion in doing so. Its simple scientific fact. Either way, however one becomes gay by choice or by unnatural forces as explained, be it a natural view or a view in faith by Jesus marital design, we should not be condemned, hated on or pushed to agree to be part of the flock versus being the Shepards we are called to be. Blessings.
Well written, well read!
Mins. Todd, whether I am gay by birth or from eating too much tofu, what's the difference? I should still be treated with dignity and respect, whether you agree or not with my "lifestyle." (And pray tell me what would that be?) There are some who conjecture that Jesus could have been gay...who is to say? Who exactly was this beloved disciple that is unnamed?
I am sorry, Mins. Todd, for being a bit short. I have seen good people like me treated like sh*t in this blog, very misunderstood and maligned, so I do not mean to be so confrontational with your comment/post because I think it was written in a loving spirit, though I don't agree with your positivity on God's Mind about Sexuality.
Well, a number of you seem to miss the point. The 'illegal' law deals with public situations that do not impose upon religion. However, this disgusting matter is to use 'religion' as a belief in discrimination. For example, in no way would the repeal of "religious freedom' laws require an institution of religion to abandon its tenants; i.e., an Orthodox Jewish Synagogue would not be required to marry two Baptists. No Irish Catholic Parish would serve as the place for a muslim couple either. HOWEVER, a Baptist church member, who is a taxi driver, should not be allowed to refuse a male couple a ride to their wedding 'due to his faith' anymore than Gov. George Wallace would/should be allowed to keep Blacks from voting in his state way back then . . .
Furthermore, and the real test of this issue is - JUST change the terms Gay/Lesbian or Same Sex Couple, with, as per 1950/60s terminology of "Negro Persons" or "Interracial People" and anyone able to comprehend logic, will see the arguments are the exact same and philosophically identical issues kin to Brown v. Bd of Ed, etc.
Hope this explains what we ULC folks need to know in order to allow that religion should not be a form of discrimination but a force for equality. AMEN!!!
So many of these comments are appallingly sub-literate.
Sounds like LGBT wants to be MORE equal. Conservative Christianity is alive and well. Hallelujah!!!!!
It is not shocking that this topic has generated a lot of comments. I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that no right is absolute. This is particularly so when the rights of two individuals are in conflict. I, as a minister have the right to practice my religion. The first amendment guarantees this. But if my religion requires human sacrifice then I am out of luck because my right to practice my religion does not supersede another's right to retain life.
I as an individual have the right to discriminate against people in my personal life. It wouldn't be nice, but that would be my right. This is because the government cannot regulate feelings, only actions. This is where the civil rights act of 1964 comes into play. But as noted, it does not cover every conceivable form of discrimination. In fact it is rather limited in the number of categories one is protected in. Many states have sought to fill in those gaps. A few, Indiana being one, are attempting to widen that gap. I don't think any educated person believes that Indiana's new law has as it's primary goal the protection of religious rights. This is due to the fact that the rights claimed are by and large invalid. Unfortunately we will have to wait until federal law catches up with ethics.
Meanwhile, the argument posited is that individuals who provide goods or services to the public have the right to refuse to transact business selectively based on religious grounds. If this is true, then theoretically one could argue that it is against one's religion to sell food to Blacks, or Jews, or Hispanic people or any other group one may wish to discriminate against. But one would find it difficult to cite a bible verse to justify such bigotry. That would also be a moot point since such discrimination is a violation of federal law. Such arguments were made in the past but as I mentioned, they were overruled by federal law.
Codified religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism have a large body of rules to live by. According to my Muslim friend who owns a liquor store, while he is prohibited from drinking alcohol or selling alcohol to other Muslims, he is not prohibited by the Koran from selling said alcohol to non Muslims. According to the the Jewish gentleman who owns the grocery store that I buy my groceries from, he is not prohibited from selling food that isn't kosher, only from eating it or labeling non kosher food as kosher. According to my own research limited to reading the King James Bible (the most popular version of the bible belt) there is no prohibition against transacting business with gay or lesbian people. I find no mention of transgender people though there are one or two mentions regarding men wearing women's clothing. Presumably, the bible is the basis for all Christian dogma. So within the mainstream religions, there is nothing in scripture that states one may not sell a loaf of bread to a same sex couple. So within this context, there is no justification for this law.
This leaves only those whose religious beliefs are NOT codified. Since a religion that is not codified cannot, by it's nature, have a dogma prohibiting such transactions, they don't count.
So there is no valid justification for refusing services to people based on sexual orientation. What there is valid justification for is refusing to perform an act prohibited by one's religion. Lets cite a theoretical example. Lets say I own a bakery. A customer comes in and wants a custom cake in the shape of a penis. I find such obscene. So I look up in my bible and it tells me I may not make graven images. Broadly interpreted that could include a cake shaped like a penis so I decline the order. Am I justified? Yes. No one has the right to force me to sin. Making pornographic cakes could arguably be considered a sin. This right existed prior to the Indiana law and is covered under the first amendment. If they ordered a cake depicting two men in a sex act I would be all the more justified in refusing the order just as I would be if the cake depicted a man and a women in a sex act. But if they merely wanted a cake depicting two men in tuxedos, am I justified in refusing to make the cake? Well if I don't make cakes with any figures on them because my religion forbids graven images then I can refuse to make the cake. But if I am willing to make cakes depicting a bride and groom in a tuxedo and wedding gown then I may not refuse to make a cake with two men in tuxedos. this is due to the fact that there would be no religious prohibition against such in any codified religion and to be clear, two men depicted in tuxedos on a cake does not constitute pornography. Yet some bakeries are attempting to claim they have a right to refuse to make such a cake. The argument is "it's against their religion." For this argument to be valid one would have to prove that the religion they belong to actually forbids the act. None actually do. What it really is against, is their personally feeling on the topic based on religious bias. Religious bias is NOT the same thing as codified dogma. One could presumably post a policy prohibiting offensive cake designs but then one will need to be careful how one defines offensive and enforce the policy evenly. This is a grey area that has not yet adequately been defined by the law.
Two gay men walk into a bar. That sounds like the start of a joke. But it is no joke if they sit at the bar and the bartender tells them that his religion forbids him from serving them. Are we going to see signs in windows in restaurants, bars, hotels, movie theaters that read "NO GAYS, LESBIANS OR TRANSGENDERS?" This is a very real possibility.
We as ministers have the responsibility to educate our flock as to what our actual theology is and not let ignorance, bigotry and hate lead us to read more into the bible than it actually says.
How about people just read and study the bible, instead of regurgitating the old, tired, circular arguements put forth by the homosexual/athiest, anti- Chriastian (dare I say, bigots?) I've so much wondered why these people cherry pick select passages of the word, use them in a patently ignorant context, then accuse believers of doing just that. I have not yet seen an arguement put forth by all of the bible bashers that cannot easily be refuted by simple logic, and a basic working knowledge of the word. Oh, well. On another note; I didn't know that "the bible belt" had a favorite version. And, if it did, what would it matter? I live in the south, and I use 8 to10 translations of the bible in my studies. Including the orthadox Jewish bible. Hardly the KJV! Bible belt? All believers are in the bible belt? Hmmm....ignerent white folks? Gun racks, pickup trucks, coon huntin' on Saturday night? Inference, inference. Bigotrous rhetoric takes many forms. Be blessed!
how about instead of nit-picking this subject to death, we go to the One who could lead us to a solution. Remember the adulterous woman, about to be stoned to death? Jesus looked at all who would condemn her and asked, "if anyone here is without sin, then cast the first stone." Wow...so SIMPLE!!!! Who are we..me...you...them...they...to judge? To judge by life style, thought, action? Again, remember, Jesus dined with those who were considered outcasts in His day: the adulterers, the tax collectors, all those for whom society had cast out. Hypocrites, all, wouldn't you say? Would YOU dine with someone who had just cuckholded her husband, as if it was all fine and dandy, knowing that the whole town was aware of it? Would you proudly take her to your side and be her friend? Jesus did. And...I think that He would have done the same regardless of the station in life a person was in. He did not judge...He merely set the stage..."go and sin no more." Note: He also didn't stand around and remind said people: "you're still sinning, I can see it from here!" No, He moved on...confident that if those people to whom He administered wanted to be with Him, that they would see Him for Who He was...and follow Him. Note also...Peter, knowing all about what Jesus was, still sinned (note his denial of even being with Jesus!) yet Jesus forgave him...and told the rest of us when asked, "of how many times should I forgive? Seven times?" and His reply, "no, you should forgive seventy times seven!" and yet again, "to not keep account of the injury!" There you have it. Just be like Jesus.....just be like Jesus!!
Well stated , God bless you and thank you for your wise and well deserved love of all gods children
The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
The law was put in place to protect Native American religious lands and sites. It also protected the use of peyote as part of such religion. The states are passing similar laws because in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court struck down the RFRA with respect to its applicability to States (but not Federally), stating that Congress had stepped beyond their power of enforcement provided in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The statute is as follows:
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb– 1 - Free exercise of religion protected (a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. 2 - Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) the term “government” includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, or of a covered entity; (2) the term “covered entity” means the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States; (3) the term “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and (4) the term “exercise of religion” means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc–5 of this title. 3 - Applicability (a) In general This chapter applies to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after November 16, 1993. (b) Rule of construction Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993, is subject to this chapter unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter. (c) Religious belief unaffected Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief. 4 - Establishment clause unaffected Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion (referred to in this section as the “Establishment Clause”). Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. As used in this section, the term “granting”, used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
There is nothing about this or any state RFRA I am aware of that allows for discrimination. Most do allow for a person or business to defend itself in court against being forced to provide goods or services that would violate their religious beliefs.
This has nothing to do with being for or against gay marriage but being forced to perform services that I feel are against my religious beliefs. In other words I cannot be forced to officiate a Satanic wedding if I am a Christian. Sorry, a lot of people are listening too much to those who only want to curtail the freedom to practice their religion.
Your comments and post are very well done. However, I think the issue is not about curtailing religious freedom to practice one's religion, it stems from the economic reliance we as a nation place on privately owned businesses.
Businesses are supposed to represent the backbone of the economy, what good is it then to say your money is no good here. If you own and operate your business for to the public for the public, religion should have nothing to do with deciding which consumers are qualified to be customers.
Many great examples have been made, pertaining to the possible denial of housing, restaurants, and even medical services. And for some this situations directly harkens back to the Jim Crow era. So what is the difference? You can hold strong personal beliefs, granted, but do you actual feel it is right for a business to deny services on the basis of religious freedom? I am quite sure a business would choose differently, and that is part of the problem because of this alter ego. Which is against the law. So where does or should the business and the owner hold separate views?
I am afraid that I have a difficult time following that logic. Does someone have to drink liquor in order to sell alcohol, no, so how can anyone deny services because they believe a person to be sinful? But only homosexuality behavior, and yet no other type of sin.These types of decisions could eventually effect all of us in an adverse way.
The Supreme Court may see this differently, however, the Dredd Scot ruling was that a person was equivalent to a rake. And we all know what followed soon after...Therefore, the court has been wrong before just like the Hobby Lobby case. A business should be separate, and not just an extension of the owner, having separate accounts is apparently insufficient.
How many Christians soldiers are required to kill, or injure others which may be against their personal religious beliefs, but they have a job to do as well. I am sure your aware that a policy may not need to specifically say discrimination, in order to have a prejudicial or discriminatory effect. Your argument addresses the technical side of the equation, but fails to recognize more of the human element in my opinion. Therefore, I do not think that the Government has any compelling interest to allow some citizens to be denied public services or access for religious reasons...Private businesses enjoy the freedom to sell their goods because straight and gay soldiers have fought for that right accordingly.
I've seen some folks say that they'd serve cupcakes, cookies, etc, to gays but not a gay wedding cake. Would you sell them this cake? There's nothing gendered about the cake. It's a cake that is completely neutral with regard to genders, or even of a wedding. I can see it as a centerpiece desert for an elegant affair.
i think it is whole issue of not wanting to do business at all for an event that you don't believe in. rather it's a getting divorce party and if you don't believe in divorces, or a whoring around party, or a homosexual wedding. in that case, nothing from that organization or individual should be expected to be used.
So since you aren't Jewish, you wouldn't make a Bar Mitzvah cake either right? Or if you were Jewish, no Christmas cookies. Jehovah Witness? Your bakery makes nothing but secular items because they don't celebrate any holidays.
i did not say i would not make another faiths cooking if i don't see that as sinning and going against what i don't believe in, but if it was for something that was for a different religion that was not a sin, i have no problem doing it. if it were for a female circumcision as they call it, female mutilations as i call it and they were having a celebration over it. or if it were a celebration for some kind of a sacrifice then you bet i would object.
There are none so blind as those that will not see. According to your Christian faith, the Jews are sinning because they don't believe Jesus was the Messiah. Jehovah Witnesses don't believe that people go to heaven when they die, they simply sleep until the rapture. All of this is against your beliefs.
Though I doubt you have read the Quran, there's plenty in there would you consider a sin.
So you see, you do pick and choose what you will and won't follow in the bible.
By the way, I'm as far from immoral as one can get. However, based on your spelling and grammar, I find it hard to believe you are the least bit educated. If your brother thought all the gays were hitting on him, he was as ignorant as you, they aren't trying to change straight people.
Now for reading comprehension. I never said I was a psychologist. I said I had a degree in Social work, and that I worked in the legal field for twenty years. A psychologist does not take the hippocratic oath (which if you were as educated as you say, you would know), because they aren't a medical doctor.
What you are is someone who is so deeply embroiled in their faith that they can't see reason or sense. There are many references in the DSM to people like you suffering from delusions because your faith blinds you to reality. Get help. Not for my sake but for your own.
you know what deb, that is not being blind because marriages are a sacred thing and if they want to be married and they are conducting themselves in a way that keeps the sanctity of the wedding such as having a heterosexuals wedding, then I can conduct a wedding for them, if they don't mind not having a rabbi doing the wedding but since most of them wants to have a rabbi preforming the wedding I most likely don't have to worry about it. which is very different then an activity that goes against the sanctity of the wedding such as a homosexual wedding ceremony would do. and if they want to learn something i am willing to teach too. that is not being blind. you are just wanting to try to twist things around. just what i would expect from somebody who sees things through Satan's eyes.
Everyone who is LBGT is Illuminati!
There is a whole lot of talk here, such a waste. To the religious true believers: You have evoked "Gods law", "The word of God", and "Scriptures" in just about every argument so I ask this then, if you truly are about Gods law where do you stand on the religious wars that are taking place right now? Muslim leaders that are using their religion to justify the way their people are treated, (women, girls), and have called for war on any that do not believe? How do you justify that one hmm? "Thou shall not kill"..did I miss that one in your belief structure? Food for thought.
To the gay community: Your rights have been violated..huh? What right are you referring to again? The right to act like a spoiled 3 year old? if the PRIVATE business does not want your money, then the answer is very simple...listen closely now....are you listening? "DON'T GIVE THAT BUSINESS YOUR MONEY!" See? It is very simple, because there are soooo many that will happily take your money..you should support them instead of wasting your money on a business that is probably GOING TO FAIL anyway. Now about all the outrage that is left over, I direct your attention to the same place I pointed out to the religious folk, maybe you could express your outrage at the senseless LOSS OF LIFE that is currently going...food for thought
To all of you I say...ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Get over it.
I was raised as a Lutheran/Christian though it is not at all what I follow now. I am also a student of business. That being said, I don't think anyone should be forced to serve a meal, bake a cake, or design flowers, etc. for a union they believe goes against their religion. A Hindu should not be forced to cater a wedding taking place between two Christians if they feel that doing so is CONDONING that ritual. However, if the basis is that homosexuality is sinful and they can't condone sin, then they need to stop serving anyone. Because according to the Christian religion, we all sin and no person's sin is greater than another's. From a business perspective, it is almost always foolish to refuse service to a person unless that person is actively chasing away other customers. However, I do think that a person's right to believe whatever they believe is a basic tenet of our society and forcing someone to do something they morally disagree with is off limits. To me, that is no different than gays having to be in a hetero marriage in order to get a good job, appease their parents, and everything else that still happens to gays and is completely unjust. But one of the injustices is NOT other people doing as they believe. Freedom to be who and what we are can only go so far as the other person's right to do the same.
It appears that some people in certain states are going backwards in evolution. The same petulant, self-important garbage that had Southern states cecede the Union in order to legitimize discrimination against American Blacks is alive and well. We are ALL God's creatures...not just some of us with short haircuts and a militant homophobic affliction.
If you have a true belief in God, then there is no evolution. We were created by God and there is no room for evolution whatsoever. The Catholic religion now incorporates evolution in their teachings, there is no backwards in evolution when there is no evolution. To divide and conquer is Lucifer’s ways, for the color of one’s flesh is what one see with their eyes, you cannot judge anyone by this, to me it makes no sense at all. To sit in judgment of their life styles and for the choices they make is for God, not us as children of God. We are all creations of God and we are not judged by the color of one’s flesh, for this is Satan’s ways. It is Satan that divides us with ways of the flesh; it is Satan that makes Judges of Gods children. This country and countries around the world that are divided by judges and this is Satan's very purpose. I read what’s posted and I see people judging other people, I see the news media propaganda machine encouraging division amongst peoples as they feed upon hate and discriminations, they incite riots and protest to get their stories, I watch how they turn a small story into a huge propaganda story . All news media are foul instigators of lie's and manipulations and they use this power to Get their stories, for they feed on hate and division, for they are the voices and tools of Satan. Are you all so perfect that you can judge others? Because you are Pastors does it put you above others to allow you to pass judgments on others? Do you think your judgment on others will decide whether or not they go to Heaven or Hell? Is it up to us to decide another’s choices? Does God judge us on the color of our flesh? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! It is up to us on the choices we make, and it is up to God on Judgment. The color of one’s flesh or the way one looks is not judged by God, so what gives mankind the right to judge each other by the very color of one's flesh and the way one choose to live their lives?
Hate to break it to you, but there is evolution in all things. There is the evolution of travel (cars didn't exist at the writing of the Bible). There is the evolution of medicine (and thank you God for that), the evolution of technology and the world as a whole.
Even the kind of evolution that you say doesn't exist can easily co-exist with creationism. Someone with the term "Prof." before their name should be able to logic that one out.
God and science co-exist quite well together if both sides would stop stomping their feet like little children screaming, "I'm right."
As far as mankind is concerned, they refer to Evolution as Theory and theory is another word for hypothesis. To make a foundation of this would in fact be a foundation of lie's. As far as Evolution in Materialism? I could care less, for it is this world of the flesh that draws us from God. Do you think that this world of flesh is of God? This is Satans World and these are Satans ways. James: 4.4. Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. As far as Materialisms are concerned, James 5; 1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. 2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. There is only Creation and the thruth according to God, not scientist and their Theories and Hypothesis. Advances in technology are materialistic and are of this world and these are corruptions that pull us from God. This is not Evolution, these are Evil's that corrupt your mind, soul and spirit. As far as Real Christian's are concered, Evolution is the Worlds biggest lie, produced by liar's (scientist) and so called theologine's, directed by Satan himself. As far as the pastor that teaches such Lie's? Jeremiah 23: 1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD. 2 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD. You have to see beyond this World of flesh for it decieves the majority. As far as you Pastor Deb, I don't insult your Profession and yet you felt as though you had to insult mine, is that logical or intelligent? Do you always base your logic on Theories, Hypothesis and a scientist word? This is a foundation destined to failure.
Actually, evolution is a fact, and goes along with creationism. The fact that dinosaurs existed isn't fantasy, it's reality. The fact that your bible has hundreds of years that aren't written about isn't fantasy either, it's reality.
Being a bible thumping Christian is a long way from being enlightened or even well versed regarding God. It simply means you are a bible thumping Christian with tunnel vision who refuses to use the brain God gave you (His greatest gift to us) to question and form conclusions based on logic.
I AM a Christian. In fact, I am a Born Again Christian. I'm not perfect, but I do follow God's will as I know it, not from the bible, a book written by man and "inspired" by God, but from God Himself.
"Professors" are men and women who are well educated and learned. Of course, here, you can simply assume the title. Yes, it is is logical and intelligent to insult anyone who has such tunnel vision they can't see there is more than one way to reach God.
As for scientists, hypothesis and theories, they brought us a cure for polio, they treat my diabetes, and all started with a scientist having a theory. Destined for failure? And you wonder why I insult your "profession."
You don't need scientist if God is in your life 100%. Its these so called scientist that are the main cause for most problems we have today, they are what wizard's of the past. They make weapons that kill millions, they make Deceases in their labs such as the yearly flu? Don't you wonder why they know which flu is coming up? , chemical and biological, most illegal drugs were made up by these scientist and it maims and kills millions and are the main causes of cancers. They pollute this earth with toxic's and their technologies and so call advances. People who follow these Scientist do not follow God. Too many people put their faith in these Men of Science and not in God. People say they believe in God and put their faith in these Scientist. As for well educated? Intelligence without wisdom is of Satan, thus Evil. If we didn't have these types of men we would have a safer world. All I can say Pastor Deb is, Ignorance?
deb, actually modern medicine is still in the dark ages, many true profits can heal without science, however, in response to your claims for grandeur regarding the medical industry, the medical industry wants to take the credit for "cures" however they get more credit then they deserve. If it wasn't for the stupidity of the medical "Gods" I say that in jest, thinking that they know all some of those conditions you mentioned would not need a cure. For example the tonsils has been for many decades and a couple of centuries now, seen as a useless organ and had been removed. During the time when they had a high rate of removing tonsils the rate of Polio increase. They were so ignorant that they didn't know even think that there was a correlation between the two. Well natural-paths and now some physicians have started to understand that the tonsils is a filter and keeps down many of the viruses and bacteria that would make the body ill. Therefore, removing the tonsils increased the chances of contracting polio. And because of the stupidity of the "Medical Gods" when one contacted polio all they could see was they there was nothing that could be done you would be paralyses in varying degrees. If a new way to cure or help the condition came along they would be blind to it. Case in point there was a nurse during the 30's who had been working with patients on an island were some patients came down with polio and she came up with a treatment plan. My mother said that her and her mother remember reading about it when it came out in the news paper, and it was also featured on the show The Waltons. Now you might say that is a fictitious show, however since it was reported in the newspapers it was not just fiction. But the medical industry is not interested in finding cure for many of these conditions anymore because if you are cured of the conditions or disease then they no longer make any money on your so they have take the positions now a day to maintain a patients health. Like take for example your diabetes, if they wanted to cure it they would stop the insulin and regenerate the pancreas. Dr. Richard Shulze teaches how to do that. In regenerating the pancreas you wont be buying any more insulin. Why would they want that. The American Cancer Society was started by the Rockafellers and they put into the charters of the organization that if a cure were ever to be found it would be disbanded. And of course there is a lot of money being raised every year for the "so called Cure" for cancer. So much so that cures have been found and dismissed by the scientists, and medical establishment that they covered up the cures and lied about it. They have done that many times. There is just no money in curing diseases with garlic or comfrey, or st johns wart or other herbs that you can grow in your garden. Rev Rob Wheeler says that profits and spiritual healers in the early days of the bible were the healers. The duties of physicians of the days of old like in Jesus' days were to do things like set bones, and trauma type stuff, if you don't believe me, he's on face book under rob wheeler, friend him and take it up with him. I have heard of other diabetes cures on the web, too. Dr. Shulze says that the "medical Gods" are good for is trauma, and if you have a problem with that, too. go to 1800herdoc.com and complain to him. But don't try to call me names like you are so good at doing.And therefore Deb modern medical is controlled by Satan and it is an illusion from Satan. You are just so gullible that you believe in all the things that the modern life brings without question. But the problem is you believe the wrong things, like most of the stupid ignorant population does, and that is what Satan looks for so that he can use people like you for his misdeeds.
Desmazes and Mary,
if you truly believe modern medicine is ruled by Satan, then I'm not going to call you names. I'm going to tell you straight out that you are mentally ill and need help.
Just because you read something on the internet doesn't make it true. "Mikey" of the Life cereal commercials didn't die from eating pop rocks and drinking a Coca Cola, no one ever fell asleep with Bubble Yum in their mouth that had spider eggs that hatched in their sleep.
If the two of you weren't such backwoods redneck morons, then you would know that science is a gift from God, because God gives us knowledge.
As for me being ignorant, hate to break it to you Desmazes, but I'm far from it. I also have a very personal relationship with God, so I'm not really worried that I'm being enticed by "Satan" when I visit my doctor.
Are you by chance one of those prepper freaks?
you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I am not just quoting from the internet, i and many other who are probably more sane then you (who think you here you God telling you what to tell people) there are many studies which proves what these experts say. for you information it is well documented that at the some time that Louie Pasture conducted his studies on pasteurizing that another scientist also discovered that bacteria changes from being benign good bacteria to malignant or bad bacteria based on what they eat from your gut, and they can change back again too. proof of this was presented at the same time to the same people that Louie Pasture presented his ideas too. But because this idea meant that people had to be responsible for what they eat and Louie Pastures idea meant money because it opened up a whole new industry called Pharisaical then i would definitely say this was based on sin, the love of money sin. look it up do the research, or are you to lazy, it's just easier for you to fame ignorance and be stupid. If you were not so stupid about the way of God and Satan you would know that Satan can bring knowledge too, but he only bring half knowledge just enough so that we can destroy what God is trying to do. As for me being sane, you bet i am. and if you think i am not, ask yourself where has your medical world gotten you, you are the sick one, with diabetes, not me. you are the one that is going to suffer from failing health. not me. and Dr.Shulze too he is not only very sane but he knows a lot more then you ever will and he and many others like him are very intelligent, intelligent enough to still be in better health then you are. in fact he healed himself many times over from his natural cures which were given to us to use to cure ourselves by God who make the earth and plants and animals and said that the fruits and nut and greens of the field shell be our meat, and He is the one who gave that knowledge, Man has messed it all up by taking it and changing it until it is nothing like how God made it. when God made it he said it was good, so are you saying that he was wrong, that only man is capable of making it good. That would make you not only have discussions of grandeur an hearing things like a schizophrenic, but also blasphemy too. your not a expert of anything but bullshit, you have more of the same, that's why you went and learned in college. and if you got a phd which i don't think your that smart for then it would be piled higher and deeper, too. you are a fool because if you don't sand for anything moral wise you will for anything. I would like you to tell all the other naturalistic and native American medicine men and women, doctors that they are crazy too. and they will just laugh at you. because they will know you are crazy.
in fact deb, i know a medicine man who tells stories of the trickster coyote, and how he tryies to fool you to believing things that aren't. do you want me to tell him he i crazy too.
animals are God's creatures, too but they are treated like crap, because certain men still think that since we supposed to have dominion over them and the earth that means we can kill and eat or do anything we want with it or them. However, the point here is that God does make some instructions for what is appropriate improvement and what aren't as he said about the olive tree. when a tree produces bad fruit graft it out, and burn the bad branches. try to graft on some good branches, but some trees will never produce good fruit. so therefore, some amount of self improvement is acceptable in Gods eyes.
To all who sit in judgement of others, for it is not for you to judge others, it is up to God. Who are you to stand in jugement? Are you so perfect it makes you judge over each other? You waste your time posting jugements over others, you can't force someone to submit to your individual beliefs or to what is written in the bible. You as Pastor's are to guide and inform others about God and his word. It is all about choice, we all have this right to choose and we will be judged by God for the choices we make. You cannot force a person to God, they must make that choice for themselves and you are suppose to guide them as Men of God. I see a lot of stones being cast by judges that put themself before God. All men Have the right to choose and thats why we are down here upon this earth. You cannot force a man to worship God the way you see fit. Do you think God wants to be worshiped by those who are forced? Are you all so perfect just because you are pastors? And as pastors, does it give you the right to sit in judgement of one another? You spead the word and guide your brothers and sisters and its up to them, no matter how they decide to live their lives, we will all stand alone in judement before God. Its Satans way to be force into submission, it is Satans way to make Judges of us all.
HOW VERY WELL SAID.....THIS BEING GOOD FRIDAY......I WANT TO SHARE THIS.... In the middle of all of this discussion...about the Indiana Pizza Shop.....the owners response as to why she is stands on the word of God....and, I quote......"JESUS......DIED ON THE CROSS FOR ME.......THIS IS THE LEAST I CAN DO FOR HIM".......AND, THAT IS VERY WELL SAID!!!!
May our heavenly FATHER ..........BLESS US that take the BIBLE at its......... ENTIRETY.....AND, BLESS EVEN MORE THE ONES THAT DON'T ON THIS DAY OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR........JESUS OF NAZARETH
(Jo-Ann, I saw the interview. The pizza shop owner didn't SHOUT.)
with regards to you statement about judgement, being God's. i would like to point out that as messengers of God, we are afforded that write in order to spread the word of how to get to God's kingdom. Sure you can't force somebody too submit to your beliefs, but they should not try to force their beliefs or lack of it on us either. If we don't want to even associate with sinners, that should be our choice rather those sinners think we should or not. it has to do with that. we have rights and our right begin where theirs end and they have to allow us that right. just like they want to have the right to go to hell if they want to do the activities to take them there.we have the right to not be manipulated by anybody else.
One statement of the ULC had stood out to me, "We are all children of the same Universe". Roughly, my understanding of that statement is, with the whole universe of options of what to believe, and how to act, we should find opportunity to live together in harmony. How can attacking those who believe in the strict adherence to the interpretation of marriage as between one man and one woman names generate harmony? There will always be bad judgement, forgiveness is Divine.
i appreciate what you are saying, but the issue here is not necessarily only the issue with who marries who, it's the making others do what they want regardless just because they think they should be able to, that is wrong.
There is a simple solution to that. Don't own a business. Then no one will "make" you do anything. Unless of course, you refuse to shop in stores they are allowed in.
Get a freaking grip, their life does not impact yours in any way shape or form. It doesn't take money out of your pocket, it doesn't raise your taxes, it doesn't impact you at all. You say the "Bible" says it's wrong The Bible says a lot of stuff that I bet you ignore every day. Do you share a bed with your husband when you are menstruating? Bible says its wrong. Do you cut your hair? Bible says that's wrong, too.
So quote the Bible until you are blue in the face, what is truly "wrong" here is that you pick and choose what parts of the Bible fit your personal agenda and that's what you follow. The parts you don't follow or agree with you make excuses for not following them. That crap doesn't fly.
But Deb, that's not how Cafeteria Christianity™ works. They get to pick and choose what they want to pay attention to, what they want to ignore, and, most importantly, what they want to bash others about. (perhaps that explains why there's upwards of 41,000 flavors of Christianity) But dare not disagree with any of them, no matter how stupid or absurd or downright insane they sound, else you'll be "busted" and "Not a Real Christian™".
Seriously, though, Obvious Troll is Obvious, and the crazy thumpers clearly have no business here at the ULC. Still, they're fun to watch. Go Lemmings, Go!
I realize all of that. But I have to do something with my free time so that I don't go around beating the idiots I see in the flesh with cane.
It's why so many here are telling me I'm not a "Christian." I don't follow their rules. I follow God's rules. Oh and of course, I'm not sane because I can hear God speak to me. Moses, Abraham, David, etc. must all also have been insane since they heard God as well.
I don't take these people seriously, I more or less use them to help me with my diagnostic abilities in the DSM.
Pastor Deb, Your language is appalling and disrespectful towards others and yet you call yourself a Pastor born again. Television Education seems to be your foundation, responding to you is like talking to the television, all you get is repeats and a cold response. Why are you on here? You seem to attack everyone and have nothing good to say to anyone, you attack, you insult, you show an utmost disrespect with your language skill's which are barbaric in nature. Intelligence is not your strength for one who bases their opinion on what's popular on the television.
Hilarious! This 'Death' character really has the Luddite shtick down. Combined with the crazy fundi nutter angle, (s)he is really Poe-ing to the max! Way to crash their party, Big D! Keep it up!
Organized religions are so close to being a business that I think it's time to remove their tax-exempt status. Maybe then their leaders will stop thinking they know what's best for everyone, including people who don't agree with them, and stop behaving like they read their gods' minds.
Reading their God's mind as you put it is what they are there for, truthful to the best of their ability interpenetrating and spreading the word.
No they aren't there to "read God's mind." They are not even interpreting the Bible as they read it, but rather regurgitating what they have been told each passage means by those who were told by someone who were told by someone and so on down the line.
None of truly know what's on God's mind. It's great that you have your Bible to comfort you. But other faiths have their Holy Books as well, and for you to disparage them simply because they aren't the same as yours is, by definition, discriminatory.
You are free in the US to practice your religion as you choose. You are NOT free to prevent others from doing the same or to continue to push purely Christian ideologies on everyone around you.
Sorry Deb, but in this case you are wrong. The 1st Amendment clearly says that no government (state-federal or local) has the right to pass a law that would infringe on your right to practice your religion or follow its teachings. The Boy Scout Decision of the US Supreme Court has clearly stated that a business CANNOT be forced to violate its owners religious beliefs. The Hobby Lobby decision said the exact same thing.
As such a person (muslum-jewish-christian-etc) CAN impose their religious beliefs on customers by refusing to serve the people that would violate same.
Sorry if you dont like this Deb but if you dont know what you are talking about then maybe you should start?
and it is the same for those of other faiths to disparage the Christians either. And I believe that my ideas are not just merely Christians, as I have stated before I have studied from other schools of thought also and some of their ideas is also were I have gotten some of my beliefs from. you have heard me mention about the order of the great white brotherhood. now you probably will knock that too even though again you don't know anything about them. but they are into metaphysic and many of the old Egypt ion studies and many of their ideas are the same as some of what I have said here. so it is not right for you to criticize my ideas merely because they are different, eider.
Please, please, please, learn to spell, punctuate and use proper sentance construction! Readers, don't lump all believers in The Father and His Son Jesus in with Mary! Wow! Sorry, just had to get that off my chest, Thank you! Be blessed!
Attacking Mary again? You seem to be the one who's pushing your idea's by attacking Christians that Believe in God. Who's your God Pastor Deb? Is it the God of this Earth? or your own made up God? Your attacks and language towards others tells your story. There is only one true God and Creator and you don't appear to be speaking for him. Ask yourself one thing Pastor Deb, Would God act like you do towards others?
Would he act like YOU do? That's a sword that cuts both ways. God wants us to love one another. He wants us to respect one another, but he also wants this nonsense about which religion and faith is "right" to stop. Can't you see that? Part of stopping that is trying to educate the ignorant. My partner calls them "precocious children who know no better." I call them Satan in a Sunday hat.
For those of you who see "the enemy" or Satan behind everything that happens you're wrong. Completely absolutely, positively wrong. It just suits your agenda.
I became a Pastor/Reverend/Minister for a number of reasons. One of which was so that my area had someone who could perform SSM, another was do help my community find the services they need. I am beginning a very successful Ministry that welcomes all, even people like you. So before you go casting aspersions at me, which seems to be one of oyour favorite past times, go look in a mirror and ask yourself, "What would God or the Holy Trinity do in this situation." If the answer is behave like you then know you aren't following God's plan.
boy deb, you are being absorbed again as no body said to go into a restaurant and orders something that they just do not make. first of all I am talking about making a slight modification to their basic menu, and secondly even if it was not for that reason, but you went in and ordered some thing on the menu, but while you are ordering or eating or something the management decided that they just didn't like something you did or did not do but they though you did or that they just don't like you coming in there anymore. or like if you go to a restaurant for example and they continue to get your order wrong and you have to keep telling the about it and it happens every time you get anything from them so then because they make the mistake because they have inept flunkies working for them, but they don't want to accept that, and so they blame you and say every time you come in you complain so don't come back. that is some of the types of things I am talking about. so stop being so stupid.
bigotry is bigotry, plain and simple.
you know what lee, maybe bigotry is bigotry, maybe it isn't, but people have that right if they want to, so stop trying to force them to like people they don't and can't stand. it will only make them hate more.
Mary, there is no "maybe" here. Bigotry IS bigotry, just like racism is racism.
No one is trying to "force" racists and bigots to like those they don't. But both bigotry and racism are born out of ignorance, and the only deterrent against ignorance is education, which sadly is the furthest thing from the minds of bigots and racists.
What IS being done is letting the racists and the bigots know that if they want to operate a business in the United States, they need to put their ignorant beliefs aside if they want to keep their open.
Pretty simple. Really don't see why you and others have difficulty with the concept.
Sorry Deb, Bigotry is only bigotry when it concerns skin color, not lifestyles
Bigotry only applies to skin color? Are you kidding me?
big·ot·ry ˈbiɡətrē/ noun intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Sounds like something you would do, attempt to rewrite the definition of a word you're not capable of understanding. You are the master at making crap up. Just like the $150,000 dollar fine to the Just Cookies shop, or the one in Seattle that you claim was closed, or the length of time the Just Cookies had been in business, or that they were closed down, when they were not, or the cease and desist order that did not exist, or the Dr. Collins misquote you claim he refuted, but as usual you cite no source. Or the Death threats you say occurred, again no source cited. Then claims that I had my "rear handed to me" on another thread on this forum. Again no link or thread referenced. Basically you are a liar, and pretty poor one at that. The way you intentionally mis-spell people's names and the intentional failure to capitalize the first letter of proper names makes you a Bully, albeit an ignorant one, but a Bully non the less.
Nice try Quinny, but my post is factual. in this case since homosexuality is a lifestyle (and no matter what you try and say or post, there is no gay gene nor is there any evidence in genetics or medicine that a gay gene ever existed meaning it is a lifestyle) you cannot be bigoted against a lifestyle. You can on the other hand be bigoted against race or skin color.
Sorry Quinny, you are failing massively in your attempts.
" (and no matter what you try and say or post, there is no gay gene nor is there any evidence in genetics or medicine that a gay gene ever existed meaning it is a lifestyle)"
I never said or posted any of those things. I never said it was or was not a lifestyle. I never said anything about genetics, But I have pointed out your lies and will continue to say that you are a liar and a Bully, and not a very good one at that.
Sorry Quinny, you have repeatedly tried to imply that homosexuality is not a choice, when science-genetics and medicine have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is NOT genetic in any way.
nice try with your smoke and mirrors but it isnt going to work.
That could be applied to racism, but not bigotry. Bigotry has nothing to do with skin color.
But based on your answer, it is prima facie evidence that every one of your other posts are crap you may have read and didn't understand. You are an unarmed man in an intelligent conversation and should quit before the entire world knows what an idiot you are, especially since each of your posts will show up in a google search of your name, another really stupid move on your part.
I enjoy intellectual discussions, I don't enjoy intellectual competition because I don't like to beat people with my smart stick (it's rude). But you Daniel Gray, make it sport. Twenty years of my living was made doing research, legal research at that, and you've not posted one searchable item, but you have frequently explained things showing you have no clue how the justice system works.
Do us all a favor, take your toys and go home. Or back to your mother's basement.
Oh, Daniel, again you make a twist to the story to try to distract from your feeble position, distortions, and lies. I "tried to imply" , that's a good 'un Sport, but untrue! I never tried to imply anything. I don't imply things, I state things, for example, I am stating that you are a liar and a bully! Again, please cite the source where I "implied" anything.
You just keep adding to the list of crap that you make up. Like 150,000 dollar fine to the Just Cookies shop, or the one in Seattle that you claim was closed, or the length of time the Just Cookies had been in business, or that they were closed down, when they were not, or the cease and desist order that did not exist, or the Dr. Collins misquote you made, then claimed he refuted, but as usual you cite no source. Or the Death threats you say occurred, again no source cited. Then claims that I had my “rear handed to me” on another thread on this forum. Again no link or thread referenced.
Your just a liar, and not a very good one.
Back to, Deb? I'm guessing he's still there, a pimply-faced 19-year-old fundi TEABilly with no real-world experience and a marked lack of understanding of basic jurisprudence and rule of law. (What do you want to bet he couldn't pass the naturalization test?)
Sorry Deb, just because you dont like it does not make it any less factual.
You cannot be a bigot against a lifestyle no matter what you believe.
So maybe you should take your own advice and take your toys and go home. Or back to your mother’s basement as you are not able to be out in normal society without a keeper.
Joey, we dont need to know your living conditions. Nobody cares if a proved liar like you still lives in his mothers basement.
Oh Quinny, I dont need to lie like Joey does not give false impressions like you do. I site chapter and verse and then give links and quotes directly from my sources.
Whats making you and Joey so mad is that you cannot and have not been able to refute anything I have said and that just tears you up inside as each time you two try and fail to refute what I have said, it just causes more and more people to ignore your ignorant ramblings on things.
But if you wish to continue to show your ignorance and desperation in trying to disprove what I said and failing miserably each time, then by all means continue. You are only making a laughing stock of yourself each time you do it.
Hmm, wanna' remind me of that link,"directly to your source" 'cause I haven't seen one yet.
Where is the source for the 150,000 dollar fine to the Just Cookies shop? Where is the source for the one in Seattle that you claim was closed. How long was Just Cookies had been in business, 50 years? Where is the source to support your claim that they were closed down, when they were not? How about the cease and desist order that did not exist? Where is the source to the Dr. Collins misquote that you claimed he refuted? Where is the source for the death threats you say occurred? Where is the thread where I had my “rear handed to me” on this forum? Where and when did I claim homosexuality to be a lifestyle? Where did I claim there was a gay gene? Where did I "repeatedly try to imply" that "homosexuality" is not a choice? Where is the link tying the Boy Scout Decision you cite to any Business law? Where is the Supreme Court Public Affairs office? Why is it relevant? And you claim you link and cite "chapter and verse" to your sources? Seems your still a liar and a bully.
Already given the links and sources to what I said Quinny, and they cant be a lie as you claimed when they are validated.
But hey, if you wish to continue to make yourself look like a fool, then far be it from me to stop you
Are we not in this country creating another Sodom and Gomorrah as well as other, that God destroyed. Remember God told Moses he is a just and jealous God that all he wants is for people to obey his commandments and laws. Look at all the kings and prophets who disobeyed Gods laws they in fact where either destroyed, and vanquished with disease's, plagues, weather conditions and sorts. It states all through out the old and new testament it is an abomination in Gods eyes, having fornication and laying with the same sex. Point in fact new testament states: Matthew 19: 1-8, Romans 1: 18-32, Galatians 5:19, 1Timothy 1:10-The phrase Paul uses “defiling themselves with mankind” is another link of homosexual behavior to disobedience and incompatible to sound or acceptable Christian doctrine. even Jude1:4,7,19 that strange flesh of certain men meaning homosexuality that allowing unrepentant homosexuals into Christian fellowship without applying the same standards of admission applied to other sinners would be a spiritual death Nell for the church. Lastly, Revelations 21:27. The only way is through Christ to repent and as one homosexual person told they enjoy what they believe and do. I for one cannot or will not condone such actions regardless of mans laws. Due to the fact that our own laws have been formed and attired to "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them", which comes from our very won Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson along with 4-5 others. Thus those who signed the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence where of Christian values and morals in some sense or another. those who signed such documents. The reason I stated as such is that from my view I see us all perishing due to the lack of values, morals and religion. Granted, God made man to procreate not de-create thus the reason why god took Adams rib to form woman to plenish the earth. yet man has fallen to sin and his own personal conviction's of abominations, adultery, fornications and idol worship of all sorts. God also gave man and woman a brain to make choices between right and wrong. I'm not perfect in any sense, yet, I do and try and ask for forgiveness and repent my sins. I believe what the bible scriptures old and new state as well as some of the Gnostics Dead Sea scrolls state as well.
Last point is, we as a nation, of men woman of various races, ethnicity, and beliefs should feel very well lucky that we are not persecuted as they are in the Middle East today. Sharia law or some form of it still holds in five countries that such homosexuality acts carries the death penalty. The Quran even states the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by Allah according to their belief. religion needs to incarcerated within government, schools and churches period. being a constitutionalist and holding a criminal justice degree I wrote an essay about Thomas Jefferson in which I stated and argued that their is NO separation of state and church. Why is it that Jefferson held church services in the War dept., treasury, capital to name a few during his tenure, witnessed by non other John Adams. The letter between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist church was a personal notation in Jefferson own beliefs not a true document. however Supreme courts deemed such that Jefferson believed separation of church in the true sense of making only one religion. Not forbidding nativity scenes, or celebration of religion like we have today. The whole of it has been misconstrued and political to favor ones own ambitions and the so called political correct. Sure that some will disagree but that's your opinion mine is that religion was and should strong in this country from government to lay people. And that those who abominate against Gods will, his laws and commandments will perish and die an ugly death, unless they truly repent. thank you for allowing to speak my mine and my opinion of free speech and religious convictions.
Wow! Way too many comments to read in one day. I just wanted to write a little something to express my opinion. In reading several of these comments I noticed that people have forgotten the United States of America's system. This church that we belong to ( U.L.C.) is based on MANY differing religions; is it not? In the U.S. we have the opportunity to practice all religions. So why do you think that some one will not open gay rights churches? Perform gay weddings in them? I can perform a gay wedding in my church and you can refuse in yours. No government needed. Remember, a marriage is religious and a civil union is...well, government. How about the government stay out of marriage and let religious institutions take care of religious things.
Now, as far as a "business" refusing service to a gay couple. Well, that seems to be confusing some of us because we are putting that business in the position of being a church. Well it's not. When you filed for incorporation, you became a government entity, and must follow all government guidelines. (Yes I know about sole proprietorships and will get to it later) In the corporation model, you agree to certain terms, in exchange for governmen