LMAO As World Glides By Conks - ACA, Gay Marriage, Etc

[JohnStOnge]

You seem to think that "religious freedom" is cart blanche for doing whatever the **** you want, as long as it's consistent with the teachings of your religion. Where exactly should the line be drawn?

Where you engage in a positive attack on somebody else. An example would be human sacrifice.

But a person should not be forced to interact with someone else in a particular way when they don't want to. So, for example, someone who owns land and rents it out for various things should not be forced to rent it out for a homosexual marriage if they don't want to; especially when they consider homosexuality to be sinful.

My daughter actually is worried about this. She's a devout Christian and she does graphic design things like designing "Save the Date" cards for wedding invitations. My wife showed me an example of a card she designed that showed a heterosexual couple about to kiss. She was wondering if she, if she was to remain in business doing that, might be forced to design such a thing for a homosexual couple showing two members of the same sex about to kiss. She absolutely could not do that. To her it would be equivalent to producing pornography.

To me it's really sad that there's ANYBODY out there who even thinks people should be FORCED to accommodate homosexuals in cases like that. This country has reached the point of being totally whacked.

[houndawg]

Our knowledge has increased in the past 300 years.

So, you're a believer that religious freedom should NOT be a tenet any longer?

Now how did you extrapolate that from what I said? Fvcking halfwit.

I have never deviated from the position that anybody is free to believe whatever superstitious nonsense they choose to believe. Heck, they will anyway.

[Chizzang]

You seem to think that "religious freedom" is cart blanche for doing whatever the **** you want, as long as it's consistent with the teachings of your religion. Where exactly should the line be drawn?

Where you engage in a positive attack on somebody else. An example would be human sacrifice.

But a person should not be forced to interact with someone else in a particular way when they don't want to. So, for example, someone who owns land and rents it out for various things should not be forced to rent it out for a homosexual marriage if they don't want to; especially when they consider homosexuality to be sinful.

My daughter actually is worried about this. She's a devout Christian and she does graphic design things like designing "Save the Date" cards for wedding invitations. My wife showed me an example of a card she designed that showed a heterosexual couple about to kiss. She was wondering if she, if she was to remain in business doing that, might be forced to design such a thing for a homosexual couple showing two members of the same sex about to kiss. She absolutely could not do that. To her it would be equivalent to producing pornography.

To me it's really sad that there's ANYBODY out there who even thinks people should be FORCED to accommodate homosexuals in cases like that. This country has reached the point of being totally whacked.

Now Johnson, unless I've got this all wrong
it would be impossible for her to be forced to make a card that she didn't want to make...
She will always have the right to say no thanks

and Churches can continue to NOT marry whoever they chose to NOT marry

The STATE can no longer engage in active discrimination
People (citizens) can do whatever they want
The local Govt can not discriminate



am I right..?

[houndawg]

Where you engage in a positive attack on somebody else. An example would be human sacrifice.

But a person should not be forced to interact with someone else in a particular way when they don't want to. So, for example, someone who owns land and rents it out for various things should not be forced to rent it out for a homosexual marriage if they don't want to; especially when they consider homosexuality to be sinful.

My daughter actually is worried about this. She's a devout Christian and she does graphic design things like designing "Save the Date" cards for wedding invitations. My wife showed me an example of a card she designed that showed a heterosexual couple about to kiss. She was wondering if she, if she was to remain in business doing that, might be forced to design such a thing for a homosexual couple showing two members of the same sex about to kiss. She absolutely could not do that. To her it would be equivalent to producing pornography.

To me it's really sad that there's ANYBODY out there who even thinks people should be FORCED to accommodate homosexuals in cases like that. This country has reached the point of being totally whacked.

Now Johnson, unless I've got this all wrong
it would be impossible for her to be forced to make a card that she didn't want to make...
She will always have the right to say no thanks

and Churches can continue to NOT marry whoever they chose to NOT marry

The STATE can no longer engage in active discrimination
People (citizens) can do whatever they want
The local Govt can not discriminate



am I right..?

You're ruining his drama queen/victim act.

[Grizalltheway]

You seem to think that "religious freedom" is cart blanche for doing whatever the **** you want, as long as it's consistent with the teachings of your religion. Where exactly should the line be drawn?

Where you engage in a positive attack on somebody else. An example would be human sacrifice.

But a person should not be forced to interact with someone else in a particular way when they don't want to. So, for example, someone who owns land and rents it out for various things should not be forced to rent it out for a homosexual marriage if they don't want to; especially when they consider homosexuality to be sinful.

My daughter actually is worried about this. She's a devout Christian and she does graphic design things like designing "Save the Date" cards for wedding invitations. My wife showed me an example of a card she designed that showed a heterosexual couple about to kiss. She was wondering if she, if she was to remain in business doing that, might be forced to design such a thing for a homosexual couple showing two members of the same sex about to kiss. She absolutely could not do that. To her it would be equivalent to producing pornography.

To me it's really sad that there's ANYBODY out there who even thinks people should be FORCED to accommodate homosexuals in cases like that. This country has reached the point of being totally whacked.

Isn't the biblical stuff about homosexuality in the Old Testament, along with all the shit about slavery and beating your wife?

Jesus would make the cards and leave the judgment up to God.

[JohnStOnge]

Isn't the biblical stuff about homosexuality in the Old Testament, along with all the **** about slavery and beating your wife?

Jesus would make the cards and leave the judgment up to God.

There's a very negative reference to homosexuality in the New Testament in Romans 1:26-27. And yes I know people have tried to argue that it doesn't say what it obviously says. It's the same with theology as it is with biology. The "Homosexuality is Normal" people will argue that something that is obvious actually isn't there. They're friggin' shameless liars. And, unfortunately, they are prevailing. I guess it's the old principle about how if you lie persistently and long enough you'll establish the lie in the minds of others as the truth.

And I think it's kind of ridiculous to say that the Jesus character would have made cards and left the judgement to God. Yes, he would have left the judgement to God. But it's kind of like the "cast the first stone" thing. Yes he promoted mercy. But he didn't endorse adultery.

It's absolutely ridiculous to argue that the Bible doesn't identify homosexual behavior as depraved. If you want to say the Bible is crap, fine. But don't say it doesn't condemn homosexuality in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament because it does.

[AZGrizFan]

So, you're a believer that religious freedom should NOT be a tenet any longer?

Now how did you extrapolate that from what I said? Fvcking halfwit.

I have never deviated from the position that anybody is free to believe whatever superstitious nonsense they choose to believe. Heck, they will anyway.

Oh, don't give me that bullshit. You know that's what you were implying.

And it'd be great if we actually OPERATED that way as a country. But we don't, anymore.

[D1B]

Wrong again, Pole Dancer.

Liberals protect decent Muslims in America (from people like you and TRUMPman6.93) and think Christian fundamentalists and Muslim extremists are assholes.

Christian fundamentalists won't make cakes for gay marriages. Muslim extremists behead, drown, light on fire and blow up those they disagree with. Yeah. They're the same thing. Just assholes, right?

Yes. If given back the power they once had and still want, they'd be worse than the Muslim psychopaths.

Your hero W killed 100,000 of em recently. Remember?

You're out of your league here.

[D1B]

Okay Pole Dancer fan, where do you draw the line? I'm on the side of serving all. Liberals didn't protect decent Muslims in the taxi driver case. The ALCU sided with the people being denied service, not the Muslims.

Link

Ben writes that “there is a certain irony to the American Civil Liberties Union fighting against an individual’s right to practice his religious preferences.” Well, not really. A few years ago, Muslim cab drivers working out of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport were refusing to transport people carrying blind persons with guide dogs on religious grounds. The Muslim drivers also refused to serve people who were carrying duty free alcohol purchased at the airport. When this came to light the ACLU sided with those who were being denied service arguing it was a question of public access. While much of what the ACLU does leaves a great deal to be desired, they have been very consistent on this issue.

I have made this argument before and it bears repeating. In a country built on free enterprise people should not be denied goods and services if they have the money to pay for them. With this in mind, the Christian baker is every bit as wrong to not make a wedding cake for a gay couple as the Muslim cab driver is wrong not to transport passengers who need guide dogs or are carrying a bottle of Beaujolais.

Projecting your religious beliefs onto others doesn't make you decent, it makes you an asshole.

Exactly. Thanks.

[Grizalltheway]

Isn't the biblical stuff about homosexuality in the Old Testament, along with all the **** about slavery and beating your wife?

Jesus would make the cards and leave the judgment up to God.

There's a very negative reference to homosexuality in the New Testament in Romans 1:26-27. And yes I know people have tried to argue that it doesn't say what it obviously says. It's the same with theology as it is with biology. The "Homosexuality is Normal" people will argue that something that is obvious actually isn't there. They're friggin' shameless liars. And, unfortunately, they are prevailing. I guess it's the old principle about how if you lie persistently and long enough you'll establish the lie in the minds of others as the truth.

And I think it's kind of ridiculous to say that the Jesus character would have made cards and left the judgement to God. Yes, he would have left the judgement to God. But it's kind of like the "cast the first stone" thing. Yes he promoted mercy. But he didn't endorse adultery.

It's absolutely ridiculous to argue that the Bible doesn't identify homosexual behavior as depraved. If you want to say the Bible is crap, fine. But don't say it doesn't condemn homosexuality in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament because it does.

The point is, 99% of "devout Christians" pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow to the letter. And for some reason what two consenting adults do in private is at the top of the list.

[kalm]

You seem to think that "religious freedom" is cart blanche for doing whatever the **** you want, as long as it's consistent with the teachings of your religion. Where exactly should the line be drawn?

Where you engage in a positive attack on somebody else. An example would be human sacrifice.

But a person should not be forced to interact with someone else in a particular way when they don't want to. So, for example, someone who owns land and rents it out for various things should not be forced to rent it out for a homosexual marriage if they don't want to; especially when they consider homosexuality to be sinful.

My daughter actually is worried about this. She's a devout Christian and she does graphic design things like designing "Save the Date" cards for wedding invitations. My wife showed me an example of a card she designed that showed a heterosexual couple about to kiss. She was wondering if she, if she was to remain in business doing that, might be forced to design such a thing for a homosexual couple showing two members of the same sex about to kiss. She absolutely could not do that. To her it would be equivalent to producing pornography.

To me it's really sad that there's ANYBODY out there who even thinks people should be FORCED to accommodate homosexuals in cases like that. This country has reached the point of being totally whacked.

I'm sure your daughter is a sweet kid, but the less people we have that view homosexuality like she does, the less "whacked" this country will be.

[kalm]

There's a very negative reference to homosexuality in the New Testament in Romans 1:26-27. And yes I know people have tried to argue that it doesn't say what it obviously says. It's the same with theology as it is with biology. The "Homosexuality is Normal" people will argue that something that is obvious actually isn't there. They're friggin' shameless liars. And, unfortunately, they are prevailing. I guess it's the old principle about how if you lie persistently and long enough you'll establish the lie in the minds of others as the truth.

And I think it's kind of ridiculous to say that the Jesus character would have made cards and left the judgement to God. Yes, he would have left the judgement to God. But it's kind of like the "cast the first stone" thing. Yes he promoted mercy. But he didn't endorse adultery.

It's absolutely ridiculous to argue that the Bible doesn't identify homosexual behavior as depraved. If you want to say the Bible is crap, fine. But don't say it doesn't condemn homosexuality in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament because it does.

The point is, 99% of "devout Christians" pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow to the letter. And for some reason what two consenting adults do in private is at the top of the list.

Jesus loved the sinners...except for them gay ones. Fuck those guys!

[CID1990]

Where you engage in a positive attack on somebody else. An example would be human sacrifice.

But a person should not be forced to interact with someone else in a particular way when they don't want to. So, for example, someone who owns land and rents it out for various things should not be forced to rent it out for a homosexual marriage if they don't want to; especially when they consider homosexuality to be sinful.

My daughter actually is worried about this. She's a devout Christian and she does graphic design things like designing "Save the Date" cards for wedding invitations. My wife showed me an example of a card she designed that showed a heterosexual couple about to kiss. She was wondering if she, if she was to remain in business doing that, might be forced to design such a thing for a homosexual couple showing two members of the same sex about to kiss. She absolutely could not do that. To her it would be equivalent to producing pornography.

To me it's really sad that there's ANYBODY out there who even thinks people should be FORCED to accommodate homosexuals in cases like that. This country has reached the point of being totally whacked.

Now Johnson, unless I've got this all wrong
it would be impossible for her to be forced to make a card that she didn't want to make...
She will always have the right to say no thanks

and Churches can continue to NOT marry whoever they chose to NOT marry

The STATE can no longer engage in active discrimination
People (citizens) can do whatever they want
The local Govt can not discriminate



am I right..?

hold on a sec


Didn't a court just tell a baker that he couldn't refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding? Did I get that wrong or is it somehow not the same thing?

[Gil Dobie]

With gay marriage legal, Murica took a step forward in favor of personal freedom. That's always a good thing, even for conks, right?

No. Let's go through this again:

Defining marriage in any particular way was never a denial of personal freedom. Saying that two homosexuals can't engage in homosexual behavior is a denial of personal freedom. Saying that you opt not to recognize that behavior as "marriage" is not. Defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman never was an attack on personal freedom.

What IS an attack on personal freedom is something like this:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/chris ... ghts-back/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And we're about to see a lot of that kind of thing. We're about to see a massive attack on the free exercise of religion.

You guys just don't get it. The "Homosexuality is Normal" movement is not about freedom. It's just the opposite. It's about forcing people to accept depravity as normal. It's about taking freedom away.

If this guy has a license from the state, he should expect a fine if he doesn't open his farm up to everyone.