Fascists impose gag order againt homo "marriage" opposers

kiwimacahau · Jul 4, 2015

aCultureWarrior said:
Oh but the Klein's already felt special when they had to dish out a $135,000 fine to your LGBTQueer movement kiwi.

You cannot pick and choose your clients once you open your doors to the public. The Court itself noted that the fine was in tune with fines levied against others for similar behaviour including one levied against a group who discriminated against a Christian. Do you feel that only those who discriminate against Christians should be fined?

aCultureWarrior · Jul 4, 2015

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Oh but the Klein's already felt special when they had to dish out a $135,000 fine to your LGBTQueer movement kiwi.

kiwimacahau said:
You cannot pick and choose your clients once you open your doors to the public.

Under our current fascist laws you supposedly can't, but in a righteous society a business owner should be able to turn away someone that is committing an immoral act (or wants one to be done) on his property.

The Court itself noted that the fine was in tune with fines levied against others for similar behaviour including one levied against a group who discriminated against a Christian.

Similar behavior as in "I'm sorry, but baking a cake for your homosexual 'wedding' goes against my religious beliefs"?

Do you feel that only those who discriminate against Christians should be fined?

Those who proudly engage in homosexual behavior need help. Using the force of government to stomp on religious freedom isn't helping them, it's only digging a deeper Hell-bound hole for them as individuals and destroying a nation that was built on religious freedom.

kiwimacahau · Jul 4, 2015

aCultureWarrior said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Oh but the Klein's already felt special when they had to dish out a $135,000 fine to your LGBTQueer movement kiwi.

Under our current fascist laws you supposedly can't, but in a righteous society a business owner should be able to turn away someone that is committing an immoral act (or wants one to be done) on his property.

Similar behavior as in "I'm sorry, but baking a cake for your homosexual 'wedding' goes against my religious beliefs"?

Those who proudly engage in homosexual behavior need help. Using the force of government to stomp on religious freedom isn't helping them, it's only digging a deeper Hell-bound hole for them as individuals and destroying a nation that was built on religious freedom.

A Government and it's laws must be religiously neutral. We Christians ruled Europe for several hundred years, we call that period the Dark Ages. Never again. The Church and the State must be separate. Moreover if you think the US was founded on religious liberty you might do well to read some history especially as regards the Baptists and their idea of religious liberty.

aCultureWarrior · Jul 4, 2015

kiwimacahau said:
A Government and it's laws must be religiously neutral.

Of course as long as that supposed "neutrality" sways heavily in favor of secular humanism (which it is today).

We Christians..

I only see one Christian in this conversation, and it certainly isn't the guy that defends a behavior that God detests.

ruled Europe for several hundred years, we call that period the Dark Ages. Never again. The Church and the State must be separate. Moreover if you think the US was founded on religious liberty you might do well to read some history especially as regards the Baptists and their idea of religious liberty.

I know enough about the foundation of our country and the predominately Christian men that wrote it's documents to know that they'd be turning over in their graves if they knew that left wingers like you were perverting their writings in favor of a bunch of drag queens, bull dykes and fairies.

kiwimacahau · Jul 4, 2015

You don't get to decide who is a christian or not. Moreover your interpretation of certain Levitical passages is not normative for all christians. Further the hatred inherent in your language has no place on the tongue of a Christian.

rocketman · Jul 4, 2015

aCultureWarrior said:
Oh but the Klein's already felt special when they had to dish out a $135,000 fine to your LGBTQueer movement kiwi.

Getting a judgement & getting paid for said judgement in a civil case are two very different things. I would not pay them one thin dime even if I had to liquidate the business at a loss. To hell with them & the judge they rode in on.

kiwimacahau · Jul 4, 2015

rocketman said:
Getting a judgement & getting paid for said judgement in a civil case are two very different things. I would not pay them one thin dime even if I had to liquidate the business at a loss. To hell with them & the judge they rode in on.

So you only obey the rule of law when it suits you? Paul would be surprised.

aCultureWarrior · Jul 4, 2015

kiwimacahau said:
You don't get to decide who is a christian or not.

Your issue is with God. If He all of the sudden approves of sexual perversion, then you're in like Flint.

Moreover your interpretation of certain Levitical passages is not normative for all christians.

Both the OT and NT talk about God's design for human sexuality: one man, one woman, united in matrimony. Look all that you want for Scripture that approves of homosexuality, you won't find it anywhere (outside of your Queen James version).

Further the hatred inherent in your language has no place on the tongue of a Christian.

In my world the one who wants these lost souls to repent their sinful behavior and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is the one who loves his neighbor as he'd love himself. The one who defends an immoral and destructive behavior and lifestyle is the one who hates.

aCultureWarrior · Jul 4, 2015

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Oh but the Klein's already felt special when they had to dish out a $135,000 fine to your LGBTQueer movement kiwi.

rocketman said:
Getting a judgement & getting paid for said judgement in a civil case are two very different things. I would not pay them one thin dime even if I had to liquidate the business at a loss. To hell with them & the judge they rode in on.

I believe that I read somewhere that the Klein's would close shop before they'd pay the fine, (as would any God-fearing Christian). There are so many of these cases nationwide that it's hard to keep up with all of the details.

genuineoriginal · Jul 4, 2015

TracerBullet said:
Thank you for posting the facts.

I realize that most of the posters here will ignore this and continue with their much spewing but it is still important to confront false claims with truth

Okay, I will confront your false claims with truth.

The truth is that the sexual perverts targeted the bakery for the simple reason that they hate Christianity and sought to harm the owners because they were Christians.

The judge put "public accommodation" of sexual perversion over the First Amendment rights of the bakers, and carried out a miscarriage of justice to crush the ability of Christians to actually buy and sell (run a business) without accepting the mark of the beast.

This is one of the first of many battles against Christians in America, which will turn to the beheading of Christians that oppose homosexuality before it is done.

genuineoriginal · Jul 5, 2015

kiwimacahau said:
You cannot pick and choose your clients once you open your doors to the public.

Throughout thousands of years of history, every business owner was able to pick and choose their clients. Refusal of service for any reason, or no real reason, was normal business practices.

The current situation, where a business owner becomes property of the State, is an abomination.

moparguy · Jul 5, 2015

kiwimacahau said:
You do realise that not being able to say "We'd do it again" and not being able to talk about the case and it's aftermath are two different things?

It's wrong either way the restriction falls.

kiwimacahau said:
Yes but then there's nothing like the claim of persecution to make the right-wing feel special.

Doing a little projection? That's a serious question.

Persecution shouldn't make you feel special, but it is happening and trending hotter:

Spoiler

And that doesn't even touch on the latest crop.

kiwimacahau said:
You cannot pick and choose your clients once you open your doors to the public.

Nonsense.

Even our demented judges and other jurists these days allow for picking and choosing customers - and employees, too. You act as if you've never seen a "No, shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, which clearly discriminates against nudists, and as for employees, brendan eich and everyone or anyone who ever has been or will be fired, demoted, or otherwise forced out because they won't agree with the current moral/sexual anarchism.

This immature silliness of saying it's illegal to discriminate is a distraction - everyone says you can and should be able to discriminate. The real discussion is about why or why not anyone's claims of who should be discriminated against are valid claims.

Unless, of course, you think homosexual business owners should be forced to creatively endorse, say, scott lively. If you agreed with this, you'd at least be consistent in one area.

kiwimacahau said:
A Government and it's laws must be religiously neutral.

No they they must not be religiously neutral. This is deception/diversion with language; just because the word "religion" is involved in no way means government can't have anything to do with it.

Everyone has a worldview. Said worldviews address politics. All worldviews should be assessed, and playing boogie-man games against any worldview is false and frankly hateful and bigoted.

There is no good reason to rule out religion having any relation to politics, whichever definition of that word you pick out of the dictionary.

We Christians ruled Europe for several hundred years, we call that period the Dark Ages. Never again. The Church and the State must be separate. Moreover if you think the US was founded on religious liberty you might do well to read some history especially as regards the Baptists and their idea of religious liberty.

Roman catholicism was not and is not christian.

church and state being separate has always and will always on mean in constitutional terms that the nation can't establish a federal church. At the time of the ratification of the first amendment 7 of 13 states had state churches; and guess what - that was constitutionally ok, even though it was un-biblical.

kiwimacahau said:
You don't get to decide who is a christian or not.

Than you don't get to decide who gets to decide!

Gee, isn't that fun?

How's about we let God's word (the bible) decide.

Such WERE some of you - 1 Cor 6:11

You can be a christian and struggle with those temptations, but you can't be a christian and be at ease with those temptations; you especially can't be a christian at ease with those temptations who tries to force other christians to approve of them. That makes as much sense as saying there's such a thing as the kleptomaniac christian who has to have his kleptomania approved and called christian.

genuineoriginal · Jul 5, 2015

kiwimacahau said:
So you only obey the rule of law when it suits you?

Acts 5:29
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

glorydaz · Jul 5, 2015

aCultureWarrior said:
And you do absolutely nothing about it.

Oh right, Ms./Mr. Know it All. Who do you think throws those water balloons at the patrons leaving the gay bar? Who do you think smears horse crap all over their cars? I suppose you think you're the only one doing something. Come to my neck of the woods and I'll take you around to the red neck logger camp and teach you a few tricks you know nothing about. :chew:

glorydaz · Jul 5, 2015

genuineoriginal said:
Throughout thousands of years of history, every business owner was able to pick and choose their clients. Refusal of service for any reason, or no real reason, was normal business practices.

The current situation, where a business owner becomes property of the State, is an abomination.

:thumb:

moparguy · Jul 5, 2015

Also on not being allowed to discriminate about customers: it's also perfectly legal to discriminate against violent customers, also underscoring that this isn't about who you choose to discriminate against.

The proper discussion is to debate out who has a good truth claim.

Arthur Brain · Jul 5, 2015

glorydaz said:
Oh right, Ms./Mr. Know it All. Who do you think throws those water balloons at the patrons leaving the gay bar? Who do you think smears horse crap all over their cars? I suppose you think you're the only one doing something. Come to my neck of the woods and I'll take you around to the red neck logger camp and teach you a few tricks you know nothing about. :chew:

Er, what do you think doing any of that actually accomplishes?

Stripe · Jul 5, 2015

kiwimacahau said:
You cannot pick and choose your clients once you open your doors to the public.

It's called liberty. We know you hate it.

kiwimacahau · Jul 5, 2015

Stripe said:
It's called liberty. We know you hate it.

Nope, the law is quite clear. You may not discriminate against your clients on the basis of their religion, their politics, the colour of their skin, their gender or their sexuality.

bybee · Jul 5, 2015

kiwimacahau said:
Nope, the law is quite clear. You may not discriminate against your clients on the basis of their religion, their politics, the colour of their skin, their gender or their sexuality.

...but your client is not your client until an agreement is reached? ... and any person gets to attempt to entrap you into providing a service which goes against your foundation morality?
...it is not difficult to find someone to provide a service whose bottom line is a floating feast. How is it that this equation has become so lop-sided? The rights of those who demand service ought not be any more important than those who set criteria for service?
My husband and I had a small sign company. We would not have provided service requiring vulgar, salacious, blasphemous or treasonous statements. That would be according to our standards.
When the law of the land requires that one must perform a service against one's foundation morality the law is not functioning properly.

Fascists impose gag order againt homo "marriage" opposers

Well-known member

BANNED

Well-known member

BANNED

Well-known member

Resident Rocket Surgeon

Well-known member

BANNED

BANNED

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

Well-known member

New member