TracerBullet
New member
It is normal.
Yeah cause that is exactly what happened when school segregation was ruled unconstitutional...oh wait...never mind
SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
TracerBullet
New member
OK...Once again...no minister can be forced to perform a wedding he or she does not wish to. This is why a racist pastor can happily refuse to marry an interracial couple.
Truth is that homosexuality is normal and healthy.
Truth is also that only about 5 percent of the population is oriented that way. You aren't, I'm not, and most people aren't. I personally could not possibly see me in any homosexual act; personally it would turn me off completely.
That doesn't mean that is not normal or natural.
Yep. Christianity arose 2,000 years ago. Marriage was instituted by God about 6,000 years ago.
The words refers to the lifelong, monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. This was perverted by the Supreme Court's ruling.
:darwinsm:
It was Christians at the forefront of the abolitionist movement, you retard.
Fortunately, we do not need to look to the feelings you imagine for random groups in response to liberty being advanced; we can just look to the bible to see what it says.
The bible says slavery and homosexuality are wrong.
There has always been equal rights for all to get married.
Nope. For instance, abolition was won by the work of Christians, while it is Christians fighting for the end to abortion. Meanwhile, homo-lovers pretend they have achieved something similar by perverting a term referring to something that they always had full access to.
You're too stupid to comment on the Bible.
Nothing you say is accurate.
Nope.
Heroes have names: Jesus Christ, William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
The bad guys also have names: Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot.
That would be that biblical definition of marriage? You know, the one where one has multiple wives, one can have concubines, https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/dictionary-of-bible-themes/5672-concubines
one can buy slave girls and marry them? (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Some family values, huh?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a hero. The other two---?
Those were bad guys, but you aren't suggesting that there might not have been Christian bad guys are you?
Again, launching suit isn't that problematic in this country. Winning is another matter and if the ACLU doesn't take it there are a few Christian defense funds and teams of lawyers who will and your expert legal opinion notwithstanding they should prevail.
They should and will.
It won't. Not only are there free legal defense funds, but if you think a baker can see the sort of quick money flow into his coffers and an attempt to interfere in the life of a church won't meet staggeringly larger sums donated to the cause you're looking at the world through...no, you're just not looking.
Perhaps they will win the case, but winning a case will result in months of stress and thousands of wasted dollars.
Spreading the costs among taxpayers or supporters does not remove the cost.
The fact is that people will use the law to continue the slide toward achieving the homo agenda, and these legal cases you imagine being won would only slow the descent into hell.
And we know that even today, the homos are putting people out of business.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Show me the study that positively denies' a link between them.
This study indicate's that they're is almost a 50-50 chance that a gay man was homosexually molested (by a gay pedophile) as a boy. They're is better than a 4-to-1 chance that a lesbian was homosexually molested (by a lesbian pedophile) as a girl.
Though some homosexual's may be born (I grant the possibility only), some are definitely made.
By pedophile's.
Daniel
Jose Fly
New member
Is that a bet?
I don't find confirming religious liberty at the root a waste of money. But along those lines people "waste" money on legal actions and legislative actions that they know will likely to certainly result in nothing more or less than publicity.
Unless you want a communistic system of economics you have expenses and wages. In many, but not all cases a victory can lead to reimbursement of associated costs. And most of that expense, in my response, would be voluntarily assumed by those who agree with the defense.
The truth is that people will and always have used the courts for redress, will continue to do so and that on the whole our country is better off for it. Women and minorities have struggled by that means toward tangible equality, by way of.
No, we don't. If you're talking about the baker, no one shut his doors for him and a flood of money came to him in support. Beyond that it was his practice that caused him grief and it was easily avoidable, had nothing to do with an actual business practice and merited censure for discriminatory practice.
And it wouldn't have been any different had a soldier come to him to have a "Light'em Up" theme placed on the cake and had the baker been Amish. Or had a Klansman asked for a "KKK forever!" cake and the fellow found it contrary to his moral beliefs. Or some rube who owned a restaurant open to the general public who worshipped in a church that taught black people had the mark of Cain upon them and he wouldn't serve them because of it.
The main difference between the U.S. Supreme Court,
and the KKK is this:
The Supreme Court wears black robes,
and scares white people.
A waste of time and money. People should be free, but the homos use the courts to further their agenda, wasting people's time and money.
And the homos use it to advance their agenda.
A waste of time and money.
That people do something does not make it right.
Sure, we do. Homos make a song and dance, people have to spend time and money on legal defenses.
You think because someone got a few donations, that makes it OK that people are put out of business.
The Supreme Court supports the Constitution, and the KKK opposes it?
Scares white people like Connie and his fellows here. For good reason. They still haven't recovered from Brown vs. Board of Education.
Now, my friend, if the Supreme Court were so constituted that it handed down outrageously conservative decisions I suspect that you would be a tad upset too?
Last edited:
Don't be a specious fool! There are people out there who are in no way "scared" by the Supreme Court. And many of them are dangerous.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Barbarian,
I don't know who you quoted just above. I don't accept any of the statements that person made.
Meanwhile, I would like to agree with one thing you said. We are trying to keep the state from 'establishing a religion' and so the state should not have a hand in this. It should be the various churches. Obviously there are churches out there that have a very weak view of Scripture, and they are the ones that (were already) approving SS marriages.
If this is done, the SS crowd will then 'find the weak spot' in the argument which is the word 'weak' (in reference to Scripture), and who knows what they will do with that, but by putting the debate on that ground, the real issues that matter come to clarity:
1, whether we are going to have a high view of Scripture, including the early chapters of Genesis, like Christ.
2, whether Christ in fact did
3, whether genders are a divine-created distinction, which is the true loss due to SCOTUS last week
Therefore, I'm working toward making a petition in my US county, which I hope others will follow, and which should be able to get 'followed' by conservative churches.
Petition: to further prevent the state from 'establishing a religion' (the 1st Amendment), churches will have the authority to marry couples according to a church's own doctrines and practices. Therefore: (this county) will no longer have authority to grant marriages.
I don't know who you quoted just above. I don't accept any of the statements that person made.
Meanwhile, I would like to agree with one thing you said. We are trying to keep the state from 'establishing a religion' and so the state should not have a hand in this. It should be the various churches. Obviously there are churches out there that have a very weak view of Scripture, and they are the ones that (were already) approving SS marriages.
If this is done, the SS crowd will then 'find the weak spot' in the argument which is the word 'weak' (in reference to Scripture), and who knows what they will do with that, but by putting the debate on that ground, the real issues that matter come to clarity:
1, whether we are going to have a high view of Scripture, including the early chapters of Genesis, like Christ.
2, whether Christ in fact did
3, whether genders are a divine-created distinction, which is the true loss due to SCOTUS last week
Therefore, I'm working toward making a petition in my US county, which I hope others will follow, and which should be able to get 'followed' by conservative churches.
Petition: to further prevent the state from 'establishing a religion' (the 1st Amendment), churches will have the authority to marry couples according to a church's own doctrines and practices. Therefore: (this county) will no longer have authority to grant marriages.
Last edited:
Tinark
Active member
The baker's refusal was a violation of state or city law that prohibits exactly that type of refusal. If you hate what the democratic process produces in your state or city, then move out.