Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail

a reply to: Phage

You are the one who brought up completely irrelevant "stupid laws" in the same way you compared shoeless patrons to gays.

No I brought up stupid laws because you said that my example of shoeless people in restaurants was stupid, so I gave you some real life examples of similar laws. AND YOU ARE TOTALLY TWISTING IT OUT OF PROPORTION TO MEAN SOMETHING I DIDNT SAY SO STOP IT!

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Times have changed haven't they.

Yes, they have.

But what was that you said?

everything has to be clouded by relative perception that changes and shifts like the sands of the beach.

So change is good? Or bad? Or does it depend on your point of view?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Modern Christians do not believe in slavery? Then you don't believe in your Bible, because it surely does:

Material provided from the afore cited article at christianitytoday.com

• Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Gen. 21:9–10).

• Canaan, Ham’s son, was made a slave to his brothers (Gen. 9:24–27).

• The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it (Ex. 20:10, 17).

• Slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it.

• The apostle Paul specifically commanded slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5–8).

• Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philem. 12).

• Just as women are called to play a subordinate role (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 2:11–15), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.

• Slavery is God’s means of protecting and providing for an inferior race (suffering the “curse of Ham” in Gen. 9:25 or even the punishment of Cain in Gen. 4:12).

So, quoting from the Bible is twisting it? What a tangled web ...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No I brought up stupid laws because you said that my example of shoeless people in restaurants was stupid, so I gave you some real life examples of similar laws.

It isn't a law that keeps shoeless people out of restaurants. It's decorum and caution on the part of the owners and in doing so they do not discriminate. No one who does not wear shoes is permitted in. Not blacks, not whites, not gays, not straights, not men, not women, not no one. It is not discriminatory.

Yeah, stop quoting things and repeating things and pointing out facts!

That's not convenient to their argument, these facts and stuff.

I think this matter is pretty much wrapped up. The Knapps have been shown to be duplicitous, and we've certainly beaten the issue to death.

Peace be with you.

For an even more detailed account of this ongoing deceptive practice there is this:
For-Profit Wedding Chapel Sues After Idaho Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Indeed, the Hitching Post is a for-profit business, but with help from ADF, the Knapps have been gearing up for this challenge for some time by redefining their business in more religious terms. In fact, Hitching Post completely reincorporated with an entirely new business certificate just last month, which was authorized by Michael S. Oswald, an ADF attorney. Along with the new business was a new Operating Agreement, dated October 6, 2014, which enshrines all of the religious values offered in the complaint as part of the business. They similarly added a new Employee Policy and Customer Agreement stipulating that the Hitching Post will only perform unions “between one biological male and one biological female.”

Whoops!!! Those deeply held beliefs which they've held on to for, ummmm, three days. All under the careful instructions of the ADF attorney. What scumbags!!

Jeremy Hooper notes that back in May when it was first in the news, the Hitching Post Chapel’s website said that the Knapps offered a “traditional or civil ceremony” for weddings and that they also would “perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths.” Though the website still said as much as recently as October 9, 2014, the old language has been scrubbed and the Hitching Post now only offers “a traditional Christian wedding ceremony.”

Didn't start changing the site until Oct. 9th. Damn. ADF, you're slippin in your game!!! Guess all those Wins have kinda gone to your head. It's always when someone thinks they are unstoppable, that they run smack into a wall.

I agree Gryph. This is sad. It's the worst kind of Rot and Corruption that can happen, from the inside by those who claim they are there to help. This organization is selling out the people they claim to be protecting, the Religion they claim to be representing and anyone else who might innocently be caught in the crossfire. They don't care who they hurt, deceive, or defraud as long as it furthers their agenda and fattens their bank accounts. They are the seed of ruin and they may well be the downfall of those institutions they fool into joining with them.

a reply to: windword

Both the 14 year old and 25 year old have the right to privacy. Planned Parenthood doesn't have the right to force anyone to name their rapist before delivering services.

So of course you are advocating underage abortion because of a right to privacy....when did privacy trump the law here? So as long as nobody says anything it's ok?
But again you've missed the real point...that is the case of a 14 year old having the same rights as an adult female....abortion on demand with no parental consent or even knowledge.

Progressives do tend to push the slippery slope a lot. But you've turned it into an argument that Planned Parenthood has a right not to report an underage girl being impregnated by an adult. I asked if it is common sense and you have replied that you do not care about that.

a reply to: mOjOm

Good finds on your part. Nothing is as satisfying as the facts.

I'm not a believer, as I've repeatedly said ... but that doesn't mean I have no respect for those who do really believe and live their lives according to ethical and moral principles ... the problem is ... they're just so rare.

Ah well, back to random chance and the laws of physics for me. LOL.

a reply to: mOjOm

So if they were only in it for the money, then why would they even care about gay marriage? That really doesn't make any sense to me. Sounds like a paper tiger from the Progressive crowd to me.

a reply to: mOjOm

How weird. No one has complained. No one has sued. Think they're being paid to be a scapegoat type test case?

In any case, it really doesn't matter what the Operating Agreement or "Customer Agreement" says. They cannot lawfully discriminate against gays or anyone else. Religious "principles" do not put them above the law.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

So if they were only in it for the money, then why would they even care about gay marriage?

If they aren't in it for the money, why aren't they a church? Why do they sell marriages?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

This is definitely an all out attack on traditional constitutional freedoms, at least it seems like that to me. T

Where does the constitution provide the freedom to discriminate against others?

It Doesn't. The constitution doesn't give any freedoms. You have them by being a human being. (the phrase constitutional freedoms I typed earlier is meant to discuss the ones that it outlines and identifies as self evident).

My entire posted reply to the OP was not about discriminating against others. It was about government discriminating against citizens, how the tables are being turned, except it is being portrayed so that if you don't go along with this Idaho bit being done, you will be made to look like you are discriminating against gays even if you are not.

Reread my reply more thoroughly and to the end, might help you get my meaning better. If not, then I can't help, it is pretty self evident and written as clear as I can make it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: mOjOm

How weird. No one has complained. No one has sued. Think they're being paid to be a scapegoat type test case?

In any case, it really doesn't matter what the Operating Agreement or "Customer Agreement" says. They cannot lawfully discriminate against gays or anyone else. Religious "principles" do not put them above the law.

Maybe not scapegoats. I think the ADF has them believing they will be heroes or martyrs for the cause and they will be protected regardless of what happens.

If you read up on the history and direction of the ADF it's actually quite interesting. But what isn't a surprise is that they are Built by Big Money Interests and Powered by Big Lawyer BS. What's worse, is they are good at it. Really good up until this point as far as I can tell. But they do have an agenda and it seems they are using and maybe even completely organizing this agenda. I wouldn't put it past them to be using, for a lack of a better phrase, "Problem Action Solution" tactics.

What made it so apparent on this one was there was no attempt by anyone other then themselves crying wolf. The timing of the ADF being included, the phone call that set it in motion, the vague details about who is making it all an issue and so on. Once you start reading up on it, right from the start there is just something stinky with the whole thing. Now we know why. I think it would be a good idea to investigate how legitimate some of the previous ADF cases have been too.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You have them by being a human being. (the phrase constitutional freedoms I typed earlier is meant to discuss the ones that it outlines and identifies as self evident).

I think you are confused. It is the Declaration of Independence which says that.

you will be made to look like you are discriminating against gays even if you are not.

Except you are. Saying that you will not perform a service for one particular group that you will perform for others is discrimination against that group.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

So if they were only in it for the money, then why would they even care about gay marriage?

If they aren't in it for the money, why aren't they a church? Why do they sell marriages?

Why isn't the Catholic Supply a church? They sell religious articles. You know like bibles and communion trays and rosaries. Are they just in it for the money or do they believe they are providing a very valuable service to religious people?
So what if a guy comes in to the Catholic Supply of St. Louis demanding a bible and a cross and he's a practicing Satanist and tells everyone at the store that.... do they have an obligation to sell bibles to the guy just because the Satanic Church in California is legal?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

They sell religious articles

Tell me. Do they refuse to sell those articles to anyone?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: mOjOm

So if they were only in it for the money, then why would they even care about gay marriage? That really doesn't make any sense to me. Sounds like a paper tiger from the Progressive crowd to me.

As for the money issue. I was speaking more about the ADF than this couple. I don't know if they were paid off or not, but the ADF I don't believe for one second is sincere about any sort of Religious anything. They're a big time crew of Lawyer Scumbags. Period.

What kind of person with any principles at all would practice such deception within the very institution they say they are there to protect. Do you think for one second they actually care about Christianity or Christians?? If they did, why on earth would they risk other people like this??? That's just malicious. Innocent Christians as well as Innocent Homosexuals have and will be taking all the blowback from what the ADF is doing with their lies and they don't care about any of them.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

They sell religious articles

Tell me. Do they refuse to sell those articles to anyone?

I wouldn't know as I've never really asked them, but take the scenario I just described. Now are you going to complain they have no right to discriminate against practicing Satanists and they have to sell things to him?

You are twisting things a bit yourself as usual there Griffy

The meaning I always got from God no disapproving, was because people all accepted slavery back in those ancient days as socially acceptable, even the slaves accepted it.
God didn't approve of slaves being abused, and just being a slave back then was not considered abuse of someone either by the slave or the owner.
The meaning about how God looked upon it was made quite clear in context of the bible, but it is only you who are twisting it today, and out of context to denigrate Christians..

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I wouldn't know as I've never really asked them, but take the scenario I just described. Now are you going to complain they have no right to discriminate against practicing Satanists and they have to sell things to him?

Interesting that you capitalize satanist.
But, since satanism is as much a religion as any, I would say that it would be discriminatory. However in your example, since the customer was being disruptive, I would think that the shop would be under no obligation to serve them. Not because he was a satanist, but because he was a jerk.