US Supreme Court backs business that refused service to same-sex couple

originally posted by: AlienBorg

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Clearly there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of the non acceptable of homosexuality. Look at this passage. Do you understand what it says?! Not only homosexuality cannot be accepted but is punishable by death.

Just wondering if there are any New Testament sources you can cite?

Or do laws from the Old Testament still apply, in your opinion?

The OT is pretty dark and my understanding is that Jesus brought a new covenant. At least according to some opinions.

Honest questions. Because if we're to believe we need to abide by what's laid out in the OT, things get pretty extreme, pretty quickly. Jesus though, seems way more tolerant. Love each other, just as I have loved you, and all that.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: AlienBorg

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Clearly there is plenty of evidence in the Bible of the non acceptable of homosexuality. Look at this passage. Do you understand what it says?! Not only homosexuality cannot be accepted but is punishable by death.

Just wondering if there are any New Testament sources you can cite?

Or do laws from the Old Testament still apply, in your opinion?

The OT is pretty dark and my understanding is that Jesus brought a new covenant. At least according to some opinions.

Honest questions. Because if we're to believe we need to abide by what's laid out in the OT, things get pretty extreme, pretty quickly. Jesus though, seems way more tolerant. Love each other, just as I have loved you, and all that.

Is the old testament part of the bible? I was asked to show some evidence on how Abrahamic religions think of homosexuality. I know what you're saying.

A little off topic but was Jesus a historical person?

a reply to: AlienBorg

Fair enough.

As to Jesus being a historical person, Idk.

I'd say if so, the religion based on him missed something.

a reply to: tanstaafl

LOL...You politely asked:

Please show me, in the Constitution, where it delegates such an authority to create such an sbsurdity as a 'protected class' of people. , or anything even remotely like that.

So, I "showed" you, as if I were talking to a 3rd grader, the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause" and the Constitution's "Commerce Clause".

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I posted a few not just one. In all of them it talks about men.

Not quite true...

The main one - that 'man shall not lie with man as with a woman' does indeed mention women, making it clear as day that it wasn't including women.

But again will you conclude male homosexuality is not acceptable in the Abrahamic religions and female homosexuality acceptable? I don't think this is correct.

I only recognize what the texts say, and they say that male homosexuality is an abomination, and they do NOT say the same thing about female homosexuality.

As per my links it seems homosexuality is condemned.

Male homosexuality, yes, but again, you have not posted a single citation that includes women.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

I "showed" you, as if I were talking to a 3rd grader, the 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause" and the Constitution's "Commerce Clause".

Neither of which delegate a power to create 'protected classes', they only exyend the Bill of Rights to apply equally to the States as to the federal government.

The commerce clause has nothing to do with 'protected classes', except maybe in the minds of lawyers looking to twist the meanings of the constitution and laws for a biog payday..

a reply to: tanstaafl

Neither of which delegate a power to create 'protected classes', they only exyend the Bill of Rights to apply equally to the States as to the federal government.

The 14th Amendment was not about state rights, it was about the rights of newly freed black slaves. The Equal Protection Clause was created to ensure that the government's duty, not "right", (I misspoke when I said that earlier) was to (also) protect the newly found rights of black people.

The commerce clause has nothing to do with 'protected classes', except maybe in the minds of lawyers looking to twist the meanings of the constitution and laws for a biog payday..

...Except maybe in the context of public accommodation.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

The 14th Amendment was not about state rights, it was about the rights of newly freed black slaves.

That was part of it, but it has in effect been used to simply dextend pretty much all of the Bill of Right to apply to the States just as they did against the federal government. Prior to the 14th, the BofR only applied to the feds.

The Equal Protection Clause was created to ensure that the government's duty, not "right", (I misspoke when I said that earlier) was to (also) protect the newly found rights of black people.

Correct. It didn't create a 'special class' of anything, it simply placed black people in the same class as white Citizens.

...Except maybe in the context of public accommodation.

Nope... again, everyone is now equal under the law. No special classes needed.

You only need those if you want to divide the people and pit them against each other... you know, just like what is going on now.

a reply to: tanstaafl

No special classes needed.

There are no special classes. There are special protections for certain classes, because they have needed government protection in order to equally access public accommodation, like a seat at a lunch counter, or a seat on a bus that isn't at the back of the bus.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The only racism going on is the continuing focus on skin color by the left.

The rest of us have moved on past 1861, I honestly wish the left would as well.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The only racism going on is the continuing focus on skin color by the left.

The rest of us have moved on past 1861, I honestly wish the left would as well.

The left can’t move past 1861. They need to bring up race and sexual identity every two seconds because they’re using it for political advancement. You already know that , I can see you’re a smart fellow

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I posted a few not just one. In all of them it talks about men.

Not quite true...

The main one - that 'man shall not lie with man as with a woman' does indeed mention women, making it clear as day that it wasn't including women.

But again will you conclude male homosexuality is not acceptable in the Abrahamic religions and female homosexuality acceptable? I don't think this is correct.

I only recognize what the texts say, and they say that male homosexuality is an abomination, and they do NOT say the same thing about female homosexuality.

As per my links it seems homosexuality is condemned.

Male homosexuality, yes, but again, you have not posted a single citation that includes women.

I will find it absurd to argue male homosexuality is a sin/abomination and female homosexuality isn't. Regardless of the passages in the Bible.

Coming back to the question, homosexuality is a terrible since in all Abrahamic Religions.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Coming back to the question, homosexuality is a terrible since in all Abrahamic Religions.

Just as terrible as fornication and adultery. Not more terrible, not less terrible. However, stoning an unmarried pregnant woman to death for fornication is more terrible-er than homosexuality.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

There are no special classes. There are special protections for certain classes,

Gobbledygook. There are special classes, the members of which are provided special Rights, over and above the Rights everyone else (white people) have.

You are in favor of this. Just admit and be done with it.

because they have needed government protection in order to equally access public accommodation, like a seat at a lunch counter, or a seat on a bus that isn't at the back of the bus.

All of those are examples of violations of Rights being perpetrated by the governments (in pretty much all cases, DEMOCRAT run governments), private businesses were simply following the law in many/most cases (some I'm sure were doing so willingly).

I have no problem with said special classes or special 'rights' being enforced against rogue government agencies/actors who engage in the violations of Rights of some specific/given group(s) of people.

Today, a private business should be able to refuse employment and/or service to any person or group of people, for any reason they want - yes, even for racial reasons.

I bet you'd be surprised at how many black owned businesses would implement policies denying employment and service to white people, and that that number would most likely be far larger than the number of white owned businesses that did the same for black (or any other racial or ethnic group).

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I will find it absurd to argue male homosexuality is a sin/abomination and female homosexuality isn't. Regardless of the passages in the Bible.

Coming back to the question,

Move the goalposts much?

You claimed that what Sookie said - that the Abrahamic texts didn't forbid female homosexuality, only male homosexuality - was wrong, and that it did include female homosexuality.

Just admit you were wrong

homosexuality is a terrible since in all Abrahamic Religions.

If it isn't a sin in any of the original texts, then it isn't a sin unto God.

I can actually provide you some real, actual physical evidence of why male homosexuality would be considered a sin but not female homosexuality. Care to discuss that?

a reply to: tanstaafl

There are special classes, the members of which are provided special Rights, over and above the Rights everyone else (white people) have.

You are in favor of this. Just admit and be done with it.

I don't think so. Please, In your own words, explain to me who are these "special classes" and what kind of "special rights" are they getting?

Today, a private business should be able to refuse employment and/or service to any person or group of people, for any reason they want - yes, even for racial reasons.

That's unconstitutional. Why do hate the US Constitution?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why do people feel the need to think they are entitled to something just because they are a certain way?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I will find it absurd to argue male homosexuality is a sin/abomination and female homosexuality isn't. Regardless of the passages in the Bible.

Coming back to the question,

Move the goalposts much?

You claimed that what Sookie said - that the Abrahamic texts didn't forbid female homosexuality, only male homosexuality - was wrong, and that it did include female homosexuality.

Just admit you were wrong

homosexuality is a terrible since in all Abrahamic Religions.

If it isn't a sin in any of the original texts, then it isn't a sin unto God.

I can actually provide you some real, actual physical evidence of why male homosexuality would be considered a sin but not female homosexuality. Care to discuss that?

I didn't claim what you said. I was asked to provide some evidence (easy to do) where homosexuality is condemned in the Bible or other texts. Easy as far as I am concerned. Not only it's condemned but some passages argue it deserves death.

When homosexuality is condemned it's rather absurd to argue male homosexuality is what is condemned and female is allowed.

The rest is mental gymnastics from your part and semantics. You can argue as much as you like but the evidence is quite clear.

It's pointless to discuss the position of Abrahamic religions ok homosexuality. Unless you want to deny the truth or try to give some defense. Their position is well known for millennia.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
I don't think so. Please, In your own words, explain to me who are these "special classes" and what kind of "special rights" are they getting?

Sure... right after you,,,

"Today, a private business should be able to refuse employment and/or service to any person or group of people, for any reason they want - yes, even for racial reasons."

That's unconstitutional. Why do hate the US Constitution?

... provide the citation in the US Constitution that specifically delegates to the federal government the power to tell private businesses who they have to serve and/or hire.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I was asked to provide some evidence (easy to do) where homosexuality is condemned in the Bible or other texts.

Nope. Sookie claimed that there was nothing in the Abrahamic texts that condemned female homosexuality.

You claimed otherwise, and have yet to provide a single citation backing up your position.

So, there is NOTHING - so far - in any of the Abrahamic texts that condemns female homosexual relations.

Easy as far as I am concerned.

Anything is easy when all you have to do is move the goalposts.

When homosexuality is condemned it's rather absurd to argue male homosexuality is what is condemned and female is allowed.

What is absurd is to claim that a text that specifically condemns male homosexuality and only male homosexuality magically applies to females as well.

The rest is mental gymnastics from your part and semantics.

Gymnastics? It is called simple reading comprehension.

You can argue as much as you like but the evidence is quite clear.

And yet you are unable to present any. Yep, it's clear all right - clear as mud.