I like it when someone is Gods conduit for the world to see. Glory be to God for in the end everyone shall bow there knee in acknowledgment of he that made thy and there will be great disappointment for the worlds rampage will be over.In there fun and kicks will be judged by the righteous. Meaning (us) Christians.
Rhetorical terrorism?
That's a phrase I've never heard before.
Care to explain or elaborate?
got any unbiased sources other than lifesitenews?
this is why we have those laws,because people use their religion to deny gay people business, housing and fair representation
please tell me something PF, if huguenin denied another group of people on the grounds of some sort of "conflict" with her religion would that be right?
well huguenin shows those of us who find the religion conflict to be nothing but an excuse, that she doesn't care about other people.
it is discrimination, the couple aren't doing anything to cause huguenin to refuse to take their photos, huguenin is denying them solely because they are gay.
that is discrimination to a T, PF, its why the laws exist!
if he or she owns their own buisness, like the photo company, then yes, they should be able to. I mean this gay couple coulda easily gone to someone else who would take them but instead had to sue someone because their "feelings got hurt" simply because these people follow their morals faithfully and don't want to compromise their faith.
Give up your moral dignity or get sued or fired. It should not come to that.
Then you should change the civil rights laws that prohibit business owners to discriminate against classes of people.
Of course, traditional Christians might not like it if almost all the businesses in Utah became "Mormon Only". Can you imagine trying to drive across Utah, getting to one of the more remote towns like Green River, and being denied food or gas because you aren't Mormon?
but there are stores like that and cater only to mormons and such.
There are stores where you have to be a VIP or have to wear certain types of clothes just to be let in. There are places were you have to have a certain income bracket to be let in.
There are places were you have to have a certain income bracket to be let in. If an independant buisness cannot cater to certain things because of religious beliefs then he cannot and as long as its his own buisness he should have that right and at least direct them to someone who can.
Give me an example of a store that only allows Mormons or any other religious group, at least that isn't directly part of a church (operated as part of the church organization).
Again, examples please? I've never heard of a store that requires a tax return, at least other than banks for a loan as proof you will be able to repay the loan. Some stores do require shirt and shoes based which they justify based on public health.
Though, to be honest, the groups protected by these laws are religion, nationality, race, disability, age, gender and occasionally sexual orientation.
Then, again, work with your representatives to change the law. I find it strange that anti-gay marriage laws are justified by being what the majority want, yet when communities or states pass gay civil rights laws suddenly Christians are claiming their rights are being violated -- regardless that these laws were passed by the legislative process (i.e. will of the people). Seems like you have a double standard here.
obviously rights are being violated. Free speech being one since anyone who seems to say homosexuality is a sin gets sued.
Not being able to do something because of religious vows has nothing to do with discrimination. Photography is an enterpreneur buisness and thus the photographer himself makes his own rules on what projects he does and what he dosen't do. The photographer dosen't have to be forced to do a project he dosen't want to do
Wow, talk about moving the goalposts. You tried using Ezekiel's claim that Sodom was overfed and unconcerned with the poor and I show where you were scapegoating gays while ignoring the fact that it is a problem in American in general. Rather than rebutting my statements, showing me that I'm wrong in my claims, instead you use it to bash other Christians that don't believe the same things you do and try to twist Ezekiel's clear meaning about being "overfed".
Yes, just like I don't see Jews pushing for Evangelicals to lead the way, or how I don't see Blacks pushing for Neo-Nazis to lead the way. So, where is the support for your claims?
In fact, he clearly instructs in these parables that it is not your job to separate the wheat from the tares, your job is merely to sow the seed and to love your neighbor.
[sarcasm]I'm overwhelmed by your evidence.[/sarcasm] If you wish to provide evidence that gays donate less than others to the poor, I'd be happy to examine it. In the meantime, your petty insults only reinforce that you cannot support your claims.
False. Seriously, there are some people on these boards that, while they support homosexual rights, are quite conservative according how most conservatives in the US attempt to define it -- that government should be limited and small. Again, I gave you an example of conservative gays and all I get out of you is a lame putdown -- again, a sign in debates that you can't argue the facts so you attempt to ridicule those who do post facts.
You do realize, of course, that probably around 90% of all homosexuals today were raised in a home that was at least nominally Christian.
Beyond that, gays tend to know what it is like to be discriminated against and persecuted. Many of them were kicked out of "good" Christian homes (by your definition of good Christian) for being gay.
As such, the gays I know are more likely to be empathetic to the poor and downtrodden.
As for giving to gay organizations, why shouldn't they? I'm guessing you have donated money to an anti-gay organization, perhaps even MassResistance (seeing as how often you have attempted to use their propoganda). So what is the difference?
Which goes back to what Ezekiel called the sins of Sodom:
So is is not "exactly", behaving like a harlot is not what the sin of Sodom was.
Yet you tried claiming it was gays and the evil of porn, completely ignoring the majority of porn is heterosexual.
In fact, what even tapes of lesbian sex are aimed at heterosexuals rather than lesbians. As such, you can't single out gay porn and claim it proves they are like Sodom, it merely reinforces they way you are picking and choosing to support a presupposition.
Yes, and not far from where I live there is an adult toy/video shop right next to a family ice skating rink and a large family entertainment center, there is a Methodist hospital across the street. Coming down the street closer to where I live there is another adult toy store. A block from that toy store, with one of the large 24 screen theaters belonging to one of the large national theater chains in-between, there is a strip club. Going the other way, you have a fairly nice mall. And this is in a nice suburb outside of the city limits where it is largely Republican Christians. Gays have nothing on heterosexuals.
I've heard they have those in Vegas in one of the Casinos -- it is about a week long if I understand right. They even have their own award shows to recognize the best at it.
Nothing more than to keep them out of your own church. Again, Christ clearly stated they would be separated at judgment, that until then believers were merely to sow seeds and let the weeds and tares grow together.
False, two lesbians sued a business that happened to be owned by Christians for not following the law.
If these Christians had refused service to a handicapped couple would you still support them? Regardless of your personal feelings about the difference, it is the same law protecting both.
These laws were created to stop a form of segregation, where people were discriminated against by businesses simply because of who they are. Now, you can argue that they aren't necessary and write your government representatives telling them to repeal these laws but it doesn't change the fact that the Christian business owners went against local law.
Why is it not appropriate here? You're post if filled with haughtiness, much like the haughtiness of the Pharisees. You clearly show here that you are the one who knows the truth and those that disagree with you are wrong and not Christian. In fact, you belittle me because I dare to call you on some of what you claimed.
And I think you've proven you do have a plank. You act as if every gay is some in your face, porn addicted, drag queen, self-absorbed, haughty, Pagan, extreme liberal, Christian-hating caricature.
When some of us try to call you on this caricature you try to create and prove to you that very few gays actually fit that profile, you try ridicule and misdirection to hide the fact that you provide absolutely no evidence of how your caricature represents any gays, much less the majority.
Its like forcing a photographer to photograph pornography and then sue him for "sex discrimination" if he declines to do it.
Schism is the only thing that Gay Pride will accomplish in the Church, even the liberal Anglican Church. The Gay Agenda of course.
Trying to use Ezekiel to squirm out of the condemnation of gay sex is moving the goal posts to another filed in a different town. Jews and Christians have held that sodomy means same-gender sex acts for many moons.
You are not going to homosexualize the Church no matter how hard you try. Never.
Liberal theology is the only tool for forcing GLBT culture onto and into the Church.
Evangelicals seek Sola scriptura.
Gays seek a new scholar to alter scripture for some unseemly reason or two.
And showing them false teachers leading them astray is a very loving thing to do.
GLBT versus Christians is a good place to teach what GLBT's are doing to Christians.
It seems they are more concerned with condom distribution to young kids in high schools nationwide.
I could be wrong, but my eyes do not deceive me here. You never here of abstinence programs from GLBT promoters. Actualy its extreme opposite.
Conservative gays is like saying ham sandwhich eating Muslims. The two things don't go togther. GLBT's are extreme leftists. Boston and Frisco are just two easy examples of "the community."
Nominally Christian is like saying almost not dead. Of all of the gay kids I have worked with and talked to over the years, most come from broken homes.
Bull. They were "kicked out" because they wanted to live their gay life in their parent's home.
The gays I know are empathetic to the poor and downtrodden. It's just what they want to do with the poor and downtrodden that seprates them from Christians.
The only money I have given to people that won't support homosexuality, is money I have given to the Churches I attend that follow the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles and Disciples.
Only GLBT's, liberals and progressives, atheists and Humanists see that as intolerance and hate or whatever neologism they have made up today to attack Christians.
harlots are the embodiment of promiscuity and perversion. Ezekiel will never support the gay agenda.
The two are the exact same thing. "All the men of Sodom" gathering around Lot's house were more than likely not all gay.
Lascivious licentiousness is one category. Yet, I have yet to see an adultery pride parade.
Promiscuity Pride parades are exclusive to GLBT culture. Why hasn't your town run these porn shops out? Too many liberals on the city council? Or too many money loving Republicans?
Private. Indoors.
I have never once posted that Gays cannot be in any Church I attend. They just cannot lead anyone or teach anyone.
Ten bucks says they wouldn't have sued a Muslim couple. We Christians know what LGBT's are doing. They are coming at the Church one law and one incident at a time.
Sex acts are not a minority classification.
This is where the satanic is becoming commonplace.
Laws aimed at doing exactly what these homosexuals did. It's called the gay agenda for a reason.
Back to the satanic. A sin repented of is no longer a sin. It doesn't exist anymore. I am confident of the Apostolic witness.
I belittle you because you don't scare me.
You say that like I should care. I'm not the one trying to prove an agenda based on the Bible. I've told you before, I don't care. I merely point out where you make obvious mistakes that go against what the Bible clearly states.I see you for what you are and I am not afraid. You are the one that has no scriptural support for your positions. There is no such thing as gay promoting statements anywhere in the Bible. Remember?
It is not a caricature at all. You described a gay pride parade.
You described the typical gay bar.
You described a typical public bathroom scene gay style.
You also NEVER hear EVEN a "gay Christian" speak against the ubiquitous erotica and promiscuity that is gay life.
"Gay Pride."
That is your defining statement. Not mine nor the Church.
And it never will be. Schism is the only thing that Gay Pride will accomplish in the Church, even the liberal Anglican Church. The Gay Agenda of course.
No.. the Christian left, you don't get to decide who is Christian or not.
For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Again, please give specific examples of rights being violated? I've not heard of lawsuits where someone merely stating that homosexuality is a sin has been sued, particularly in the United States? If that is true, why has Fred Phelps never been sued for his hate speech against gays?
Again, not according to the law in some areas. In this case, under New Mexico law, businesses (which the photographer is running) are not allowed to discriminate against gays, or religion, race, etc. To ask a second time, why do you believe the majority has the right to deny gays the right to act on their beliefs, to get married, yet deny the majority the same right to prevent discrimination against minority groups
There have been a ton in Canada already. Haven't read about the US but I will check up on that.
A photographer should not be forced to do something he is not comfortable with. What don't you understand about that?
Secondly, gays are not a minority. If you based minority status on sexual orientation we would all be minoritys. Lastly not being able to do something because of religious vows is not discrimination. A photographer should have the right to decline something if he dosen't feel comfortable with it. Thats his right as a free person. And to sue a photographer because his religious practice would not allow him to shows how insecure and petty they are about themselves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?