Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A restraunt that has a owner that is a Christian, (Chick-fil-a) would be an exampleWait a moment, what is “a Christian restaurant”?
Some of them probably do.the local after church diner owned by Christians isn't going to host the same sex wedding reception in their banquet facitities, it's that simple
What does this have to do with the thread topic?A restraunt that has a owner that is a Christian, (Chick-fil-a) would be an example
Just as Jack Phillips in Colorado is a Christian baker and business owner, that was targeted and harassed by the homosexual community over the past 5-6 years, drug into court several times for denying services to homosexuals
Pommer the local after church diner owned by Christians, isn't going to host the same sex wedding reception in their banquet facitities, it's that simple
Conclusion: The days of the homosexual community targeting Christians in their business services are over
No, it would not apply in that circumstance. There is no creative expression involved in renting a banquet hall. The banquet hall is just existing there as a banquet hall.Example: Same would apply to a Christian restraunt, that refuses to rent their banquet facilities to a "same sex marriage reception"
You can't force a Christian to perform services against their beliefs, their services and facilities are their expression in religious free speech
A restraunt that has a owner that is a Christian, (Chick-fil-a) would be an example
Just as Jack Phillips in Colorado is a Christian baker and business owner, that was targeted and harassed by the homosexual community over the past 5-6 years, drug into court several times for denying services to homosexuals
Pommer the local after church diner owned by Christians, isn't going to host the same sex wedding reception in their banquet facitities, it's that simple
Conclusion: The days of the homosexual community targeting Christians in their business services are over
I'm not 100% positive, but I think he might have been unironically calling hand-holding lewd.What does that mean?
I DisagreeNo, it would not apply in that circumstance. There is no creative expression involved in renting a banquet hall. The banquet hall is just existing there as a banquet hall.
Even if the entire theme and motif of the restaurant was "Christianana," if a same-sex couple entered the restaurant and wanted to order something Christian off the menu and enjoy that "Christian ambiance," the restaurant could not deny them. If that same-sex couple is willing to order the "Loaves and Fishes" entree off the menu, the restaurant can't refuse to serve it to them.
Unless every dish prepared in the restaurant is an individually created work of cuisine art designed specially by the chef for that particular customer to that customer's non-Christian wishes, it would not apply to a Christian-owned restaurant.
You totally fail to understand the ruling. Your opinion is not the opinion of the Supreme Court.I Disagree
The example surrounded a "same sex wedding reception" at a Christian owned facility, not the distraction of homosexuals dining at a individual table as you move away from the presented example
It's my opinion that a Christian business wouldn't be obligated to provide its service and banquet facility against their religious belief, as homosexuality is condemned in the bible
I Disagree, Jesus Is The Lord
I'm fully aware of the ruling, as if your teaching me something, your notJack Phillips cannot turn away a homosexual who wants to buy a chicken sandwich, at least not in a state with laws prohibiting discrimination by sexual orientation. The Supreme Court ruling does not allow that at all.
You didn't understand the ruling.
I'm a portrait photographer, and I wear my Christianity on my sleeve in my studio and in my work. It's in the name of my business. I'm playing contemporary gospel music in my studio. You walk in the front door and there is a cross on the wall right in front of you. If the opportunity arises, I'm going to mention Jesus. The portraits I take are suitable for Christian morality. That's standard. Everyone gets that. I'm not changing that for anyone. If a homosexual couple is willing to accept all that....I consider it an appointment by the Holy Spirit. They must really want some gospel, even if they don't realize it.
I disagree with what you believe the opinion of the court is, it's that simpleYou totally fail to understand the ruling. Your opinion is not the opinion of the Supreme Court.
So regarding such a big story, 4 days, and 7 pages, later, we still really don't know what this is all about?Short answer, no.
Yes, maybe the conservative trustee should just shut up about stuff she has no evidence for.So regarding such a big story, 4 days, and 7 pages, later, we still really don't know what this is all about?
Not hardly.Your Speculation and Assumption nothing more
Where is your evidence that she has no evidence? Just because your source failed to give any detail; doesn't mean that she didn't make your source aware of the details. We often see this with biased journalism. They'll omit key details to spin the story in a way to play on the emotions of their readers. Sometimes there would be no story at all, if they presented all of the facts; but that wouldn't sell papers.Yes, maybe the conservative trustee should just shut up about stuff she has no evidence for.
Who are these conservative agitators?
Would it be immorality being foisted upon innocent children by Godless liberals?
Given the current insanity why doesnt everyone stick with the ABC's and 123's and world maps as what should be on the walls?
I can see why people chose homeschooling
They have pictures of gays having sex in childrens library and thats fine (no noted triggers) but a picture of diversely colored children holding hands is a threat (so no picture for you) could be dangerous.
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?