Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire My Ding-Dong Gov from Indiana

The law is the same that's already Federal Law!

Just being enacted by the State, much like 30 something other States have already done.

Mike

http://mail.theweeklystandard.com/b...om-restoration-act-explained_900641.html


Check out the Map on page 2

Have you considered the idea that he may not be trying to do himself "favors", but that he might be interested in standing on principles - and demonstrating such? Yes - the political push for homosexual "legitmacy" has enjoyed some successes, but principles of freedom for all seem to trump that mess.

Here's God's view of homosexuality:

1 Cor 6:9 ¶ Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Note that 'sexually immoral' includes ALL sex outside of marriage. Those involved in non-marital heterosex of various kinds can get married but there is no possible way for homosexuals to continue and stay within God's law. That's not saying that homosexuals can't be saved. They certainly can but they must repent and acknowledge that their acts are sinful.

The 1st amendment says that Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. However, by requiring a business to participate in homosexual marriage in one way or another is doing exactly that. Free exercise says that a Christian can avoid such things but the government is forcing them to participate or be subject to penalties.

Obama voted to put that law on the books in 1998.

Quite common to refuse service and entry to civilians carrying firearms.

I'm not opening any thread that starts out with "my ding dong".......nope not gonna do it.

You guys do realize that this is already federal law, passed in 1993 by a broad bipartisan majority, that 30 other states have this law also on their books as a state law, and that nothing in the law allows for a company to discriminate in its services???

Who's the dimwits here anyway?

I wonder what Jesus would say about this?

I think he'd say, I wrote that!


Mike

Warning from Paul to Timothy about false teachings 1 Timothy 8:11

What is wrong with protecting the liberties of those who still believe in the "laws of nature and of nature's God" upon which this nation was founded, free and independent? And does it not utterly beg the question that sodomite marriage is a done deal? (Far from true in any event.) It has been said that the human family (humankind) comes to sight as a great and glorious river flowing through time. But that river is constituted and re-constituted in and by the sexual and generative distinction between male and female. Not only every human friendship but the very existence of every human being is dependent in the first instance upon the sexual friendship between a man and a woman. To say that in the public square this friendship and the sexual and generative distinction upon which it is based has no intrinsic moral authority is tantamount to saying that the existence of humanity itself has no intrinsic moral worth. This is naked moral relativism and nihilism, plain and simple. It is the farthest thing in the world from the idea of self-evident truths---upon the believe in an a priori objective moral order upon which this nation was founded. Actually, the nihilism and positivism of the sodomy rights movement is identical with the nihililsm and positivism which justified the worst excessed in human history, including Nazi and Stalinist genocide, to say nothing of chattel slavery. When did it become "wrong" to oppose philosophic movements and arguments that are the very negation of everything this nation, in its founding glory, supposedly stands for and which form the only rational basis on which an appeal against tryanny can be made?

Paraphrasing one of the great moral philosophers of our time, nature and reason tell us that a man is not an ox or a horse or a dog and with the very same voice, nature and reason also tell us that a man is not a woman and that the right ordering of sexual relationships is between members of the opposite sex, not the same sex. Homosexuality is wrong for the same reason chattel slavery is wrong. It is against nature. The Republican Party was founded upon opposition to what it called “the twin relics of barbarism” (chattel slavery and Abrahamic polygamy). How ironic it is that so many so called conservatives now reject the very philosophic ground upon which this nation was founded and upon which their party (the Republican Party) once appealed to oppose the establishment of both chattel slavery and polygamy as positive moral goods. It is tragic beyond words that some people see opposition to the reemeregence of moral relativism and nihilism in the public square as unworthy of opposition. But there is a very old saying (and its truth is beyond dispute): nature, expelled with a pitchfork, always returns.


Jordan

The problem with your anti-discrimination argument is that it has nothing in common with the Constitution as originally envisioned, or the 14th Amendment, as originally intended. I can assure you that when the 14th Amendment was passed not a single person in the United States understood it to outlaw discrimination against sodomites or to stand for the proposition that marriage (as intended by nature) was unconstitutional. Discrimination against someone on the basis of race is an entirely different creature from discrimination on the basis of sexual practice preference. Racial discrimination is wrong for precisely the reason that discrimination based on sexual practices is perfectly right, or certainly perfectly constitutionally acceptable. Indeed, the 14th amendment was intended to prohibit state laws which deprived blacks of their newly won freedoms. Those freedoms are grounded in the status of blacks as human beings under "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Sodomy as a positive moral good, on the other hand, is the very negation of those laws.

"Jesus regularly ate dinner with thieves and prostitutes, but you're telling me it's against your religion to bake a cake for a gay person?"

The church is one thing--a business is another. The church has every right under the constitution to limit membership to like-minded believers. Refusing to serve/sell to/hire gays is only fifty years removed from the "no coloreds" signs on southern businesses.

It wasn't right then, it isn't right now. After all, didn't some churches teach that black skin was the mark of Cain?

Yeesh.

If you actually READ ad (Key) UNDERSTOOD the law, you'd retract this post.

I like the giant step folks take when making their pervasive argument.

While I know there are people that would love to refuse all manner of service to gays (or blacks, or women, or whatever) in most cases that this is a current legal issue its because folks do not want to support the completion or consummation of a gay marriage, citing a religious issue, seeing marriage as a Holy Union and ordained by God. I don't see anyone with a "No gays allowed" sign, nor do the bakers refuse birthday cakes or whatever to gays.

But its easy to go ahead and portray them as total blanket bigots and bring in racism and sexism and every other ism just to paint the stigma even redder.


I for one don't believe in gay marriage; I'm not in a position to really refuse service (unless someone asked me to layout the house for them and their gay partner) but I don't restrict my interaction otherwise, especially since I don't give a flying [bleep] about someone being gay until they want some special treatment because they are gay. Then they receive the same special treatment I give everyone that is looking for affirmative action.


You'll have a long road to hoe trying to convince me that anyone with a business they built themselves doesn't have the right to refuse who they will work for.

Telling businesses that they have to work for all people regardless is only a stones throw from telling the people what businesses they can patronize.

In fact, putting some businesses out of business is doing just that.

Jesus didn't write that.

Agreed. Has anyone else actually read the law??? On either side of the argument???

Technically, no, He didn't write that with his own hand. But as God, he inspired Paul to write it. That this is what Jesus would have said and probably did say words to this effect, is verified by the the fact that the rest of the Apostles, who knew Jesus personally, vouched for the authenticity of Paul's teachings.

Maybe you should read what he said then you'd know. He forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to SIN NO MORE. She repented and was saved. In the verses I quoted, it clearly says that homosexuals will NOT make it to heaven. In other places it says that they can be saved but they MUST repent.They MUST acknowledge that their acts are sinful and ask Jesus to forgive them.
Nowhere does Jesus say that he will accept their sin.