|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,543
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,543 |
I didn't think we were talking about getting into heaven
I don't think Jesus was about avoiding those he found moral faults with - matter of fact, I think he was about reaching out to them.
Last edited by KFWA; 03/31/15.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,390 Likes: 4
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,390 Likes: 4 |
"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. Jesus ate with sinners but what was his response when he was chastised for it? He said 'I came not for the healthy but for the sick.' When he ate with sinners, more often then not, they came away from the dinner as different people. They saw their sin and repented. Jesus did NOT accept their sin but he was the expert in showing them that they needed to change. Jesus went into those dinners with the intent of changing the people. What will happen if a Christian photographer goes to a gay wedding with the intent of showing the happy couple that they're in danger of hell if they don't go straight?
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,390 Likes: 4
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,390 Likes: 4 |
I didn't think we were talking about getting into heaven
I don't think Jesus was about avoiding those he found moral faults with - matter of fact, I think he was about reaching out to them.
All of Christianity is about getting into heaven. Jesus came to save us, that is to get us into heaven. It was his entire purpose in dying for us. Jesus certainly didn't avoid those with moral faults. He went to the heart of it and changed the people. He did reach out to the people but in no case did he accept the sin. When he got done, they KNEW they were sinning and they changed or perished. There was none of this 'accept me just as I am' nonsense. God's laws are God's laws. They will never change.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
Looks like Indiana will tweak the law that was passed, money talks. Pence vows to 'fix' religious freedom law, ensure 'no license to discriminate' "I abhor discrimination," the Republican governor told Fox News.
Pence said he stands by the law and there was never any intent to create a "license to discriminate."
But, acknowledging the furor over the policy, he said: "We'll clarify that in the days ahead, and we'll fix this and move forward."
The governor's statements put him in line with Indiana legislative leaders, who on Monday said they would look at clarifying the law to make clear it does not permit discrimination against gays and lesbians. Pence, speaking with Fox News, maintained that the law is not discriminatory. He stressed that it "mirrors" one signed by President Clinton in 1993 and policies in effect, either by statute or court decision, in roughly 30 states. The business provision, however, made Indiana's unique -- critics also pointed out Indiana does not have a law explicitly banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,390 Likes: 4
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,390 Likes: 4 |
The current Foxnews headline is about Gov. Pence saying he intends to clarify the new law to prevent discrimination. DISCRIMINATION The only way he can do that without the liberals screaming is to get the law repealed. There is no kind of religious freedom that the liberals will accept if it goes against their agenda.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,463
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,463 |
Business is all about making the green. I don't see how doing legal business with someone whose morality doesn't mirror their own is going to violate one's religious beliefs.
If a couple of guys order flower arrangements for a wedding then I'd make the damn arrangements. They're just freaking pretty flowers.Here's my card, pass it around to your buddies. I wouldn't care what they did with the flowers after they paid for them.
Same with cakes, birthday, gay wedding, whatever. I'd make the damn cake as best as I could and smile doing it. Here's my card, pass it around to your buddies.
These business people that asked for this law must not really want the green...That's ok, send them to my hypothetical shops. I'd take that business away from them everyday of the week and smile doing so.
Poor business people, that's all I've gotta say.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
Poor business people, that's all I've gotta say.
Dan
They have the right to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,620
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,620 |
And you STILL don't get it. Read the effing law, it has NOTHING to do with targeting or discriminating a particular group of folks NOTHING.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,435
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,435 |
Mike Pence is right on this topic. Too bad many of you can't see it and instead listen to the twisted way the liberal media wants to spin it.
Get informed people!
Liberalism is a cancer
Support Christian Family values
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,435
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,435 |
How about christians finding a homosexual owned T-shirt company and making them produce shirts that read "God opposes homosexuality", or "homosexuality is an abomination"!!!
That should make liberal heads spin.
Liberalism is a cancer
Support Christian Family values
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 8,736
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 8,736 |
I'll trade you my Governor for your's I'd trade mine and throw in a couple each Senators and Congressmen to boot.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
And you STILL don't get it. Read the effing law, it has NOTHING to do with targeting or discriminating a particular group of folks NOTHING. Here is what is supposedly different with the Indiana law that has people upset. What makes Indianas Religious Freedom Law Different?http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs. The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language. What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage. Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.” Of all the state “religious freedom” laws I have read, this new statute hints most strongly that it is there to be used as a means of excluding gays and same-sex couples from accessing employment, housing, and public accommodations on the same terms as other people. True, there is no actual language that says, All businesses wishing to discriminate in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, please check this “religious objection” box. But, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”
Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
This was part of your quoted source? Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all. Its hogwash. Actually, in hindsight, its [bleep] bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,222 |
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,519
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,519 |
SCOTUS already ruled in Burwell v Hobby Lobby that closely held corporations and businesses are reflective of the individuals that lead them - AND THEIR FAITH.
What the Indiana law does that is different than federal law is to allow religious liberty as an affirmative defense in the event that a business owner is sued for discrimination.
That's it. It doesn't even state that people can deny business on religious grounds. it merely states that judges and juries must allow a defense on the grounds of religious Liberty. They can still lose. It's not a "get out of liberal jail free" card. A judge and jury could still find for the plaintiff if no definitive religious objection is proven.
Last edited by WyColoCowboy; 03/31/15.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." ![[Linked Image]](http://www.rockymtnrefl.com/TetonFenceBarncd1985987.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
Oh, so that's the whole liberal crux.
It removes any restriction from citing the 1st Amendment.
Shear and utter bullshit...
Last edited by RWE; 03/31/15. Reason: wording
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,503 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,503 Likes: 3 |
Can the Feds make a lesbian baker bake a cake for an anti-gay rally?
Can the feds voce a Kosher deli to sell pork?
I need to know these things.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,806
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,806 |
And you STILL don't get it. Read the effing law, it has NOTHING to do with targeting or discriminating a particular group of folks NOTHING. Here is what is supposedly different with the Indiana law that has people upset. What makes Indianas Religious Freedom Law Different?http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs. The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language. What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage. Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.” Of all the state “religious freedom” laws I have read, this new statute hints most strongly that it is there to be used as a means of excluding gays and same-sex couples from accessing employment, housing, and public accommodations on the same terms as other people. True, there is no actual language that says, All businesses wishing to discriminate in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, please check this “religious objection” box. But, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”
Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all. That all looks good to me and is as it should be.
Islam is a terrorist organization.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,041 |
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. I wonder what Jesus would say about this? 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. Homosexuality would still be wrong even if every religion in the world said it was right. The "laws of nature" referenced in the Declaration of Independence is a reference to unassisted human reason (human rationality unassisted by divine revelation). The "laws of nature's God" referenced in the same sentence of the same document is a reference to the revealed word of the living God. Both reason and revelation are in perfect harmony in their condemndation of homosexuality. For the life of me though, I cannot understand why people always ground their argument in religious premises when those premises have no authority whatsoever to a non-believer. The far better approach, IMHO, is to appeal to the laws of nature and of nature's God---viz., reason and revelation as the ground and basis of the argument. George Washington once expelled a soldier from the Continental Army for what he called the "detestable vice" of sodomy. In a criminal code written for the Commonwealth of Virginia Thomas Jefferson made sodomy a felony punishable by castration. In this Jefferson only followed the common law. The notion then that somehow discrimination against homosexuality is unconstitutional is positively absurd. It is an invention of liberal jurisprudence and Leftist nihilism having nothing whatsoever in common with the Constitution as understood by those who framed and ratified it. The Preamble to the Constitution defines the ends of the Constitution as to "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity". By definition, a blessing is something God would want you to have; something God thinks is good for you; something good in the eyes of God. Most emphatically the Founders did not consider sodomy to be a liberty constituting a "blessing". In other words, they did not consider sodomy a liberty, the right to engage in which either they or the Constitution was intended to protect. Jordan
Last edited by RobJordan; 04/01/15.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals".
____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,075
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,075 |
I think he'd say, I wrote that!
Mike Jesus didn't write that. 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. That whole Trinity thing...
God, Family, and Country.
NRA Endowment Member
|
|
|
|
|
592 members (1minute, 1OntarioJim, 222Sako, 01Foreman400, 16penny, 10gaugeman, 65 invisible),
2,498
guests, and
1,425
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,191
Posts18,484,958
Members73,966
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
