And not all religious people believe that, we still have people professing to be “christians” quoting Leviticus to explain their hate of gay people — but don’t mention the slavery, shellfish or fabric issues... The religious groups are working hard on that. I don’t believe I will have to get involved. Religious affiliation is dropping by about 12% per generation. Sure did. People can write whatever they want.
So what? It still doesn't give them the right to force a Christian Baker to make them a wedding cake.
Sure....just for you..... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Any law that would force someone to violate the beliefs of a established Religion would be null and void in that case in front of the SCOTUS.
Well, if you want to claim the Bible defines marriage, you would need to show where in the Bible it does so. The quoted verse you provided does not. And neither does any other verse in the Bible.
Of course I do. But no matter how badly you wish otherwise, nowhere does the Bible define marriage as one man and one woman.
Where did you get lost? At no point in any verse in the Bible does it define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Sorry.
Oh cool, when did SCOTUS become part of congress? If a religion says it is ok to sell their daughter into slavery, that would be permissible correct? How about killing people that do not honor god? Or that work on the lords day? 9/11 was just a religious rite of passage, right?
I thought you could add 2 + 2. You can't. So ... I'm sorry, too. To get back on topic, you and the gay couple either read the bible differently than does the florist, or, and this is more likely, you spit on it as a manifestation of "spaghetti monster" fetishism. Either way, the florist is entitled to a more serious judicial review of the case than you would give her. I remind you that dismissive and vulgar sentiments like yours and the Colorado thugs are EXACTLY what resulted in reversal of the Masterpiece Bakery case (a 7-2 win for the spaghetti monster worshippers, as you will recall.) So here's some free advice: get some fresh arguments. The spaghetti monster metaphor is detrimental to your thuggish crusade.
Imposing discrimination because of personal believes is illegal. Time for religious zealots to grow up.
I’m so sorry you have to detach yourself from reality, but the facts remain. The Bible nowhere, at any point, defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. And no, the reversal of the bakery case had to do with artistic expression. They still have to sell a cake off the shelf to a gay couple for a gay wedding. They just don’t have to create a custom piece for them.
Is there a verb for what thugs do? "Thugging," maybe? You know, as in arraying the full power of a state against a solitary florist? Supporting law enforcement against a little old lady who has no monopoly and hasn't caused any harm to anyone?
There's that argument again that cost the plaintiffs their case in Masterpiece Bakery. Keep it up ... if you like losing.
I agree, so does everybody else, so what in the name of the spaghetti monster are you griping about? That they are still in business? The cake seller agrees to sell cakes to gay people, the florist agrees to sell flowers, to gay people, and still you want the state to lower the boom. (Or is "hoist a noose" a better metaphor?) You are on the side of Goliath, Leviathan, Thugocracy. Save yourself.
So I'd there are only 2 dozen people in the USA who believe in God and remain religious, you will support the abolition of the First Amendment. You are Vladmir Lenin's wet dream.
Oh I will never support removal of the first amendment, but I do not believe we should give them preferential treatment either. As for Putin, I do not care what he fantasizes about, why are you so stuck on what other people get off to?