Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

With the term 'liberal' having been so over-used as to have become meaningless, it is difficult to have much of a discussion in this context. If, nonetheless, we can serve ourselves of a somewhat classic definition of the term, then, yes, of course, a person can believe in a liberal form of government while retaining a true concept of Jesus and Christianity.

 

Wasteful vs frugal.
Our Debt now being $21,599,377,345,082.36

 

What does that have to do with "emotion?"

 

How one justifies being wasteful.

 

So, liberal, emotional and wasteful. All the same for you?

 

No, but at times they can be.

 

I agree, but for the simple reason that it is THEIR business, not simply because "the hater is not in a protected group."

 

Liberal as in someone with liberal politics? Or just another word for wasteful?

 

Could you pose your questions more clearly?

 

The secular, who tend liberal, give less to charity than people with faith, who tend conservative, and even donate blood less. See the book "Who Really Cares".

 

Then you actually disgaree. You can't just rearrange words in a certain order and make something false become true. No, you do not agree.

 

No. You can't be a conservative or a Republican either. Same goes for anything that puts political or national ideology ahead of Christian precepts. Either a person is a Christian first or they aren't a Christian.

 

I doubt that. They also only do it because they selfishly want to please their fake God and go to heaven and not hell. Atheists that donate are truly altruistic.

 

And take out the fake charity represented by tithing to begging tax evaders, and that disparity disappears.

 

Please be more specific. I think the first sentence of my post answered your question, so ...???

 

Absolutely not. If there is a religious exemption, it would apply broadly - as religion applies broadly.

Also, as the AZ bill made clear, it doesn't just apply to cases of employment or public accommodation. That bill (which you didn't bother to read) applied to a broad range of law.

Also, let's remember that our justice system has no clear method for analyzing your religious beliefs.

The one originally tried in Kern County.

 

Well I haven't got time to read an entire bill, but I'm happy to accept what you're saying about it.

Why were you unable to respond to the below?

What do you mean "tracking" my posts?

I don't understand why the more essential service is the one with the exemption, meanwhile, an individual employed by a bakery CANNOT refuse to provide service in many cases, even when such service is perceived by the employee as going against their religious conviction. Is this exemption only in certain states? I'd be surprised if it applied to California for example.

How was it "crazy in its logic?"

 

If the cake DIDN'T contain "specific elements deemed by the courts to be speech."

 

No, we both agree that "the hater is not in a protected group." What words did I rearrange exactly? I quoted you directly!

 

The assumption when public accommodation law was written was that public accommodations can't deny service based on the various listed characteristics.

Obviously, edges can be found when the characteristics of customers and the list of protected classes collides.

I really don't know exactly what the courts might decide in all these cases.

With the changing court we have today, my guess is that the legal arguments in favor of promoting discrimination are increasing in strength.

 

In our system, courts address disputes - the specific cases before them. They don't review laws. There is no way to ask the courts to review a law outside of actually bringing a case.

Cases come up due to conflicts that arise.

So, the progression doesn't have to be logical.

You'ld have to read it. One claim was that if there had been a cake on the shelf, the baker would have sold it to the same sex married couple. But, if the baker was asked to bake the IDENTICAL cake for them, the baker could refuse on "speech" grounds tied to religious belief. That wasn't the only weirdness.

 

Being a liberal Christian is like being a Democrat that's for border security. You're just an ignorant sleeple that doesn't know anything about either.

 

To the OP question, with difficulty.

 

If we were a more Christian nation we would focus more of our time and extreme wealth on issues such as healthcare, housing, etc., for those on the bottom rungs. We would be less interested in supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. We would promote ideas of mutual support and acceptance rather than taking the actions we take against our fellow man - supporting women's rights to equal treatment, preventing the government from taking children from families and never returning them, respecting the contribution of wage earners, the bombing (including of civilians) for reasons that just are not even close to serious enough, etc.

A LOT of our national policy over the last decades has lacked in its support for issues that Jesus saw as important.

 

Didn't you say that you consider "liberal" to mean wasteful?