Twisting Scripture: The lies of Homosexuality.

The Christian bakery owners weren't interfering in the lives of the homo couple. The homo couple walked into their business and forced them to violate their constitutionally protected right.

 

Which has absolutely nothing to do with same sex marriage laws, that is a public accommodation issue issued and enforced by the state - which is strange since you are wanting marriage to be a states rights issue. I even stated as such in the response you quoted. Smh

Again, for the fifth time, why do you feel your personal religious beliefs should be able to dictate the lives of others?

Also, for the fourth time, who do you feel can show injury to bring a case to SCOTUS?

 

The state overstepped their authority. That's the issue and it will be decided by the Supreme Court.

Again, the Christian bakers were minding their own business. It was the homosexual activists that were the bullies. The injured party is the Christian. Anything else?

 

That is an issue of public accommodation not an issue of contractural law.
What do you not understand about this?

Please don't try to pull the Christians are the real victims here. It makes you look foolish and desperate.
After decades of murdering torturing and dehumanizing homosexuals suddenly baking a cake is the ultimate offense? Please...

Again, who has standing to bring a case against two members of the same sex signing a contracts? Who is directly injured due to their action?

 

Loving v. Virginia set precedent and made marriage laws not a matter exclusive to the states back in 1967.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just very highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will find state level bans on same sex marriage constitutional.

It's going to have to be proven that such bans are constitutional that is going to be extremely difficult

 

You just fell off the tracks with your outrageous hyperbolic hateful rhetoric.

- - - Updated - - -

We'll see. There is going to have to be a compromise. You can't force people to accept something against their religion. We accommodate conscientious objectors in wartime.

 

First nobody can force anybody to accept anything. Second Oberfel v. Hodges didn't force anybody to do anything. That court case simply found state bans on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

Two people getting married to each other doesn't force anything on you.

If you fought against accomadation laws you may have a case. But using accommodation laws and religous freedoms against Oberfel v. Hodges is likely to fall flat on its face, because the complaint is strictly with accommodation laws.

You'll run into a snag there because accommodation laws are legal despite religious objection.

 

Okay. We'll see what happens.

 

Oberfel v. Hodges likely won't be overturned in this century. It doesn't violate anybody's rights, there is no state interest in banning same sex marriage.

The judiciary is very predictable, and I mean this with the upmost respect and sincerity, you should learn about how our legal system works, how they decide whether things are constitutional or not, what role precedent plays in their decisions and how they come to their rulings.

I didn't learn much about it in school, and I certainly am no expert on constitutional law, but I learned a lot about the role of the Supreme Court in my police academy education.

Maybe compromise is possible, I certainly see an avenue for it through accommodation law and it's constitutionality. But I have very little worry about the oberfel ruling being overturned.

 

Pathetic way of saying I cannot refute or respond to anything you said so let me throw a bunch of adjectives together that have no merit.

It's why we keep destroying your kind in courts across the country.

You don't want a compromise, you want to deny people the ability to enter into a legal union because of your own personal beliefs.

 

Hyperbole aside, he has a point, your argument is against accomadation laws not the Oberfel v. Hodges decision.

 

You know the person you responded to is an adulterer, per the biblical meaning.

 

Not by example you have a man and a woman, a man with several women (wives, concubines, slaves in the household) and David and Nathan pretty much seemed homosexual to me the way their relationship seemed laid out in the story so where did this one man and one woman thing come about? And the OT said nothing against female homosexuality and the NT of course there are some limited passages however since Jesus of Nazareth could have been a pure myth a fiction created by men and the scriptures a fabrication why would one use the NT as a reliable source?

And yes your going to toss out Sodom and Gomorrah okay its clear god lied in the story and never intended to spare the cities since righteous as in innocent men excluded slaves who due to their status were victims when told to do sexual acts, or would the slaves forced by white slave masters in the South during that institutions foul existance be willing to immoral acts they were told to do (or risk beating, whipping and possible death etc.). The Lot was hardly a moral man either offering his virgin daughters to be raped by the mob then having incestuous sex with his daughters and the girls not punished and he seemed fine with it. So I call the whole story just as a moral tale - abhorrent.

In fact if one was an ancient Hebrew woman with another Hebrew woman being a couple the text is utterly neutral on the subject since such a marriage would fall in that nice gray area.

 

I don't respond to hateful hyperbolic rhetoric. Can't refute fantasy.

 

Well, we're not gonna agree on anything since your view of the Scriptures is from the homosexual propaganda sphere of the universe and mine is from hermeneutics.

 

Only fantasy is your sky fairy. I can prove everything I have said - nothing is based on ancient books or emotion.
What part of my post was hateful? You have dodged and danced around the very topic you wanted.
I'm sorry if it isn't going your way

 

And there it is. You believe you are entitled to respect for your beliefs while you insult someone else's beliefs.

 

Before we debate the substance of the Bible, it first must be irrevocably proven that the Bible contains the literal word of God either directly or through others. How do you suppose we do that? Secondly, why does God allegedly disprove of homosexuality?

 

You: Can't refute fantasy.
Oh wait! Yes you can

You are entitled to whatever beliefs you want - you are not entitled to force those beliefs on others without basis in sound reasoning.


Let me know when you are actually willing to defend your position instead deflecting

 

Homosexuality is not pleasing to God because it's not using our bodies as designed by the Creator. God made male and female. I'm not going to convince you. If you really honestly want to understand the Bible, fine. If not, I'm not going to waste my time.

 

You're stuck in a rut. You keep saying I'm forcing my beliefs on someone. Who forced their beliefs concerning the bakery? The homosexuals did.

 

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it," (Matthew 19:12).

 

I personally don't think you or anybody else is qualified to speak for God. Understanding the bible is not understanding God. You actually don't begin to until you put the bible down and begin to use your gifts.

 

You're doing the exact same thing. The bakery and the homosexuals were neither right, it was a feud using the state and municipal government regulations as a weapon.

Further sweet cakes by Melissa was fined not for denying service to the couple, but fir publishing their private information on Facebook. They lost their business because they had a vendetta. Yeah, the way the couple acted was not right. It was an emotional response, they aren't excused either. They could have just said "to hell with you" and gone to a different bakery, in Portland, there are plenty. But they had a vendetta.

 

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed nearly a thousand years before Abraham..