Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
SCOTUS rules Gawd hates gays
Comments
-
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
I have a first edition NIV New Testament from 1977. I knew a gal in Tulsa whose dad was part of the translation team. Big fan of the NIV. Really a tremendous translation. One of the best. People are always saying that.YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
We became pals on a ministry road trip to the east coast to see Pat Robertson when he had one dish and PTL when Baker was still out of prison. Our street minister was semi famous and was doing the rounds.
Any way we got back and next thing I know she is engaged to the guitar player at her church
They get all the chicks -
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.
Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics? -
*tabletRaceBannon said:
Couldn't they just get an app for their phone?Swaye said:
I guess you think everyone just rolled around with dried reeds and papyrus and jugs of ink back then. When you got super tall did your brain shrink?YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
-
The Catholics have all the real stuff.
-
AgreeSledog said:The Catholics have all the real stuff.
-
-
I have a dark secret: my parents never baptized me.dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
Another area of contention - baby baptism. If you aren't aware can you consent?YellowSnow said:
I have a dark secret: my parents never baptized me.dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I was baptized a Lutheran baby, allegedly because I don't remember, and did it again when I was grown enough to decide.
Watch out for crocs though
And this guy
-
Re: baby baptism, it's a valid critique. My point though is more along the lines that I think it's probably harder to find faith as an adult if you have little or no exposure as a yoot.RaceBannon said:
Another area of contention - baby baptism. If you aren't aware can you consent?YellowSnow said:
I have a dark secret: my parents never baptized me.dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I was baptized a Lutheran baby, allegedly because I don't remember, and did it again when I was grown enough to decide.
Watch out for crocs though
And this guy
The downfall of Agent Van Alden was brilliant TV. -
This was about Anglicans, hthCirrhosisDawg said:
Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.
Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics? -
YellowSnow said:
I have a dark secret: my parents never baptized me.dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
-
I am going to suggest to Stalin, that we need a "HCH is Not For Sermon Seekers Bored" for the higher level theological discushions.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
NoYellowSnow said:
I am going to suggest to Stalin, that we need a "HCH is Not For Sermon Seekers Bored" for the higher level theological discushions.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I'm breaking my own rule today
-
And they’re not a compelling faith?dnc said:
This was about Anglicans, hthCirrhosisDawg said:
Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.
Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics?
Hot take. -
My Books of the Bible tournament bracket is finna be lit! Which two will get left out???YellowSnow said:
I am going to suggest to Stalin, that we need a "HCH is Not For Sermon Seekers Bored" for the higher level theological discushions.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future. -
Sorry to disappoint you DarthCirrhosisDawg said:
And they’re not a compelling faith?dnc said:
This was about Anglicans, hthCirrhosisDawg said:
Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.
Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics?
Hot take. -
My horse...dnc said:
My Books of the Bible tournament bracket is finna be lit! Which two will get left out???YellowSnow said:
I am going to suggest to Stalin, that we need a "HCH is Not For Sermon Seekers Bored" for the higher level theological discushions.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
-
Darth? Isn’t that a term for pagan Sith Lord?dnc said:
Sorry to disappoint you DarthCirrhosisDawg said:
And they’re not a compelling faith?dnc said:
This was about Anglicans, hthCirrhosisDawg said:
Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.
Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics?
Hot take.
Can I still be saved? What if I speak in tongues? Tia! -
You ain't dead yet my fren.CirrhosisDawg said:
Darth? Isn’t that a term for pagan Sith Lord?dnc said:
Sorry to disappoint you DarthCirrhosisDawg said:
And they’re not a compelling faith?dnc said:
This was about Anglicans, hthCirrhosisDawg said:
Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.
Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics?
Hot take.
Can I still be saved? What if I speak in tongues? Tia! -
-
*SWOON*RaceBannon said:
-
Awesome. I just subscribed to jimmy swaggart’s magazine The Evangelust.dnc said:
You ain't dead yet my fren.CirrhosisDawg said:
Darth? Isn’t that a term for pagan Sith Lord?dnc said:
Sorry to disappoint you DarthCirrhosisDawg said:
And they’re not a compelling faith?dnc said:
This was about Anglicans, hthCirrhosisDawg said:
Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.
Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics?
Hot take.
Can I still be saved? What if I speak in tongues? Tia!
I didn’t know boozing, carousing and prostitutes were part of being an evangelist. I’ll be saved in no time! I have sinned! -
Jimmy Swaggart? Come on man, we?ve had some worthy scandals in the 30 years since Swaggartgate, STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!CirrhosisDawg said:
Awesome. I just subscribed to jimmy swaggart’s magazine The Evangelust.dnc said:
You ain't dead yet my fren.CirrhosisDawg said:
Darth? Isn’t that a term for pagan Sith Lord?dnc said:
Sorry to disappoint you DarthCirrhosisDawg said:
And they’re not a compelling faith?dnc said:
This was about Anglicans, hthCirrhosisDawg said:
Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.
Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics?
Hot take.
Can I still be saved? What if I speak in tongues? Tia!
I didn’t know boozing, carousing and prostitutes were part of being an evangelist. I’ll be saved in no time! I have sinned! -
I saw Jimmy too 40 years ago in Tulsa. Plays the piano like his cousindnc said:
Jimmy Swaggart? Come on man, we?ve had some worthy scandals in the 30 years since Swaggartgate, STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!CirrhosisDawg said:
Awesome. I just subscribed to jimmy swaggart’s magazine The Evangelust.dnc said:
You ain't dead yet my fren.CirrhosisDawg said:
Darth? Isn’t that a term for pagan Sith Lord?dnc said:
Sorry to disappoint you DarthCirrhosisDawg said:
And they’re not a compelling faith?dnc said:
This was about Anglicans, hthCirrhosisDawg said:
Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.
Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics?
Hot take.
Can I still be saved? What if I speak in tongues? Tia!
I didn’t know boozing, carousing and prostitutes were part of being an evangelist. I’ll be saved in no time! I have sinned! -
Said cousin lives not too far from me. Not sure if his cousinwife is still with him/alive, but probably. Had backstage passes to one of his shows a few years ago and showed up late and missed my chance.RaceBannon said:
I saw Jimmy too 40 years ago in Tulsa. Plays the piano like his cousindnc said:
Jimmy Swaggart? Come on man, we?ve had some worthy scandals in the 30 years since Swaggartgate, STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!CirrhosisDawg said:
Awesome. I just subscribed to jimmy swaggart’s magazine The Evangelust.dnc said:
You ain't dead yet my fren.CirrhosisDawg said:
Darth? Isn’t that a term for pagan Sith Lord?dnc said:
Sorry to disappoint you DarthCirrhosisDawg said:
And they’re not a compelling faith?dnc said:
This was about Anglicans, hthCirrhosisDawg said:
Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?dnc said:
Hard to imagine how someone raised by "We want to be Catholic just not answer to the Catholics or called Catholic" could leave such a compelling faith.YellowSnow said:
Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.dnc said:
I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like thatYellowSnow said:
Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.dnc said:
Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!YellowSnow said:
I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.dnc said:
Why do you hate slow strategy writings??YellowSnow said:
Christianity would have been better in my view if the eye witnesses jotted down all the sermons, speeches, etc in real tim instead of it all being very "purple, monkey, dishwasher" ish over the course of many, many decades of ancient history.Hippopeteamus said:
I don't think that means what you think it means. Jesus did not say you had to condone sinful behavior or support it, just that you should recognize that you are also a sinner. Having empathy or loving someone doesn't mean you have to support him or her in his or her behavior. Jesus spent his time with prostitutes, but he didn't encourage them to be prostitutes!2001400ex said:
Exactly. That was the point of that quote. There was another quote where this decision doesn't address many of those other issues. Hard thing is, whose rights matter more?Swaye said:
We all know gays have rights, it's just nice to see that their rights don't automatically trump others rights in all cases. I think that is all SCOTUS is saying here - it's a delicate balancing act - and hard to have absolutes. Gays have a right to be served, but small private businesses with strong religious beliefs have rights as well.2001400ex said:
"Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," Kennedy wrote.topdawgnc said:
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy added.
Tho I do chuckle at people using Christianity as a reason to not serve gay people. Given Jesus would tell them to serve the gay couple: thou shall not throw stones.
This case was particularly interesting because the baker was not refusing to serve them. Rather, he was refusing to make a custom cake for their wedding. It is clear, for instance, that a gay couple could not force a Christian publisher to publish their book on gay marriage. Now it is tricky with respect to what counts as "expression". Is simply baking a unique cake? What about if your write a message on it? Certainly there will be more cases like this in the future.
I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.
Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics?
Hot take.
Can I still be saved? What if I speak in tongues? Tia!
I didn’t know boozing, carousing and prostitutes were part of being an evangelist. I’ll be saved in no time! I have sinned!
