SCOTUS rules Gawd hates gays

[2001400ex]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.

I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody

Because I don't think all Muslims want to kill us, means I support all their beliefs. Such fucktarded logic Race. You are smarter than that.

So you think all Christians want to kill you? Is that why you only mention rhem?

Yes that's exactly right.

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.

I laugh my ass off when Mohamed tells guys to throw gays off buildings. Its just like a wedding cake only violent and bloody

Because I don't think all Muslims want to kill us, means I support all their beliefs. Such fucktarded logic Race. You are smarter than that.

So you think all Christians want to kill you? Is that why you only mention rhem?

Yes that's exactly right.

I'll wait for Race to chime in on how Trump is right. He's waiting for the talking points memo.

 

[Sledog]

I think Mooselimbs should cook my Jimmy Dean pork sausage. That's ok right?

 

[dhdawg]

My religion says I should not have to bake cakes for inter-racial weddings.

#religiiusfreedom

 

[dnc]

My religion says I should not have to bake cakes for inter-racial weddings.

#religiiusfreedom

Race and sexuality are the same!

Also, WTFAY?

 

[YellowSnow]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

 

[Swaye]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

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?

 

[RaceBannon]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

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?

Couldn't they just get an app for their phone?

 

[YellowSnow]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

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?

 

[dnc]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

Why do you hate slow strategy writings??

 

[YellowSnow]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

Why do you hate slow strategy writings??

I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.

 

[dnc]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

Why do you hate slow strategy writings??

I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.

Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!

 

[YellowSnow]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

Why do you hate slow strategy writings??

I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.

Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!

Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.

 

[RaceBannon]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

Why do you hate slow strategy writings??

I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.

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.

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

 

[dnc]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

Why do you hate slow strategy writings??

I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.

Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!

Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.

I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like that

 

[YellowSnow]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

Why do you hate slow strategy writings??

I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.

Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!

Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.

I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like that

Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.

 

[dnc]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

Why do you hate slow strategy writings??

I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.

Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!

Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.

I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like that

Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.

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.

 

[CirrhosisDawg]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

Why do you hate slow strategy writings??

I don't as long as its in the original KJV. Fuck the NIV.

Read it like the Apostle Paul wrote it or not at all! King James only bitch!

Ye Old Early Modern Engrish >>>>> Greek.

I know we're being sarcastic but I do know King James Only (KJO) idiots who really say shit like that

Yes, of course. But still, I am descended of a long line of Anglicans.

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.

Called Catholic? Answer to Catholics?

I’m sensing a lot of hate in your life.

Are there are a lot of evangelical “Christians” in Mississippi that hate Catholics?

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

news.trust.org/item/20180604150452-eu3tg

"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.

"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.[/i]

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.

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?

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.[/b]

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!
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.

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.

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?

Couldn't they just get an app for their phone?

*tablet

 

[Sledog]

The Catholics have all the real stuff.