Mississippi has taken a bold step to defend religious liberty

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

on both cases i happen to agree with you.  there are plenty of legitimate rights that have been trampled on throughout the years, however.

I don't disagree with that.  However, such issues as I just mentioned are NOT a solution but rather an irritant.

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, Whoa said:

why wouldn't they be a BASIC RIGHT???  aren't we free to express our views and opinions -- just like you are doing??-

How would a gay cake infringe on your rights.

Does the gay thing make you nervous??

You are missing the point.  Forcing one to make the cake is an infringement.

[TxHoops]

On April 26, 2016 at 8:45 AM, CraigS said:

Maybe it's your interpretation skills or lack thereof. No one is saying one sin is better or worse than another. All that is being said is, no one should have to "assist" another in doing "that" particular sin....in simple English.........Christians would not assist said sin to take place.... murder, rape, etc. knowingly either.

 

It's also been said...What would Jesus do? He would love the sinner, hate the sin...he would not deny them services (food, housing, clothing, etc)......however, I feel quite certain, He would NOT perform their marriage or partake in said ceremony.

 

On another note, they probably weren't celebrating her "out of wedlock" birth...probably just celebrating LIFE...but that doesn't fit your agenda....perhaps by liberal thinking, she should have just aborted!

 

On April 26, 2016 at 9:12 AM, AggiesAreWe said:

Good post.

Yep.  CraigS and I agree on almost everything relating to sports and very little politically.  Yet in both areas, I have to say he is an excellent poster.  

[westend1]

2 hours ago, CraigS said:

If I have to explain why 2 men having sex isn't the same as opposite sexes having sex out of wedlock in the context of my comment - GROSS, then we'll just leave it at that.

On the Christian side of things - yes, I did commit that sin. However, I assure you my parents (Christians) did not knowingly contribute to my sinful ways by openly allowing me to use their home for said activity.......oh snap, a very revealing moment for me....my parents, my very own parents discriminated against me........I now must commit suicide! 

Again, A) you have limited comprehensive skills - 'B) slow to understand - C) or just argue to argue....there is no option D 

Some don't think it is gross, apparently.  Why can't conservatives just stay out of it?  Do they like to lose elections?  Suicide?  Are you charging for tickets?

[TxHoops]

23 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Some don't think it is gross, apparently.  Why can't conservatives just stay out of it?  Do they like to lose elections?  Suicide?  Are you charging for tickets?

I don't get it either.  They want the government out of every aspect of their lives except the bedroom.  Well, except the bedrooms of gays.  

Again, I get the cake argument and I'm not real opposed to religious objections.  But the same folks adamantly oppose gay marriage (for the most part) on a religious basis.  But I know plenty of clergy who don't have a problem having gay parishioners or marrying them.  So the freedom of religion only applies if you agree with your interpretation of your religion?

As I've stated before, in the end, I agree with the wise old sage Kinky Friedman.  When asked during his gubernatorial bid whether he supported gay marriage he replied - absolutely!  I think gays have just as much right to be miserable as the rest of us!

[bullets13]

3 hours ago, CraigS said:

If I have to explain why 2 men having sex isn't the same as opposite sexes having sex out of wedlock in the context of my comment - GROSS, then we'll just leave it at that.

On the Christian side of things - yes, I did commit that sin. However, I assure you my parents (Christians) did not knowingly contribute to my sinful ways by openly allowing me to use their home for said activity.......oh snap, a very revealing moment for me....my parents, my very own parents discriminated against me........I now must commit suicide! 

Again, A) you have limited comprehensive skills - 'B) slow to understand - C) or just argue to argue....there is no option D 

Anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or argumentative.  Did i comprehend that correctly.  As for the rest of your post, it's very telling.  The GROSS factor is the main issue that most good Christians have with homosexuality vs. all other sins.  It has nothing to do with anything else.

[bullets13]

3 hours ago, CraigS said:

selling, buying or drinking alcohol is not a sin, various activities that some "blame" on alcohol are sins....again, you just make stuff up to fit your agenda. 

 

If your friend never told you that his sin was better than the other - then YES, the irony was lost on you, because there wasn't any....you inserted your own interpretation (agenda) of that into the repeating of the situation.

eating cake isn't a sin, but we're defending Christians' rights to not make it for certain sinners.  Drinking alcohol isn't a sin, but drunkenness is, and as you point out, drunkenness also often leads to more sins. It only makes sense that Christians would not be selling/buying/drinking alcohol with all of the sinning that is associated it.  I'm not sure what i'm making up.  As for my "agenda", if you can't see the irony and hypocrisy of a person who's in the process of sinning (drunkenness), at a party celebrating the result of sin (a child born out of wedlock), by his step-daughter who's only part of his family due to his and his wife's sin, (divorceX2)  trashing others who commit a sin he doesn't agree with... I'd say you're being deliberately obtuse, or your comprehension skills are as poor as you accuse mine of being.  

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

I don't get it either.  They want the government out of every aspect of their lives except the bedroom.  Well, except the bedrooms of gays.  

Again, I get the cake argument and I'm not real opposed to religious objections.  But the same folks adamantly oppose gay marriage (for the most part) on a religious basis.  But I know plenty of clergy who don't have a problem having gay parishioners or marrying them.  So the freedom of religion only applies if you agree with your interpretation of your religion?

As I've stated before, in the end, I agree with the wise old sage Kinky Friedman.  When asked during his gubernatorial bid whether he supported gay marriage he replied - absolutely!  I think gays have just as much right to be miserable as the rest of us!

My biggest issue with it is the lack of criticism on the other sinful issues that are more comfortable to conservatives.  If you're going to live a puritan lifestyle and denounce all sin, take the steps necessary to avoid all of it, discriminate against all of it... then by all means use your religion to do so.  but as is often the case, their own lives and lifestyles leave them no room to talk when it comes to the sinful lifestyles of others.  The best example is the "Good Christian Woman" that garnered support of conservatives all over the country for refusing to issue marriage licences to homosexuals.  It's against her religion, and i could respect that, except... she's on her fourth marriage.  So what right does she have to make any effort at all to protect the sanctity of marriage, or determine whether or not somebody else should be allowed to do or not do something based on the will of God?  

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

My biggest issue with it is the lack of criticism on the other sinful issues that are more comfortable to conservatives.  If you're going to live a puritan lifestyle and denounce all sin, take the steps necessary to avoid all of it, discriminate against all of it... then by all means use your religion to do so.  but as is often the case, their own lives and lifestyles leave them no room to talk when it comes to the sinful lifestyles of others.  The best example is the "Good Christian Woman" that garnered support of conservatives all over the country for refusing to issue marriage licences to homosexuals.  It's against her religion, and i could respect that, except... she's on her fourth marriage.  So what right does she have to make any effort at all to protect the sanctity of marriage, or determine whether or not somebody else should be allowed to do or not do something based on the will of God?  

Amen and hallelujah.   I am very uncomfortable sitting in judgment of anyone.  Not my place or concern.   If it doesn't effect me, that's between them and their Maker.  And it is quite ironic and ultimately sad that many evangelicals have the exact opposite effect from their mission.  And as often as not, it's precisely because of the judgmental stance they take, even though the book we hold dear warns of this as well. 

[TxHoops]

19 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

eating cake isn't a sin, but we're defending Christians' rights to not make it for certain sinners.  Drinking alcohol isn't a sin, but drunkenness is, and as you point out, drunkenness also often leads to more sins. It only makes sense that Christians would not be selling/buying/drinking alcohol with all of the sinning that is associated it.  I'm not sure what i'm making up.  As for my "agenda", if you can't see the irony and hypocrisy of a person who's in the process of sinning (drunkenness), at a party celebrating the result of sin (a child born out of wedlock), by his step-daughter who's only part of his family due to his and his wife's sin, (divorceX2)  trashing others who commit a sin he doesn't agree with... I'd say you're being deliberately obtuse, or your comprehension skills are as poor as you accuse mine of being.  

Contrary to what has been stated, there are MANY, MANY people in this area who do believe drinking in any form is a sin, based upon their particular religious beliefs.  And you will often see them in restaurants that serve alcohol.  

[bullets13]

12 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Contrary to what has been stated, there are MANY, MANY people in this area who do believe drinking in any form is a sin, based upon their particular religious beliefs.  And you will often see them in restaurants that serve alcohol.  

kinda funny how they can stand idly by as others around them drink, but have a coronary and start boycotting businesses when two dudes hold hands.

[stevenash]

No coronary here.  But I still want to know why, if the baker doesn't want to bake a cake for someone, he must be fined severely or lose his business?

[CraigS]

39 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

kinda funny how they can stand idly by as others around them drink, but have a coronary and start boycotting businesses when two dudes hold hands.

You and the rest of the liberals take bits and pieces and use it as a whole story or circumstance...for instance...you see one guy drunk, one guy cheating, one guy hating gays, one guy ...blah blah blah....then go on to tell the story about how "Christians" go around doing all these things. Yes, each their own, some will certainly have different takes, beliefs, and actions....that doesn't translate to "Christian" beliefs.........the things you mention are true, none should be tolerated or acted on......but that doesn't mean just because one is already happening we should allow all....it doesn't mean just because I to am committing sin that I can't recognize others, and be considered hypocritical. 

 

On another note: It sure seems the non believers claim to know more about Christianity than the Christians themselves..........the truth is...you don't know anything, you once again, pick and choose pieces to satisfy up your agenda.

[bullets13]

4 hours ago, CraigS said:

You and the rest of the liberals take bits and pieces and use it as a whole story or circumstance...for instance...you see one guy drunk, one guy cheating, one guy hating gays, one guy ...blah blah blah....then go on to tell the story about how "Christians" go around doing all these things. Yes, each their own, some will certainly have different takes, beliefs, and actions....that doesn't translate to "Christian" beliefs.........the things you mention are true, none should be tolerated or acted on......but that doesn't mean just because one is already happening we should allow all....it doesn't mean just because I to am committing sin that I can't recognize others, and be considered hypocritical. 

 

On another note: It sure seems the non believers claim to know more about Christianity than the Christians themselves..........the truth is...you don't know anything, you once again, pick and choose pieces to satisfy up your agenda.

 

If it was just one guy, i wouldn't be labeling all Christians.  Truth be told, i've seen hundreds of Christians drunk, hundreds of Christians hating gays, dozens of Christians cheating... and those are just the ones that make it into the public eye.  But if you show me the Christian who doesn't sin, i'll be happy to amend my remarks.  

as to the second highlighted point, sure you can recognize others' sins.  but if you're devoting more energy to damning others for their sin than correcting your own, you dang sure are a hypocrite (and by you i'm talking about any Christian, not necessarily yourself).

On another note, i attended church 2-3 times a week from the age of 12 until i graduated college (and still do occasionally).  I graduated from a conservative Baptist college, and 24 of my college hours were earned taking Christian/Bible courses.  I also went to chapel while i was there twice a week for 4.5 years on top of regular church services.  So it's safe to say I'm well-versed in conservative Christianity and it's beliefs and teachings. 

 

 

[bullets13]

4 hours ago, stevenash said:

No coronary here.  But I still want to know why, if the baker doesn't want to bake a cake for someone, he must be fined severely or lose his business?

I honestly don't have a problem with a baker who won't bake a cake for a gay person's wedding.  But if that baker is going to use their religion as a reason not to do so, they should also refuse to bake a cake for a divorcee's second wedding, or a couple who already has a child's wedding, etc. etc.  because if the baker is trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage, divorce and out of wedlock sex are a much more prevalent problem.

[CraigS]

3 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

 

If it was just one guy, i wouldn't be labeling all Christians.  Truth be told, i've seen hundreds of Christians drunk, hundreds of Christians hating gays, dozens of Christians cheating... and those are just the ones that make it into the public eye.  But if you show me the Christian who doesn't sin, i'll be happy to amend my remarks.  

as to the second highlighted point, sure you can recognize others' sins.  but if you're devoting more energy to damning others for their sin than correcting your own, you dang sure are a hypocrite (and by you i'm talking about any Christian, not necessarily yourself).

On another note, i attended church 2-3 times a week from the age of 12 until i graduated college (and still do occasionally).  I graduated from a conservative Baptist college, and 24 of my college hours were earned taking Christian/Bible courses.  I also went to chapel while i was there twice a week for 4.5 years on top of regular church services.  So it's safe to say I'm well-versed in conservative Christianity and it's beliefs and teachings.  I

 

 

So what's it with you....just because everyone sins, no one can have an opinion of others sins? and/or...just because everyone has their own sin it doesn't matter what the sin is we should legislate that everyone be excepting of all sin? 

It's been said, they aren't hurting you, so why do you care? So what if was exposing your son or daughter with words or visuals of exceptance with  (fill in blank with something you hate) and he/she began to think it's ok...all the long you're trying teach them it isn't....and as you try to raise your child by your beliefs....society began to destroy your life by tagging you with a adjective ... homophobe, islamaphobe....sexist...bigot...blah blah blah....whereas all you're trying to do is teach your child to be the person you'd like them to be....

[bullets13]

12 minutes ago, CraigS said:

So what's it with you....just because everyone sins, no one can have an opinion of others sins? and/or...just because everyone has their own sin it doesn't matter what the sin is we should legislate that everyone be excepting of all sin? 

It's been said, they aren't hurting you, so why do you care? So what if was exposing your son or daughter with words or visuals of exceptance with  (fill in blank with something you hate) and he/she began to think it's ok...all the long you're trying teach them it isn't....and as you try to raise your child by your beliefs....society began to destroy your life by tagging you with a adjective ... homophobe, islamaphobe....sexist...bigot...blah blah blah....whereas all you're trying to do is teach your child to be the person you'd like them to be....

 

 i don't have a problem with that if you're teaching them to be a good person, and not a homophone, islamahobe, sexist, or bigot.

[stevenash]

43 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I honestly don't have a problem with a baker who won't bake a cake for a gay person's wedding.  But if that baker is going to use their religion as a reason not to do so, they should also refuse to bake a cake for a divorcee's second wedding, or a couple who already has a child's wedding, etc. etc.  because if the baker is trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage, divorce and out of wedlock sex are a much more prevalent problem.

If I didn't know better, it would seem that you feel someone other than the baker ( in this case, either you or the government) gets to dictate which individuals he can refuse to serve.

[bullets13]

46 minutes ago, stevenash said:

If I didn't know better, it would seem that you feel someone other than the baker ( in this case, either you or the government) gets to dictate which individuals he can refuse to serve.

If i didn't know better, it would seem that you feel it's okay for businesses to deny service based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

[baddog]

Nope, only if they are shirtless and shoeless. Nobody cried about that.

[bullets13]

3 minutes ago, baddog said:

Nope, only if they are shirtless and shoeless. Nobody cried about that.

do you not see a difference between the two? 

[baddog]

Im trying to show that it is all discrimination. By your answer, I guess you think it's ok to turn away shirtless/shoeless people. But if they are gay or black and shirtless, then there is a problem. All that is is self entitlement.

[stevenash]

24 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

If i didn't know better, it would seem that you feel it's okay for businesses to deny service based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

Who gets to make the final decision as to what a persons reason for refusing service was?    Why did Muhammad Ali escape a prison sentence after being convicted of draft evasion?( could it have been his "religious beliefs")?

[bullets13]

5 hours ago, stevenash said:

Who gets to make the final decision as to what a persons reason for refusing service was?    Why did Muhammad Ali escape a prison sentence after being convicted of draft evasion?( could it have been his "religious beliefs")?

Not sure who gets to make that decision. But I'm confident that if all of a sudden privileged white males were no longer allowed to be members of high end country clubs the republicans would get to the bottom of it and determine exactly who gets to make that decision.  

[Hagar]

First, for my non Christian friends, let me make clear that most denominations and independents have a list of sins they most all agree on.   Those same Christians have different opinions on other things that constitute a sin.  Even in each Church you have a few more devout than others.   Most Christian bakers would have made that cake, took the money, end of story.   

But this gay coupled went to a bakery owned by some devout Christians.   Again, to them I can only assume, this cake would make them a part of a sinful ceremony.  Do they have rights?   According to our Govt, they do, but Oregons Law doesn't allow them their rights.  

Are Christians perfect?  Heck no, but I see line after line posted above how, "I've seen them do this, and do that.  They're like any group of folks.  Some aren't so good, and a few are very devout.  

The point I'm trying to make is, those few devout Christians need/deserve protection as bad as the few people that are gay do.