Homosexual paid told to take their business elsewhere

No, but I would argue that the SCOTUS has ruled, as you say, "odd sexual practices" discrimination is unconstitutional. so its no longer about political correctness.

 

Unrepentant Sinners.

If you were going by what Christ said you wouldn't encourage people to be be whomever they like.

Read. Your. Sig.

I know as a Christian I cannot accept people to be whomever they want. Christians do not accept unrepentant sinners. We pray for them and encourage them to accept Christ and ask for forgiveness. This is a fundamental testament of being a Christian which you don't seem to understand.

LOL Actually its the fundamental flaw in your sig that you can't explain.

 

I never brought religion into it; in fact, I brought up biology and basic anatomy, but no liberal responded efficiently.

The gays can air their grievance all they want; the bottom line is the business will not change. Good for Big Earl's!

My conservative friends did bring religion up, and I supported them.

I am trying to point out sin with the hopes that sinners (INCLUDING MYSELF) can repent. It is my duty.

 

LOL Wrong again Poly. Read the decision. Its not only being appealed but this activist judge's decision to spit on the voters rights in Texas is not enforced until the appeal.

Love to see your evidence of this.

 

Yes they can. As long as they have another reason and don't mention that it is because they are gay, or black. It's a loophole that is very difficult to prove in court. I agree equal opportunity laws are an over step of government. I understand the reasoning behind them and agree discrimination is wrong. I also believe the government has zero business telling a business how to run that business in regards to who it serves and hires. I do agree with minimum wage laws and think minimum wage should be higher. I also agree with laws regarding public safety and worker safety.

 

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private" Matthew

Its not your job to point out sinners in the public realm.

 

This is a prime example of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You cannot be against an overstepping government and for them in the same thought process.

 

So I can't be for public safety(what government is constitutionally bound to do) while also being against the government telling a business who it can and can't hire, or do business with (something the constitution never mentions, not even an amendment).
Public safety is not an over reach. Telling a business who it can hire and do business with is.
Nowhere am I for an overstepping of government. You are misrepresenting me if you are trying to say I am against government oversight. I am not.

 

I've asked you twice. Now I'm putting you on permanent ignore.

 

I took the liberty to bold what I spoke of and you argued everything else.

- - - Updated - - -

And he wonders why nobody takes him serious.

You have to be careful swinging around that bible. Never know when its going to smack you back

 

W

Please don't quote the bible to the Christian Taliban, they only promote the verses they can twist to justify their hate.

I too am disgusted they are warping my religion as well as my party but hopefully the way public opinion is turning against them we can reclaim both soon enough. The fringe radicals almost never survive long term.

 

I argued exactly what you bolded. You bolded equal opportunity laws-I responded to it with a government is over reaching if it is telling em who i can hire, or do business with. that's what EO laws do. You highlighted minimum wage laws-I responded to it. Saying you misrepresent me if you think I am against government oversight.

 

What I am saying is you cannot be against the government telling business how to conduct business, and then in the same breath be fore the government telling the same said business how much to pay the said employee.

 

You know what I'm talking about, not having to be sneaky but overtly eclectic about their clientele. I'd rather the "Whites only" sign be put right in the window so I know to go elsewhere than to walk into a restaurant to have some soggy marshmallow tell me, "Sorry, but we're all full tonight, but we can get you some kitchen scraps if you go around back." Even if I were white I would never patronize such a place even though I could. The point is, slavery has been outlawed by constitutional amendment so the federal government has no right to FORCE businesses to provide a service for anyone, meaning they should be able to put that sign right in the window and enforce it.

 

I never said conduct business. I said in regards to who it hires and does business with. Some regulations need to be in place to protect the public and workers, but there needs to be a line.

 

In all fairness and accuracy, you did invoke your religion, your choice of beliefs.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=358476&page=3&p=1063931982#post1063931982

- - - Updated - - -

They were not kicked out. They were told not to come back.

 

That line need to be at a local level. Our nation is too large and diverse for these one size fits all laws.

7.75 in New York is bad
7.75 in BFE is hog heaven

 

I agree they shouldn't have the right to tell a business who to hire, or do business with. I also said there are loop holes to get around the laws. They shouldn't need to do that, they should be able to post will not serve X. A business is considered a person, except when it comes to who it can be friends with aka hire and serve.

 

Because they believe the Leftmeme Nonstop Lie that GENITAL PREFERENCE, is "the same" as RACE, right?

 

The minimum wage laws set the minimum, they are not absolute. Local cities and states can set them higher. New York has a higher, California has a higher.
The federal govt job is to set minimums and the states/cities can go above the minimum but can't go below.

 

Very simple. If Raised Right comes under attack for expressing a viewpoint of faith, I'm going to come to his defense. My very nature is revealed in my name saintmichaelDEFENDTHEM. That's what I do.

 

Im guessing he got another mod warning

- - - Updated - - -

Oh he is the hand of God now.........I get it...........

- - - Updated - - -

I understand this........but the federal government want to dictate it higher now................I am NOT for it at that level

 

But the other examples have also been codified by the Court yet we seem the argument 'private property' applied to both...why is sexual preference different?

 

Elaborate.

I am caught up in many threads