There is also nothing stating that gay people shouldn’t be able to wed but that hasn’t stopped it being used as reasoning. That’s the thing with religious belief, it can be twisted to mean anything you want. Leviticus 21:16-23: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. He … shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them.' I must have missed it, care to point it out or you can just answer. There are bible verses about the separation of the colors also.
What delusions? That they are signing a completely legal and backed by the Supreme Court of the United States civil document? Someone is delusional, it isn’t the couples though
It's not more of a burden, but that's not the point. Each business has their own burdens. So why should one of those burdens for a struggling business be having to spend money that they can't afford? What do you mean, "prior to gay people?" What is significant about not having the internet back then? Nobody who wants to stay in business or keep their job. A doctor would be instantly fired. Why are you so sure?
Instead of "asset" I should've said "utility." As in the commonly known utilities of gas, electricity and water. These utilities are government owned and controlled, but often managed by private enterprise. And because they are government owned and controlled, this makes the argument of "what if a customer is cut off..." easily debunked. Did I say that I or business DOES get to decide how the law is applied? No, I did not. I agree, if it is an essential service. If it is a baker or florist, I do not agree. So they can't get flowers or a cake? Sorry, it's a cruel world and they should get over it, but they should feel free to start a protest and try to put them out of business where they belong and deserve to be. I would join the protest, even if it was a Christian. And risk almost certainly going out of business? How the hell would they know who is homosexual? Consider what a valid argument? Do you make a distinction between a baker or florist and an electricity, gas or water company? Does that mean that you are against child support? I actually think that the "art" argument is a weak one, considering that Jack wasn't being asked to create art on the cake, or write a message on the cake in support of gay marriage. Why do you say that it was art? No, his business wouldn't normally be asked to be involved in a same sex wedding by providing catering services for it. I'm guessing that's not a usual request. Discrimination on the basis of the event that a service is for, is not illegal. 'Event' is not a protected category in public accommodation laws, although it may in the future if say the Supreme Court rules that refusing service - if the service is for a particular event - is permitted. Actually, wouldn't a delivery be considered to be outside of a place of public accommodation? Although I'm sure that the civil rights commissions of liberal states would find a way to wriggle out of that one if they had to!
Given how CLEAR the Bible is about marriage being between a man and a woman, how likely do you think it is that this is not referring EXCLUSIVELY to marriage between a man and a woman?
that is old testament, Jesus may of been gay himself, thus never married and hung with the guys, who knows or cares who another lovers, as long as they are a consenting adult and not a child like Mary was
Is there anything in the New Testament which contradicts marriage being between a man and a woman? It is clear that God's design was for people to be heterosexual. So his Son Jesus (who was the perfect man) can't have been gay, just like he can't have been a pedophile or have had any other characteristic which goes against God's design.
Don't worry about what other people think. The civil rights legislation is 50 years old. If it were up to me we'd have never left the British Empire, but what's the point of arguing now?
Your logic is tortured, so there is no reasoning with you. And no I don't want to point it out. Review the thread yourself.
Agreed, not leaving might have avoided the Civil War. Doesn't seem to have hurt Canada, Australia or NZ any.
Ah, I forgot you have trouble with English. I’ll type slower. Nowhere does the Bible say marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
FYI, gay marriage was approved be the Supreme Court. Seriously, WTF are you posting such BS.!!!!!! https://nypost.com/2015/06/26/supreme-court-approves-gay-marriage-nationwide/