Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

Click the arrow next to my screen name, then the arrow next to your screen name, and so forth until you get back to the post.

 

What the hell this has to do with anything I ever said, no one will ever know.

No doubt that's an appealing spin to the perversely inclined.

If your post may be considered representative, clearly the opinions those doing the "considering" may be safely disregarded.

So the way you figure it, the principal author of the DoI was lying when he signed it. Got that about right, haven't I?

Not in the least - and you can bet your soul on that one, assuming you have one.

Doesn't matter what they believe, as without God, all they'd have - if they had anything at all - would be the reality that might makes right.

Who said anything about that?

 

You mean the state courts. The federal courts pertain to employment only.

 

Ignore the facts if you wish.

 

What an ungraceful bow out of debate! You would've been better off not replying with anything! You've been caught out I'm afraid! You said that, "the legitimate authority of Gov't is protection from direct harm - one person on another" but failed to be able to explain what the "direct harm" is in the baker case! Oh well. See you next time I suppose!

 

Why wouldn't you view "catering weddings as a special service" for a pizza shop owner and not the "main business", which is selling pizza?

 

Admitting that you don't know what "become one flesh" means, is not proving anything! How do you know that "become one flesh" DOESN'T mean marriage?

 

“This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children”

 

I’ve always thought it meant intercourse.
Strange how the Bible doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone that reads it.

What’s marriage to you in your preferred religious text isn’t to someone else

In the end it’s irrelevant, religious rule should have no bearing on society.

 

No matter how badly you wish otherwise, the Bible does not define marriage at any time, in any chapter or verse. Sorry.

 

But it does contain some interesting ‘naughty bits’ and not just in the Old Testament. Matthew Ch: 25. V:1 makes delicious reading.
“Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom”
Hard for biblical apologetics to wriggle out of that one.

 

So you support Facebook for banning certain people, white supremacists and hate speech, etc?

 

Gay snowflakes feeling's being hurt?

 

We disagree.

 

There is nothing to disagree about. It’s an objective and demonstrable fact that nowhere in any chapter or verse is marriage defined as 1 man and 1 woman.

 

Jesus contradicted you, but you know that. Whatever, it doesn't matter if you understand why Christians believe as they do.

 

Except for the fact he never mentions let alone defines marriage of course, lol.

I don’t really care what they believe. I’m just pointing out nowhere in the Bible is marriage defined as 1 man and 1 woman.

 

Which particular branch of Christianity and which particular set of beliefs?
As to your claim Jesus spoke of the nature of marriage (or homosexuality for that matter) you must be giving Revelations a more bizarre interpretation than the many weird claims already made about it. You could avoid a lot of frustration innate in your evangelical efforts if you faced the fact the Bible is not the innerant Word of God. That’s however another topic for another thread one I suggest you don’t start unless you want to risk having the very foundations of your faith undermined by those more familiar with scripture and it’s origins than yourself. You’d be safer following the ceremonial recommendations of Numbers Ch:15.V:24.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inerrant

 

Pick one, Jesus spoke of what God intended from the beginning. Hint: It isn't in Revelations.

Were I a member of the OT theocracy of Israel you might have a point. Funny such ignorance coming from a self-proclaimed Bible expert.

 

I’m sorry that reality clashes with your dogmatic beliefs and blind faith.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

OK so let's go looking for these supposed answers. Below is everything you've posted since I noted that consanguineous should be allowed by the same logic.

Now I will grant that consanguineous sex among two fertile individuals of the opposite sex can indeed lead to genetic defects. And because of such, a ban on consanguineous breeding is a legitimate state interest. However, since legal marriage has no requirement for sex to occur, nor does the lack of a legal marriage prevent sex from occurring, even before we look at same sex and infertile pairings, by what interest does the state have to deny consanguineous couples the legal institution of marriage?

You made a claim of the inherent coercive nature of incest. What exactly is the supposed inherent coercive nature of incest? What form does it take? How is it different from any other coercive action such that it requires separate legislation? Explain the inherent coercive nature of the examples I gave.

As you can plainly see, none of the above quotes from you answer any of my questions, particularly on the supposed inherent coercive nature of incest.

 

One does not have to support a choice in order to support the right to make that choice.

 

So you support Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and their right to make their choices?

Because most Trumpsters seem to feel that when they do it, it ain't right. Even though they are shutting down hate.

Whereas, apparently, they support this florist lady and her hate.

Doesn't make sense.