Christian Mingle Ordered To Accept Gay Singles .....

That would be a question for Fughazi who says "you must support the homosexual couple"

 

A cake does not equal support.
If you don't want to serve the public, don't open a business that does just that - at least not in the US. Muslim nations and Russia would surely welcome you though

 

What am I'm cherry picking?

And you accuse me of cherry picking. You'll deny the plain reading of a text that condemns homosexuality yet turn around and try to use "the Bible plainly says" to try to make a point. The fact is even if you're right it's still a lot better than worser punishments.

Those are the passages that doesn't say anything about the death penalty that you listed.

Which verse said that?

 

yes, cause bakeries in republicans eyes should be able to discriminate based on the race or gender of the couple buying the cake?

 

If you aren't you're deranged. The bible calls for genocide.

You should. Not cherry picking the morally relevant stuff and saying it's all perfect is what isis does. That's dark ages bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Lol, the bible never said anything about homosexuality until it was edited in in the 19th century. So yeah i deny that, it's clearly wrong.

No, i dint think genocide is better.

Okay the other ten call for genocide right?

It's in the list. I bore of your laziness.

 

You mean just as they mandate that you must support various religious organisations, races etc or be fined 100s of 1000s of dollars, or is it ok in your book for-for profit businesses to discriminate against Christians and blacks?

 

You know very well What I mean by that comment, your allusion to ignorance is just a cheap trick on your part.

Support - Give approval, comfort, or encouragement to: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/support

 

Except of course as already shown the "plain" reading in most English bibles is incorrect and written to suit the bias of church dogma.

 

"you must support the homosexual couple" is a QUOTE of Fughazi"s words

 

Dr Who was the one asking. Im just the one who doesn't want to define what you mean to other posters.

 

Dr Who didn't ask anything about my comment, he asked about your misrepresentation of my comment ie "I have a problem with government mandating that you must support the homosexual couple or be fined 100s of 1000s of dollars."

Cherry picking yt comment in order to misrepresent it is a deceitful thing to do .. but then you do it all the time.

- - - Updated - - -

A misrepresented foreshortened cherry picked quote by you .. deceitful is what you are.

 

To review for those who cant keep up.

I am opposed to WHATEVER YOU MEAN BY "you must support the homosexual couple" when its coerced by government with threats of fines of 100s of 1000s of dollars. AND that's an EXACT quote from your post, not a misrepresentation, AND ESPECIALLY since you mean that we must "Give approval, comfort, or encouragement".

 

A cake does not equal support.
A cake does not give approval.
A cake does not give comfort
A cake does not give encouragement.

If one does not want to sell goods they have made available to the public then they should not open a business under the premise of such - or they can move to Iran where their religious manipulation vetoes the rights of others.

 

I believe gays should get saved and repent just like those who practice incest, adultery, fornication, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.

 

If you read the Bible it was the genocide of a group that mingled their seed with demons.

Show me the 1611 coercion of the KJV. Does it say something different?

What?

Wrong.

Its in a list a few pages back. Just give me the one passage.

 

Except you said:

How are you different than a more tame version of ISIS?
It's always strange to see people advocate the death of others for failing to believe in the same fairy tails you do - thankfully the time of religious dominance is coming to a close. I sometimes wish your idea of hell was real, simply so people like you could burn there.

 

Yep your cherry picked portion suits your agenda .. when in reality the whole of my comment shows the context, which of course you have to ignore because it shows your hypocritical opinion.

You claim your opposition is not based in religion and as a wedding cake has NO religious significance then you can not have any issue with the case .. unless of course your opposition "when its coerced by government with threats of fines of 100s of 1000s of dollars." extends to black people, other religious beliefs, or members of the opposite sex, or is the reality that you attempt to shoe-horn anything you can to cover your obvious (failed) personal crusade against homosexuals?

 

Already shown that the KJV is not a true and correct translation, in fact it borrows heavily from other English translations especially the Bishop’s Bible.
The current edition of the KJV is different from the original 1611 translation and several other early editions. “The KJV Bible we use today is actually based primarily on the major revision completed in 1769—158 years after the first edition.” - Source - Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation (Grand Rapids, MI:Baker, 1984), p. 39

One of the first English translations was the John Wycliffe's bible ( http://www.biblestudytools.com/wyc/leviticus/18.html ) where it is plain to see the translation of Lev 18:22 is very different from what came later. - Thou shalt not be meddled, [(or) mingled,] with a man, by lechery of a woman, for it is abomination.

There are numerous other issues with the KJV, including the reality that King James specified a number of rules that had to be followed concerning the translation - http://www.kjvonly.org/other/kj_instructs.htm

 

Whats that now, three posts from you on this missing context and yet, still you haven't pointed out in any way how it changes the meaning. Let me know if you ever get around to it.

I think privately owned businesses should be able to choose who they do business with, OR, EVERYONE should be given the same protections, not just the 4 or 5 preferred classifications of people.

 

You have changed the context by missing the first part of the post which ample shows what I meant.

The exchange was as follows.

me - "I find it ironic that so called Christians are up in arms about a cake when it is in reality a Pagan symbol .. but there again like most Christian festivals and rituals they are stolen from Pagan rituals. "

you - "And as an atheist, I couldn't care less if they were a part of the religious marriage process. "

me - "Really, then what it your problem? The baker claimed a religious reason for not wanting to bake the cake and yet "wedding" cake has zero religious significance ergo you must support the homosexual couple."

Ie if you have no religious reasons for supporting the baker then you must support the homosexual couple, because it was religious reasons that the baker gave for not baking the cake, which means the baker broke Public accommodation law .. or don't you abide by the laws of your country?

Funny how it never became a problem until homosexuals started asking for "wedding" cakes even though it has been law since 1964

 

The very definition of discrimination, You refuse Black people service, because You hate Black People.
Everyone is given the same protection of and by law, you don't get to serve anyone, simply based on favoritism or preference...

 

Nope.

(1)
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

If you want to discriminate against someone because of the way they cut their hair, OR ANY REASON IN THE WORLD other than "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age" you are free to do so. AND if you discriminate against someone for other reasons, but the person is in the minority of any of the above classifications, it will just be presumed that your discrimination is instead based upon one of the above classifications.

No, everyone doesn't get the same protections. The statute is UNEQUAL by design, giving special preferences to certain classifications of people, not available to others, and unequal in its application.

 

Not all things ISIS advocates are outright wrong. And you yourself admit that what I believe is tamer than what ISIS believes. I bet they also believe murdering a member of their group is wrong too. I would agree that murder is wrong but not in the way ISIS believes.

The Bible calls for the death of mirderers. There states that follow that rule. Are they wrong?

 

Nope. First laws to include sexual orientation came about in the 90s

 

I'm thinking its in the other thread which is dead (mostly due to me not reviving notifications and keep forgetting about it). Either way no one denies that the KJV borrows from other translations. And even with you example that still says the same thing as the KJV.