Tsuga C Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Oh, honey, do we ever have some cream for you... http://cbrrescue.org/ Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forests and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoors experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person.----Fred Bear http://michigansaf.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valsuelm Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) I'd so love to wade into this. But I just don't have the time or mental energy. Let me sum up my position on it this way: Scenario 1) If a gay couple go to a bakery and order a gay themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds, that is fine. Scenario 2) If he refuses to make them ANY theme wedding cake, that is bad. Laws like this come into existence because in scenario 1 above the gay couple walk out, hire a lawyer and sue the baker out of existence. That is bad. In scenario 2 they might have case, but the way thing are going the court is not drawing a distinction between the two. So not the legislatures are here to correct this great wrong... The great wrong was the 1964 Civil Rights act that had provisions in it that were unconstitutional. Without it, we wouldn't have the problem (at least in most places; states could pass similar laws if their Constitution allowed, discussing that is a huge 'what if' speculation scenario with many variables) of folks suing private businesses because they think they were discriminated against. Arguably the even greater wrong however was the corruption and bastardization of the Constitution in rulings such as Wickard v. Filburn, that created the infamous commerce clause loophole that has been used to justify all sorts of expansion of power and evil by the Federal government, such as parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Without FDR's packed court, decisions such as Wickard v. Filburn which entirely changed how the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution was legally interpreted (generally for the worse unless you're a socialist or fascist of some sort), we wouldn't have had the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or at least the unconstitutional provisions in it which applied to private businesses. Discussing this, the fundamentals of how we got here, is taboo in many people's eyes though, as the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a sacred cow to many, as generations have been taught for the most part that this was a only a good thing and necessary. One is generally automatically deemed a racist or some other bad thing if one comes out against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which while it had some good provisions, it also had some evil draconian tyrannical provisions. Two wrongs don't make a right and the ends don't justify the means both very much apply here. These are some the building blocks on the road of good intentions to hell. But we can't talk about them as a nation because the populace as a whole has been conditioned to reject rational discussion of the issue. In the mainstream media and the brainwashee's mind the issue is settled, cannot be revisited, and anyone questioning it is marginalized. So, we continue to keep laying bricks to hell, with this issue and others. Edited April 1, 2015 by Valsuelm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard Dog Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 To follow up my comment on legislation being a blunt instrument, that is yet another reason my any governmental body should be restricted to clearly defined roles and never be allowed to get so big you couldn't drown it in a bucket. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 To follow up my comment on legislation being a blunt instrument, that is yet another reason my any governmental body should be restricted to clearly defined roles and never be allowed to get so big you couldn't drown it in a bucket. How could it be prevented from growing when government tend to be self regulatory? I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 To follow up my comment on legislation being a blunt instrument, that is yet another reason my any governmental body should be restricted to clearly defined roles and never be allowed to get so big you couldn't drown it in a bucket. How could it be prevented from growing when government tend to be self regulatory? We vote these people into office over and over again. A decent start would be to clean house. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadySands Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 To follow up my comment on legislation being a blunt instrument, that is yet another reason my any governmental body should be restricted to clearly defined roles and never be allowed to get so big you couldn't drown it in a bucket. How could it be prevented from growing when government tend to be self regulatory? We vote these people into office over and over again. A decent start would be to clean house. I wish Free games updated 3/4/21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 We vote these people into office over and over again. A decent start would be to clean house. You vote some of those people into office, the really inconsequential ones. Those actually running things, bureaucrats, special interest groups, and 99% of public officials never run for office. The deep state isn't subject to public oversight, separation of powers or even the rule of law. As with everything else in a world ruled by and for money, the little power you have resides in your wallet. Stop paying taxes and things would change tomorrow. 1 - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amentep Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I'd so love to wade into this. But I just don't have the time or mental energy. Let me sum up my position on it this way: Scenario 1) If a gay couple go to a bakery and order a gay themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds, that is fine. Scenario 2) If he refuses to make them ANY theme wedding cake, that is bad. I know you said you didn't have time for this, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts on whether, conceptually, it would be different (and how) if scenario 1 read "If a Hindi couple go to a bakery and order an Hindu themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds" And whether that is still fine our not. The Hindu wedding is just as heretical to Christian belief as the gay one is, given that neither would be marriage in the "Eyes of God" from the Christian perspective. I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valsuelm Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I'd so love to wade into this. But I just don't have the time or mental energy. Let me sum up my position on it this way: Scenario 1) If a gay couple go to a bakery and order a gay themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds, that is fine. Scenario 2) If he refuses to make them ANY theme wedding cake, that is bad. I know you said you didn't have time for this, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts on whether, conceptually, it would be different (and how) if scenario 1 read "If a Hindi couple go to a bakery and order an Hindu themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds" And whether that is still fine our not. The Hindu wedding is just as heretical to Christian belief as the gay one is, given that neither would be marriage in the "Eyes of God" from the Christian perspective. Christians generally don't have a problem with a man and woman of a non-Christian faith getting married. Of course they'd prefer to see them Christian as they think it's for their own good, but generally a Christian would celebrate a man and woman getting married no matter if they were Hindu, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Islamic, whatever. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amentep Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) I'd so love to wade into this. But I just don't have the time or mental energy. Let me sum up my position on it this way: Scenario 1) If a gay couple go to a bakery and order a gay themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds, that is fine. Scenario 2) If he refuses to make them ANY theme wedding cake, that is bad. I know you said you didn't have time for this, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts on whether, conceptually, it would be different (and how) if scenario 1 read "If a Hindi couple go to a bakery and order an Hindu themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds" And whether that is still fine our not. The Hindu wedding is just as heretical to Christian belief as the gay one is, given that neither would be marriage in the "Eyes of God" from the Christian perspective. Christians generally don't have a problem with a man and woman of a non-Christian faith getting married. Of course they'd prefer to see them Christian as they think it's for their own good, but generally a Christian would celebrate a man and woman getting married no matter if they were Hindu, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Islamic, whatever. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. But if the particular sect of a Christian church doesn't recognize gay marriage, its not a marriage at all to them. So why is it important? And why is it sinful other over heretical marriages to the point that it is singled out as prohibited? Edited April 2, 2015 by Amentep I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 To follow up my comment on legislation being a blunt instrument, that is yet another reason my any governmental body should be restricted to clearly defined roles and never be allowed to get so big you couldn't drown it in a bucket. How could it be prevented from growing when government tend to be self regulatory? We vote these people into office over and over again. A decent start would be to clean house. Funny how despite being against the state the solution seems to be to purge the state and establish another one. Like a smoker that quits and then starts overeating. Also, I doubt anyone that finds the current status quo favorable will be keen to have it change and people who want change are not willing to take the level of measures necessary to enact change. No, this is their win as everyone who goes against them within the constrains of system is engaged in a Sisyphean task. The most enduring solution would be to crush the mountain and enjoy whatever you can before it grows again, rather than to push that rock uphill. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoonDing Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 So... what the hell is a Hoosier? The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amentep Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 So... what the hell is a Hoosier? AFAIK no one actually knows. There's loads of theories, but little proof. It seems it was a less-than-flattering term that got adopted and changed to a point of pride. It might be related to Cumbrian dialetical word "hoozer" or to a black Methodist minister Rev. Hosier or a Louisville contractor named Samuel Hoosier whose work gangs became known as "Hoosier's Men" - later settling in the area as hoosiers. The folk etymology says its a bastardization of "Who's here" a question asked by travelers to find out if they were approaching friend or foe (ran together to come out "whoshere" or "hoos 'ere". Although my favorite tale involves a barroom brawl and the question "Whose ear?" personally. I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valsuelm Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I'd so love to wade into this. But I just don't have the time or mental energy. Let me sum up my position on it this way: Scenario 1) If a gay couple go to a bakery and order a gay themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds, that is fine. Scenario 2) If he refuses to make them ANY theme wedding cake, that is bad. I know you said you didn't have time for this, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts on whether, conceptually, it would be different (and how) if scenario 1 read "If a Hindi couple go to a bakery and order an Hindu themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds" And whether that is still fine our not. The Hindu wedding is just as heretical to Christian belief as the gay one is, given that neither would be marriage in the "Eyes of God" from the Christian perspective. Christians generally don't have a problem with a man and woman of a non-Christian faith getting married. Of course they'd prefer to see them Christian as they think it's for their own good, but generally a Christian would celebrate a man and woman getting married no matter if they were Hindu, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Islamic, whatever. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. But if the particular sect of a Christian church doesn't recognize gay marriage, its not a marriage at all to them. So why is it important? And why is it sinful other over heretical marriages to the point that it is singled out as prohibited? I already told you, but I guess I'll repeat. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. To be more clear they see homosexuality (and other 'LGBT' behaviors) as immoral and destructive, and they want no part of celebrating what they see as immoral, destructive, and sinful. Might some people, Christian or other, have a belief that participating in a wedding ceremony of someone who holds a faith other than theirs is sinful? Possibly, there's a lot of people out there. But in general, Christians have no problem with a marriage between a man and a woman no matter what that man and woman's faith is or isn't. A marriage between a man and woman is generally seen as a good thing to Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amentep Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I already told you, but I guess I'll repeat. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. To be more clear they see homosexuality (and other 'LGBT' behaviors) as immoral and destructive, and they want no part of celebrating what they see as immoral, destructive, and sinful. Might some people, Christian or other, have a belief that participating in a wedding ceremony of someone who holds a faith other than theirs is sinful? Possibly, there's a lot of people out there. But in general, Christians have no problem with a marriage between a man and a woman no matter what that man and woman's faith is or isn't. A marriage between a man and woman is generally seen as a good thing to Christians. I'm not trying to be obtuse, so understand I value your attempt to explain the position to me. Perhaps I need to clarify my question? I know what I'm trying to ask but I seem to be failing to ask it properly. Lets say that a man and a woman were being married as Satanists. Wouldn't that be objectionable? Immoral, destructive, sinful? Would the Christian who balks at gay marriage also balk at providing a man and a woman a wedding cake with a pair of devils on it? Would they object to providing a cake with an upside down cross? Why is marriage in general seen as "good"? If acceptance of Christ is a key to heaven as described in the New Testament, wouldn't a marriage between non-believers who would potentially create and raise more non-believers mean that the support of any non-Christian wedding was supporting (or at least furthering) the eternal damnation of those people? I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tort Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Now the way all of this could have been avoided is if the gay couple in scenario 1 took their business elsewhere without a legal fuss.That right here is the problem, social activist tend to do exactly the opposite, thus bring attention to their issues.. It is my understanding this law was brought about after several people suffered from Scenario 1, and the opposition to it is also mostly activism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I did like how the pizza guy who was somehow elected by the media as the first business owner to discriminate, has never actually catered a wedding before. They basically asked him a loaded question and then pinned him as the poster boy for the issue. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Lets say that a man and a woman were being married as Satanists. Wouldn't that be objectionable? How about an arranged marriage as an example... 16/18 daughter (over AoC, anyway, and not explicitly saying she's opposed to the marriage) brought in to cake shop by parents, going to be married to their 70 year old business partner. Traditional immigrant type dress, but no obvious religious affiliation implied. So there's no real legal impediment to the marriage, but a fairly huge potential moral objection, based on the vendor's morality and their perspective on the situation plus it has the potential for protest action whichever way the vendor goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 What exactly is a gay wedding cake anyway? How is it different than a normal wedding cake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tort Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Its the same just with same sex figurines on top? unless maybe they want to make a statement and has no taste, then it will likely be rainbow colored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valsuelm Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) I'm not trying to be obtuse, so understand I value your attempt to explain the position to me. Perhaps I need to clarify my question? I know what I'm trying to ask but I seem to be failing to ask it properly. Lets say that a man and a woman were being married as Satanists. Wouldn't that be objectionable? Immoral, destructive, sinful? Would the Christian who balks at gay marriage also balk at providing a man and a woman a wedding cake with a pair of devils on it? Would they object to providing a cake with an upside down cross? I would imagine that given who Satan is and what he represents that most Christians would object to participating in a Satanic ritual celebrating the marriage of a man and a woman. Most certainly most Christians would object to baking a cake with an upside down cross on it, no matter what it was for. You may as well ask a Jew to bake a cake with a Swastika on it, or a devout Hindu butcher to chop up some cows for you. If you look really hard you might find some that might, but you'd probably find a lot more telling you to bugger off (moreso I would think in the latter scenario). There are many things that a Christian (or anyone else, religious or not) might morally object to and not want any part of. Why is marriage in general seen as "good"? If acceptance of Christ is a key to heaven as described in the New Testament, wouldn't a marriage between non-believers who would potentially create and raise more non-believers mean that the support of any non-Christian wedding was supporting (or at least furthering) the eternal damnation of those people? Why marriage is seen as good.... that would take a book to answer fully. Put simply: Marriage is generally seen as good as Christians in general celebrate life (a fundamental reason that in general Christians oppose abortion), and view marriage as the ideal and best manner in which children can be brought into the world and raised. Sex outside of marriage is frowned upon for a variety of reasons. The bond of marriage is a sacred holy bond to many Christians. Christians generally hold the love and bond between a man and woman in high regard. As for Christian views of non-Christians getting married and having kids. Most Christians don't view non-Christians as folks who will necessarily suffer eternal damnation, Certainly there are some who do. Heck there are sects of Christians (of pretty much any religion) that think if one doesn't follow their way one is going to suffer eternally, or in this life. For the most part however, people with such thoughts are not deriving them from their religion, but to their credit, most if not all of those sects do attempt to persuade others to follow their way of life, so in their minds they do try and save those that they see as being on the path to hell. Christians certainly generally do not look at a child of anyone (even Mr. and Mrs. Satan's kid) and think to themselves that the kid is going to hell because of his parents (note that Christians who protest abortions aren't saying 'we're only protesting abortions by Christians, the others can abort for all we care, in fact we hope they do'; Christians generally view all human life as sacred). If anything they'd look at it as a new opportunity to tell someone else of Christ and the Bible. This is part of the reason (though I wouldn't say the primary) that a great deal of missionary and charity work is done all over the world where Christianity is not common, by many Christian churches. Note: I'm not exactly a practicing Christian. I do know a lot about Christianity, as I'm a lifelong student of history, went to a Christian church as a kid, and find the subject of religions and spirituality very interesting. if you want better answers than what I've given, I recommend actually going to one of your local churches and attempting to talk to one of it's clergy or even some of it's members. Clergy in general are happy to talk to people about their religion and answer questions. Even to people not of their religion (this is how I learned quite a bit of what I know of Judaism). Members of course run the spectrum a bit more, from those who will happily talk to you to those who for whatever reason would rather not, and of course some will be more intelligent and knowledgeable on whatever subject you're interested in than others. I myself almost always have interesting conversations with the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses when they stop by in hopes of converting me. Believe it or not, most of them are pretty smart in my experience and aren't afraid of tough questions. I also have had some interesting conversations with an old priest turned part-time auto salesman who I run into at a local bar on occasion. And by way of a former job know more rabbis than priests at this point in my life. If one is respectful, people often are happy to talk about their religion with you. Morality and discussions about it can be quite complex. Such things are best done in person. Edited April 3, 2015 by Valsuelm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted April 3, 2015 Author Share Posted April 3, 2015 I'm not trying to be obtuse, so understand I value your attempt to explain the position to me. Perhaps I need to clarify my question? I know what I'm trying to ask but I seem to be failing to ask it properly. Lets say that a man and a woman were being married as Satanists. Wouldn't that be objectionable? Immoral, destructive, sinful? Would the Christian who balks at gay marriage also balk at providing a man and a woman a wedding cake with a pair of devils on it? Would they object to providing a cake with an upside down cross? I would imagine that given who Satan is and what he represents that most Christians would object to participating in a Satanic ritual celebrating the marriage of a man and a woman. Most certainly most Christians would object to baking a cake with an upside down cross on it, no matter what it was for. You may as well ask a Jew to bake a cake with a Swastika on it, or a devout Hindu butcher to chop up some cows for you. If you look really hard you might find some that might, but you'd probably find a lot more telling you to bugger off (moreso I would think in the latter scenario). There are many things that a Christian (or anyone else, religious or not) might morally object to and not want any part of. Why is marriage in general seen as "good"? If acceptance of Christ is a key to heaven as described in the New Testament, wouldn't a marriage between non-believers who would potentially create and raise more non-believers mean that the support of any non-Christian wedding was supporting (or at least furthering) the eternal damnation of those people? Why marriage is seen as good.... that would take a book to answer fully. Put simply: Marriage is generally seen as good as Christians in general celebrate life (a fundamental reason that in general Christians oppose abortion), and view marriage as the ideal and best manner in which children can be brought into the world and raised. Sex outside of marriage is frowned upon for a variety of reasons. The bond of marriage is a sacred holy bond to many Christians. Christians generally hold the love and bond between a man and woman in high regard. As for Christian views of non-Christians getting married and having kids. Most Christians don't view non-Christians as folks who will necessarily suffer eternal damnation, Certainly there are some who do. Heck there are sects of Christians (of pretty much any religion) that think if one doesn't follow their way one is going to suffer eternally, or in this life. For the most part however, people with such thoughts are not deriving them from their religion, but to their credit, most if not all of those sects do attempt to persuade others to follow their way of life, so in their minds they do try and save those that they see as being on the path to hell. Christians certainly generally do not look at a child of anyone (even Mr. and Mrs. Satan's kid) and think to themselves that the kid is going to hell because of his parents. If anything they'd look at it as a new opportunity to tell someone else of Christ and the Bible. This is part of the reason (though I wouldn't say the primary) that a great deal of missionary and charity work is done all over the world where Christianity is not common, by many Christian churches. Note: I'm not exactly a practicing Christian. I do know a lot about Christianity, as I'm a lifelong student of history, went to a Christian church as a kid, and find the subject of religions and spirituality very interesting. if you want better answers than what I've given, I recommend actually going to one of your local churches and attempting to talk to one of it's clergy or even some of it's members. Clergy in general are happy to talk to people about their religion and answer questions. Even to people not of their religion (this is how I learned quite a bit of what I know of Judaism). Members of course run the spectrum a bit more, from those who will happily talk to you to those who for whatever reason would rather not, and of course some will be more intelligent and knowledgeable on whatever subject you're interested in than others. I myself almost always have interesting conversations with the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses when they stop by in hopes of converting me. Believe it or not, most of them are pretty smart in my experience and aren't afraid of tough questions. I also have had some interesting conversations with an old priest turned part-time auto salesman who I run into at a local bar on occasion. And by way of a former job know more rabbis than priests at this point in my life. If one is respectful, people often are happy to talk about their religion with you. Morality and discussions about it can be quite complex. Such things are best done in person. @ Vals and Amentep You guys are posting some really interesting perspectives that never occurred to me. I always learn new things on these forums But you both seem to be missing something fundamental, this bill is about the LGBT community not being served in commercial entities like restaurants . Issues like Christians having to serve Satanists is not what this furor is about even if it is valid. I see that as more of a distraction from the real issues of discrimination and homophobia that some people cleverly mask using other issues so there bigotry isn't apparent ..and this obviously doesn't apply to either of you "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tort Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Perhaps I need to clarify my question? I know what I'm trying to ask but I seem to be failing to ask it properly. Lets say that a man and a woman were being married as Satanists. Wouldn't that be objectionable? Immoral, destructive, sinful? Would the Christian who balks at gay marriage also balk at providing a man and a woman a wedding cake with a pair of devils on it? Would they object to providing a cake with an upside down cross? Why is marriage in general seen as "good"? If acceptance of Christ is a key to heaven as described in the New Testament, wouldn't a marriage between non-believers who would potentially create and raise more non-believers mean that the support of any non-Christian wedding was supporting (or at least furthering) the eternal damnation of those people? It might be best if you clarify the context of your question. 1. If its question of faith. And you are at a loss why this is a loaded issue for some Christians, then I am in the same boat. 2. If its a legal quandary, followup on guard dog scenarios. Then IMO its useless, since in this our understanding\interpretation of the New Testament is meaningless, whether they believe the one or the other it still protected by law. - So as it is, this law is likely have some unfortunate consequences, but I don't see any way to avoid them and protect religious freedom with just a little rephrasing. Edited April 3, 2015 by Tort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valsuelm Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Occasionally judges actually uphold the Constitution. If more did, attempts to pass such laws such as 'Indiana's Freedom of Religion Law', and a great many others would be moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoonDing Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 I believe the major religions of India are hinduism, followed by buddhism and islam. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now