Posted on 06/15/2015 3:36:45 AM PDT by markomalley
Not wanting to associate with perverts makes one a “Bigot?” Are you serious?
LOL! and "Feelings", "We Are Family", and anything by Bette Midler, Judy Garland, Cher or Barry Manilow.
Their self-identification as homosexuals encompasses “debauchery” by itself, unless you’re using some new, post-modern definition of the word. Holy crap, and of course most of the usual suspects are here agreeing with your foolishness.
Who wrote this?
"I live on a nice piece of land in a rural county east of Kansas City with my dog, two cats, three guns and, occasionally, my boyfriend."
Ooooh, good one!
Let the backpedaling begin!
Your point is?
This is how the gay activism agenda works:
• A gay activist sets up the situation by choosing a Christian provider.
• They have someone else who doesn't look or sound gay to call and engage the service. In this case, the guy's sister called.
• Everything seems fine, so the provider accepts.
• After awhile, the gay person(s) reveal their preferences for a gay theme.
• The Christian provider must then either honor the appointment or turn it down.
• If the provider cancels the appointment and cites his/her Christianity, the gay person calls the nearest socialist democrat lawyer or Human Rights Commission (they have them on speed dial) and the persecution moves into high gear.
This is how the bakers who refused the lesbian wedding were done in, and are now being forced to pay the lesbians $135,000.00 for damages. One of the "brides" brought her mother to the initial meeting with the baker.
It's a shake-down formula.
See post 99.
My point is that the person who wrote that she or he is single and living with a boyfriend is on this thread pontificating about the canon law of adultery, and trying to gay-shame people who have any knowledge through any means, however innocently intended, of how gay people tend to behave at parties. Do you want me to "out" this person's hypocrisy in even more "pointed" terms?
You're not doing a good job of pointing out hypocrisy to begin with so you should probably quite while you're ahead. Because I'm not claiming to make business decisions or judgements based on "biblical morality" only to have some morality be OK and other morality prohibited. When I start doing that then you can get back up on your sanctimonious high horse and criticize me.
As for the DJ in question I could not care less who they want as customers and who they don't. If they don't want to serve homosexual customers then that's their decision. They may get flack from the state of Maryland but they won't from me. I think that they should be open and honest about their reasons is all.
Oh, really?
By the way, it's spelled "quit", not "quite." But when you type in anger over being outed, mistakes happen.
And the only sanctimony on this thread is from the fake Bible-bashers throwing the Christians to the homosexuals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.