There is the militant homosexual which is the cause of fighting the culture for rights, equality, special stays and homosexuality in school curriculum. Thse are harmful to th culture.
And then there are hosexuality people. They mind their business and contribute to society.
I don’t want my money going to the foer. The latter I treat like anyone else
The courts say the same, that we have no right to discriminate against the private citizen.
I have the right to discriminate against a publically avowed militant homosexual rights advocate who will use my money to affect legal change in the culture
The gay wedding guys are acting within the law I can’t and wouldn’t discriminate against them. The religious freedom case lost here. It is not a religious issue.
I have stated this so leave me alone with your advocacy of hatred
Example. Birth control is factually the root of most cultural problems against purity we have today, including the immodesty, sexual promiscuity, acceptance of hosexuality and abirtion.
I don’t give my money nor support to any such entity that promotes it, as seen by the nuns’ ability to take their case to the Supreme Court. They have precedence and documentation and a strong case
But I do business with many people who tell me they practice birth control for whatever reason they feel they need to tell me
So please get off my case read my posts if you are so interested and get some logic
But quit preaching your hatred and bigotry and read the gospel
Goshawk, no wonder the Catholic Church chose to tell ignorant s to quit interpreting the bible and leave the interpreting to kind scholars. It’s like talking with the muppets
I will gladly leave you alone but I first want you to show me by quoting me where I “preached bigotry and hatred”. You can’t!
You are misunderstanding the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips.against sodomites.
Phillips was not refusing to sell bcz the men were sodomites, and in fact Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake, as the event was morally objectionable to him. I am surprised he went so far as offering to sell anything for the reception.
In addition, while Colorado law was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference (which must include animals) and gender identity - which was why the judge said he ruled for the sodomites - yet Colorado law discriminates against homosexuals by denying them marriage.
Thus the baker was acting consistent with Colorado's own interpretation of the extent of its antidiscrimination law. But here comes the judge, who might as well claim the devil made him do it.
Furthermore, as this is an issue of morality, then it is a religious issue as much as a legal one. Your faith determines your moral decisions.
But if you, even as a Catholic person of faith it seems, would not discriminate against the "gay wedding guys" because they are acting within the law, then would you say
An Orthodox Jewish baker has to make a custom cake to celebrate a KKK holocaust deniers convention? Or for a GLAD celebration?
Or a black bakery make anything for a KKK celebration?
Or a evangelical (being overall more conservative than Catholics) have to make a (if unsigned) advertising sign for a legal porn shop? Or such an artist (a decorated cake is) have to make a sign, even if unsigned, for a customer who will use it for a immoral if legal celebration he/she disagrees with?
Legally speaking the answer should be no, as much as a Sabbath keeper should not be compelled to produce on his day of rest. Morally, to answer yes to these questions is akin to agreeing Nazi Germany would be right in punishing someone who would not supply the Nazi party with yellow stars - or a certain gas.
Unless you agree with the sodomites.
And even with things we may not agree with, should
Or a liberal music artist have to sell music or a license to a Ted Cruz convention? (Romney was threatened with legal action even for dong so with music he had a license for, not that i support such music)
Or a devout Muslim baker sell buns to a hot dog stand?
A homosexual sign maker have to make and sell a custom made sign for a AFA event?
Goshawk, no wonder the Catholic Church chose to tell ignorant s to quit interpreting the bible and leave the interpreting to kind scholars.
Considering the doctrinal errors of Rome, in addition to its liberal scholarship in your main Bible for decades, that is hardly an answer, and in any case Scripture is not Rome's master but its servant. But it would be interesting what their take would be on this case, if you could even get a timely official response (to anything). Do you have their 800 number?
You are misunderstanding the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips.against sodomites.
Phillips was not refusing to sell bcz the men were sodomites, and in fact Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake, as the event was morally objectionable to him. I am surprised he went so far as offering to sell anything for the reception.
In addition, while Colorado law was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference (which must include animals) and gender identity - which was why the judge said he ruled for the sodomites - yet Colorado law discriminates against homosexuals by denying them marriage.
Thus the baker was acting consistent with Colorado's own interpretation of the extent of its antidiscrimination law. But here comes the judge, who might as well claim the devil made him do it.
Furthermore, as this is an issue of morality, then it is a religious issue as much as a legal one. Your faith determines your moral decisions.
But if you, even as a Catholic person of faith it seems, would not discriminate against the "gay wedding guys" because they are acting within the law, then would you say
An Orthodox Jewish baker has to make a custom cake to celebrate a KKK holocaust deniers convention? Or for a GLAD celebration?
Or a black bakery make anything for a KKK celebration?
Or a evangelical (being overall more conservative than Catholics) have to make a (if unsigned) advertising sign for a legal porn shop? Or such an artist (a decorated cake is) have to make a sign, even if unsigned, for a customer who will use it for a immoral if legal celebration he/she disagrees with?
Legally speaking the answer should be no, as much as a Sabbath keeper should not be compelled to produce on his day of rest. Morally, to answer yes to these questions is akin to agreeing Nazi Germany would be right in punishing someone who would not supply the Nazi party with yellow stars - or a certain gas.
Unless you agree with the sodomites.
And even with things we may not agree with, should
Or a liberal music artist have to sell music or a license to a Ted Cruz convention? (Romney was threatened with legal action even for dong so with music he had a license for, not that i support such music)
Or a devout Muslim baker sell buns to a hot dog stand?
A homosexual sign maker have to make and sell a custom made sign for a AFA event?
Goshawk, no wonder the Catholic Church chose to tell ignorant s to quit interpreting the bible and leave the interpreting to kind scholars.
Considering the doctrinal errors of Rome, in addition to its liberal scholarship in your main Bible for decades, that is hardly an answer, and in any case Scripture is not Rome's master but its servant. But it would be interesting what their take would be on this case, if you could even get a timely official response (to anything). Do you have their 800 number?
You are misunderstanding the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips.against sodomites.
Phillips was not refusing to sell bcz the men were sodomites, and in fact Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake, as the event was morally objectionable to him. I am surprised he went so far as offering to sell anything for the reception.
In addition, while Colorado law was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference (which must include animals) and gender identity - which was why the judge said he ruled for the sodomites - yet Colorado law discriminates against homosexuals by denying them marriage.
Thus the baker was acting consistent with Colorado's own interpretation of the extent of its antidiscrimination law. But here comes the judge, who might as well claim the devil made him do it.
Furthermore, as this is an issue of morality, then it is a religious issue as much as a legal one. Your faith determines your moral decisions.
But if you, even as a Catholic person of faith it seems, would not discriminate against the "gay wedding guys" because they are acting within the law, then would you say
An Orthodox Jewish baker has to make a custom cake to celebrate a KKK holocaust deniers convention? Or for a GLAD celebration?
Or a black bakery make anything for a KKK celebration?
Or a evangelical (being overall more conservative than Catholics) have to make a (if unsigned) advertising sign for a legal porn shop? Or such an artist (a decorated cake is) have to make a sign, even if unsigned, for a customer who will use it for a immoral if legal celebration he/she disagrees with?
Legally speaking the answer should be no, as much as a Sabbath keeper should not be compelled to produce on his day of rest. Morally, to answer yes to these questions is akin to agreeing Nazi Germany would be right in punishing someone who would not supply the Nazi party with yellow stars - or a certain gas.
Unless you agree with the sodomites.
And even with things we may not agree with, should
Or a liberal music artist have to sell music or a license to a Ted Cruz convention? (Romney was threatened with legal action even for dong so with music he had a license for, not that i support such music)
Or a devout Muslim baker sell buns to a hot dog stand?
A homosexual sign maker have to make and sell a custom made sign for a AFA event?
Goshawk, no wonder the Catholic Church chose to tell ignorant s to quit interpreting the bible and leave the interpreting to kind scholars.
Considering the doctrinal errors of Rome, in addition to its liberal scholarship in your main Bible for decades, that is hardly an answer, and in any case Scripture is not Rome's master but its servant. But it would be interesting what their take would be on this case, if you could even get a timely official response (to anything). Do you have their 800 number?
2 Corinthians 1:13-14
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.