RE: An American dialogue

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: An American dialogue

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: An American dialogue

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 10:45:30 AM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

So violating the law should be okay just because you [general you] dont believe in it or what it represents? Hell yes is all I can say! I dont like the speeding laws either, Michael...but that doesnt mean the cop is going to ignore me driving 120mph down I-5. I dont like paying taxes either, so Im going to tell Oregon and the IRS they can suck it because Im not paying any longer. I guarantee Oregon and the IRS would definitely not suck it. If I choose to violate the law, I face consequences for that decision. Same goes for small business owners, etc as well.

All I said was that if a small business owner doesnt want to have to put flour, sugar, butter, and things in an oven because it would be for <fill in the blank...and fill in the blank violates the SBOs values>, there is relocating to a place where buisness practices allow for that. If you want to do business, the ability to do that is an exchange where you agree to the laws to maintain licensing to continue doing commercial business.

Whether its liked or not, the laws are the laws until the laws change. Ultimately it will lay with whatever the Supreme Court decides.

It seems to me like your whole argument boils down to: "If you don't like it, move!"

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Danemora)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 10:48:15 AM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
you might think youre looking for a way to compromise, but its pretty clear youre not. you just want Christians to behave the way you think they should.

Be reasonable, bounty. Do it my way.

Peace,

Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to bounty44)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 10:48:18 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Commerce is an essential right to us all, yes? Being able to freely trade and barter? Discrimination is not a fundamental part of who Christians are, or should strive to be, by our own teachings.

In the marketplace, there is no room for anyone to be treated as a second-class citizen. And there should be no discussion of doing so within the church. Freedom of Speech protects it, Christ's own words go against it. Which is the higher Law?

I don't know if commerce is an essential right. Certainly, it couldn't have been as important to the Founding Fathers as ... say ... freedom of religion or they might have made sure they specifically enumerated it, the way they did the freedom of religion.

"In the market place, there is no room for anyone to be treated as a second-class citizen ..."

Apparently, you think there's room for it in the courts and the laws; you're just okay with it being Christians who get marginalized.

You should really stop trying to tell me what I think. You're always wrong.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 10:53:55 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
A couple of years ago, JVoV, you said you'd rather take your business elsewhere, to a bakery that wanted your business. That's terrific! That's a great plan.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of when I posted the clip from Pretty Woman.

I wasn't referencing any movie clip. I was talking about:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV 04 April 2015 5:31:51 AM
My argument for marriage instead of civil unions is Brown v the Board of Education. Separate is not equal.

I didn't respond to the football quote because I'm not familiar with it.

DADT is the primary reason I didn't serve in the military. There is no way I could have denied who I was for so long, after finally coming to terms with it myself.

I have no illusions about what either party has done to and for the gay community in my lifetime. And I don't completely trust either of them, no matter how good the rhetoric.

Instead, I now have the Supreme Court to thank for my mother's nagging about when I'll get married.

I also agree personally about finding a more friendly bakery or caterer. I don't want anyone involved in my wedding that isn't completely supportive. It's supposed to be a celebration of love.

And I still agree. I will do business with the people that treat me with respect and dignity.

That does not mean there will be no repercussions for those that don't.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 11:03:33 AM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Commerce is an essential right to us all, yes? Being able to freely trade and barter? Discrimination is not a fundamental part of who Christians are, or should strive to be, by our own teachings.

In the marketplace, there is no room for anyone to be treated as a second-class citizen. And there should be no discussion of doing so within the church. Freedom of Speech protects it, Christ's own words go against it. Which is the higher Law?

I don't know if commerce is an essential right. Certainly, it couldn't have been as important to the Founding Fathers as ... say ... freedom of religion or they might have made sure they specifically enumerated it, the way they did the freedom of religion.

"In the market place, there is no room for anyone to be treated as a second-class citizen ..."

Apparently, you think there's room for it in the courts and the laws; you're just okay with it being Christians who get marginalized.

You should really stop trying to tell me what I think. You're always wrong.

I don't have to tell you what you think. You've made it abundantly clear:

Let's see if I have the quote right:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

In the marketplace, there is no room for anyone to be treated as a second-class citizen.

It's hardly "reading your mind" that you think the non-homosexual friendly baker should be forced, by the courts, to provide that cake.

So, again, it's a matter of which group you're comfortable with being treated as second-class citizens and you've made that position quite clear.

"Why can't those Christians just find other jobs?" is also a contention, obviously, unless this position of yours:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JvoV 04 April 2015 3:24:03 AM
I think that if your religion specifically demands that you not participate in outside religious ceremonies, then you should not go into a business where that would ever be an issue.

... has changed?

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 11:06:36 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

I have already answered that argument clearly. No need to repeat myself because you refuse to read a full post.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 11:12:37 AM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I have already answered that argument clearly. No need to repeat myself because you refuse to read a full post.

Which argument? The one where courts should force Christians to violate their beliefs or the one where Christians should just shut up and find another line of work?

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 11:16:32 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

Let's use an example of a trade that is clearly mentioned in the Bible, banking.

Deuteronomy 23:19
"You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest

Could a Christian really be spiritually undamaged by pursuing a career in finance, under current practices?

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 11:28:59 AM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Could a Christian really be spiritually undamaged by pursuing a career in finance, under current practices?

Actually, I'm not sure a career in finance necessitates charging interest for food or necessities.

People don't generally go to a bank or other financial institution before they take a run to the Publix.

That said, I'm sure it occurs in as much as people use credit cards to pay for food in restaurants.

To answer your question, as clearly as possible: Yes, they can, because they provide a card; they don't FORCE people to use it to buy necessities. In fact, when my grandfather (one of those evil, Christian bankers) taught me about credit, he told me: "Credit cards are for caprices; not needs. Only use them in extreme circumstances and pay them off, immediately."

While I used to have a plethora of credit cards, the only one in my wallet, today is a CHASE VISA DEBIT .

My grandfather was a great man!

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 11:40:39 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

Duplicity at its finest. Great Christian bankers, ignoring the words of their Holy Book, with no compulsion by the government to do so, in order to make a profit and earn a living.

But damn the government for forcing us to do unto others as we would have done to us by protecting the rights of minorities, and bake the fags a cake.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 11:43:38 AM

Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

If the first amendement doesn't apply to religious sorts, why is everybody making excuses for the overcompensating baker so furiously opposed to teh ebil moslems?
Is their religious freedom not protected by the bill of rights?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 11:46:55 AM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Duplicity at its finest. Great Christian bankers, ignoring the words of their Holy Book, with no compulsion by the government to do so, in order to make a profit and earn a living.

I've never looked it up, but I'd be willing to bet 5¢ there are federal banking regulations that specify what has to be "covered" by credit cards. The government has a natural obsession to regulate everything.

. o 0 (I think I just saw a lofty goal hit the ground)

Since we're going "Old Testament" (A book which Christians don't follow, the same way they follow the New Testament), it brings up a question:

If you're "validating" the Old Testament by trying to apply it to Christians, how do you feel about Leviticus?

Let's go back to New Testament:

Jesus said: "I came to perfect the law; not to change it"

In Matthew, Jesus said money changers shouldn't do business in God's house.

Since Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, did He "prefect" Leviticus?

Did Jesus perfect Leviticus, but not your Deuteronomy scripture?

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 12/6/2017 12:08:22 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 11:54:45 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3226
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

Are those federal regulations in line with Christian values? It certainly seems that would have a much bigger impact on many more Americans than the wedding cake debate. So where is the outrage?

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 12:02:37 PM

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I don't think there is room to compromise on this one.
What is it that a person of any faith has to lose? A few Hail Mary's? A Lord's Prayer before bed that they should've done anyway? Are those same things not required for going against other scripture by refusing service?
What do some homos have to lose if they can't get a wedding cake? Well, practically anything related to the wedding and reception, and the life they want to lead together afterwards. The jeweler for their rings, the tailors for their suits, the venue, a florist, a photographer, an organist, a caterer with plenty of staff for the reception, bartenders, the alcohol itself, the band or dj... The b&b they book for the honeymoon, the jobs they go back to on Monday with a new wedding ring on, the house they're trying to buy or have custom built...
And it all starts with a cake.

At least be real with your complaint.
What do homos have to lose if they can't get a wedding cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop? They stand to have nothing to lose, except a wedding cake made by MR. Phillips. Is his cakeshop the only bakery they can go to to get a beautiful wedding cake? I'm going to bet they can get a wedding cake, a beautifully created wedding cake in their area, outside of Masterpiece Cakeshop.
So, no. They don't have anything to lose, really.
How about trying, just for a moment, to allow someone else to decide how important their Christianity is for themselves, instead of you trying to do it for them, k?

Then please explain the religious consequences for baking a gay wedding cake. So much of what the Bible teaches is at odds with American laws and values in this age that I do understand the need for Christians to cling to as much as they have left. But I also understand that forgiveness through Christ is never out of reach.

You don't give a rat's ass about their beliefs. Your condescending attitude demonstrates that. "Forgiveness through Christ is never out of reach." You realize that to be forgiven, you have to be repentant, right? Choosing to do something wrong with the attitude that you can just ask forgiveness later isn't being repentant.

quote:

But just as we cannot allow Shari'a law to hijack our country, neither can we allow Christian beliefs to continue to deny basic civil rights to GLBTQ+ Americans.

Basic rights? Is there a "basic civil right" to have a particular cake shop decorate a wedding cake? How about not letting government encroach on someone's right to exercise his religion? Noooo, can't have that.

quote:

I am being quite real in my complaint. If a single business has a valid excuse for denying service to any class of people, then every business has that same right. Christianity is the most common religion in our country, so it would not be a surprise if a solid majority of bakeries would be Christian-owned, and also choose to deny service. And it could spread to every business related to weddings, effectively becoming a great pain in the ass for gay couples to do business at all.

Do you really think there are no gay-owned bakeries? Really? And, a "solid majority" isn't "all," so there are still options, no? You want to play the "slippery slope" game? Will government have the authority to force a kosher or halal eatery to serve pork products, or non-kosher/halal foods? I got it!! How about we should be allowed to get Big Macs at Burger King (ok that's a bad example, as there is that Big King sandwich, but they chose to do it, and weren't forced to (for the save!)).

Should any church of a homosexual couple be forced to perform their wedding ceremony?

quote:

I have no idea how many other bakeries are reasonably near Masterpiece that bake wedding cakes, nor the quality of any of them. But anywhere in America, competition could be right across the street, or 100 miles away.

So, you don't know? Considering it's less than 10 miles from Denver, I'm going to hazard a guess there are plenty (according to theknot.com, there are 64 within 10 miles of Lakewood, CO). Masterpiece may be the very best. But, that doesn't mean they have to break their faith for a homosexual couple's custom wedding cake.

Since it's not letting me link, here's the link: https://www.theknot.com/marketplace/wedding-cake-bakeries-lakewood-co?distance=within-10-miles&offset=30

The Market will take care of these things, anyway. It likely won't be as quick as government fiat, but it would be organic and, imo, the right way to have it happen. No one is forced to purchase anything there. If you go to theknot and to the Masterpiece Cakeshop page, you'll see a couple bad reviews based on their unwillingness to make a cake for a homosexual family celebration, and they aren't the only 5-star rated bakery in the 64 within 10 miles of Lakewood, CO.

In your opinion, homosexuals have a greater right to purchase a custom-created wedding cake from whomever they choose than a cake decorator's right to worship and exercise his religion as he sees fit. Get real.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to JVoV)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 12:18:49 PM

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I don't think there is room to compromise on this one.
What is it that a person of any faith has to lose? A few Hail Mary's? A Lord's Prayer before bed that they should've done anyway? Are those same things not required for going against other scripture by refusing service?
What do some homos have to lose if they can't get a wedding cake? Well, practically anything related to the wedding and reception, and the life they want to lead together afterwards. The jeweler for their rings, the tailors for their suits, the venue, a florist, a photographer, an organist, a caterer with plenty of staff for the reception, bartenders, the alcohol itself, the band or dj... The b&b they book for the honeymoon, the jobs they go back to on Monday with a new wedding ring on, the house they're trying to buy or have custom built...
And it all starts with a cake.

At least be real with your complaint.
What do homos have to lose if they can't get a wedding cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop? They stand to have nothing to lose, except a wedding cake made by MR. Phillips. Is his cakeshop the only bakery they can go to to get a beautiful wedding cake? I'm going to bet they can get a wedding cake, a beautifully created wedding cake in their area, outside of Masterpiece Cakeshop.
So, no. They don't have anything to lose, really.
How about trying, just for a moment, to allow someone else to decide how important their Christianity is for themselves, instead of you trying to do it for them, k?

This thread is all over but interesting. I am glad the cake case will be decided one way or the other by June anyway. There is nothing new in our relative positions either. Both sides of this case have valid points and the court will have a tough time with a solution. No decision will be popular that's for sure. To me it boils down to the question... which is more important in our Constitution... religious rights or human rights if they are in conflict. Usually these rights do not conflict and this case is the only time it has happened that I can remember anyway. ...oops I forgot the Hobby Lobby birth control.
For myself... The problem I see, if religious rights are deemed more important, is where do you stop discriminating and denying human rights. We are talking about a cake here but if this goes through most any service could and will be denied. Say an obvious gay couple were to take up residence in a small rural Missouri town. Is there any reason a cook could not deny them food in restaurant? Is a cook's preparation any less of art than a cake baker? Say they were looking for an apartment or home... could they be denied? If the only drug stores pharmacist decides it is against his religion to provide service to a queer... what then? I could go on an on about the possibilities of discrimination that would have to be allowed if this baker were allowed to deny service.
This case to me is not about cakes alone... but the very real repercussions that will come from this ruling.
PS.... Please remember this case will not just cover homosexuals... religious grounds can be used for any number of circumstances. What if guns are against my religious beliefs... what if Jews or Muslims were against my religious beliefs... What if Christians were against my religious beliefs... need I go on? Can you not at least see the potential can of worms this could open?
Butch

I think it was Bounty that mentioned before that "essential services" can't be denied. A wedding cake isn't an essential service, the slippery slope would likely not be very long at all. No one has the right to buy a custom wedding cake. That's not a civil right. The bakery will sell their basic wares to whoever walks through their doors and pays them. This is about a custom-decorated cake, though. It will be known where the cake came from and who decorated it. That's to be expected for people who decorate cakes.

Don't forget who you just asked. I mean, I'm all for the free market and freedom to trade and barter. Government forcing an establishment to make a custom creation that opposes the establishment's owners (and the guy who's actually going to be custom creating)religious beliefs is anathema to the freedom to trade and barter. Where's the limit on government encroachment?

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to kdsub)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 12:23:35 PM

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora
P.S. Im Christian myself and Id gladly make a cake for a gay couple. So I could easily be a Christian small business owner not in need of escape. Its possible to be a Christian and function spiritually in society.

Why should you be allowed to choose how to exercise your religious beliefs but others aren't allowed to choose their own?

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Danemora)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 12:54:59 PM

Posts: 752
Joined: 10/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora
P.S. Im Christian myself and Id gladly make a cake for a gay couple. So I could easily be a Christian small business owner not in need of escape. Its possible to be a Christian and function spiritually in society.

Why should you be allowed to choose how to exercise your religious beliefs but others aren't allowed to choose their own?

As Ive REPEATEDLY said in this thread, a small business owner can do whatever the hell they want to do...so long as it does not violate laws. Why is that so hard to understand or comprehend? If you want to break the law, deal with the consequences. Period. End of story. Fini

Nowhere did I say you cant practice your religious beliefs. You quoted me, so we can both see the words I wrote. As long as your religious beliefs do not violate the law, you've got nothing to worry about. Please do not read shit into what I wrote that is not there. Id appreciate you not putting words in my mouth I didnt write. I dont do that to you. Its only fair to ask that of you in return.

< Message edited by Danemora -- 12/6/2017 1:29:14 PM >

_____________________________

~The artist formerly known as SeekingTrinity on tour as a solo act~

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 1:10:49 PM

Posts: 752
Joined: 10/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

So violating the law should be okay just because you [general you] dont believe in it or what it represents? Hell yes is all I can say! I dont like the speeding laws either, Michael...but that doesnt mean the cop is going to ignore me driving 120mph down I-5. I dont like paying taxes either, so Im going to tell Oregon and the IRS they can suck it because Im not paying any longer. I guarantee Oregon and the IRS would definitely not suck it. If I choose to violate the law, I face consequences for that decision. Same goes for small business owners, etc as well.

All I said was that if a small business owner doesnt want to have to put flour, sugar, butter, and things in an oven because it would be for <fill in the blank...and fill in the blank violates the SBOs values>, there is relocating to a place where buisness practices allow for that. If you want to do business, the ability to do that is an exchange where you agree to the laws to maintain licensing to continue doing commercial business.

Whether its liked or not, the laws are the laws until the laws change. Ultimately it will lay with whatever the Supreme Court decides.

It seems to me like your whole argument boils down to: "If you don't like it, move!"

What I said REPEATEDLY is you can run your SBO as you wish so long as you do not violate the law. Its not my fault that the rules are not favorable for selective discrimination based on who a SBO likes or doesnt like as far as conducting business goes. I sure as shit didnt write any of the laws. So you might want to take that up with the folks who did write the laws, dont you think?

If you'd like to take it to far fetched extremes, that is certainly your freedom to do.

_____________________________

~The artist formerly known as SeekingTrinity on tour as a solo act~

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 2:01:53 PM

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

If you'd like to take it to far fetched extremes, that is certainly your freedom to do.

I don't think it's too far-fetched to say that:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora
If you [general you] are opposed to gay marriage, then it is on you to find a state where you can operate your small business within the mandates that best match your business practices. In my eyes, my getting a business license to operate comes as an exchange where I agree to follow City/County/State/Federal laws.

can be simplified to:

"If you're Christian and don't like being forced to do business in a way that violates your beliefs where you live, feel free to move"

Ignoring the fact that most business law (even for "small" businesses) emanate from the FEDERAL government and the FEDERAL government (SCOTUS) is going to be ruling on the cake thing, where would you like these Christians to be able to do business where it's legal?

If that is your contention (and you've repeatedly repeated it) then, my contention is the same-sex couple should feel free to get their cake anywhere someone will decorate it for them.

Good for the goose, no?

. o 0 (I think my memory is starting to get less hazy)

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Danemora)

RE: An American dialogue - 12/6/2017 2:02:21 PM

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora
P.S. Im Christian myself and Id gladly make a cake for a gay couple. So I could easily be a Christian small business owner not in need of escape. Its possible to be a Christian and function spiritually in society.

Why should you be allowed to choose how to exercise your religious beliefs but others aren't allowed to choose their own?

As Ive REPEATEDLY said in this thread, a small business owner can do whatever the hell they want to do...so long as it does not violate laws. Why is that so hard to understand or comprehend? If you want to break the law, deal with the consequences. Period. End of story. Fini
Nowhere did I say you cant practice your religious beliefs. You quoted me, so we can both see the words I wrote. As long as your religious beliefs do not violate the law, you've got nothing to worry about. Please do not read shit into what I wrote that is not there. Id appreciate you not putting words in my mouth I didnt write. I dont do that to you. Its only fair to ask that of you in return.

YOU stated what YOU can do as a CHRISTIAN. YOU stated that YOU could be a CHRISTIAN SBO and not need to escape. You imply that other Christians can do the same. You are attempting to define their exercising of religion according to how YOU see fit. Don't define their religious worship. Define your own and let them define their own.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Danemora)

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: An American dialogue

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.086