At the same time, I believe white supremacists have the right to peaceably assemble, print their own literature, speak freely without state intervention, petition the government, own firearms, etc.To not respect these rights is to put your own in jeopardy even.
That's hilarious coming from an habitual liar.Please quit lying
Stay out of my church, that is what I really care about.
Don't force us to adopt kids to perverts either.
I believe in a private businesss right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
The person I have heard it from happened to run a religiously oriented business and employed someone open to unusual sexuality who was struggling with depression, and kept supporting them through everything they needed to do, at personal cost.
Churches do run adoption agencies.
Which by the way, is a legitimate and more ethical alternative to abortion.
You’ve probably seen these signs at restaurants: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Or, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”But what do these signs really mean? Can a business just refuse service to someone? Can they throw you out if you forgot your flip-flops on the beach? When is a refusal to serve someone justified and when is it discrimination that could lead to a lawsuit? [LINK]
I am not interested in effecting law.It is better to love from the heart rather than simply go through the motions of love because you might get in trouble if you don't.That is what we teach. We are not a legalistic faith. We hold free will in reverence. Jesus Christ is the lover of all mankind, even dying for those who crucified him(remember, he gave his life, it was not taken). That all being the case, God honors those who out of their own free will choose good, not those who are coerced into doing externally good works.
I don't think what I told you before has truly registered.Our religion does not derive from the bible. We are a living church. We wrote the bible. It comes from our tradition, not the other way around.Protestants are not a part of our tradition, so they construct their own from the bible. See the difference?
Now it all makes sense.I'll answer. It's based on the ultimate reality, of which there is only one and it's either the exact same or totally different than the reality you know.
I am not interested in effecting law.It is better to love from the heart rather than simply go through the motions of love because you might get in trouble if you don't.That is what we teach. We are not a legalistic faith. We hold free will in reverence. Jesus Christ is the lover of all mankind, even dying for those who crucified him(remember, he gave his life, it was not taken). That all being the case, God honors those who out of their own free will choose good, not those who are coerced into doing externally good works.So if the law says "everybody play nice" you have no objections?
So what part of your magic textbook says you can't bake a gay wedding cake?You know that is not how it works.
So if the law says "everybody play nice" you have no objections?The law should respect human dignity, but it should not be thought to dignify us.
I don't think of national law as saying "everybody play nice". That is not where that comes from.
Ok, well, congratulations on that Bible thing, it certainly seems to be popular, I hope you're getting a bunch of royalties.And, by the way, what did you base it on? Were there any underlying principles or first and second order axioms or did you just make it all up off the cuff?
How exactly are you managing to leap to this conclusion?Oh yeah, that would be awful. Lets say everyone is a member of the protected class "sex", so discrimination could be absolutely forbidden since everyone who has a sex is completely protected from discrimination. Such a law would be totalitarian, and essentially turn the private sector into a diverse assortment of public utilities. I hate to think what else the people behind it have in store.
How exactly did you arrive at a complex which involves "protected classes"?
In civil rights law, thank goodness, there are "types of discrimination".
Civil Rights Act - https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/index.cfm
So, in the OP, people who observe traditional marriage might be called a protected group.
The government, apparantlyWhat exactly does someone who observes traditional marriage need protection FROM?
