3RU7AL

I don't think of national law as saying "everybody play nice".  That is not where that comes from.

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.   

So what part of your magic textbook says you can't bake a gay wedding cake?

You know that is not how it works.

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.

But I have yet to be labeled an Christianophobic racist  bigot...

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?

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.

Churches do run adoption agencies.

Which by the way, is a legitimate and more ethical alternative to abortion.

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.

I believe in a private businesss right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. 

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. 

There is no way to guarantee that people will act like adults.

That's the problem of our times and that's the beauty of it. 

If it means anything else, I helped organize a memorial service for a friend who was into that lgbt lifestyle.

If it means anything, I'd just bake the cake.

I still believe someone has a right not to.

Listen to yourself.

Our religion isn't to play nice. It is to sincerely be nice.

Our religion is love, and true love. Pure love. 

Maybe it doesn't effect your freedom. And maybe you don't understand why we don't have women priests, but that doesn't mean we should be held to your standards of playing nice. Maybe your idea of playing nice is actually not so very nice to us.

I am satisfied with imagining autonomous afults 

It is not just about my freedom, and I do hate. I am not hateful towards others, which is something I cannot say for the figure I am referencing.

I've noticed they have black peoples churches and white peoples churches.

If your intention by passing a law is to screw over a certain group, say, white supremacists, and that law happens to screw over other groups incidentally... you are treating dandruff by decapitation.

You know what else is hateful? The idea behind presuming that someone is hateful before you understand what happened, over and over, even when you are informed to the contrary. 

Indeed let us take this to it's most cartoonist extremes.

I don't hire people who are pretending to be married when they have not actually had the Shinto marriage ceremony.

I think all sex is immoral and the only reason to do it is for procreation sake. Marriage implies sex. Therefore if I deem a group cannot or should not procreate I do not offer spousal benefits. Groups like the elder, the disabled, the homeless and people of low intellect. 

It is not only irrational to begin with, but also inconsistent with the idea that "religious freedom" can be equated with hate.   That is, unless you hate freedom of religion.

Americans don't get to choose how much tazes they pay or where that moeny goes in any way other than voting. This is how the economy works. I don't get to say "I want a refund proportional to all faith based tax exemptions, because I don't believe that bunk." Nor do I complain about it. I simply pay it as part of the price of living where I live. And again, this language makes it sound like if you're a doctor who doesn't want to provide birth control pills because of religious reasons, you're FORCED to prescribe them, or you're FORCED into the procedure of an abortion. It's an absolutely idiotic idea that's meant just to make religious old white people think "They're a-comin' for mah Jesus!" They aren't. 

You can't just say that a law symbolizes "play nice everyone", and therefore there are no actual problems with it.

Making a law that says, "everybody play nice" is not going to jeopardize my freedom in any way whatsoever.

This is irrational. 

Is divorce sexual immorality? Where did legality come from?

I don't think the law should be used to treat dandruff by decapitation.

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.

Not everyone is (willfully) ignorant of the fact that sexual immorality is actually a thing and in every way destructive to a society.

From the link:

"Twenty-one prominent conservative Christian leaders including Franklin Graham and James Dobson are calling on congressional leaders to oppose the pro-LGBT Equality Act because of the “threats to religious liberty” the legislation poses."

“Not only is it incompatible with God’s Word (the Bible) and the historic teaching of the church, but the Equality Act is also riddled with threats to religious libertyand the sanctity of human life,” the letter stresses. “For these reasons, we must state that we adamantly oppose this proposed legislation.”

“Under its changes to the employment nondiscrimination provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, some houses of worship would be barred from ensuring their leaders and other employees abide by their beliefs about marriage, sexual behavior, and the distinction between the sexes.”

Really, and this is the truth, if a certain segment of the LGBT crowd doesn't stop marketing their lifestyle towards children, they might in fact be working towards.

I don't think religious sincerity has much to do with it. Society will not tolerate thieves and murderers running about with no consequence. If the secular authorities were to make such an obvious error of justice, I predict that you are going to find a rise in people with the religious conviction that murderers be put to death.

If you want an abortion, you should join a religion that makes it mandatory in some way so you can claim "religious freedom".

I am pretty sure that sacrificing children to Baal or Molech is not something that someone can claim religious freedom for.

But to use another less extreme example, I don't believe that a religious conviction that property rights do not exist will fly before the judge when you get caught for theft.

I define slavery as owning people as property. The bible gives provisions to do just that. It doesn't matter what word the bible uses if the definition is owning people as property that is slavery definitionally.

I agree, this is the conclusion I reach too (evolution or substandard and unsound sex ed programs), but just the numbers don't indicate that, that's what I meant. The unregulated curriculum is a big issue. 

What if you make 60K a year? I presume the state would also offer the teacher's benefits package for medical coverage? 

BY percentage of population of the US, though, wouldn't that make sense probablistically? All I'm saying is that information doesn't give us the WHY, just the THAT. Not insight into why that is. 

you want a citation for my observation and opinion?  If I give you specifics I would be doxing myself.

do you think parental support like that at home makes students better?  I mean I certainly would think so and that is probably more likely to be the case from people with wealth.  Wealthy people tend to be more educated, more intelligent therefore place a higher priority on education for their children compared to others who didn't grow up that way. 

the violence, fights and drugs in schools will be solved by giving the schools more money?

I suppose, but isn't the choice between "work to pay your bills and send your kid to a crappy public school" or "quit your job at tremendous personal cost to perform a job that is, in many other places, performed by the state instead" not exactly a choice at all? At least not one we should be facing in America today, as far as I can see. 

Also what happened to Jesus in this debate? :)

Even here locally there are good and bad schools.  The bad ones aren't because of funding but are bad because the students are violent.

a parent would provide a sports team?  marching band or even music lessons etc  huh don't know anyone who home schools that provides those things, do you?

aLSo, as a point of curiosity, would you support giving parents the full dollar amount of the vouchers to pay them to home school their own children?

no because the amount goes for a variety of things not just direct teaching.

 would you support giving parents the full dollar amount of the vouchers to pay them to home school their own children?

Wouldn't that also require paying the parent to do so, a salary? Otherwise their income becomes a problem: you can have $20K a year to home school your child, but you have to give up your $30K a year job to do it? 

I don't think "throwing money" at the problem is a great idea. I think using research to figure out how to get the most out of what money you can use, applying it to the places where it's needed, is probably a start. I can't imagine a material advantage in the purchasing power argument for the poorer districts because you're talking about a percentage point difference, i.e. 1000 bucks in a rich district spends like 1000 bucks, in a poor district it spends like 1200, the advantage is only $200, just to use round numbers. If the rich areas don't need that assistance, I don't get why it would be given, just for the appearance of fairness? To kids who are born into a great advantage through absolutely nothing but their own luck? I'd rather take the 2000 bucks that spends like 2200 altogether, 1000 of which is probably going to go to getting a new barista in the fancy schmancy teachers lounge and give it to the poor district where it can spend like a $2400 advantage, not a $200 one. Seems a better investment.