tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post519890676046279775..comments2024-03-18T03:16:53.657-04:00Comments on Casting Pearls Before Swine: God Is Love, But Love Is Not GodMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comBlogger313125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-79616134642791487822021-02-24T07:19:20.241-05:002021-02-24T07:19:20.241-05:00Arabic Sweets in Dubai
Dubai Sweets<a href="https://cse.google.cm/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Falsultansweets.ae%2F" rel="nofollow">Arabic Sweets in Dubai</a><br /><a href="https://cse.google.co.ao/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Falsultansweets.ae%2F" rel="nofollow">Dubai Sweets</a>Muhammad Bilalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07802296692868477280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-20787983128841852242019-10-18T03:05:10.000-04:002019-10-18T03:05:10.000-04:00Keep up the excellent work, osg777 I read few arti...Keep up the excellent work, <a href="http://www.livechatosg777.com/" rel="nofollow">osg777</a> I read few articles on this site and I think that your web blog is real interesting and Power to the People of excellent information.jonethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15911560923291919347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-12265450447089555222013-08-08T10:48:02.573-04:002013-08-08T10:48:02.573-04:00Maybe you can get 50 more posts out of thisMaybe you can get 50 more posts out of <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/08/08/2434061/iowa-wedding-discrimination/" rel="nofollow">this</a>Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-37914382591929958682013-07-28T01:51:43.367-04:002013-07-28T01:51:43.367-04:00"Up until 1903 the definition of transportati...<i>"Up until 1903 the definition of transportation did not include powered flight."</i><br /><br />It still doesn't. The means of conveyance has nothing to do with the definition of transportation. But the definition of "marriage" has always been the union of one man and one woman.<br /><br /><i>"It's not the word. It's the family and spousal rights associated with it."</i><br /><br />This is stupid. Family and spousal rights have always revolved around the traditional definition of "marriage". The activists need to alter that definition to include their altered definitions of "family" and "spouse".<br /><br /><i>"And those socially compelling reasons would be....?"</i><br /><br />I'll list them again so you can inanely ignore and dismiss them again some other time.<br /><br /><i>"Just because your bigotry is based on the Bible does not mean it is any less bigoted."</i><br /><br />And once again, there is no bigotry when the intolerance is toward a behavior, especially one so blatantly immoral and twisted. More to the point, this position, based as it is on Scripture (as well as on logic and common sense from a biological standpoint), is one of concern for those who risk their salvation over their sexual preference. It is no different than how a Christian would feel about whoring and prostitution, for example. But the corrupt, like yourself, choose to see the righteous leaning in the worst possible light rather than to concede the truth they stand behind.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-4601960873371805622013-07-28T01:36:16.792-04:002013-07-28T01:36:16.792-04:00"No chance is given to the possibility that o...<i>"No chance is given to the possibility that one of the opposite sex is out there<br /><br />Moot. They are not interested."</i><br /><br />And so they give no chance to the possibility that one of the opposite sex is out there. They are not interested because they put the carnal above what matters most.<br /><br /><i>"The difference is that there is a moral context for heterosexual behavior.<br /><br />Not for unmarried couples or adulterers."</i><br /><br />Duh. Neither the unmarried having sexual relations nor the adulterers are behaving within a moral context. Yet a moral context does exist for them. Not so for those looking to engage in homosexual behavior.<br /><br /><i>"but if he wanted to be honest he would agree.<br /><br />Not if he had evidence to the contrary."</i><br /><br />Too bad there isn't any.<br /><br /><i>"This is why the Civil Rights Act was flawed as Rand Paul explains it is.<br /><br />Rand Paul the opthalmologist? Pffft."</i><br /><br />Yeah. Do you suppose that the Constitution is so difficult to understand for an opthamologist?<br /><br /><i>"So I didn't really enable anything."</i><br /><br />Of course you did. You help provide a sense that their union is appropriate and moral. You aid in the pretense of it all by your encouragement and good wishes for their future. People like you have helped to make it possible for these sad individuals to act out their disordered and immoral desires by supporting their choices as no different than normal unions. You're an enabler.<br /><br /><i>"My church and faith dictate my morality."</i><br /><br />If this were true, you wouldn't be enabling homosexuals at their "weddings" and supporting their cause by your lame attempts to argue against traditional and CHRISTIAN values and teachings about human sexuality. But instead, you disregard the teachings of your faith where these and other issues are concerned, and worse, constantly default to what has been made legal.<br /><br /><i>"So when your scared little boy came into your bed during a thunderstorm, that akin to lying with a male as one would with a female?"</i><br /><br />This is how corrupt you are to suggest such a thing. The above would be akin to lying with one's frightened child like a protecting and comforting parent, you twisted bastard.<br /><br /><i>"I have yet to hear of a photographer being asked to photograph sinful behavior. Have you?"</i><br /><br />Liar. But we're not talking about pornographers here. We're talking <i>the celebration</i> of sinful behavior that is a homosexual "wedding". Try paying attention.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-72201970567060000942013-07-27T16:19:57.648-04:002013-07-27T16:19:57.648-04:00"I'm saying companies should have sole de...<i>"I'm saying companies should have sole decision making authority to do business (or not) with whomever they choose.<br /><br />So the Civil Rights Act should not exist?"</i><br /><br />Paying attention is not a strong suit of yours, is it? There's a difference between the government regarding everyone equal under the law, and business owners being forced to operate as if they are government entities.<br /><br /><i>"What behaviors? And how are they "blatant"? Are you talking about public sex acts?"</i><br /><br />Boy, are you stupid! I referred to <i>blatant acts of disapproval</i>, and you confuse it with the bad behavior of which one disapproves. Try to pay attention here: A photographer refuses to hire out for the purpose of recording a celebration of a lesbian union. THAT is an act of disapproval of the lesbian union, which is bad behavior. Another way to look at it is to think of the attitudes about smoking. Private businesses, without the force of law, could deny the right to smoke in their buildings. This would be a blatant act of disapproval for the bad behavior of smoking. It would lend its voice to all others who also disapprove. YOUR position, as a supporter of "protected class" status for homos and all it entails, prevents private individuals from adding their voice of disapproval for this bad behavior simply because they are a business. 1st Amendment infringement.<br /><br /><i>"I don't devalue homosexuals because of their behavior.<br /><br />Spit take."</i><br /><br />Typical. Lefties always need to believe that to oppose a behavior is to oppose the person engaged in the behavior. That is, that because we find a behavior objectionable, sinful, unhealthy or immoral, that by golly, we must hate the person and believe them unworthy of life. Project much?<br /><br /><i>"Is there anything that you do "simply" because you can?"</i><br /><br />Yes. Of course. You seem to imply that one is beyond the strength of one's compulsions. But to say that one does anything because they can is only say that because one can, one does. Why one does is a separate issue. Again, try to pay attention.<br /><br /><i>"Nobody has any obligation to stand by passively and listen to the preaching."</i><br /><br />True. They can walk away, proclaim themselves uninterested, ignore. Trying to forcibly remove someone walking about with a sign proclaiming God's saving power is not something anyone has the right to do.<br /><br /><i>"based on a disordered attraction<br /><br />Your opinion."</i><br /><br />Self-evident fact the activists and their enablers choose to ignore and/or falsely claim otherwise.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-54978517258933375732013-07-27T14:34:28.603-04:002013-07-27T14:34:28.603-04:00"I didn't necessarily "reject" ...<i>"I didn't necessarily "reject" them. I simply did not find them convincing."</i><br /><br />Of course you didn't. You don't want to find them convincing. But the fact is that the data is overwhelmingly on the side of traditional marriage. <a href="http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/comprehensive-survey-of-all-the-research-pro-and-con-on-gay-marriage-2/" rel="nofollow">This link</a> talks about how the types of studies one which YOU might rely are crap compared to those I put forth. Kinda shows that your "convincing" is more a matter of what you WANT to be true, rather than an honest acknowledgement of what IS true. (There's also a nice list of links to other articles---don't pretend it's too much work to educate yourself, like you did the last time I offered this source.)<br /><br /><i>"Kagan and Kennedy are AT LEAST as reasonable, objective, and objective as Scalia or Thomas."</i><br /><br />It's clear you don't understand the meanings of the words "reasonable" and "objective", particular in light of the charge that they are neither in their opinions.<br /><br /><i>"But a decision that states opposition is only bigotry?<br /><br />Proving again that you don't understand...does not satisfy a compelling social interest."</i><br /><br />Nothing in your response addressed the point. Kennedy claimed that only bigotry was the basis of opposition. This is blatantly and outrageously false. Indeed, it is a lie.<br /><br /><i>"Proving also that you simply are too ignorant to understand jurisprudence and the way law is studied and evaluated. Justices do not base US law on foreign law..."</i><br /><br />Nonsense. SCOTUS decisions are supposed to be based on interpretations of the US Constitution only, not foreign laws or decisions. It is YOU who lacks understanding. What's more, Ginsburg has stated a belief that we could learn from what other nations have done. This is not the way it is supposed to be.<br /><br /><i>"I've believe I've made no secret that I'm concerned with the law and not morality."</i><br /><br />Crystal clear. My point exactly. You're not concerned about morality.<br /><br /><i>"I don't care to argue morality because it's not relevant when it comes to deciding what consenting adult Americans can and can't do except the immorality of trying to legally force one's morality on others."</i><br /><br />Which is what is required in order to placate the activists and their enablers. They are doing all the forcing.<br /><br /><i>"The "founders" were not around when the 14th Amendment was passed, so original intent does not apply."</i><br /><br />Original intent always applies or we risk altering the entire American experiment. Amendments that contradict principles of the founding are not worth keeping. Think "prohibition".Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-72544899683292477952013-07-23T11:56:07.575-04:002013-07-23T11:56:07.575-04:00based on a definition that has never been commonly...<i>based on a definition that has never been commonly used by anyone over the course of human history.</i><br /><br />Up until 1903 the definition of transportation did not include powered flight.<br /><br /><i>activists began playing semantic games with the word "marriage".</i><br /><br />It's not the word. It's the family and spousal rights associated with it.<br /><br /><i>accept the truly socially compelling reasons for maintaining the true definition of marriage</i><br /><br />And those socially compelling reasons would be....?<br /><br /><i>you must distort the meaning of the word "bigotry" to even hope for that comment to be true</i><br /><br />Just because your bigotry is based on the Bible does not mean it is any less bigoted.<br />Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-2640676013143084472013-07-22T21:53:05.959-04:002013-07-22T21:53:05.959-04:00It is not semantics. It is the reality. Indeed, ...It is not semantics. It is the reality. Indeed, all decisions courts have made in support of SSM is based on a definition that has never been commonly used by anyone over the course of human history. Laws like DOMA simply understand that the corrupt have forced a definition to be codified. It was never necessary before activists began playing semantic games with the word "marriage". <br /><br /><i>"These laws exist for no socially compelling reason other than to satisfy someone's bigotry."</i><br /><br />Like all pro-homo activists and enablers, you are too morally corrupt to accept the truly socially compelling reasons for maintaining the true definition of marriage. But the irony of your quoted comment above is that you must distort the meaning of the word "bigotry" to even hope for that comment to be true. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-23901465568854998272013-07-22T11:43:01.820-04:002013-07-22T11:43:01.820-04:00There was no law passed to ban any citizen from ma...<i>There was no law passed to ban any citizen from marrying.</i><br /><br />Semantics. The law effectively bars homosexuals from marrying the person they love. These laws exist for no socially compelling reason other than to satisfy someone's bigotry.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-51664221549565299172013-07-22T00:13:54.737-04:002013-07-22T00:13:54.737-04:00Just a quick check of Jim's predictable goofin...Just a quick check of Jim's predictable goofiness, I came across this<br /><br /><i>"You can't pass a law to ban citizens from legal marriage without a non-arbitrary compelling social interest."</i><br /><br />There was no law passed to ban any citizen from marrying. The laws stated what the word "marriage" means, which is what it always meant throughout human history: the union of one man and one woman.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-42698073913134303842013-07-21T17:38:10.825-04:002013-07-21T17:38:10.825-04:00Those who preach the truth at homosexual gathering...<i>Those who preach the truth at homosexual gatherings (on public land, mind you) might make the homosexuals uncomfortable</i><br /><br />Nobody has any obligation to stand by passively and listen to the preaching.<br /><br /><i>based on a disordered attraction</i><br /><br />Your opinion.<br /><br /><i>No chance is given to the possibility that one of the opposite sex is out there</i><br /><br />Moot. They are not interested.<br /><br /><i>The difference is that there is a moral context for heterosexual behavior.</i><br /><br />Not for unmarried couples or adulterers.<br /><br /><i>but if he wanted to be honest he would agree. </i><br /><br />Not if he had evidence to the contrary.<br /><br /><i>This is why the Civil Rights Act was flawed as Rand Paul explains it is.</i><br /><br />Rand Paul the opthalmologist? Pffft.<br /><br /><i>that doesn't make it Constitutional</i><br /><br />Yes, it does.<br /><br /><i>Did you stand up and clap at the end of the ceremony, throwing rice or some equivalent gesture?</i><br /><br />Damn right I did. But I didn't rent the venue, pay for flowers or the doves, take pictures, drive the limos, recite the liturgy, or pay for the food. So I didn't really enable anything.<br /><br /><i>Did you give them a card or some kind of acknowledgement of your wish for their future happiness? That's enabling. </i><br /><br />Well I guess I did enable them to make expressos.<br /><br /><i>And yet again, you allow the courts to dictate your morality</i><br /><br />Jiminy Christmas, you are daft. My church and faith dictate my morality. The courts dictate the law.<br /><br /><i>just their being in the same room is akin to lying with a male as one would with a female.</i><br /><br />So when your scared little boy came into your bed during a thunderstorm, that akin to lying with a male as one would with a female?<br /><br /><i>Only the ones who rule like idiots.</i><br /><br />Scalia, Thomas, Alito?<br /><br /><i>a celebration of sinful behavior,</i><br /><br />I have yet to hear of a photographer being asked to photograph sinful behavior. Have you?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-41419807086333594582013-07-21T17:06:22.201-04:002013-07-21T17:06:22.201-04:00We've been through this and I've linked to...<i>We've been through this and I've linked to articles that demonstrate this movement.</i><br /><br />I believe those articles were about decriminalization, not legalization.<br /><br /><i>these rules are not Constitutional nor are they what was intended by the founders.</i><br /><br />The "founders" were not around when the 14th Amendment was passed, so original intent does not apply.<br /><br /><i>who puts morality aside for profit.</i><br /><br />You have no basis for this assertion. I'm not in the profit business.<br /><br /><i>I'm saying companies should have sole decision making authority to do business (or not) with whomever they choose.</i><br /><br />So the Civil Rights Act should not exist?<br /><br /><i>by blatant acts of disapproval of bad behaviors.</i><br /><br />What behaviors? And how are they "blatant"? Are you talking about public sex acts?<br /><br /><i>I don't devalue homosexuals because of their behavior.</i><br /><br />Spit take.<br /><br /><i>I don't need to anyway because she does nothing for which I feel a beating is justified. </i><br /><br />But she might?<br /><br />Is there anything that you do "simply" because you can?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-39120198654578110422013-07-21T16:55:08.879-04:002013-07-21T16:55:08.879-04:00but every link that I've ever offered cannot b...<i>but every link that I've ever offered cannot be rejected simply because Jim is unconvinced.</i><br /><br />I didn't necessarily "reject" them. I simply did not find them convincing.<br /><br /><i>Those opinions are contradicted by the other members who took another position, as well as by reasonable and rational citizens that are objective in their study of the Constitution.</i><br /><br />The most astute thing you've offered in a while. But this goes for both "sides". Kagan and Kennedy are AT LEAST as reasonable, objective, and objective as Scalia or Thomas.<br /><br /><i>Citing SCOTUS only presents what some members of the court believes the Constitution says.</i><br /><br />Which is the foundation of US law.<br /><br /><i>And I find that far more often than the leftists on the court, these two consistently show a far better understanding of what the authors of the Constitution intended without their own personal biases having any noticeable effect.</i><br /><br />Many others disagree.<br /><br /><i>I know this to be true because their opinions align with what my understanding of the Constitution says.</i><br /><br />What law school did you get YOUR degree from?<br /><br /><i>But a decision that states opposition is only bigotry?</i><br /><br />Proving again that you don't understand the concept that laws cannot be arbitrary and must have a compelling social reason to exist. It might be democratic, but a law that says all people must part their hair on the left cannot stand. No court would uphold it. You can't pass a law to ban citizens from legal marriage without a non-arbitrary compelling social interest. If bigotry is the basis of a law, then it is arbitrary and does not satisfy a compelling social interest.<br /><br /><i>But we do know that some justices think of foreign decisions and believe that is the correct way to decide cases. </i><br /><br />Proving also that you simply are too ignorant to understand jurisprudence and the way law is studied and evaluated. Justices do not base US law on foreign law, but they do use foreign law or foreign judicial decisions as a means of comparison or for guidance (common law) when US jurisprudence is vague or ambiguous. A good example is the Second Amendment which is quite ambiguous, but extra-US history and law are used to attempt to understand the founders' intent.<br /><br /><i>You consistently refer to what is law,</i><br /><br />I've believe I've made no secret that I'm concerned with the law and not morality. I don't care to argue morality because it's not relevant when it comes to deciding what consenting adult Americans can and can't do except the immorality of trying to legally force one's morality on others.<br /><br /><i>When you can find where I've sided with an activist judge,</i><br /><br />Where do you stand on the recent decision regarding the Voting Rights Act?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-15332472366193271962013-07-21T04:11:37.508-04:002013-07-21T04:11:37.508-04:00"I've never enabled a homosexual in my li...<i>"I've never enabled a homosexual in my life, though I did "witness" the wedding of a gay associate and his husband."</i><br /><br />You're doing it in this discussion and all others like it as you argue in defense of their "rights" and against those who stand for traditional values and truth. You did it when you "witnessed" a homosexual wedding unless by witnessing it you mean you merely sat through it and saw it happen. I doubt that's all you did. Did you stand up and clap at the end of the ceremony, throwing rice or some equivalent gesture? That's enabling. Did you go to the reception and eat and drink and tap your wine glass with your fork? That's enabling. Did you give them a card or some kind of acknowledgement of your wish for their future happiness? That's enabling. <br /><br /><i>"Yes. They are. The courts say they are, so they are."</i><br /><br />And yet again, you allow the courts to dictate your morality. Go ahead. Try to be clever and use the Lord's name in vain again. Deny all you want but you time and time again default to the law as an answer to what is right and wrong, what is constitutional or not, what is moral. You can't think for yourself.<br /><br /><i>"A business owner is not a "private citizen"."</i><br /><br />Absolutely he is.<br /><br /><i>"How do you know what goes on in the bedroom of a bed and breakfast?"</i><br /><br />Ah. Another asshole comment. If a guy comes into my establishment and says, "My husband and I need a room for the night" just their being in the same room is akin to lying with a male as one would with a female. I don't need to know the details.<br /><br /><i>"despite what some black robed idiots might say)<br /><br />The Supreme Court of the United States?"</i><br /><br />No. Only the ones who rule like idiots.<br /><br /><i>"How is "their morality" trumping yours? Are you forced to copulate with a person of the same sex against your will?"</i><br /><br />This isn't an asshole question as much as just plain stupid and purposely ignoring previous explanations of how this is occurring in our society. When a photographer if forced to photograph a celebration of sinful behavior, it is one group's morality trumping that of another. Even their activists acknowledge that this must happen. Try to be honest.<br /><br />I've covered pretty much every idiotic comment and question with a few exceptions for the most asshole examples. But I've got to wonder, what kind of "Christian" thinks it clever or cool to say something like, "Christ on a crutch..."? Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-39709380665785794062013-07-21T03:55:14.017-04:002013-07-21T03:55:14.017-04:00"Because their offer was unwanted, perhaps ev...<i>"Because their offer was unwanted, perhaps even harassing?"</i><br /><br />No, because homosexuals are uncomfortable with opposing points of view due to the righteousness of it and what that means to them personally. Imagine if someone merely tried to preach in public that men shouldn't love and respect their wives. Since they preach the truth, who would care? Those who preach the truth at homosexual gatherings (on public land, mind you) might make the homosexuals uncomfortable, but that's only because they can't escape the truth in their own minds.<br /><br /><i>"Every bit of your "routine stuff" can apply to two people of the same sex."</i><br /><br />Except that it begins with and is based on a disordered attraction. No chance is given to the possibility that one of the opposite sex is out there, but only same sex partners will do.<br /><br /><i>"I suppose there has never been a heterosexual couple who insisted that their "love" MUST be consummated regardless of the morality of doing so."</i><br /><br />I actually answered this in the same paragraph as the one this comment tries to argue against. The difference is that there is a moral context for heterosexual behavior. There never is for homosexual behavior. So during those times when it isn't acceptable, not every hetero couple consummates their love. Much more rare these days, but it still happens. <br /><br /><i>"Because an objective reviewer MUST agree with Regnerus' methods and conclusion."</i><br /><br />I guess he wouldn't <i>have</i> to, but if he wanted to be honest he would agree. <br /><br /><i>"Operating a business that provides goods and services to the public necessarily requires adherence to rules and regulations that don't apply to private individuals. You don't need a health inspector in your kitchen at home but you do in your restaurant."</i><br /><br />Doing business with the public does not mean the business is not a private enterprise. This is why the Civil Rights Act was flawed as Rand Paul explains it is. The requirement of health inspectors has nothing to do with it. As a consumer, I would prefer a restaurant adhere to established codes of conduct regarding the preparation of food. But to whom that business serves the food is up to the owner. However, I wouldn't care if a restaurant I didn't patronize didn't deal with inspectors. They wouldn't be open long if they ran their business poorly. <br /><br />As to what follows the above highlighted quote, you are wrong on all the other rights being denied business owners. I totally understand what they are expected to do, but those expectations are not Constitutional (and please don't tell me what SCOTUS said about it---that doesn't make it Constitutional, it only makes it the law). As real Christians know, for example, expressing one's religion is a lifestyle and that expression manifests in all aspects of their lives, including their business lives. That is, until those rights are trumped by the fictitious rights of morally corrupt individuals.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-71776500953145404912013-07-21T03:30:37.164-04:002013-07-21T03:30:37.164-04:00"Do you know of anybody who is trying to lega...<i>"Do you know of anybody who is trying to legalize polygamy or incestual marriage."</i><br /><br />We've been through this and I've linked to articles that demonstrate this movement. Don't pretend otherwise.<br /><br /><i>"No they sought to have these businesses operate by the rules."</i><br /><br />Rules they are using to force their morality upon people of faith. What's more, these rules are not Constitutional nor are they what was intended by the founders.<br /><br /><i>"I have nothing to do with it. It was the company I worked for."</i><br /><br />But by your arguments you have indicated you are the very same type, who puts morality aside for profit.<br /><br /><i>"Are you saying that companies should not do business with people because some think they do the dirty nasty behind closed doors?"</i><br /><br />I'm saying companies should have sole decision making authority to do business (or not) with whomever they choose. And yes, people should alter their business dealings based on the immorality of the people seeking to do business with them. This is how we shape the character of our society and improve the culture...by blatant acts of disapproval of bad behaviors.<br /><br /><i>"So you would not do business with a Democratic politician..."</i><br /><br />I don't know with any certainty that all Dem politicians are immoral. Some might be truly moral but not very bright. But hey, if you want to bring up stupid examples to justify your corrupt position, go for it. It just validates my low opinion of you. <br /><br /><i>"homos were considered criminals for engaging in their behaviors as well.<br /><br />Yes, but that's no longer the case.<br /><br />your companies do not value all humanity when it suits you.<br /><br />Like you, I have no idea what you are talking about."</i><br /><br />The point here is that criminal behavior does not justify the concept of not valuing a person's life or business. I don't devalue homosexuals because of their behavior. I do acknowledge that they have devalued their own character by their unwillingness to deny their compulsions. But also, the companies to which you refer only seem to care about the buck and the pretense of valuing homosexuals isn't impressive or convincing. <br /><br /><i>"You CAN beat your wife, but you wouldn't do it simply BECAUSE you CAN."</i><br /><br />Yes I can and quite easily. But I CAN also refuse to beat her, so I do refuse, because I CAN refuse. I don't need to anyway because she does nothing for which I feel a beating is justified. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-55107653196830037812013-07-21T03:14:12.984-04:002013-07-21T03:14:12.984-04:00"The fact that your submissions are unconvinc...<i>"The fact that your submissions are unconvincing is not an indication of ignorance or being "unteachable"."</i><br /><br />Actually they are. I won't say that every line of ours has been the best, but every link that <i>I've</i> ever offered cannot be rejected simply because Jim is unconvinced. You don't want to be convinced. That's different. <br /><br /><i>"The laws that exist ARE based on the Constitution. The Supreme Court has confirmed this. The laws should not have anything to do with what God's law says."</i><br /><br />This is evidence you don't want to be convinced. The laws that exist are based on interpretations of some of the members of the SCOTUS. Those opinions are contradicted by the other members who took another position, as well as by reasonable and rational citizens that are objective in their study of the Constitution. <br /><br /><i>"Citing SCOTUS decisions is precisely about the Constitutionality of those decisions."</i><br /><br />No. Citing SCOTUS only presents what some members of the court believes the Constitution says. Big distinction. <br /><br /><i>"No shit? Have you ever read a Scalia opinion? A Thomas opinion?"</i><br /><br />Yes. And I find that far more often than the leftists on the court, these two consistently show a far better understanding of what the authors of the Constitution intended without their own personal biases having any noticeable effect. I know this to be true because their opinions align with what my understanding of the Constitution says. And I guarantee you that if I felt the Constitution allowed for Kennedy's interpretations, it wouldn't matter that I know homosexual behavior is sinful. I'd still support the decision. But a decision that states opposition is only bigotry? Can't see that as a valid interpretation of anything but his own personal position.<br /><br /><i>"But we don't live in a nation where jusrisprudence is cut and dried and every judge interprets the Constitution and precedent the same way."</i><br /><br />My objection does not reflect this notion at all. But we do know that some justices think of foreign decisions and believe that is the correct way to decide cases. It is not. Original intent is.<br /><br /><i>"<br />Jim, who can't think for himself<br /><br />You just quoted me as saying "I say so."<br /><br />relies on authorized assholes to determine his morality<br /><br />Christ on a crutch, you are daft.<br /><br />is happy when activist judges rule his way.<br /><br />I'm sure you are just as happy when activist judges rule your way."</i><br /><br />"I say so" does not confirm you don't think for yourself.<br /><br />You consistently refer to what is law, what some SCOTUS decision was and other such sources are when we discuss moral points. You default to such when you can't argue against Biblical evidence of what constitutes morality. I again remind you that what is law is not in question.<br /><br />When you can find where I've sided with an activist judge, please link to it. But I know you will simply say that any judge who decides in a way I think is correct is being an activist. The fact, however, is that I have never objected to a decision that is clearly based on what the Constitution says and the original intention of the authors of it. That cannot be activism except activism for truth. Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-39150226643889246272013-07-19T15:00:07.856-04:002013-07-19T15:00:07.856-04:00Jim, you are being willfully ignorant.
No. I am n...<i>Jim, you are being willfully ignorant.</i><br /><br />No. I am not. I have done a lot of research for this thread and even read some of the material your side has offered. The fact that your submissions are unconvincing is not an indication of ignorance or being "unteachable".<br /><br /><i>you continue to insist it is normal and natural.</i><br /><br />I've said that it occurs in nature, but I challenge you to quote where I have said that it is normal or natural.<br /><br /><i>God made ALL people heterosexual. You know this.</i><br /><br />I won't know this until you cite for me the scripture which says it.<br /><br /><i>You are only being argumentative.</i><br /><br />No. I'm pointing out the fallacies of your argument.<br /><br />"I'm done with you." equals "My arguments cannot win".<br /><br /><i>I suggest you get on your knees and ask God's forgiveness for mocking Him.</i><br /><br />I ask God's forgiveness often but never for mocking Him. I've never done that.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-90426051684455206782013-07-19T06:35:58.246-04:002013-07-19T06:35:58.246-04:00Jim, you are being willfully ignorant. You know th...Jim, you are being willfully ignorant. You know the truth but you deny it. You know what God says about homosexuality yet you continue to insist it is normal and natural. God made ALL people heterosexual. You know this. You are only being argumentative. I'm done with you. You are wrong and you know it. I suggest you get on your knees and ask God's forgiveness for mocking Him.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-21493924850823280212013-07-10T22:12:13.635-04:002013-07-10T22:12:13.635-04:00We argue about what should be based on what both t...<i>We argue about what should be based on what both the Constitution and God's Law says.</i><br /><br />The laws that exist ARE based on the Constitution. The Supreme Court has confirmed this. The laws should not have anything to do with what God's law says.<br /><br /><i>Citing SCOTUS decisions is meaningless in discussions about the logic, morality or Constitutionality of those decisions.</i><br /><br />This is nonsense, of course. Citing SCOTUS decisions is precisely about the Constitutionality of those decisions.<br /><br /><i>So we get decisions based on personal biases and prejudices instead of solid Constitutional scholarship.</i><br /><br />No shit? Have you ever read a Scalia opinion? A Thomas opinion? We have a form of government that includes a judicial system. That judicial system is made up of humans. Those humans grew up in various environments and cultures, were educated at different schools, have different experiences and religions (though a majority of SCOTUS is Catholic, I believe. No bias there). If judges and justices didn't bring their backgrounds, philosophies, and empathies to the bench, there would be no need for them. But we don't live in a nation where jusrisprudence is cut and dried and every judge interprets the Constitution and precedent the same way. That's why we have nine justices instead of one.<br /><br /><i>Jim, who can't think for himself</i><br /><br />You just quoted me as saying "I say so."<br /><br /><i>relies on authorized assholes to determine his morality</i><br /><br />Christ on a crutch, you are daft.<br /><br /><i>is happy when activist judges rule his way.</i><br /><br />I'm sure you are just as happy when activist judges rule your way.<br /><br /><i>Making you an intolerant, bigoted asshole who is denying the rights of fellow Americans.</i><br /><br />Not so. Do you know of anybody who is trying to legalize polygamy or incestual marriage.<br /><br />This is known as the slippery slope fallacy. Why didn't we allow men to marry dogs when the Court ruled in Loving that mixed couples could not be denied marriage?<br /><br /><i> Of course, I'm not assuming there really is "The Religion of Jim". </i><br /><br />Hmmm, that's an interesting thought, though.<br /><br /><i>they sought, instead, to force their morality upon the business owners who chose to live by their faith.</i><br /><br />No they sought to have these businesses operate by the rules.<br /><br /><i>People like you dispense with morality when the price is right.</i><br /><br />I have nothing to do with it. It was the company I worked for. That company also seeks out Chinese Americans, Mexican Americans, and other groups to do business with. Are you saying that companies should not do business with people because some think they do the dirty nasty behind closed doors?<br /><br /><i>never to have to bother with moral people of faith and character.</i><br /><br />So you would not do business with a Democratic politician, I take it. Or a Wall Street banker. Or someone who performs oral sex with his opposite sex spouse.<br /><br /><i>homos were considered criminals for engaging in their behaviors as well.</i><br /><br />Yes, but that's no longer the case.<br /><br /><i>your companies do not value all humanity when it suits you.</i><br /><br />Like you, I have no idea what you are talking about.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-26286289897184034732013-07-10T22:11:49.973-04:002013-07-10T22:11:49.973-04:00the homosexuals you enable
I've never enabled...<i>the homosexuals you enable</i><br /><br />I've never enabled a homosexual in my life, though I did "witness" the wedding of a gay associate and his husband. The democratically elected representatives of our country, states, and municipalities and the courts do some "enabling" when they pass and uphold anti-discrimination laws.<br /><br /><i>No one's denying the equal protection or due process, so you can stop with that load of crap.</i><br /><br />Yes. They are. The courts say they are, so they are.<br /><br /><i>But the courts had no right to impose upon private citizens that they must provide flowers for the weddings of homosexuals, force photographers to photograph their weddings, force bed and breakfast owners to rent them rooms</i><br /><br />A business owner is not a "private citizen".<br /><br /><i>in which to lie with each other as one would with a member of the opposite sex.</i><br /><br />How do you know what goes on in the bedroom of a bed and breakfast? Could be just doing needlepoint.<br /><br /><i>despite what some black robed idiots might say)</i><br /><br />The Supreme Court of the United States?<br /><br /><i>Yet you're quite cool with their morality trumping ours.</i><br /><br />How is "their morality" trumping yours? Are you forced to copulate with a person of the same sex against your will?<br /><br /><i>Yet you can't seem to keep them separate in discussions like these.</i><br /><br />Projecting much? I've done nothing BUT keep them separate.<br /><br /><i>spoken in terms of the morality and how laws that allow immorality were poorly fashioned and enacted.</i><br /><br />Says you.<br /><br /><i>stain our culture.</i><br /><br />Your culture is stained? Must do something about that, Mommie Dearest.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-69078231212686081272013-07-10T18:16:54.486-04:002013-07-10T18:16:54.486-04:00People do what they do because they can.
No, peop...<i>People do what they do because they can.</i><br /><br />No, people do what they do because they have a motive or are forced to do it. People are ABLE to do something because the CAN, but ability is not motive.<br /><br />You CAN beat your wife, but you wouldn't do it simply BECAUSE you CAN. Would you?<br /><br /><i>Christians have been harassed and worse when attempting to simply offer another way at homosexual events.</i><br /><br />Because their offer was unwanted, perhaps even harassing?<br /><br /><i>Why is all this routine stuff so foreign to you?</i><br /><br />It isn't foreign. I watch chick flicks. Why couldn't the same "routine" stuff apply to two people of the same sex?<br /><br /><i>Homosexuals simply allow their lusts to dictate their choices, rather than their heads.</i><br /><br />This is pure bigotry. Every bit of your "routine stuff" can apply to two people of the same sex.<br /><br /><i>But only homos insist that their "love" MUST be consummated regardless of the morality of doing so.</i><br /><br />I take it then that you and your spouse were virgins when you married. "Only homos"? I suppose there has never been a heterosexual couple who insisted that their "love" MUST be consummated regardless of the morality of doing so. <br /><br /><i>Not by objective reviewers. </i><br /><br />Of course. Because an objective reviewer MUST agree with Regnerus' methods and conclusion.<br /><br /><i>you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.</i><br /><br />Maybe you wouldn't offer an ignorant answer. Operating a business that provides goods and services to the public necessarily requires adherence to rules and regulations that don't apply to private individuals. You don't need a health inspector in your kitchen at home but you do in your restaurant.<br /><br />Free association? You can associate with whomever in your private home and private activities. You do not have total freedom of association when it comes to dealing with the public as a business. You must serve Jews. You must serve an Irishman. You must serve Native Americans. You must serve any class included in such laws.<br /><br />Freedom of speech? Serving the public has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you operate a business, you serve the public. You can call people "fags" but you can't refuse them service.<br /><br />Free exercise of one's religion? Nothing in the business code restricts the free exercise of religion. Serving the public commercially is not exercising religion.<br /><br /><i>For many, this includes starting and running their own businesses and how they run them satisfies their rights to liberty and their pursuit of happiness.</i><br /><br />Starting and running a business means adherence to commercial and legal rules and requirements. Health inspections, building inspections, OSHA, Equal Employment, business licenses, payroll taxes, and not discriminating against protected classes.<br /><br />Be happy in your business but obey the rules. Just like everybody else.<br /><br />More to come...Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-78354600719174667352013-07-10T17:22:30.645-04:002013-07-10T17:22:30.645-04:00People do what they do because they can.
I think ...<i>People do what they do because they can.</i><br /><br />I think you need to educate yourself on the logic and concept of "because". You seem to have not grasped that during your primary education. Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-77148988826641431642013-07-10T01:10:09.455-04:002013-07-10T01:10:09.455-04:00"The 9th is notorious for their liberal bias
...<i>"The 9th is notorious for their liberal bias<br /><br />Good. So what?"</i><br /><br />So we get decisions based on personal biases and prejudices instead of solid Constitutional scholarship. That means something to serious Americans.<br /><br /><i>"Neither of those amendments were violated.<br /><br />Yes. They were. The judge said so, the Court said so, most law professors say so, and I say so."</i><br /><br />So again, Jim, who can't think for himself, or worse, relies on authorized assholes to determine his morality, is happy when activist judges rule his way. And I doubt you polled all law professors to even come close to "most" of them agreeing. <br /><br /><i>"Regardless, the fact that some people may want to marry because we have allowed another group of people to marry is no reason whatsoever to deny that other group."</i><br /><br />Making you an intolerant, bigoted asshole who is denying the rights of fellow Americans. When those "some" want to marry and see that the arguments that led to the other group to marry can be legitimately used on their behalf, which it can, there is no Constitutional justification for denying them. The homos have given ANYBODY the right to redefine marriage to include them as well. You can't argue otherwise any better than you argue on behalf of the homosexuals.<br /><br /><i>"My religion provides my moral instruction."</i><br /><br />Well that's clearly no true seeing as how you support homosexual marriage and abortion rights. But then, you don't understand the Constitution, so it would be foolish of me to assume you understand Scripture. Of course, I'm not assuming there really is "The Religion of Jim". <br /><br /><i>"The Constitution guarantees freedom from the government in the exercise of religion. It is the law that forbids a business to discriminate on the basis of religion, not the Constitution."</i><br /><br />The Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing a state religion and inhibiting the free expression of religion. No business is the federal gov't. And keep in mind, the issues have all resolved around what a business has been required to do that does not constitute an act of discrimination. The florist had sold flowers to the same asshole the lawsuit sought to "protect". She also hired homosexuals in her business. This is typical of the lawsuits brought against private businesses. In each case, the homos could have simply gone elsewhere, but they sought, instead, to force their morality upon the business owners who chose to live by their faith.<br /><br /><i>"2-3% of Americans is millions. And gays have money."</i><br /><br />Oh, that's right. People like you dispense with morality when the price is right. Proving there are plenty of corrupt people who will provide flowers, take pictures, make wedding cakes and rent rooms for homosexuals never to have to bother with moral people of faith and character.<br /><br /><i>"Pedophiles are criminals. Homosexuals are not. Try to stay with us here."</i><br /><br />Well you and the frog in your pocket forget that homos were considered criminals for engaging in their behaviors as well. But it's convenient that you and your companies do not value all humanity when it suits you. Typical.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.com