Featured Refusing Service II

Can't you figure that out?"
What kind of homosexual things do you partake in?
Do you join in the Gay parades?
Do you marry (if a pastor) two homosexuals?
Do you go to "gay bars"?

What are you talking about?

When selling things, if you are the merchant, do you refuse service to a thief; one who doesn't pay his taxes? Do you screen everyone? Fill out a form please.

 

Thanks for the laugh. I really needed that. "post of the year" ... "founding fathers" ... :laugh:

If he is one, he's a bad one.

 

All immorality sin; not just homosexuality.
I don't know of any evangelical pastor that would perform a wedding ceremony for two gays, do you? So what is there to judge. We have already made that judgment, and often condemned the sin from the pulpit. Let's put it in context.
Everyone of us condemns the sin from the pulpit.
No one condones it.
Would you attend a "gay" wedding? No. Neither would I.
I had a hard enough time entering into a Catholic Church to see my sisters and brothers be married, and the funerals of my parents. But there is a line to be drawn.

 

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Salvation requires faith and repentance toward God.
If a homosexual gets saved he will repent of his evil deeds and give up his evil lifestyle like any other sinner.
What did Zaccheus say and do when he got saved?

There was a transformation in his life.
Salvation brings transformation.

 

What happened to the BB rule of no threads on sexuality?? There are 6 threads on homOsexu@lity in this section alone!

 

NONE said here do not service them in shop, but would you be comfortable if your state said if asked, you HAD to provide sericing at the gay wedding/gay march etc?

if you draw the line at doing their service right at the cermony,we are in agrrement here!

 

again, we are in full agreement, but my "beef; is that many professing jesus, whole denominations/churches/pulpits would see it ok to get saved and still live as befotre, as now accepted by God!

 

glad that you see ripping apart and ignoring the Constution bill of rights as per reliogious freedoms a "good thing!"

 

In case you missed the joke, here's what I meant ...

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!! NOT A CLUE!!

 

At least I am in agreement with the Bible though!

 

Really?? Did the Bible say to absolutely reject a certain class of sinners to the point no one will preach the gospel to them? I musta missed that. Maybe somebody cut it out of my Bible.

Or it was never there to begin with!!

Now, to respond to your question from the other thread ...

How many times do you and other need to be told the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already affords us the opportunity to refuse service to anyone we choose?

This law was designed specifically to get around the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was unnecessary, unconstitutional, and would have been deemed so at the first court challenge and all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

Actually, the SC would have affirmed it, based upon 1st bill of rights though!

And I have NEVER posted God cannot save a gay person, that we are to hate them/abuse them/not preach jesus to them!

ALL I have ever stated is we should not condone/accept their behavior as acceptable, nor have a Chrsitianity that accepts them stayin gin that lifestyle once saved!

 

Here we go again. that may be "all you've ever stated" but you say it every freakin' time someone says something about witnessing to homosexuals, or makes a comment about associating with them in business, or in the ability to witness to them.

Your comments lump all those who would witness to them by befriending them for the purpose of showing them Christ, with those who affirm their lifestyle.

I can befriend them without affirming anything. I can do business with them without impugning my witness or affirming anything. Your attitude, and the attitude of several others here, truly borders on homophobia, which is un-Christlike and without biblical merit.

 

As to the constitution allowing the refusal of service, somebody better tell the judges in NM, as those folks had that right taken away from them.

Again, no one for not sharing the gospel with those having relations man/man or woman/woman.

But a ceremony to announce those sins to the world implies the blessing of those sins, or the normalizing, or the acceptance of them.

I would no more serve that than I would bake a cake if I were told it is to celebrate an abortion, or an upcoming abortion.

 

even going to a wedding ceremony or gay pastor ordination if asked?

I have witnesses to gays before, and so far, NONE said iw as too harsh to them, or unloving, as just shared the gospel with them, and told how God saved me, a fellow sinner!

 

You engage in so many logical fallacies, misstatement of my arguments, misstatement of facts, and emotionalistic pap in this first post, I'm not even going to attempt to deal with it. Most of it is unintelligible yammer based on your own anger, fear and prejudice to the point that it doesn't warrant response --

-- besides which, your second post covers most of the same ground all over again. Do you only have one argument? Well, of course, obviously you do. You keep going back to it -- along with attempted character assassination and personal insult.

No, I'm saying that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all persons living as naturalized or natural-born persons in the United States, while at the same time stating that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has a "refusal of service" clause that covers those situations you don't want to be involved in. You keep forgetting that.

No, I'm saying that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all persons living as naturalized or natural-born persons in the United States, with the aforementioned caveat that you keep leaving out.

Now you're engaging in another logical fallacy known as hyperbole. Why would I "demand" any such thing while pointing out that an "out" already exists for those who find mere contact with those in the homosexual lifestyle to be abhorrent? If I was "demanding" such a ridiculous thing, I would argue against there being any escape from such contact. Your emotionalism is overruling your logic and judgment.

More hyperbolic nonsense. If you can't be rational, there's little point in trying to hold an intelligent discussion with you.

There is nothing novel about it. A "person" is a "person" is a "person" regardless of any individualistic traits. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth states unequivocally that " ... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There is no escaping the fact that the laws proposed in Arizona and Kansas were in direct violation of that clause, and would have been overturned at the first judicial review. Also, due to the "right to refuse service" clause in the CRA of 1964, the laws were unnecessary. Those are the simple facts. When your emotionalism and hyperbole are left aside, you can't argue against those simple facts. Sorry. I don't agree with the concept either -- though I doubt you believe that -- but the law of the land is the law of the land.

Thank you, but I remain a humble servant.

Well, now that's hardly consistent! Either I'm amazing, or I'm in the same vein as deranged judges who would force people to abandon their conscience. Which is it, IJ? You can't possibly hold to both opinions?



Now, without the sarcasm ...

Once again, I cannot possibly be in the same vein as such judges, who I agree wholeheartedly are attempting to rewrite the Constitution from the bench. Why? Because I know there is already a way -- as I've told you and others many, many, many, many times -- to disable their ability to sue and ensure your ability to withhold services if that is what you want to do. Yet you continually ignore that and choose instead to ignore very valid, very reasoned arguments, and demonize me as "deranged." I'm amazed you haven't resorted to the ultimate insult you could saddle me with: LIBERAL!!

1. Can those who practice homosexual behaviors be defined as "persons"?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that all "persons born or naturalized" in the U.S. have full and equal protection under the law?
3. Does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit laws that would deny certain classes of person either identity as "persons" or deny such persons those equal protections?
4. Given the answers you must provide to the first three, are those who engage in homosexual practices, behaviors or lifestyles have equal protection under the law?

If you answer those questions honestly, the discussion is over.

Ah! Again I'm "one of those" people. I'm getting really confused here. You're going to have to make up your mind what you really think of me.

Yes. It's called The Fourteenth Amendment.

No, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the violation of equal protection of all persons living in the state, and in the United States. Really, you're going to have to start taking notes so you can remember these things.

There! Feel better now? You've tilted at the windmill just like Don Quixote! You've slammed your lance into the breastplate of the "deranged and insane!" Doesn't that really make you feel GOOD???

Or, on the other hand, you've let emotionalism and hyperbole, and likely your own personal prejudice, run amok over reason, Christian love for our neighbor (defined by the Bible as "everyone") and galloped roughshod over concern for the unsaved. That, unfortunately, is exactly what you've done.

Tell you what: I'll continue to witness to gays, tell them lovingly and gently of their sin, present the gospel to them, pray for them and with them, treat them for their addictions they engage as the result of degradation, rejection and animosity if not outright hatred --

-- and you do whatever it is you do. Deal?

 

Don't post this again until you document what you are speaking about.
Such broad generalities are unethical.
For example, do you belong to such a denomination/church? If so why?
Document what you are saying or stop posting such drivel!