Refusing Service II

[DHK]

We do, but when is accepting and partaking in sinful things like a gay wedding "judging/" is God there honoring that union between the husband/husband, or has he already made a jusgement call on that?

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.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Post of the year here on BB!

exactly as the founding fathers themselves would have addressed this situation!

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

Are you a attorney by chance?

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

 

[DHK]

We do, but when is accepting and partaking in sinful things like a gay wedding "judging/" is God there honoring that union between the husband/husband, or has he already made a jusgement call on that?

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.

 

[DHK]

again, we are adressing this belief that many homosexuals have that they need not change, that can be daved and still acting out that, and adressing churches/pastors approvong that behavior as acceptable to God now!

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.

 

[Amy.G]

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

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

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

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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!!

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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 ...

So you would agree then, based upon that list, that Christians businesses have the right to refuse to conduct business with homosexuals at ceremonies such as gay pride parades, gay weddings, gay ordination etc?

That Is ALL the Az law meant to keep intact!

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

 

[nodak]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[Inspector Javert]

Try Section I:Quite obviously, your belief it provided only blacks with any heretofore unrealized rights is mistaken.

I didn't say it provided only blacks with ANY heretofore "unrealized rights"...

It re-affirmed their right to vote and hold public office..

It was one of the "Reconstruction Ammendments".
It was there to force previously Confederated States to recognize any freedman's right to vote and hold office....

It is utterly SILENT on their right to, say, not be murdered in their sleep for fun. What it does not do...is provide any homosexual (or heterosexual) the right to force anyone to engage in a business contract which is expressly against their conscience.

Quite obviously, the affirmation of those rights include just about anything any citizen of the U.S. does, and that includes doing business on Main Street

Absolutely not.

NO.

A 5-year-old does not posses a FEDERAL GUARANTEE of a "RIGHT" to "do business" on Main Street.

But, what you want isn't a right to do business on Main Street..

You are using the 14th Ammendment to insist that the Federal Government has a right to actually FORCE someone who has no desire to engage in business on Main Street with a particular person due to conscience, to be required by Constitutional mandate and threat of force to do business with anyone that T.N.D. thinks they should be forced to engage in a contractual obligation with.

That's sick and it's tyranny.

What? Women aren't "persons"?

Inasmuch as the 14th Ammendment's proviso for the right to vote and hold office.....

NO.

Not a bit.

Not in the least.

Read the second word in the amendment.

I have...
So did those who crafted the 14th Ammendment.

So did those who granted Women's Suffrage in the early 20th Century with an entirely new Ammendment we all know and love, namely, the 19th Ammendment.

Neither Congress, nor the Presidents nor any Supreme Court believed that the second word of the 14th Ammendment guarantees a woman the right to "vote".

That's why an entirely new Ammendment had to be passed 60-some-odd years later.

I'm sure the females on this board would be amazed to hear you say that they aren't really "persons."

I'm sure they would be amazed to here me say that no non-taxpaying Indians were protected by that Ammendment, (they are specifically excluded)....
But they are still "persons".

Here's another class of "persons" also excluded from those protections:
Anyone essentially guilty of treason:
I will cite BOTH exclusions for you.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed

"Non-taxed" Indians are not protected by this Ammendment.

Here's where women are excluded clearly:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States,


Women and Indians and Traitors....and persons under the age of 21 are all "persons"....

But this Ammendment was crafted to protect a certain class of citizen's right to:
1.) Due process (that's not forcing everyone to engage in business with you)
2.) The right to vote (that's not forcing everyone to engage in business with you)
3.) The right to hold public office (that's not forcing everyone to engage in business with you).

That is precisely the reason so many opposed the ERA

.
That has NOTHING to do with why so many opposed the ERA.

The Fourteenth Amendment already covered them. It covers everyone.

It absolutely does not cover "EVERYONE"...

It excludes at least 4 classes of persons:
1.) Women
2.) Indians not taxed
3.) Anyone under the age of 21
4.) Traitors

But, we aren't arguing the definition of "personhood" (or something stupid like that) like you want...
We are debating the 14th Ammendment....

And it excludes certain classes of heretofore recognized "persons".

You are wrong...dead wrong.

Again, not so. Passed only because SCOTUS was unwilling to read the Fourteenth Amendment as covering women.

Yes...
of course they were un-willing to and here's why:
Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States,

That's because the SCOTUS didn't presume to ask stupid legal question like:
"Are you saying women aren't persons??"

Like you did.

The SCOTUS wasn't presuming to be Philosopher Kings about the Philosophical identity of personhood...
They read the Ammendment as written....
and it excludes women.

A more reasonable court would have read the word "persons" as covering all,

No they would not.

I go into a bakery at the same time as another man of identical build, apparently of the same economic status, skin color, etc. He motions that I was in the door first, so I order a cake, and mention it is for my wife's and my anniversary, pay for it and will come back in three days to pick up the cake. I leave and the other gentleman orders a cake and mentions it is for he and his "significant other's" anniversary. The baker says, "Oh, how long have you been married?" The customer says, "Oh, about four years. He moved in with me after his divorce." And the baker stops, wads up the order form, throws it away, and says, "I'm sorry, but I can't bake this cake. I don't do business with people of your lifestyle as I'm a Christian and it goes against my beliefs." You don't think the man has a case, given that he has just witnessed me buy a cake for an anniversary?

Given the 14th Ammendment he has absolutely no case whatsoever....

NONE...

NADA.

No standing, no case.

Isn't he going to wonder how he gets singled out?

Maybe. So what?

Which Ammendment is it, specifically, which guarantees everyone the right to
"not be singled-out because of their life-style or sin"???

Oh, that's right...
You claim the 14th Ammendment provides Federal protection against being "singled-out" because of lifestyle.

Please quote the text of the Ammendment if you will sir.

Maybe I'm an adulterer, but I didn't mention my mistress. Maybe I'm an active alcoholic, but I didn't mention going to the liquor store afterwards. Maybe I'm a liar and I don't even have a wife.

So what??

Take your own argument where you want:

You insist that all persons should be forced by law to engage in business contracts with any person even if it goes expressly against their conscience...
You supplied the 14th Ammendment as proof of your assertion that the Constitution demands that the Federal Government forcibly demand this from all citizens...

I have yet to see you make your legal case which requires that.

Tell me, IJ, how does his sin set him apart for refusal of service whereas I was not even quizzed about my sin?

It's not the job of a Federal judge to play God and answer that question by citing the 14the Ammendment as you do.

It's a double standard, IJ, and it doesn't fly.

The 14th Ammendment doesn't mention a right to Universal protection against "double-standards"...

The unrealistic expectation that bald men are often considered "sexy" by many women... (let's cite Patrick Stewart)
But the unfortunate reality that wrinkles on an aging woman's face is rarely considered "sexy" (let's cite the heretofore quite attractive Elizabeth Taylor) constitutes an unfair "double-standard"...

But, much to your chagrin....
The 14th Ammendment doesn't protect women from that particular un-fairness,

Although, if I understand your novel concept of legal interpretation, it apparently does.

 

[Yeshua1]

I didn't say it provided only blacks with ANY heretofore "unrealized rights"...

It re-affirmed their right to vote and hold public office..

It was one of the "Reconstruction Ammendments".
It was there to force previously Confederated States to recognize any freedman's right to vote and hold office....

It is utterly SILENT on their right to, say, not be murdered in their sleep for fun. What it does not do...is provide any homosexual (or heterosexual) the right to force anyone to engage in a business contract which is expressly against their conscience.

Absolutely not.

NO.

A 5-year-old does not posses a FEDERAL GUARANTEE of a "RIGHT" to "do business" on Main Street.

But, what you want isn't a right to do business on Main Street..

You are using the 14th Ammendment to insist that the Federal Government has a right to actually FORCE someone who has no desire to engage in business on Main Street with a particular person due to conscience, to be required by Constitutional mandate and threat of force to do business with anyone that T.N.D. thinks they should be forced to engage in a contractual obligation with.

That's sick and it's tyranny.

Inasmuch as the 14th Ammendment's proviso for the right to vote and hold office.....

NO.

Not a bit.

Not in the least.

I have...
So did those who crafted the 14th Ammendment.

So did those who granted Women's Suffrage in the early 20th Century with an entirely new Ammendment we all know and love, namely, the 19th Ammendment.

Neither Congress, nor the Presidents nor any Supreme Court believed that the second word of the 14th Ammendment guarantees a woman the right to "vote".

That's why an entirely new Ammendment had to be passed 60-some-odd years later.

I'm sure they would be amazed to here me say that no non-taxpaying Indians were protected by that Ammendment, (they are specifically excluded)....
But they are still "persons".

Here's another class of "persons" also excluded from those protections:
Anyone essentially guilty of treason:
I will cite BOTH exclusions for you.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed

"Non-taxed" Indians are not protected by this Ammendment.

Here's where women are excluded clearly:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States,


Women and Indians and Traitors....and persons under the age of 21 are all "persons"....

But this Ammendment was crafted to protect a certain class of citizen's right to:
1.) Due process (that's not forcing everyone to engage in business with you)
2.) The right to vote (that's not forcing everyone to engage in business with you)
3.) The right to hold public office (that's not forcing everyone to engage in business with you).
.
That has NOTHING to do with why so many opposed the ERA.

It absolutely does not cover "EVERYONE"...

It excludes at least 3 classes of persons:
1.) Women
2.) Indians not taxed
3.) Anyone under the age of 21

You are wrong...dead wrong.

Yes...
of course they were un-willing to and here's why:
Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States,

That's because the SCOTUS didn't presume to ask stupid legal question like:
"Are you saying women aren't persons??"

Like you did.

The SCOTUS wasn't presuming to be Philosopher Kings about the Philosophical identity of personhood...
They read the Ammendment as written....
and it excludes women.

No they would not.

Given the 14th Ammendment he has absolutely no case whatsoever....

NONE...

NADA.

No standing, no case.

Maybe. So what?

Which Ammendment is it, specifically, which guarantees everyone the right to
"not be singled-out because of their life-style or sin"???

Oh, that's right...
You claim the 14th Ammendment provides Federal protection against being "singled-out" because of lifestyle.

Please quote the text of the Ammendment if you will sir.

So what??

Take your own argument where you want:

You insist that all persons should be forced by law to engage in business contracts with any person even if it goes expressly against their conscience...
You supplied the 14th Ammendment as proof of your assertion that the Constitution demands that the Federal Government forcibly demand this from all citizens...

I have yet to see you make your legal case which requires that.

It's not the job of a Federal judge to play God and answer that question by citing the 14the Ammendment as you do.

The 14th Ammendment doesn't mention a right to Universal protection against "double-standards"...

The unrealistic expectation that bald men are often considered "sexy" by many women... (let's cite Patrick Stewart)
But the unfortunate reality that wrinkles on an aging woman's face is rarely considered "sexy" (let's cite the heretofore quite attractive Elizabeth Taylor) constitutes an unfair "double-standard"...

But, much to your chagrin....
The 14th Ammendment doesn't protect women from that particular un-fairness,

Although, if I understand your novel concept of legal interpretation, it apparently does.

Looks like you and our friend must have taken different law review classes!

And still insist that if we cave in now to allowing courts to force us to violate religious convictions, then endgame is to prohibit ANY mention of homosexuality as sinful in public square and in church!

 

[Inspector Javert]

.You grossly misunderstand my position, as you should realize from above.

NO, I understand it completely...

You are attempting to argue that the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution demands that all persons by force of law be required to engage in business transactions which they find abhorrent and personally un-conscionable...

That's EXACTLY what you are saying.

You DEMAND that Governmental FORCE be utilized to require any Christian to engage in an undesired business contract with anyone regardless of any personal restrictions of conscience.

That's exactly what you are claiming.

The bottom line is, there are already remedies for anyone, not just Christians, to refuse service to anyone they choose.

Unless the "anyone" is a Christian and the service is to a homosexual you mean....

Because you hold to the novel legal notion that the 14th Ammendment was written in order to force Christians to photograph gay weddings.

You are amazing.

The proposed laws were designed specifically to give Christians a route around the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.

No, they were designed to protect Christians and others of conscience from deranged judges who would force them to abandon their conscience.........or.......
People like YOU...

who thinks that they can interpret the 14th Ammendment as a right of gay people to force others to engage in business contracts with them when they do not desire to.

It was a law written to protect Godly Christians from.......................

listen to this............

....People LIKE YOU.

It could be argued that the propose laws allowed any religion those same rights for any particular behavior or lifestyle they find abhorrent, but the truth is, the Arizona and Kansas legislators who wrote the laws were doing so from a Christian perspective.

Sure it can be argued... jurisprudential expert extraordinaire....

Is there a law which prohibits a particular "perspective" from being considered by Legislators writing law???

SO WHAT!!!!

No, lemme guess...

The 14th Ammendment prohibits a "Christian perspective" from being considered when applying State Law :laugh::laugh:

It is not a good witness, it is not Christlike, and it shouldn't be part of any state or federal law. I'm glad it is not.

Yes...
People like you would be glad that it isn't.

Good for you.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I didn't say it provided only blacks with ANY ... /// ... yadda yadda yadda ad infinitum ... ///... of legal interpretation, it apparently does.

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 understand it completely...

You are attempting to argue that the 14tha Ammendment to the Constitution demands that all persons by force of law be required to engage in business transactions which they find abhorrent and personally un-conscionable...

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.

That's EXACTLY what you are saying.

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.

You DEMAND that Governmental FORCE be utilized to require any Christian to engage in an undesired business contract with anyone regardless of any personal restrictions of conscience.

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.

Unless the "anyone" is a Christian and the service is to a homosexual you mean....

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

Because you have the novel legal notion that the 14th Ammendment was written in order to force Christians to photograph gay weddings.

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.

You are amazing.

Thank you, but I remain a humble servant.

No, they were designed to protect Christians and others of conscience from deranged judges who would force them to abandon their conscience.........or.......
People like YOU...

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!!

... who thinks that they can interpret the 14th Ammendment as a right of gay people to force others to engage in business contracts with them when they do not desire to.

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.

It was a law written to protect Godly Christians form.......................

listen to this............

....People LIKE YOU.

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.

Sure it can be argued... jurisprudential expert extraordinaire....

Is there a law which prohibits a particular "perspective" from being considered by Legislators writing law???

Yes. It's called The Fourteenth Amendment.

SO WHAT!!!!

No, lemme guess...

The 14th Ammendment prohibits a "Christian perspective" from being considered when applying State Law :laugh::laugh:

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.

Yes...
People like you would be glad that it isn't.

Good for you.

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?

 

[DHK]

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!

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!