Homosexual paid told to take their business elsewhere

So you would argue that being called pro-gay is harmful to one's reputation? How much do you have to hate gays to take that position?

 

Censorship laws and poitical correctness are fascist inventions in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

It's what Rodents do.

 

You practically begged me to enlighten you about adultery, yet you did not quote and respond?

 

Don't you realize you can not correct sin. We are told by God and the bible, only 1 will ever be sinless. So trying to correct sin is a waste of time. And usually only haters or those who think they are holier than thou make such an attempt.
Per the bible, only unfaithful and a loss of belief are the only reasons one can divorce. Domestic violence isn't mentioned.

 

Explain why you lefties use the concept of Personal Affront for all sorts of censorship demands, then.

 

I am not correcting sin, merely providing a way to repent and go on with life. After all, isn't repentance one of Jesus' main points?

With the emergence of domestic violence, I believe it is dangerous enough to where it should be placed (unfortunately) in that category.

 

Read the OP again. That is not the topic. Just a deflection. Carry on.

 

How are you providing a way to repent. I haven't seen it. What if the person doesn't care what Jesus said? Not everyone does you know. In fact most of the world doesn't.
It might be dangerous, but is not a reason for divorce by biblical rules. So if the abusee goes into another relationship, adultery. Sin.

 

Actually BIG EARL'S RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO WHOMEVER IT CHOOSES is the HEART of the topic.

The Right of Refusal is the core of all human liberty.

 

The Bible isn't an exhaustive repository of Christian belief, nor does it even contain all the teachings of Christ or the apostles. Turning it into some rigid rulebook has been the hallmark of some Protestant denominations, but it was never designed to serve that purpose. Suggesting that the Bible says a woman must stay with an abusive husband because it doesn't expressly forbid domestic abuse is an abuse of Scripture. Bible Only Protestants have taught even unbelievers to use the Bible that way.

The unique thing about the Bible is that one must KNOW the author intimately in order to understand it, through faith and a personal relationship, because the Bible is nothing less than the WORD OF GOD. It's like a love letter sent by somebody who you've already been in relationship to. It isn't a weapon for the reprobate to cudgel the faithful with, nor is it fodder for winning debates. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, I can only ask you to not abuse God's holy word.

 

Oh, I got the all over shivers on that.

Well, not quite the end of the story, as we are not done talking about it, are we?

Indeed, and I applaud her willingness to to bray her ignorance to the world, to stand up and announce that she is a bigot. I just find it deliciously amusing that her father, who defends her use of the term, calls himself a Christian. Apparently his brand of Christianity makes it okay to be a bigot.

But then again Christ was not a bigot, was he? I mean, in the Christ myth, he is not a bigot, is he? So isn't it amazing that her father claims to follow this myth but he really doesn't?

I digress.

Isn't this the beauty of the free market? that even bait shops can employ bigots and the market responds appropriately.?

 

God didn't write the bible. So, no it is not the 'word of God'. It is man's written version of what God may have said. Then it has been copied, rewritten, translated, mistranslated, interpreted, misinterpreted. It is why you can't get 2 christians to say the same thing about any particular verse.
I have read the bible, and I see nothing about abuse as a means for divorce. So if one thinks so, then they are adding there own human interpretations to the book and abusing 'God's holy word'.

 

So they are falling into sin... Please explain to me how this discussion about adulterers is relevant to this thread. I never claimed to be an expert on sin.

You are delving too deep into this "example." If you are going to provide an example like this, please keep it brief and provide an explanation.

Continue with the topic at hand. What is your response to Big Earl? I still have not heard your opinion.

 

I don't explain (*)(*)(*)(*) I never said.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa. God DID write the Bible, through inspired writers. If you're going to speak about a religion, please, know your facts.

Do not lecture me about my own religion, please; I still do not see the point you are trying to convey.

"Objection, your Honor, relevance?"

 

In other words, you are presuming that the USD's fictitious Freedom From Offense trumps the restaurant's Freedom of Speech and their Right of Refusal, and you are therefore demanding that the restaurant be denied their rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth and Thirteenth Amendments.

Playing footsie-on-cockie IS a form of sex play, and hence a form of "making out". You should get laid more so you can learn these things.

Apparently they are, since you're bigotted against people exercising their rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth and Thirteenth Amendments.

Why are you bigotted against freedom?

No, you're not. YOU are posting your opinions on a public bulletin board and exposing your bigotries for all to see.

If you want your bigotries to remain private, don't post. Otherwise don't pretend they aren't available for public review.

YOU are claming that Big Earl and staff should be persecuted for exercising their RIGHTS.

The Mayor is bigotted against that kind of behavior.

FREE citizens have EVERY RIGHT to tell other free citizens to (*)(*)(*)(*) off and shop/eat/drink someplace else.

YOU clearly are opposed to freedom and merely use the word like a flag-colored gilly suit.




​

[/QUOTE]

 

You brought up gays can't acknowledge their sin. And can't be ever forgiven.
Big Earls is wrong. But it may be his right. I don't know the state law.

 

Your presumption that the Bible is the sole rule of faith is what's in error. You say you don't believe in it but then attempt to use it as some sort of authority. But even the Bible points to the true source of authority in it's detailed description of Jesus commissioning a living Church, not a book. And the Church of God has spoken out on the issue of domestic abuse and many other issues as well. Christians have been left with living, breathing leadership, not a rule book. So when you treat the Bible like a rule book, even undercutting your argument by expressed disbelief in it's authenticity, you disrespect the Bible, you disrespect the God who inspired the Bible (whether you believe it or not) and you put forth a weak argument based on fatally flawed presumptions.

 

Oh, you would be surprised what I have done with my mouth. Think Bangkok, mid summer with high heat and humidity, and a club full of oiled bodies writhing.

Oh, are we no longer discussing Big Earl?

 

Not at all... If they acknowledge their sin, they can repent and be forgiven.

The sin is not in the inclination; it is in the act.

It is his right, by the way, as a private business owner. There you go.

 

Well, do so again but pay attention this time. I never judged you stop playing victim.

No, you aren't required to watch ESPN. No you choose to watch it. Nothing is shoved in your face you delight in it being there.

I don't watch sports, I find them boring and repetitive. So I assume "tim tebow" it's some junkie that gets paid millions to throw a ball around and slap other men's asses.

Liberals are going to raise a fuss they never really cared that they were doing the same thing that they demonized others for. Two wrongsdon't make a right.

yes they do. But two American citizens have the right to make a stink about it, call to boycott. So what is your issue?

 

I don't play PC crap. are you sure you're conservative because political correctness is democrat nonsense.

hate speech is protected under the first amendment you don't like it then you have an issue with the constitution.

 

Sorry, I don't speak for the left.

 

No, the Mayor doesn't watch ESPN, and Americans who like to keep their lunch down should inform ESPN's advertisers that retaining lunch is more important than watching sporting events.

Liberals ALWAYS raise a fuss, except when Janet Jackson flops her saggy old tits out in a Superbowl half-time show. Then they say "it was a 'wardrobe malfunction', what's the big deal". That's because liberals are stupid and hypocrites.

It would be fun to watch the two USDs attempt to force a boycott of that Texas restaurant. USDs already aren't allowed in, hence do not form a significant part of the restaurant's clientele, but they would be giving that restaurant a million dollars of free advertisement that would attract new, NORMAL customers from the surrounding area from curiousity and solidarity to American values.

MOD EDIT - OFF TOPIC

 

Who said you did?