Homosexual paid told to take their business elsewhere

​

 

And insisting over and over again that heterosexuality is a choice doesn't make it a choice.



​

 

Actually naturists (of which I'm one) don't "flaunt" anything. In fact, nudity is displayed tastefully and not in a sexual context. There's no comparison to what happens in these freak show gay parades. And I don't know where you came up with the idea that somebody "in the closet" has the right to come out of it rude and obnoxious. I guess my values are old fashioned, but I've been raised to know that there's never an excuse for that kind of behavior. And even if you're right that it's a "few" doing it, they certainly aren't reined in by the rest of the movement any more than Muslim terrorists are reigned in by the "peaceful" Muslims. In both cases, the silence speaks volumes.

 

Yawn...trite and boring. The civil rights were noble and right. Gay rights are non-existent except to money grubbing lawyers with paper thin arguments and morally corrupt judges that take the forgoing seriously. I know this is all pure grade A bovine scat and I know I am right.

 

Personally I don't care if gays, or RC priests, patronise my restaurant. I just don't want them looking after my children.

 

If Earl was lying how do you explain them figuring out those two were gay? If they were acting normal, there wouldn't be a problem.

 

That was obvious yes.

When you are having a conversation with someone and claim the God they believe in is mythical exactly how is that progress?

 

The way they look, the way they talk, how they look at one another, things they said. Sometimes gay men will hold hands. So on so fourth. It's really easy to tell.

 

We aren't talking about what is in their hearts but the actions they take and the positions they make clear.

And as I said already, if who they believe they are is a child molester or pedophile, how could you accept them as a Christian? Be specific.

Accepting them for who they feel they are with no limits which is what your sig says. Did you read it?

Please read the Bible. Christ never said we must accept everyone for who they want to be regardless of what they feel they are.

"And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?" (Luke 12:57)

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. (Matthew 18:15)

"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. (Luke 17:3)

See that? Christ did not invoke what your signature says which is why your understanding of what it means to be a Christian is lacking. He did not say you can't ever judge another person's behavior, in fact he said the opposite. What he said it that everyone will be judged one day by God but not that we cannot ever judge behavior as Christians.

Wrong again. See above Bible verses.

Christ did not require his followers to be zombies never judging behavior. Clearly you need to read the Bible and understand that. Start with the quotes I gave you.

You really need to read the Bible. Simply claiming to acept Christ is not being a Christian. Accepting His teachings goes along with accepting him and living by those teachings as best you can is being a Christian and by what you have said so far and what I've had to produce for you, you haven't done that yet.

4th time. The flaw of accepting everyone for who they feel they are regardless of what that person is. Christians are not mindless zombies who never judge people. Your side has done its best in its full on Anti-Christian assault to take the judgement of behavior out of Christianity when Christ never had that plan and I've proven it with direct quotes from the Bible.

 

We still have the majority of states and direct votes. You have a false sense of your position and hopefully the Supreme Court will set you straight. No pun intended.

 

Are you serious? The governor and attourney general of Texas of course.

Which isn't the subject.

Of course it does. He claimed his own personal opinion of what is rational overrides the will of the people of Texas to vote as they see fit. You cannot get a better definition of judicial activism.

Once again not about sex. Try again. This is about gay marriage.

Not the law. Since you didn't even know this judge's activism isn't even enforced its clear you need to read the opinion again.

 

No I dont' have to tolerate. Clearly you need some help from the Bible.

"And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?" (Luke 12:57)

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. (Matthew 18:15)

"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. (Luke 17:3)


Just in case:

re·buke
[ ri byóok ]

tell somebody off: to criticize or reprimand somebody, usually sharply
a telling off: a reprimand or expression of criticism or disapproval

That isn't tolerance nor should it be.


The far left has been falsely claiming Christians should never judge behavior for some time now and the Bible clearly says differently. This anti-Christian attack by liberals is an assault to chastise any Christian who rightly judges behavior which as the Bible proves is part of Jesus' teachings unlike the far left's false interpretation.

 

You can't figure out when two people are a couple without them doing something indecent?




​

 

Fair enough, it's his property, he shouldn't have to serve them if he doesn't want to.

 

Aren't doing anything. Appeals are on hold dependant on the 10th circuit court of appeals

Yeah, actually out is the subject. The only reason this is even discussed is sex. The only reason the state discriminates against same sex couples is because they are the same sex. That is sexual discrimination, it's also unfounded.

The will of the people takes a back seat when constitutional rights are being violated. Since this is about dissemination against sex, it's a constitutional issue. The state doesn't just get to be a tyrant.

It is the law.. [/QUOTE]Since you didn't even know this judge's activism isn't even enforced its clear you need to read the opinion again.[/QUOTE]
Pending further judicial review. And what activism?

 

Every state has a challenge against gay marriage bans.

The Supreme Court ruled in Windsor that he federal government could not discriminate against married gays.

The SCOTUS has already shows their path.

 

Progress?

That would come about by the understanding that taking offence is a psychological insecurity which is triggered by a belief being challenged.

 

So you refuse to answer? I thought you would.

 

I said religion has nothing to do with my position. If you wish to bring your various forms of worship into things, that is your issue, not mine.

Realizing? That would incorrectly, grossly incorrectly, assume that I had not held that position all along. If you have an issue with someone else and what they say, please go discuss it with them.

 

Ah, selective bible quotes. I have always marveled at this phenomenon. I don't think it is unique to Christians. Jews and Muslims use their holy books in the same way, cherry picking parts to follow, parts to enforce, parts to ignore.

Wasn't the message of Jesus one of understanding? Acceptance?

Using the bible to justify Big Earl's daughter's bigotry, that being calling folks (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s, seems to be counter of the claimed value's of this Jesus fellow.

 

Still unable to quote where I said anything of like that you're attributing to me.

You keep trying to prop the strawman up.

 

All the states have bans against homosexual marriage.

That's clear proof gay marriage is not supported by a majority of Americans.

 

Quite the opposite is true.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspx

 

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.

The people don't have the right to vote away the rights of the majority.

Again I'm sorry you hate the constitution.

 

ahh, so you see a well dressed and fit older guy walking out of a restaurant with an attractive well dressed woman in her 20's, do you think hooker, trophy, adulterer or maybe dad stealing some time for lunch with his daughter?

Just because 2 people are together does not mean they are a "couple"

playing footonballs would tend to be an activity that most don't want in their restaurant.