What's new
By:

Faster than I predicted

LogGrad98 said:
The source was crappy, but the news story is legit. Check the Washington times.

And wow did you find just as crappy a source, just the polar opposite to the other. Talk about the kettle.

Also the recent case in Houston where a judge tried to force pastors to submit their written sermons to charge them with hate speech crimes.

We are on the slippery slope. Right at the very top, but the pebbles are rolling.
Click to expand...

I don't see the Washington (aka Moonie) Times as being much more significant, but in any case, it was clear from their article that this is a public business, not a church.

Non-profits, including churches, are supposed to be politically neutral. If pastors are overtly supporting one political candidate/position/vote over another while acting on behalf of that church, they are violating that law.

None of this is new. There has been no sloping.
 
One Brow said:
I don't see the Washington (aka Moonie) Times as being much more significant, but in any case, it was clear from their article that this is a public business, not a church.

Non-profits, including churches, are supposed to be politically neutral. If pastors are overtly supporting one political candidate/position/vote over another while acting on behalf of that church, they are violating that law.

None of this is new. There has been no sloping.
Click to expand...

In this case there were not acting on behalf of a church but their own personal religious beliefs.
 
PearlWatson said:
https://allenbwest.com/2014/10/christian-persecution-idaho-city-forces-pastors-marry-gays/

As reported by the Washington Times, “Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines.
Click to expand...

I hate it when I have to kind of be on your side. It's the lamest thing ever, and it makes me feel filthy... like the 10' pole I use on trout's mom. Luckily, I'm only kind of on your side.

There was no good, legal reason that gay marriage was illegal. And so it should be legalized. That being said, forcing any religion or institute to preform homosexual marriage against their will is just as wrong.
 
Stoked said:
You seem to read to much into things, if you are even following the flow (in this case you are not) of the discussion, and go off on random tangents that no one is even talking about.
Click to expand...

It's called pushing an agenda, bro.

hmmmmm. . . . . .

probably everybody except Trout does a little of that. It's why we come here. I know I pushed my take to the ultimate extreme I could make of it. So would you have changed your thinking on my account if I had said, for example, that you were making an extreme tangent of your own on your lead-up comment calling out the person you were responding to, highland homie I think it was, on his extreme statement about wishing people could just do business on their own terms and notions with whoever they wished, no matter who they are?

you dished it out, then felt it was uncalled for coming back atcha.
 
One Brow said:
I don't see the Washington (aka Moonie) Times as being much more significant, but in any case, it was clear from their article that this is a public business, not a church.

Non-profits, including churches, are supposed to be politically neutral. If pastors are overtly supporting one political candidate/position/vote over another while acting on behalf of that church, they are violating that law.

None of this is new. There has been no sloping.
Click to expand...

wll, sloping is always a matter of choosing the coordinate system in a manner that makes "progress" look like the same old thing. The time-honored progressive strategy of "gradualism" has always been a pretty steep slope against Christianity.

You've got a choice. . . . . you can imagine you're God, or you can imagine somebody else is. Saying there is no God is the same thing as saying you. . . or 'we' are the only relevant "god". The so-called "secular" claim has always been a claim for the government's right to establish the values of society.

keep it up, bro. Pretty soom you'll be walking on the ceiling.
 
babe said:
It's called pushing an agenda, bro.

hmmmmm. . . . . .

probably everybody except Trout does a little of that. It's why we come here. I know I pushed my take to the ultimate extreme I could make of it. So would you have changed your thinking on my account if I had said, for example, that you were making an extreme tangent of your own on your lead-up comment calling out the person you were responding to, highland homie I think it was, on his extreme statement about wishing people could just do business on their own terms and notions with whoever they wished, no matter who they are?

you dished it out, then felt it was uncalled for coming back atcha.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. I was not calling him out at all, I was getting clarification.

Now, the reason I was getting clarification, was to see if Highland had the same exact position as I do. Turns out he does. But if you had read my comment before that one you would have seen that.

So in short, yes you did read to much into it, in addition to not reading the full convo, and as a result you placed me on the wrong side. This has nothing to do with dishing it out or taking it.

I absolutely agree with HH in that if any personally owned business wants to deny service to anyone, for any reason, they should be able to. I do not like the idea of judges and legislators controlling that.

The bolded part above is a position I have stated several times in several threads. So please, continue to tell me how I believe Judges and Legislators should be able to control that accoring to their own personal beliefs.
 
Guys, let's talk about the lesbian mayor of Austin, TX who tried to subpoena all homosexual sermons. That one is totally credible as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top