What some dont understand about non bad leftist when it comes to lgbt.

rossum

Well-known member
In reading through the thread there is a silly attempt to compare the law of government and the infallible Commands of the moral absolutes of God with in the Bible!

We as Christians will ALWAYS follow the Bible, even if it conflicts with the law of the land. The Bible is full of martyrs, if that isn't enough , get the book of martyrs.

The discussion as to the courts, its decisions, is a worldly skewed fallen disaster. If you are seeking a Bible question, the Bible alone is your source.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭1:8-10‬ ‭KJV‬‬
"You shall not allow a witch to live" - Exodus 22:18. When was the last time you followed that infallible Command and moral absolute?

Yes, it conflicts with the law of the land, but as you say: "We as Christians will ALWAYS follow the Bible, even if it conflicts with the law of the land".

I look forward to hearing of your next witch-burning.
 

Justword

Member
"You shall not allow a witch to live" - Exodus 22:18. When was the last time you followed that infallible Command and moral absolute?

Yes, it conflicts with the law of the land, but as you say: "We as Christians will ALWAYS follow the Bible, even if it conflicts with the law of the land".

I look forward to hearing of your next witch-burning.
Sir, the Bible is not a book for the nonbeliever, its for God's believing people SILLY!

The nonbeliever has as much an understanding of the Bible as a rabbit does of snow shoes!

It's not your time or it may never be your time.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Sir, the Bible is not a book for the nonbeliever, its for God's believing people SILLY!

The nonbeliever has as much an understanding of the Bible as a rabbit does of snow shoes!

It's not your time or it may never be your time.
Thank you for confirming that you ignore inconvenient parts of the Bible. I suspect that you haven't given away everything that you own as Jesus tells you to either.

So much for infallible Commands and moral absolutes.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
He "maintained that, as a Christian, he opposed making the gay couple’s wedding cake because it involved a religious ceremony but would sell any other type of product."
He clearly told him that he would sell them a cake that was not a specially made for a gay wedding. That's not a lie. They were regular customers. What are you proposing the lie was? What he would not do is a special purpose cake, the special purpose being a gay wedding. That violates the First Amendment in multiple ways.
He was asked to sell another type of product (i.e., not a wedding cake) and refused to do it after previously lying that he would do so. He lied. His big lie was that because this was a religious ceremony, he couldn't be forced to participate because it was against his religious beliefs. Now he refuses to make a cake for a non-religious ceremony after saying he would do so.
Of course, his attorney told him do not do business with someone who has filed a lawsuit against you.
He's a liar. He should be in jail for contempt.
Actually @Electric Skeptic you having contempt for someone is not a crime.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
He clearly told him that he would sell them a cake that was not a specially made for a gay wedding. That's not a lie. They were regular customers. What are you proposing the lie was? What he would not do is a special purpose cake, the special purpose being a gay wedding. That violates the First Amendment in multiple ways.
The lie was that he would sell any other type of product.
Of course, his attorney told him do not do business with someone who has filed a lawsuit against you.
It had nothing to do with his attorney. He decided that he wouldn't sell any type of product after all - he'd continue to flaunt his prejudice and go against what he'd previously said.
Actually @Electric Skeptic you having contempt for someone is not a crime.
Apparently you don't know what contempt is. Judges can hold a person in contempt of court for, among other things, lying to the court. It can result in jail time.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
The lie was that he would sell any other type of product.
Was this before after they filed a lawsuit against him?
It had nothing to do with his attorney.
That's very interesting and you came by this encyclopedic knowledge of his private consultations with his attorney how again?
He decided that he wouldn't sell any type of product after all - he'd continue to flaunt his prejudice and go against what he'd previously said.
I'll address this when you tell me how you gained your encyclopedic knowledge of his personal consultations with his attorney.
Apparently you don't know what contempt is.
Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure you're an expert in it.
Judges can hold a person in contempt of court for, among other things, lying to the court. It can result in jail time.
Perjury is a chargeable crime.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Was this before after they filed a lawsuit against him?
Did you not even bother to read your own citation? From it:

A Colorado baker who won a partial victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple went on trial Monday in yet another lawsuit, this one involving a birthday cake for a transgender woman.

"Autumn Scardina attempted to order the birthday cake on the same day in 2017 that the high court announced it would hear baker Jack Phillips’ appeal in the wedding cake case. Scardina, an attorney, requested a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside in honor of her gender transition.

"Her lawsuit is the latest in a series of cases around the U.S. that pit the rights of LGBTQ people against merchants’ religious objections, an issue that remains unsettled by the nation’s top court.

"On Monday, during a virtual trial being conducted by a state judge in Denver, Scardina said Phillips had maintained that, as a Christian, he opposed making the gay couple’s wedding cake because it involved a religious ceremony but would sell any other type of product."

That's very interesting and you came by this encyclopedic knowledge of his private consultations with his attorney how again?
See above.
I'll address this when you tell me how you gained your encyclopedic knowledge of his personal consultations with his attorney.
See above.
Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure you're an expert in it.
More so than you, apparently.
Perjury is a chargeable crime.
We're not talking about perjury. Do you not know the difference between perjury and contempt of the court?
 

spinningstill

Active member
Sir, the Bible is not a book for the nonbeliever, its for God's believing people SILLY!

The nonbeliever has as much an understanding of the Bible as a rabbit does of snow shoes!

It's not your time or it may never be your time.
How so? My bible says in Romans 5:8 that God loved me while I was still a sinner.

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).

And how do you know if said poster will not come to saving faith? I pray he does one day.
 
What some dont understand about non bad leftist when it comes to lgbt.

Many don't care about the behaviors of some lgbt, they just don't want it imposed on them in anyway. They have to talk about it because it is being imposed on them.

They don't want affect their schools, their children, the law and etc.

If someone eats with their mouth open, others can not have anything to do with them. They change the channel on TV, they can moved to another table and etc. But if it connected to stuff they can't get away from, then that is a problem for most.

There are some that will say lgbt behavior is wrong but many can takenor.leave that. Others don't care but the don't want it imposed on them. Imposing is the real issue.

However some lgbt behaviors want to force it on others because of feelings. But there are some lgbt that don't agree with all the imposing. And some don't agree with marriage being changed. I know some of them.
It's all the propaganda that's being forced down people's throats, including children. The only way that the left can get people to accept homosexual marriage and the gender-confusion it produces is to silence their opposition and punish those who oppose it and that is escalating with each passing day. The gender-confusion movement came from trying to justify two "husbands" or two "wives" in a relationship. So their "solution" is to just make up whatever "gender" you imagine yourself to be.

That's because everyone knows that humans were not created as one gender so that they can have sex with the same gender. So they have to try to change reality which produces ENORMOUS confusion and turns reality upside down, to the point that no one can even define a man or a woman any more! That's what happens when people try to alter God'screation which is INALTERABLE. People simply have to lie and become more and more confused to the point that we can't even talk to each other any more!

But when the professing church does this, they're destroying the definition of a husband which destroys the definition of Jesus as our husband and his role to the church. It makes that definition arbitrary at best and submissive at worst.

Children are also being FORCED to accept made-up pronouns that have NO defintion and incorporate them into sentences that turn into gibberish. It's hard enough to memorize these pronouns but even harder to try to figure out their meaning because there is no standard outside definition of imaginary genders. So this actually ISOLATES gender-confused people from the rest of the world even more since these pronouns don't explain what they mean about a person which is a TRAGEDY.

Here is just a sample of these made-up pronouns but I'm sure more will be on the way since LEFTISTS are trying to decide what people should hear, think, say and do.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Did you not even bother to read your own citation? From it:

A Colorado baker who won a partial victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple went on trial Monday in yet another lawsuit, this one involving a birthday cake for a transgender woman.

"Autumn Scardina attempted to order the birthday cake on the same day in 2017 that the high court announced it would hear baker Jack Phillips’ appeal in the wedding cake case. Scardina, an attorney, requested a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside in honor of her gender transition.

"Her lawsuit is the latest in a series of cases around the U.S. that pit the rights of LGBTQ people against merchants’ religious objections, an issue that remains unsettled by the nation’s top court.

"On Monday, during a virtual trial being conducted by a state judge in Denver, Scardina said Phillips had maintained that, as a Christian, he opposed making the gay couple’s wedding cake because it involved a religious ceremony but would sell any other type of product."
This citation refutes your point so why are you including it?
See above.
Your citation is completely irrelavant to your point.
See above.
. . . and totally disconnected from this point.
More so than you, apparently.
Did you mean to put a question mark there? If so, that is reasonably passable sarcasm.
We're not talking about perjury.
I'm not convinced you know what you are talking about.
Do you not know the difference between perjury and contempt of the court?
Lying to a court, seems like it could be both pretty easily.
 

J regia

Well-known member
But when the professing church does this, they're destroying the definition of a husband which destroys the definition of Jesus as our husband and his role to the church. It makes that definition arbitrary at best and submissive at worst.
But he wasn't a husband and said nothing about homosexuality (John 21:20). And the bible says nothing at all about female homosexuality either.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
This citation refutes your point so why are you including it?
No, it doesn't. I even bolded and italicised the relevant words for you.
Did you mean to put a question mark there? If so, that is reasonably passable sarcasm.
I'm sick of your childish insults.
I'm not convinced you know what you are talking about.
That's your problem.
Lying to a court, seems like it could be both pretty easily.
As I thought, you don't know the difference.

You'll give anyone a pass for any sort of hypocrisy or lie provided that they at least claim to be Christian, won't you? This bloke said (paraphrase) "It's just wedding cakes I won't do, because I don't want to participate in a religious service, that would violate my freedom of religion. I'll do any other kind of cake, honest!" So someone said great, then make this kind of cake...and he said "No, I won't make that one, either."

He's a liar and you give him and his bigotry a pass because he claims it's about his Christianity. An excellent example of the special treatment many Christians demand they get.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
No, it doesn't. I even bolded and italicised the relevant words for you.
It directly refutes your point.
I'm sick of your childish insults.
Then you'd be well served to learn to distinguish between a pertinent observation and an insult.
That's your problem.
Apparently I can follow a line of logic and you can't. And strictly speaking, that's not a problem.
As I thought, you don't know the difference.
The distinction does not serve your argument.
You'll give anyone a pass for any sort of hypocrisy or lie provided that they at least claim to be Christian, won't you? This bloke said (paraphrase) "It's just wedding cakes I won't do, because I don't want to participate in a religious service, that would violate my freedom of religion. I'll do any other kind of cake, honest!" So someone said great, then make this kind of cake...and he said "No, I won't make that one, either."
Promises aren't transferable and different circumstances aren't interchangeable.
He's a liar
That would be truer or of this argument of yours than the baker.
and you give him and his bigotry a pass
He had valid grounds for rejecting the business in both instances.
because he claims it's about his Christianity.
Your subjective assessment of his motivation is the least relevant factor in this entire discussion.
An excellent example of the special treatment many Christians demand they get.
This is an excellent example of the first amendment operating as it was designed to operate.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
It directly refutes your point.

Then you'd be well served to learn to distinguish between a pertinent observation and an insult.

Apparently I can follow a line of logic and you can't. And strictly speaking, that's not a problem.

The distinction does not serve your argument.

Promises aren't transferable and different circumstances aren't interchangeable.

That would be truer or of this argument of yours than the baker.

He had valid grounds for rejecting the business in both instances.

Your subjective assessment of his motivation is the least relevant factor in this entire discussion.

This is an excellent example of the first amendment operating as it was designed to operate.
I'm just ignoring all the personal remarks.

He lied. He stated he would make any other cake. The first time his bluff was called, he folded. He wouldn't make any other cake. He's a liar.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
He did not.
He stated he would make any other cake.
To whom did he say this?
The first time his bluff was called,
This isn't a relevant until we know who the baker was speaking to.
he folded.
What are horrendously absurd analogy. In a hand of cards, everyone who's there at the end of the hand was there at the beginning of the hand.
He wouldn't make any other cake. He's a liar.
He has made many other cakes I assure you.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
He did not.

To whom did he say this?

This isn't a relevant until we know who the baker was speaking to.

What are horrendously absurd analogy. In a hand of cards, everyone who's there at the end of the hand was there at the beginning of the hand.
Actually if you know anything about poker, the analogy is apt.
He has made many other cakes I assure you.
He said he'd make any other cake. He lied.
 
Top