Jump to content
IGNORED

Christians booted from Seattle shop "I'm gay, you have to leave"


MorningGlory

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
14 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Like eating seafood...an abomination 

Two different words in Hebrew.  The word for "abomination" regarding shellfish is shequets which refers to ritually impure.  The word for abomination in reference to what God abhors and detests in regards to homosexuality is toevah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually it is to the people or to the states. 

What that means is that the federal government is not empowered to do more than what the constitution specifically delineates. The constitution did not specifically grant the federal government the power to regulate business transactions based on the personal decisions of business owners, for any reason. Therefore, the government, constitutionally, with a plain reading, would not have that power. The constitution is not a document that was designed to tell government specifically what it could not do, but specifically what it could do. Anything outside of those specifications was not intended to be an assumed power of the federal government, but left to the states.

 

37 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, the difference is that when the SCOTUS declared abortion "legal"  or imminent domain, they were not ruling on an existing law signed into law by a president.

The Civil Rights Act was signed into law.   The job of the SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, and they ruled it is constitutional. 

They also ruled the ACA constitutional, which was signed into law by a president. Nowhere in the constitution is power over healthcare specifically enumerated, at all. The point is that the supreme court more often than not rules regarding what is either politically popular at the time or within the political interests of specific justices. Gay marriage nor abortion would be legal in every state were that the case.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
10 hours ago, Kris said:

True...yet there are many genuine Christians out there that may have broken the guys jaw for the sort of verbal attack he subjected that group to. I know, we are to turn the other cheek, but the garbage that came from that guys mouth was from the pit of hell, it was deeply offensive and insulting to put it mildly. I bristle when someone uses our Lords name in vain, let alone having to put up with that sort of attack.

 

I hope no Christian would respond that way.   It is angering, but we are not Muslims.  We don't kill people or injure them for their hateful remarks about Jesus.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steward

  • Group:  Steward
  • Followers:  110
  • Topic Count:  10,461
  • Topics Per Day:  1.26
  • Content Count:  27,742
  • Content Per Day:  3.34
  • Reputation:   15,386
  • Days Won:  126
  • Joined:  06/30/2001
  • Status:  Online
  • Birthday:  09/21/1971

I removed a series of posts on this thread -- that originally began with a flippant post.  Remember we're called to reach all those who are lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
On 10/11/2017 at 5:33 PM, Steve_S said:

What that means is that the federal government is not empowered to do more than what the constitution specifically delineates. The constitution did not specifically grant the federal government the power to regulate business transactions based on the personal decisions of business owners, for any reason. Therefore, the government, constitutionally, with a plain reading, would not have that power. The constitution is not a document that was designed to tell government specifically what it could not do, but specifically what it could do. Anything outside of those specifications was not intended to be an assumed power of the federal government, but left to the states.

 

They also ruled the ACA constitutional, which was signed into law by a president. Nowhere in the constitution is power over healthcare specifically enumerated, at all. The point is that the supreme court more often than not rules regarding what is either politically popular at the time or within the political interests of specific justices. Gay marriage nor abortion would be legal in every state were that the case.

So do you think that Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional and unreasonable and as some on this thread have suggested, white restaurant owners should be allowed to ban people of color from eating or working at their place of business solely on the ground of the color of their skin or some other ethnic, religious, or because they are gay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

40 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

So do you think that Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional and unreasonable and as some on this thread have suggested, white restaurant owners should be allowed to ban people of color from eating or working at their place of business solely on the ground of the color of their skin or some other ethnic, religious, or because they are gay?

I am still waiting for at least one person to show me what in the Constitution gives the government the power to tell you but you have to serve in and you can't say no to

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

So do you think that Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional and unreasonable and as some on this thread have suggested, white restaurant owners should be allowed to ban people of color from eating or working at their place of business solely on the ground of the color of their skin or some other ethnic, religious, or because they are gay?

There are two issues here.

The first is constitutionality. It is blatantly unconstitutional in my mind. Keep in mind, this was virtually the same supreme court that just a few years later gave blanket rights to kill unborn children to anyone who wished to do so. You can say that's not the same thing specifically, but the ideology behind both are the same thing indeed, that ideology being that the court can decide, based on politics, whether or not to block the states from doing something (such as banning abortion) or allow the federal government to do something (such as pass civil rights laws) if they can only find a vague constitutional excuse. That is not how our government was designed, not at all. Our government was designed to specifically prevent that sort of thing, actually. In actuality, there is no vagueness or ambiguity at all in the constitution regarding the right of the government either enact civil rights laws or protect abortion in a blanket manner. There is no vagueness or ambiguity simply because neither idea exists in the constitution as a function of the government. The constitution is silent on them, which means, per the 10th amendment, that neither function is something the government should be involved in. In fact, one could make a good argument that, constitutionally, civil rights laws infringe upon liberty, which is a guaranteed right in the 10th amendment. Being a business owner does not abrogate your right to associate with whom you choose for any reason of your choosing, period.

Free association (and dissociation) is one of the core principles of liberty itself. If the government forces you to associate with people that you don't want to, for any reason, you end up with a slippery slope situation. In a slippery slope situation, the first thing that you did, such as the civil rights act, may have been morally just and even necessary. However, many of the things that follow will not be. Civil rights has been extended to suing Christian shop owners who simply refuse to attend an event that they find reprehensible morally. In other words, either go associate with these people at this event or you will not be legally allowed to have a business that you want to have. That is the slippery slope and it always happens with legislation such as this. That's one of the main reasons that the framers of the constitution told the government what it could do and instructed it to do nothing more. Simply put, there is nowhere in the constitution that gives the federal government the power over individuals' associations, no matter *what* the reasons. It doesn't matter whether the law did good or bad, the fact of the matter is that it is being used for bad and will progressively be used for worse.

This brings us to the second issue, amending the constitution for purely moral reasons. Morally one could argue that it would have been a just thing to amend the constitution in a narrow manner to provide protection for minorities in the civil rights era. If it were *that* important, simply pass a constitutional amendment. That is the way the constitution is supposed to work. The amendment process for the constitution was devised specifically to avoid slippery slopes that gave judges and legislators wide leeway in their enacting and interpretation of policy. If the civil rights act had been a constitutional amendment instead, it would've had to be far more narrow in scope and far more specific in its language. It would've also prevented it from being expanded upon tirelessly in the coming years through nothing more than judicial activism and bureaucratic regulation. There are states that use the civil rights act as a basis for their own state laws, which allow for forming commissions that can fine individuals based on discrimination without a single day in court or due process. That is what happened in at least one of the baker's cases. This is where the slippery slope leads if you ignore the constitution and, again, it is going to almost certainly go even further. Read the opinion from John Roberts or some of Scalia's comments on the gay marriage ruling. They both basically agreed that it, to put it very succinctly, was going to eventually be used persecute the church. That is what precedent does. If the precedent had remained "you need a constitutional amendment to abrogate or extend rights that are not mentioned specifically in the constitution," then the gay marriage ruling would've never happened. However, that's not the case. There is a long 20th century set of precedents where the supreme court basically decided that the constitution doesn't matter as it is specifically written and it goes back to before the civil rights act. There is a fairly well directly traceable line of erosion of rights and liberty over that time period. The civil rights act is not at the beginning of the line, but it is a point on it. I'd have much rather had it be a short, succinct constitutional amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
9 hours ago, Steve_S said:

There are two issues here.

The first is constitutionality. It is blatantly unconstitutional in my mind. Keep in mind, this was virtually the same supreme court that just a few years later gave blanket rights to kill unborn children to anyone who wished to do so. You can say that's not the same thing specifically, but the ideology behind both are the same thing indeed, that ideology being that the court can decide, based on politics, whether or not to block the states from doing something (such as banning abortion) or allow the federal government to do something (such as pass civil rights laws) if they can only find a vague constitutional excuse. That is not how our government was designed, not at all. Our government was designed to specifically prevent that sort of thing, actually. In actuality, there is no vagueness or ambiguity at all in the constitution regarding the right of the government either enact civil rights laws or protect abortion in a blanket manner. There is no vagueness or ambiguity simply because neither idea exists in the constitution as a function of the government. The constitution is silent on them, which means, per the 10th amendment, that neither function is something the government should be involved in. In fact, one could make a good argument that, constitutionally, civil rights laws infringe upon liberty, which is a guaranteed right in the 10th amendment. Being a business owner does not abrogate your right to associate with whom you choose for any reason of your choosing, period.

Free association (and dissociation) is one of the core principles of liberty itself. If the government forces you to associate with people that you don't want to, for any reason, you end up with a slippery slope situation. In a slippery slope situation, the first thing that you did, such as the civil rights act, may have been morally just and even necessary. However, many of the things that follow will not be. Civil rights has been extended to suing Christian shop owners who simply refuse to attend an event that they find reprehensible morally. In other words, either go associate with these people at this event or you will not be legally allowed to have a business that you want to have. That is the slippery slope and it always happens with legislation such as this. That's one of the main reasons that the framers of the constitution told the government what it could do and instructed it to do nothing more. Simply put, there is nowhere in the constitution that gives the federal government the power over individuals' associations, no matter *what* the reasons. It doesn't matter whether the law did good or bad, the fact of the matter is that it is being used for bad and will progressively be used for worse.

This brings us to the second issue, amending the constitution for purely moral reasons. Morally one could argue that it would have been a just thing to amend the constitution in a narrow manner to provide protection for minorities in the civil rights era. If it were *that* important, simply pass a constitutional amendment. That is the way the constitution is supposed to work. The amendment process for the constitution was devised specifically to avoid slippery slopes that gave judges and legislators wide leeway in their enacting and interpretation of policy. If the civil rights act had been a constitutional amendment instead, it would've had to be far more narrow in scope and far more specific in its language. It would've also prevented it from being expanded upon tirelessly in the coming years through nothing more than judicial activism and bureaucratic regulation. There are states that use the civil rights act as a basis for their own state laws, which allow for forming commissions that can fine individuals based on discrimination without a single day in court or due process. That is what happened in at least one of the baker's cases. This is where the slippery slope leads if you ignore the constitution and, again, it is going to almost certainly go even further. Read the opinion from John Roberts or some of Scalia's comments on the gay marriage ruling. They both basically agreed that it, to put it very succinctly, was going to eventually be used persecute the church. That is what precedent does. If the precedent had remained "you need a constitutional amendment to abrogate or extend rights that are not mentioned specifically in the constitution," then the gay marriage ruling would've never happened. However, that's not the case. There is a long 20th century set of precedents where the supreme court basically decided that the constitution doesn't matter as it is specifically written and it goes back to before the civil rights act. There is a fairly well directly traceable line of erosion of rights and liberty over that time period. The civil rights act is not at the beginning of the line, but it is a point on it. I'd have much rather had it be a short, succinct constitutional amendment.

I'll just take that as a "yes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional, and would have opposed it.  This kind of power is left to the states.  The federal government was never granted the sweeping authority to force this on private businesses.  If an individual state wants to have anti-discrimination laws, that is their business, but I am opposed to that because of how they are misused.  It has led to making trial lawyers rich, and people can cry discrimination even if it has not taken place.  If you can convince a jury you were discriminated against, you can win the lawsuit lottery.  I would rather let the free market determine if a business can survive discrimination.  Still, I do recognize that individual states have the authority to pass such laws.  

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a clear example of the ends justify the means, even if the means is unconstitutional.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  138
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  1,214
  • Content Per Day:  0.50
  • Reputation:   1,163
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/28/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/13/2017 at 11:02 PM, George said:

I removed a series of posts on this thread -- that originally began with a flippant post.  Remember we're called to reach all those who are lost.

it was mine post you have removed here

since it was so long ago, i have to rely on mine recollection but here is what i wrote

" i absolutely can not stand them. how did i do :)"

i think i might have also wrote first "those gays are so disgusting" though i can not be be sure of exact words i used now or if i used something else in place of the word disgusting.

clearly mine post did not violate any rules of the forum, otherwise you won't have use the reasoning "Remember we're called to reach all those who are lost."

however, i do not agree with this line of reasoning as there are others replies that can be found in this particular thread on page one such as 

 Davida

  • Royal Member
  •  
  • Davida
  • Royal Member
  •  7,283
  • 7,546 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Sodom & Gomorrha.

Thumbs Up

 

i am pretty sure just about any non Believers who are reading this thread would be more turned off by this type comment,  as the author appeared to suggest God should destroy this gay owner or gay community or both in the same way He did to Sodom and Gomorrha.

It appears to me ( i used the word appears because ultimately i am not the writer, but then again a question would be if the writer loves sinner hate the sin, why would she not say i will pray so God would lead the owner to repentance instead?)

While it is true God will judge all sins on the judgement day, as a self proclaimed Christian, you would know that that is God job, not ours, our job is share the gospel of Christ and pray for those so God would work in their heart. Sounding hateful or being hateful is one of the best stumbling blocks that get in the way of that.

John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him

Anyway you are not me, yet you removed mine post for the according to you, get in the way of this site reaching out to all, including gays?

This is despite the fact the smiley face in the end would give an indication that i don't hate gays at all? but then again, you are probably aware of that too, as in this post, you mentioned "that originally began with a flippant post"

so why did you remove mine post in the first place?

is it really because you "firmly" believe that non believers who visit this sites would be turned off by mine post? if that the case, why did you allow other posts that clearly does not reflect love for gays to stays, one that would turn them off far more?

or is it because you agree with the OP and you are really unhappy with me challenging her?

or is it also because you and i had a history, started with me sending you a PM to let you know about a situation where i sent one of the staffs a polite PM to inquire about something and she simply did not respond to the PM. This is despite the function at this site would made it impossible for anyone to miss an incoming PM (this has been mine experience anyway), and this staff continued to be active long after that incident

now, you did reply to mine PM and was very nice about it. Just base on mine recollection ( since i could no longer access that particular PM any longer), you told me something along the lines of that it could be a misunderstanding, she may not have read it or something. When i replied in a polite manner and told you i don't think that is possible, as she was still active on this site, i never heard back from you on that one

since that incident i have sent several inquiries through the contact form about several staff member' decisions i was concerned about, i never heard back for any of them either.

in all fairness, i was angry about our previous PM exchange, so when i sent those contact forms i did not say thanks or anything like that, so that was wrong on mine part. However i do not recall i wrote anything rude on those contract forms either.

since i am unsure as to whether you may respond to me sending this inquiry through contact form. i have no choice but to make this inquiry public.

another reason i chose to make this inquiry public is a while back i reported this reply to mine post by staff member OneLight, on page 21

where he told me

"The cry of fallacy is a very sad cry on your part"

i reported this post as this is bordering on insult.

i am pretty sure you were the moderator that dealt with this report as roughly an hour later. you posted and stated you did a clean up on that thread.

so why did you not remove the insult OneLight thrown mine way?

either way, at this point i am unsure where you stand, however, based on what i have seen so far, i do have real concerns about your fairness when it comes to myself.

so the ball is in your court now.

since as the owner of this site you have ALL the power and i have none. you could simply chose to delete this post, it is up to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


.

 

 

 

Edited by Equippers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...