It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just because it's natural doesn't make it right.

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

HAHHAHAHAHA

BIPOLAR TRIBAL WAR PORN

# this just keeps getting better and better




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: doclec
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Free will is an illusion amigo.


Interesting that you say this. I was just contemplating the illusory nature of the idea of "equality" . How are we all equal exactly? Equal in ability? Opportunity? Equality is a carrot on a stick that moves us towards conformity. That is not to say that there are those that are superior just merely that very few of us are equal.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

[Homosexuality wasnt even the primary focus.]

It was LITERALLY the opening sentence.

As for promiscuity, I'm OK with it really. I'm married, so I have one partner only. But, if my single friend wants to be a horndog every weekend with 5 different chicks, I won't judge him.

Anarchy? We have to have some laws to we can survive together. Cooperation is beneficial to all. But sometimes, when you have spoken diplomatically all you can, you have to go and kill you some mother #ers and set some of their # on fire
edit on 7-7-2015 by JesusDontHaveABeard because: Incomlete



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JesusDontHaveABeard
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So you're saying they have to use a specific business or vendor because of who they are. Like colored or white water fountains


Im saying they are free to go to a business that will accept them. Ever see that sign in the local shop, " we reserve the right to deny service"?

Dont make this a civil rights issue. The only civil rights that were violated were those of the baker...the Christian who was exercising his right.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

His rights weren't violated, he violated the law. Religion has no place in the law, and ,aw has no place in religion



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

one of my favorites is adding .com.org.co.uk to the end



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JesusDontHaveABeard
Freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. The baker was living by his faith. The Constitution separates Church from state, it doesnt prohibit religion.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
No such supernatural communication device exists today


Left and right hand clasped together in prayer doesn't work?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

I dont think we are all equal, and thats what makes us interesting. Some people have something to offer and some people dont. Some people can learn to have something to offer and some people will never learn anything, but some of them may have the ability to learn.

Variation is part of what makes the human race so colorful, whether you are observing a cunning con man or a brain surgeon



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   
"I wanna get down on my knees and start pleasing Jesus, I wana feel his salvation all over my face"

"Body of Christ, sleek swimmers body all muscled up and toned! Body of Christ, oh what a body, I wish I could call it my own"

Gay sex may be wrong but it's oohhh soooo right



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Being homosexual is against his faith. Baking is not. He was not kept from the free exercise of religion by baking. Baking a cake for gay people is not against a religion. It is baking. I wonder if the apartment building I work at would get in any hot water over refusing to rent to someone who is gay? I mean the owners of the building are Christian.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: JesusDontHaveABeard

He obviously felt that it would have been a violation of his faith if he did anything to promote gay marriage. Just because you dont see it that way doesnt mean he doesn't. His rights were violated over a stupid cake.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JesusDontHaveABeard

Oh wait never mind. Found it.

"And yea, the baker didest cook for them. But God spaketh, " do you not know that he lieth down with men? For he that cooks or bakes or sups with the effeminate or with men that lieth with men, I shall also consider that he is one with them. And he shall know the judgment thereof."

Revelations 26:9



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

What if he used his faith to make his bakery whites only? Or Christian only?

Would he be within his rights there too?
edit on 7-7-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: typo



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I was just offering some advice having been down this road many times. One of my favorite posters on this subject was named halfoldman. Not sure if he still post here any longer. He is a homosexual admittedly and was consistently able to discuss these issues without conveying being emotional about the subject or condescending.

The science is a major grey area which is why most in the pro camp resort to ad hominem attacks(bigot, hate filled etc) and group think(equality). There is nothing concrete from the scientific community to support their claims seeing as sciences underlying position was based on psychology/behavior and inexplicably the reclassification has forced any real study to revolve around genetics for which there is no real basis. If there was a basis for there being a genetic link to homosexuality then that means that a "cure" could be developed. They don't really like to consider that seeing as they do not believe they need to be cured (going so far as to stop people who willingly want to be "cured" with conversion therapy or other methods) however neither do anorexics or (pick your fetish/compulsion).



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I dont believe the government has the right to tell you how to run a business. Businesses have the right to refuse service regardless of motive. If a man opens a white only bakery, then guess what? I wont go where Im not welcomed.

The government cant make law with partiality towards any specific group of people, but Constitutionally speaking, the individual has the right to discriminate regardless of how despicable it may be or how the government wants to over step its boundaries.

Just because the government refuses to acknowledge your Constitutional rights, doesnt make the ruling just.
edit on 8-7-2015 by BELIEVERpriest because: typo



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So it's OK to rent apartments to only white people and tell black people that can't live in my building?
Or maybe I can open a private hospital and ONLY treat Christians. The law isn't showing partiality but the opposite. They are saying you cannot discriminate. You're saying you should be able to. We have equal opportunity employment laws. Fair housing laws. What if I hire women in my offices just so I can whistle and make lewd comments at them? Hey, Uncle Sam, this is my business, you can't tell me I can't say I like their tits.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I don't Drink Either.. and that is relevant?

He can act on faith all he wants, it was illegal in the state he had his Bakery in. Religion does not take precedence over Law or other people, it was illegal to discriminate and he did.. that's it


And that is why I would NEVER live in that state.

Freedom does NOT come with restrictions.........



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You really are a very sad person, I pity you.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: JesusDontHaveABeard

In principle, the government has no right to stop people from discriminating. I try not to discriminate in my profession, but everyone does at some point or another, even if you dont want to admit it....so where do you draw the line?

Its the government that has no right to discriminate. They cant open black only public schools, or require white only DMVs. But the private business owner has the right refuse service for any reason




top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join