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.

 

Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

page: 18
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Uh.. No...


Uh... Yes... You can't control how people read your text. Your text CLEARLY reads to anyone who reads it that you are comparing gay marriages to terrorism. There comes a point where you realize your mistake, let go, and move on. I'm not going to fault you for making a bad point or anything.


Not that you're going to care ; you've found some false-argument to cling to, to discredit and defame someone, who supports gay-marriage just like you do (keep that inmind). I said, the people who do not wish to participate in the couple's marriage, find that providing the cake is, participating in the marriage... You can call it "material support." They do not wish to provide that material support.


It doesn't matter what they consider it. It only matters what the law considers it. "Hey I'm not stealing this apple! I only consider it to be borrowing it. I'll return it in about 12 hours, out the other end."


This is a far cry from saying two homosexuals getting married is a terrorist act. You, are intelligent enough to have grasped that, and understood what I meant. Instead you.. well anyways.


I AM giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you first have to admit that you made a poor comparison regardless of your intentions.


Have a nice day, I no longer wish to be involved in mud-slinging and false accusations.


Do you.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

Good gravy.

No, it's not as simple as going somewhere else for a product.

A baker bakes cakes. The public buys the cakes. Repeat.

Baking a cake is not a sin. How someone uses the products they buy from you is none of your business.

There is not a single commandment in the bible that limits who christians can do business with.

There is not a single commandment that forbids same-sex marriage.

There is not a single commandment regarding baking.

It is not a religious issue; it is an issue of discrimination under Oregon State law.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs

I'm not pretending anything. I'm pointing out how Christians are able to use various bible versus to excuse or validate any behavior they want. I know what the Bible offers to the faithful and that wasn't even my point.


You still need a thinner brush my man.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Do I? Disregarding the gay marriage issue and being intolerant, that verse certainly IS a good catch-all for any sort of deed that a Christian is justifying through other various bible passages, whether good or bad, that they are receiving flak for. It certainly IS a convenient verse. Gotta take the good with the bad, randy.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh and I don't take the good with bad right? Come -on
I know when you're taking a verse way, way, out of context.
In fact most people do. You ride pretty high on that horse
but you keep falling off like a drunk cowboy. Just say'n.


edit on Rpm70915v54201500000033 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

-I- wasn't the one who brought it up in the first place. Another poster did, and -I- responded to him. So let's get our facts straight here. Blame that poster for how it was used.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You took it out of that context the other poster used it in
as incorrect as that was in the first place. I have the facts straight
and it's up to you to make the record straight. If you choose the irony
BTW. What really bugs me is you know far better, but always jump at the
chance to slander rather than to correct.
edit on Rpm70915v10201500000004 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

See now we are getting into intent within the wording of the Bible. You and I both know that no single person has sole claim to what was meant by the words written in the Bible, as evidenced by the fact that everyone seems to have their own personal interpretations on what it means. So while YOU may disagree with how the verse was used, neither the other person nor me could be incorrect in how we used it. That is one of the many problems I have with religious texts (don't worry I'm going to throw the Torah and the Koran into the same box as the Bible). You can make them say whatever you want them to say.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then fair the well, as you pussy foot and damn well know.
What I said about the dishonesty, in a great deal of your
Christian slander, is accurate. And does apply in this case.
I just figure that should mean something to someone of
your intelligence. But that's also self evident I guess.
edit on Rpm70915v27201500000038 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

If you say so. You aren't going to make me feel sorry for my words. You know I don't have a favorable opinion of the bible and how it is used by Christians. That verse is a grand example of why. The poster who used it that way is a grand example of the people that frustrate me about Christianity. It's all pretty textbook to me. Why aren't you holding the original poster responsible for HIS use of the verse but I get the 10th degree for it?
edit on 9-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Why aren't you holding the original poster responsible for HIS use of the verse but I get the 10th degree for it?


Finally, the perfect question comes.

Because you claim agnosticism, but take to slander like an
atheist thirsty for Christian blood. And I finally get to say it.
It doesn't fit you at all. I just know you're better than that.

And would much rather you were more aware, than sorry.
edit on Rpm70915v43201500000012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Why aren't you holding the original poster responsible for HIS use of the verse but I get the 10th degree for it?


Finally, the perfect question comes.

Because you claim agnosticism, but take to slander like an
atheist thirsty for Christian blood. And I finally get to say it.
It doesn't fit you at all. I just know you're better than that.


So you are now doing what you are accusing ME of doing. You are holding me to a standard in your head (even though you aren't agnostic) to how agnostics are supposed to behave and judging me for not living up to it, while I do the same to Christians. Pretty nice how that works.

ETA: Though I question how what I am doing is denying the possibility that something can exist (which is what betraying my beliefs would actually be). I'm just talking down about how the Bible can be used.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
AND here we go people...dailyheadlines.net...


CENSORSHIP by litigation ...



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
AND here we go people...dailyheadlines.net...


CENSORSHIP by litigation ...


Yeah, like that lawsuit isn't going to get thrown out.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




So you are now doing what you are accusing ME of doing. You are holding me to a standard in your head (even though you aren't agnostic) to how agnostics are supposed to behave and judging me for not living up to it, while I do the same to Christians. Pretty nice how that works.



See now that's as slick as a salesman could ever dream of being. But no!
As my edit says above, I would much rather see you more aware ( of how it makes you look )
than sorry. I've had my say.
edit on Rpm70915v51201500000040 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
AND here we go people...dailyheadlines.net...


CENSORSHIP by litigation ...


Yeah, like that lawsuit isn't going to get thrown out.


The story is from 2008 it was already thrown out.

The site he is using reprints old news like it is new.
edit on 9-7-2015 by grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

I cant wait til gun owners start suing theatres, and coffee shops, and schools.

For being refused service.
edit on 9-7-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'm suing everybody for one point to million dollars.
Not pratronizing my yard sale and make'n me go
all belly up.
edit on Rpm70915v25201500000016 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Right because Guns are people...

Refusing a Person

Telling a person they Can't carry a Gun(Object) in a store but that person is still allowed.. oh unless the are Gay

Logic sounds right



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   


"It was stated previously" is a really reliable source! I submit that you either don't understand or are choosing to ignore the meaning of public entity (as used here, colloquially) or more appropriately, a business open to the public. A business is private in the sense you're trying to claim only if it announces that it is a club, requiring membership, that does not serve the general public.
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wasn't purporting it as a source, but merely referring to the fact that I had only just pointed it out, previously. And It continues to be true that there is no legal source nor holding that validates your claim that being open to the public makes one a public entity. The entire point, which you appear to have misunderstood, is that it is a private entity in a legal sense. Whether you consider it to be, "colloquially", is absolutely irrelevant.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join