Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.

Why did you not say this when you first came to EvC? It would have saved you a lot of time trying to persuade people that you are right through discussion.

Are you claiming that there are people in the US today that can actually read that silly list without breaking out into laughter?

Did you notice that in your long copy-paste about the comparisons between Nazis and the US, there was zero mention of homosexuality, in general, and gay marriage, in particular, being a cause gaining a lot of traction within the country. In fact, the Nazis tended to act toward what I could see many fundamentalists arguing in favor of, and in fact I do see it happening in other countries, which is executing homosexuals. Doesn't compelling people to comply to a societal norm sound familiar right now? Is it those who are trying to give homosexuals the same rights as everyone else that are really the best compared to Nazis, Faith? Wiki: Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi GermanyBTW - I don't agree with comparing either of the groups to Nazis because it belittles the terrible treatment of human beings that took place during that time and place. While your group may share some ideas, such as forcing individuals to conform to your group's personal concept of normal, you fundamentalists are in no way comparable to the evil that existed during that time. Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

So the only way for me to know whether something is biblical or not is to ask Faith, is that it?

I explored a very similar issue with you in another thread, and you gave a very similar non-answer.You have beliefs that you did not arrive at by any rational chain of reasoning, so the flaws and fallacies of your after the fact rationalizations are readily apparent, and when they're called to your attention you fall back on, "Trust me, I know."But almost your every message is full of errors and fallacies. You know what you believe, but you seem to know or accept little about the real world. You live in a fantasyland and have taken on the impossible task of convincing everyone else that it is real.--Percy

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence: --Percy

Of course Faith has no principles to guide interpretation other than "Faith is right" - she starts with the conclusion and attempts to justify it. A method antithetical to the search for truth.Someone who does care about what the Bible actually says might note that baking the cake does not directly violate the proscriptions Faith chooses to point to. Not baking the cake, on the other hand, does directly violate the instruction to follow the law. Saying that the proscriptions which do not even directly apply should override an instruction which DOES directly apply requires more than a "trust me, I know" argument. Even if it did not come from someone who has already demonstrated a poor understanding of the Bible.

Not surprising since you actually do not understand the issues. Really, Faith, this should not be this difficult to comprehend.In the case of the NAZI asking for objectionable decoration, which is a situation you brought up, I pointed out that any objections you may have to providing this is most appropriately a speech issue not a religion issue. There exists a clear and unambiguous right, in the "free speech" clause, to refuse.I took away the offending decorations with no sign of political thought from the customer and asked if you think you have any right to ask about any political affiliation. The answer that should have come from you is, "No."The reason is because without a justifiable legally recognized reason you have no right to refuse.I then turned the table to the wedding cake.This is the fine line which escapes you because of your religious blindness.Without knowing the customer was gay you had no objection to service. Since the request involved no special decorations this takes away any possibility of a free speech objection. Now you find out the customer is gay. You think the First Amendment "freedom of religion" clause gives you some right to be bigoted, hateful and refuse this service. It does not!Even with state laws saying such religious objections are legal, when a child dies because the parents refused to seek medical help based on their religious objection the parents go to jail!When bigamists take multiple wives or under-aged wives claiming justification on religious grounds they go to jail!When Christian preachers refuse to pay taxes claiming religious reasons they go to jail!.The First Amendment, Faith, does NOT give religion carte blanche to justify actions that are considered illegal or abhorrent in this society. The First Amendment, Faith, does not give Christians carte blanche to be bigoted and hateful towards ANYONE.You HAVE NO RIGHT regardless of what your abomination of the Christian religion may believe. Fool. We the People have been slowly but surely stepping in the direction of (finally) recognizing gay rights and gay marriage state-by-state for the past 30 years. Yes, with concerted bigoted Christian backlashes, but forward none the less. In the last two years the cause has reached a tipping point with, now, the majority of states and the majority of We the People recognizing that these basic human rights can no longer be denied to ANY American.SCOTUS had plenty of opportunity to take a case and force a decision many times over many years, but there was then no recognizable consensus within the society. There is now. SCOTUS has yet to settle the question with the most obvious, the only, answer possible. That is yet to come. Americans are ready. Court will now act.Society is ready. Court to make shift.Court ready to rule with national consensus.Your abomination of the Christian religion will lose and the First Amendment is NOT there to save you but to save the rest of us FROM you!Edited by AZPaul3, : added citesEdited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Then you and your inflammatory sources do not know a FUCKING thing about the Nazis.How dare you compare this nation, this society, to that disease!

If a flamboyantly gay man walks into a bakery and orders half a dozen cupcakes who is more likely to refuse the order ?A Christian ?orAn anti-gay bigot ?Think about it.

I'll just say it one more time. I have not, nor has any Christian, argued for refusing service to GAYS. This is not about refusing anything but the specific providing of a specific service that legitimizes a specific event, the marriage of two homosexuals. Gays get any service or product anyone else does, just not a product that specifically legitimizes a gay wedding, nor could a heterosexual come in and order a service for a gay wedding. It's about the event, not the persons. Please at least get that much straight for a change.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, AZ, societies do change over time, and that is why the founders expected changes to be made the Constitution over time and made provision for that to occur in a lawful and orderly way, reflecting the changing views of The People. The problem is that changes these days are often being made by an elite cadre rather than by the People, whose views are dismissed out of hand by said elite cadre. Change should reflect the will of the people at large, whose will is NOT represented by SCOTUS' peculiar "evolved" interpretations of the "evolving" Constitution. Clearly the opinion of that part of The People of which I am a part matters not one whit to you or to SCOTUS or to other liberal elements in today's society. You don't even ask how many are represented in the different camps, so sure are you that "progress" is going in your direction and even if you represent only a minority you'd be for that "progress" because, well, YOUR camp has defined it as superior and fair (Politially Correct), so who cares what the rest of us think. You are calling the shots and you are calling us bigots and behind the times and you have the movers and shakers on your side and that's all it seems to take to establish a legal position these days. No need for anything properly democratic here, you just define us out of the picture. You appear to feel quite free to think of society's evolving without our input at all, but that doesn't strike you as even a bit tyrannical?

There are either factual conditions and situations in America over the last decade or so that are similar to those in Nazi Germany in the thirties or there are not. This isn't a "how dare you" matter, it's similarities many people have been observing from different angles for some time now, including some people who lived through the Nazi era IN Germany. I've run across different lists from different sources. Perhaps I'll try to dig some more up.

OK I get your point and I should have avoided bringing up issues that aren't central. The central issue is the Biblical position on gay marriage. However, since it has come up I do think that a business ought to have the right to refuse anything that offends their conscience, such as the request to make a cake with NO writing on it but say a swastika design. Not a speech issue, right? I'm sure there are other symbols that could be offensive to somebody in the same way. Hammer and sickle? Clenched fists for Black Power maybe. I don't know, you name it. Portrait of a smiling Hitler, or Stalin or Mao. Or George Bush? Not free speech though, right? But I think a business should have the right to refuse to create such things. And really, I think most could do that and not be persecuted for it. It's gay marriage that's going to get us persecuted. That's the way it was under the Inquisition too, you know, but of course that wasn't about running a business, but running a person OUT of business for failing to meet a "legal" standard does seem to me to be a fair comparison. Lose your life, lose your business, whatever. In the case of the Inquisition you couldn't deny transubstantiation, that was the "law" of the day. There was no "justifiable legally recognized reason to refuse" the authorities at the time, so off with your head, or your fingers or whatever. I really don't see a whole lot of difference between that and taking away a person's means of livelihood for standing on a conscience-defined position that is opposed to that of the authorities. I already objected to your identifying the Christian position as being against the customer. It's against a specific request for something that celebrates an event that violates the business owner's conscience.But if you would say the same thing even when the terms are clear that we're talking only about refusing to validate an event, it still looks to me like the Powers That Be lording it over the average citizen's conscience and punishing them for having a different opinion than the Powers That Be. Which I would have thought the Bill of Rights was specifically formulated to protect us from. Guess not, huh?Of course I agree with the State about bigamists and people who deny their children medical care and tax evasion, but that's because all those things are in line with my Christian conscience. They represent Christian standards as a matter of fact, though of course some would disagree and would disagree on the grounds of conscience too. But all those things have been clearly defined in American law forever, while gay marriage is a brand-new never-before-heard-of ridiculous "right" that was just about universally unthinkable a short time ago.I haven't missed the point. You are now going to persecute Christians for opposing gay marriage, at least those who happen to be in a business that can be persecuted for acting on their belief, which they will do because the Bible requires it of us. Oh we've seen it coming for a long time.I'm asking what makes those who favor gay marriage "We the People" instead of those who have tried to pass a law against gay marriage in state after state, and VOTED IT IN. Usually indicates a majority doesn't it? You call your team the "majority," but what's your evidence? The People who DON'T want gay marriage in their state and voted against it pretty clearly outnumber those who do, and it's only Political Correctness that denies them their VOTED opinion, not numbers. Right. Except it's not a majority as you claim, it's strictly a political coup, an act of tyranny. You've defined a tiny minority as deserving of rights against the rights of a continuing large number of lawabiding citizens. That's all you've done. It's word magic, redefine things to suit yourself and you can disenfranchise a huge number of citizens and effectively deprive them of citizen status. And that's progress to you, social evolution. Yes, they had to wait for the engines of Political Correctness to do their work and corrupt enough minds to minimize the opposition to their dastardly intentions. A blitz of media propaganda etc and now the time is right.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Bull! You can fly that flag all day long and it still won't flutter.The "event" is a wedding, Faith. Do you have some objection to weddings?No ... unless it involves gays. You object to the people, Faith!