Who are you or the state to dictate to a person's conscience?
It is not dictating conscience, it is dictating behaviour.
It is perfectly fine to imagine smashing someone's window in, but not to actually do it.
It's not thought police: it's behaviour police.
I can only hope Christians will have the backbone to choose God over all these forces of bigotry against them no matter what the consequences.
Back to having the right not to be forced not to die, again? So soon?
So we go out of business then and have to live on the streets. Same difference.
But, you said Christians were willing to die rather than bake cakes for the gays?
So dying is fine but being poor and destitute is not?
Edited by Larni, : Most of the time I just stream stuff off of the Inter Nets
Edited by Larni, : Or torrent it.
Edited by Larni, : But I try to pay for things more these days.
Edited by Larni, : Since I turned forty I'm trying to be more upstanding
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
™ Version 4.2
