Summations Only

If anti-gay discrimination is a thing of the past, how is it that an elected state legislature would have the votes to pass a pro-discrimination bill?

Please cite the verse where it says that taking pictures of homosexuals or baking them a cake is promoting homosexuality.

Freedom of conscience does not allow you to discriminate as part of your business. You can't deny inter-racial couples a bed a hotel just because you think inter-racial marriages are wrong.You are free to differ, but you aren't free to discriminate.

Baloney. I bet nearly every one of them would be re-elected if they kept supporting the bill. These bills are coming forward in multiple states (including my own) because there is wide spread public support for discrimination against gays.

Bigotry against christianity? Not even. There are christians who support gay rights and are against bills like the one that nearly passed in Arizona.This is a stand against people who are bigotted towards gays, and it is no different than discrimination against race.

Not between consenting adults, no.

I've never understood why people think there is a link between pedophilia and homosexuality. One is not the other. If you support the right of a man and a women to marry, should I also assume that you support a 40 year old man marrying a 10 year old girl?To be fair, you have not equated the two, but I have seen a lot of people claim that if you are for gay rights then you must also be for pedophile rights. Never understood that one.

If you can not, in good conscience, bake cakes for the public in accordance with laws, THEN DON'T BE IN THE CAKE BUSINESS. It is a really simple concept. No one is dictating what a person's conscience should be. The state is not forcing you to be in the cake business or wedding photography business, as two examples. If you operate those businesses, you are doing so of your own free will, and in doing so you take on the rules that the state sets out for those businesses. The bigots are the ones who want businesses to treat everyone equally, and not discriminate? Really?Were the bigots the ones who desegregated the South against the conscience of white Southerners?

Since when does religious liberty mean that you can force others to abide by your religious beliefs? It doesn't. It never has. If you are part of the Aryan Nation Church (which is a real church) you can not deny people access to your hotel because of your race, even though it goes against your religious beliefs to treat people of color equally.

This nation has done so from the very beginning. According to the Constitution, you are free to break the following biblical laws:1. Work on the Sabbath.
2. Eat shellfish
3. Wear clothes of mixed fibers
4. Worship idols
5. Take the Lord's name in vain
6. Worship other gods besides the Abrahamic one
7. Not believe in godsI could list many, many more. In the end, we have always had a government that allows people to make moral decisions for themselves and not have it lorded over them by members of a religion they don't belong to.Can you tell us why people in a free country should be forced to live by the edicts of a religion they don't belong to?

The Ten Commandments say that you shall not worship idols. Our US Constitution says that you can worship idols if you please.The Ten Commandments say that you shall not take the Lord's name in vain. Our US Constitution says that you have freedom of speech, which includes blasphemy.The Ten Commandments say that you shall not worship any other gods other than the Abrahamic God. The US Consititution says that you can worship whatever god or gods you want.Are you starting to see a disconnect here?

It would be nice if you would understand that the US is not a theocracy.

I would still like you to explain why people in a free country should have to follow the edicts of a religion that they don't belong to.

quote:

---

Adventists were influential in the redevelopment of creationism in the 20th Century. Seventh-day Adventist geologist George McCready Price was responsible for reviving flood geology in the early 20th century. He was quoted heavily by William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Monkey Trial. His ideas were later borrowed by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb for their landmark 1961 creationist text The Genesis Flood.[117] The Morris and Whitcomb position is distinct from Seventh-day Adventism because they postulate both a young earth and a young universe.[118]

​

About the time that The Genesis Flood was having a large impact in the evangelical world, a number of progressive Adventist scholars educated in secular universities began promoting Theistic Evolution.[119][120] Some Progressive Adventists no longer hold the literal view of Genesis 1.[121]

​

In 2009, the Seventh-day Adventist Church held an international creation emphasis day as part of a "worldwide denominational celebration of the biblical account of creation."[122] The event was part of a church initiative to underscore its commitment to a literal creation model.[122] In 2010, the World Seventh-day Adventist Church's highest ecclesiastical body, the World General Conference Session, officially reaffirmed the Church's position in support of a literal six-day creation week.[123]
Seventh-day Adventist theology - Wikipedia

---

One of the "abberant" teachings of Ellen White is that Genesis be taken literally, and at her urging the modern creationist movement was born.

It really shows the position for what it is. People actually feel discriminated against if they aren't allowed to punish people for not following their religious beliefs.