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

It's bizarre. You admire Moore BECAUSE he opposes the Constitution and wants a tyranny of the majority. Why should you object to other people saying as much ?

quote:

---

I think it's the SCOTUS who are acting unconstitutionally by calling the vote by state citizens unconstitutional

---

Perhaps you can explain where the Constitution says that popular votes can override rights guaranteed by the Constitution.Until you can do that your opinion remains just a personal opinion without any grounding in reality.

Not much there other than an appeal to mob rule. Session,s comments apply at least a strongly to inter-racial marriage, but nobody says that Loving was decided wrongly.The legal and moral case for gay marriage is unanswerable. And that is why it is winning In the courts.

I'd love to know how Chris Pinto claims that the arguments for gay rights are the same as those for slavery. Dare you tell us? The States Rights argument, for instance, seems to point the other way...

quote:

---

Forcing it down our throats is the main similarity, having no respect whatever for the majority, which believe it or not IS supposed to rule in this country according to the Constitution, with minority rights also respected

---

So, no significant similarities then. Especially as this is about refusing to respect minority rights.

quote:

---

But what's happening in this case is the minority is ruling the rest of us. Driving Christians out of business is tyranny of the minority

---

The legalisation of gay marriage and the laws that prevent businesses from discriminating are separate issues. (Though I note that in both cases it is your side that takes a position similar to the racists, if you or Chris Pinto really think that that matters) . Besides, it is hard to say that a majority favour denying services to gays, and even if they did it's not a law targeting Christians specifically, any more than the same laws targeted Christians when they outlawed refusal to provide services to negroes.

The only people who will predictably refuse to provide services to gays are anti-gay bigots. And given the number of Muslim countries with the death penalty for homosexuality,I very much doubt that that is restricted to Christians.

quote:

---

"Anti-gay bigot." Right

---

It would seem to be an accurate description.

quote:

---

vermin and cockroaches. Right.

---

That's more your thinking

quote:

---

People who know from God's word that homosexuality is a sin and marriage is for a man and a woman

---

No. You'll note that neither the law nor I precribe penalties for belief.

quote:

---

. Right, just anti-gay bigots who have no right to go on earning a living in the supposedly freest nation in the world. Ha ha ha.

---

Again, I've never said that anti-discrimination laws are unquestionably right. You're the one who refused to discuss the matter. And you quite happily accept the same laws when they targeted those Christians who "knew" that God wanted the races to stay apart.And I might add that as a self-styled "Bible believing Christian" you seem oddly unwilling to follow the Bible when it says that you should follow the law, or give any good reason why you should not.

quote:

---

It used to be the case before the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

Passed in 1868. So you'd think that a judge would know about it.

quote:

---

But when such penalties are the result of the law you attack the believer anyway.

---

But the believer is not being attacked. Indeed crafting a law to attack believers IS against the First Amendment. But we have good reasons to think that has not happened in this case. Extending a protection guaranteed to some minorities to another which has been and still is the victim of discrimination is eminently reasonable in itself. The fact that you don't like this particular minority is not relevant, no matter how important it is to you.

There's no doubt that gays are a minority. There is no doubt that they have been and still are discriminated against. These are simple facts. You are the one being arbitrary here.

quote:

---

Activist in this case means acting against the Constitution. The two you are calling activist are acting in favor of the ConstitutIon

---

Really? Where does the Constitution say that local officials can override Constituional rights, or can refuse to obey the Federal courts in Constitutional matters?

quote:

---

Nazis are a minority too. So are pedophiles.

---

Nazis are a political grouping and rather more likely to be discriminating against then discriminated against.Paedophiles are also not protected for good reasons.

quote:

---

Until very very recently even nonChristians considered homosexuality to be either sin or an aberrant condition. The idea that they are an oppressed minority is very recent and it is evil.

---

It may be a recent notion but it is still true, and the evil comes from denying it.The fact that you regard homosexuality as sinful is not a reason for the government to deny homosexuals legal protection. Just as the idea that negroes are subject to the Curse of Ham, or that the Jews are plotting to destroy civilisation are not good reasons for the government to allow discrimination against them.

quote:

---

Since I'm talking about what the Bible says it IS a reason for the government to deny, not "legal protection" which they already have, but the special status they demand as equal to heterosexuals in deserving marriage

---

There you go confusing the issues again.The legal protection is the inclusion of homosexuals in the anti-discrimination laws. And you ARE complaining very bitterly about that - for no valid reason as you've proven again and again.But since you bring up the subject, equality is NOT a "special status" as any sensible person would agree.The Bible is NOT a valid reason in U.S. law, because that WOULD be establishment of religion, forbidden by the Constitution.

quote:

---

And up until quite recently the government would have agreed.

---

Then it's good that the U.S. is finally respecting the ideals of the Constitution. Patriotic Americans should be celebrating.

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.

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.