Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Marriage to a non virgin calls for stoning in the bible. Divorce is prohibited for any reason except infidelity in the bible. Following any god but the god of the bible is against the first commandment.
Unless she also refuses those then she is cherry picking.
Please provide the chapter and verses for your allegations. YOU are cherry picking without context.
Also, please provide PROOF that this florist did provide services to these particular people, so that there is a basis for your argument that she is guilty of "cherry picking." Otherwise, you are just conjecturing and stating your opinion as fact....and slandering the florist in the process.
The fact pattern of that case is irrelevant to the facts in this case. Here, the issue is whether a religious person must be forced to violate their religious beliefs by exerting their creative and artistic labor in support of a specific activity deemed a sin by every recognized major world religion.
The case you cite involved an individual claiming his right to smoke peyote at work. There was no demand on him to use his creativity and artistic labor in support of a defined sin that violated his religious beliefs and moral conscience.
Check out Native American Church of NY v. US (1979) or People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716.
Scalia's decision was correct in that case, but it is irrelevant to the facts in this case.
.
simple. go into a business where you can fully support your own bigotry. but if you pick a store open to the public, you are subject to the law of the land that says you can't discriminate.
if a person is so against serving gays (or any other person he might not like for whatever reason) then they should not open a retail business open to the public in the US.
this has nothing to do with freedom of religion it has to do with hatred and bigotry.
simple. go into a business where you can fully support your own bigotry. but if you pick a store open to the public, you are subject to the law of the land that says you can't discriminate.
if a person is so against serving gays (or any other person he might not like for whatever reason) then they should not open a retail business open to the public in the US.
this has nothing to do with freedom of religion it has to do with hatred and bigotry.
Well in her defense, these rules weren't exactly contested 40 years ago when she opened it. But yes, she needs to follow the law regardless of how long she's been doing it.
Please provide the chapter and verses for your allegations. YOU are cherry picking without context.
Also, please provide PROOF that this florist did provide services to these particular people, so that there is a basis for your argument that she is guilty of "cherry picking." Otherwise, you are just conjecturing and stating your opinion as fact....and slandering the florist in the process.
I'll answer here.
Quote:
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
It's there in the quoted section.
Here is the 1st commandment with the associated punishments.
Quote:
1st. Commandment, Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”.
Old Testament punishments:
Deuteronomy 17:1-5 “And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heavens, which I have not commanded. Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God."
Exodus 22:20 “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed”.
New Testament punishment
Mark 16:16 “He that believeth not, shall be damned”.
The fact pattern of that case is irrelevant to the facts in this case. Here, the issue is whether a religious person must be forced to violate their religious beliefs by exerting their creative and artistic labor in support of a specific activity deemed a sin by every recognized major world religion.
The case you cite involved an individual claiming his right to smoke peyote at work. There was no demand on him to use his creativity and artistic labor in support of a defined sin that violated his religious beliefs and moral conscience.
Check out Native American Church of NY v. US (1979) or People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716.
Scalia's decision was correct in that case, but it is irrelevant to the facts in this case.
1. They were not smoking peyote at work or anywhere else.
2. They ingested peyote at a religious ceremony at their church.
3. they were fired because they took part in this religious ceremony at their church not because they were smoking anything at work.
We're at the point where neither Congress nor most states want gays Added as a protected class under anti-discrimination laws.
If not for judicial decisions, wethepeople wouldn't be recognizing ssm in most states.
Exactly, because it is unconstitutional for the legislature to make laws that give special privileges to certain groups, they MUST rely on activist judges to rubber stamp these kinds of issues by making up support out of whole cloth.
Homosexuals always want to compare their wants with the struggles of black Americans, yet the protections for black Americans are reflected in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Because the special privileges sought by homosexuals are not Constitutionally warranted, they HAVE to get their way through the courts and not through legislation. Just another special privilege for a very special victim class.
1. They were not smoking peyote at work or anywhere else.
2. They ingested peyote at a religious ceremony at their church.
3. they were fired because they took part in this religious ceremony at their church not because they were smoking anything at work.
And I am sure you agree with that decision, since you think someone's religious rights end at the church door.
Again, that case is irrelevant. The person was not forced to violate his religious beliefs against his will. He was fired for having peyote in his system at work. No one forced him to violate his religious beliefs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
