SCOTUS on religious liberty [relevant to recent decision on same-sex marriage]

[autumnnight]

No. We need to pray... that YOU never get sued, fined or gagged for what YOU think, believe and live by.

 

 

People, follow me here:

 

The details of a lawsuit are not Scripture. They are not tenets of faith. They are legal proceedings.

 

No, One. Is. Being. Sued. To. Keep. Them. From. Sharing. The. Gospel.

 

It is not the same thing.

 

I AM praying. I am praying II Chron 7:14.

 

I'm also praying that Christians would read their Bibles and focus on what Christ actually TOLD us to do instead of going all histrionic and - quite frankly - embarrassing over their faulty understanding of issues.

[autumnnight]

Yet they are prohibited.

 

Is the lawsuit still going?

 

Prohibited from sharing what religious thought? How are they being prohibited from RELIGIOUS expression. My Bible doesn't have "the gospel of court transcripts" in it.

[UpwardForward]

Prohibited from sharing what religious thought? How are they being prohibited from RELIGIOUS expression. My Bible doesn't have "the gospel of court transcripts" in it.

 

Is the lawsuit still going?

 

Yet they are prohibited from saying certain things, incl their opinions?

 

Most importantly, their religious freedom has been taken from them, and they have been fined.

Edited July 11, 2015 by UpwardForward

[pureinheart]

People, follow me here:

 

The details of a lawsuit are not Scripture. They are not tenets of faith. They are legal proceedings.

 

No, One. Is. Being. Sued. To. Keep. Them. From. Sharing. The. Gospel.

 

It is not the same thing.

 

I AM praying. I am praying II Chron 7:14.

 

I'm also praying that Christians would read their Bibles and focus on what Christ actually TOLD us to do instead of going all histrionic and - quite frankly - embarrassing over their faulty understanding of issues.

 

Wow... they are being sued because of the gospel. I suggest you follow your own advice. You know, I don't get where you're coming from and see you taking 180's on many issues and then back again. You support the very things that you pray against.

 

The Scripture you cite- https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+7:14 is speaking to believers who agree with issues such as this one... to turn from your wicked ways... and so on.

Edited July 11, 2015 by pureinheart

[pureinheart]

Prohibited from sharing what religious thought? How are they being prohibited from RELIGIOUS expression. My Bible doesn't have "the gospel of court transcripts" in it.

 

I think you're splitting hairs here just to be right. They are Christians under a gag order for taking a Christian stand.

[autumnnight]

Wow... they are being sued because of the gospel. I suggest you follow your own advice. You know, I don't get where you're coming from and see you taking 180's on many issues and then back again. You support the very things that you pray against.

 

The Scripture you cite- https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+7:14 is speaking to believers who agree with issues such as this one... to turn from your wicked ways... and so on.

 

Here is the Gospel:

 

God sent His Son

He lived a sinless life

He died to pay the penalty for our sin

He rose on the third day

Because of His sacrifice, we can have eternal life

 

Which part of that are they prohibited from sharing?

 

And were they sued for believing homosexuality is a sin, or were they sued for not baking a cake?

[autumnnight]

II Chron starts out If MY people...not talking about telling non-believers what to do.

 

Sorry.

 

Look I get the outrage over sin being normalized/legalized.

 

But the bottom line is that you are misinterpreting Scripture.

 

I know, I really get under the skin of knee-jerk Christians because I usually know the Bible better than they do.

 

The reason I am harping on this is because when people falsely define persecution and make a stink over things that are inaccurate, it undermines our actions when there really IS persecution. Like everyone defending that "poor boy" who wasn;t allowed to read his Bible: It was MATH class and he was supposed to be doing math work.

[UpwardForward]

The old age old argument regarding who is the most religious.

 

In my mind, I usually don't challenge someone's Christianity unless something stands out such as their defending abortion. Their political views/preferences, etc.

 

As for God's Word, I have seen atheists who know the Bible well.

 

I just can't see someone telling Christians to stuff cotton in their mouths, unless they have their own reasons for silencing them.

[autumnnight]

The old age old argument regarding who is the most religious.

 

In my mind, I usually don't challenge someone's Christianity unless something stands out such as their defending abortion. Their political views/preferences, etc.

 

As for God's Word, I have seen atheists who know the Bible well.

 

I just can't see someone telling Christians to stuff cotton in their mouths, unless they have their own reasons for silencing them.

 

 

Knowing the Bible doesn't make anyone more spiritual. LIVING the Bible personally is the test.

 

As a teenager I realized that I could not live on my own in the way that I had been. I knew I was a sinner in need of God's grace. I repented of my sin and commit my life to the Lord Jesus Christ. Since then, I have not been perfect, but I seek to live as He as commanded ME to live and be a light in the way He intends. I am prolife, I believe in the infallibility of God's Word, and I grieve over my own sin and the sin that hurts others.

 

But if you choose to believe I am not your sister in Christ because I do not agree with you about a bakery, feel free. I'll try to avoid you in Heaven so you won;t have to be embarrassed.

 

I am not out of this thread, since a man/woman who doesn't even know me has basically accused me of being an atheist.

[Keenly]

As autumn keeps saying, they are not barred from speaking about their faith, only the case itself. That's pretty normal in a high profile case, you're just mad that the case happens to involve religion.

 

 

 

If Im gag ordered not to talk about a car accident, that doesn't mean I can't talk about driving or racing, or parking, or OTHER car accidents.

 

 

I just can't talk about the one I had a court case over.

[pureinheart]

As autumn keeps saying, they are not barred from speaking about their faith, only the case itself. That's pretty normal in a high profile case, you're just mad that the case happens to involve religion.

 

 

 

If Im gag ordered not to talk about a car accident, that doesn't mean I can't talk about driving or racing, or parking, or OTHER car accidents.

 

 

I just can't talk about the one I had a court case over.

 

They are in the context of this case. The context of this case is their faith.

[Keenly]

They are in the context of this case. The context of this case is their faith.

 

Shouldn't have violated the law then, should they? It's not like they were in the right. State constitution said no discrimation. They discriminated. They suffered for It. I see nothing wrong with it.

[pureinheart]

Here is the Gospel:

 

God sent His Son

He lived a sinless life

He died to pay the penalty for our sin

He rose on the third day

Because of His sacrifice, we can have eternal life

 

Which part of that are they prohibited from sharing?

 

And were they sued for believing homosexuality is a sin, or were they sued for not baking a cake?

 

Ok, you understand and can communicate salvation, which is good...

 

Bold- most likely one in the same.

[Keenly]

Ok, you understand and can communicate salvation, which is good...

 

Bold- most likely one in the same.

 

No, you can't change the situation to suit your narrative. They practiced discrimination on a protected class and shouted it proudly. They broke the law. Period.

[UpwardForward]

Knowing the Bible doesn't make anyone more spiritual. LIVING the Bible personally is the test.

 

As a teenager I realized that I could not live on my own in the way that I had been. I knew I was a sinner in need of God's grace. I repented of my sin and commit my life to the Lord Jesus Christ. Since then, I have not been perfect, but I seek to live as He as commanded ME to live and be a light in the way He intends. I am prolife, I believe in the infallibility of God's Word, and I grieve over my own sin and the sin that hurts others.

 

But if you choose to believe I am not your sister in Christ because I do not agree with you about a bakery, feel free. I'll try to avoid you in Heaven so you won;t have to be embarrassed.

 

I am not out of this thread, since a man/woman who doesn't even know me has basically accused me of being an atheist.

 

This is more than the bakery. You are constantly chastising Christians on here.

 

You just sent me a pm - telling me off, and w/o opportunity to enter my response.

 

So much for getting your last word.

[pureinheart]

II Chron starts out If MY people...not talking about telling non-believers what to do.

 

Sorry.

 

Look I get the outrage over sin being normalized/legalized.

 

But the bottom line is that you are misinterpreting Scripture.

 

I know, I really get under the skin of knee-jerk Christians because I usually know the Bible better than they do.

 

The reason I am harping on this is because when people falsely define persecution and make a stink over things that are inaccurate, it undermines our actions when there really IS persecution. Like everyone defending that "poor boy" who wasn;t allowed to read his Bible: It was MATH class and he was supposed to be doing math work.

 

You seem to be all over the place on this one. FTR, past posts indicate that you support same sex marriage, abortion and other no brainer stands concerning the Bible. If you like when I have time I can filter through them and remind you. You did not call it 'sin' in previous posts, you staunchly supported the 'act' and rebuked other Christians for their lack of support concerning these matters. Which is it?

 

So you think this court case with the bakery and the fine is a counterfeit to actual persecution. Not so. Deterioration happens slow with certain peoples and matters. Don't you think that from the very beginning of this nation there was a concerted effort to tear Christianity and this nation down? I call this case a major foot in the door if not both feet. The judicial system is the back door.

 

Peoples have tried to overtake this country by force to no avail. In the late 1800's the decision was made to destroy from within... it's taken a good portion of time, but their patience payed off - just take a look at the 'progressive' deterioration since the 50's and O's term...wow.

[nittygritty]

Shouldn't have violated the law then, should they? It's not like they were in the right. State constitution said no discrimation. They discriminated. They suffered for It. I see nothing wrong with it.

 

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby "allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

 

Perhaps that has created some confusion.

[pureinheart]

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby "allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

 

Perhaps that has created some confusion.

 

Quite frankly, I think these 'discrimination' laws are out-dated and the SC ruled correctly.

 

Businesses should be able to buy and sell from whom and to whom they choose...

[nittygritty]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances".

 

The Supreme Courts ruling on same sex marriage does not abolish or change the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

[pureinheart]

No, you can't change the situation to suit your narrative. They practiced discrimination on a protected class and shouted it proudly. They broke the law. Period.

 

Of course I disagree with this statement, although (in bold) this is concerning... very concerning. Shouldn't we as 'people' be a protected class? This is discrimination in and of itself.

 

I need to verify this, but I believe it was the gay couple who blew this out of proportion.

Edited July 11, 2015 by pureinheart

[nittygritty]

Quite frankly, I think these 'discrimination' laws are out-dated and the SC ruled correctly.

 

Businesses should be able to buy and sell from whom and to whom they choose...

 

I know that when the government tried to require states to sell the abortion drug Plan B over the counter laws were quickly put in place to prevent that from happening. Kathleen Sebelius may have been the first to stop it. I'm not sure. I'm also not sure whether it ever went to the Supreme Court but "conscience laws" and laws pertaining to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act were put in place in several states to protect pharmacists and store clerks that had religious beliefs opposing abortion from being required to have to sell it.

 

The Supreme Courts ruling on Same Sex marriage should not infringe on the First Amendment IMO.

[Keenly]

Of course I disagree with this statement, although (in bold) this is concerning... very concerning. Shouldn't we as 'people' be a protected class? This is discrimination in and of itself.

 

I need to verify this, but I believe it was the gay couple who blew this out of proportion.

 

So we're blaming the discriminated for being discriminates, and your questioning the existence of a protected class, the very existence of which was made necessary by your groups desire to discriminate against them.

 

 

Okay...

[pureinheart]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances".

 

The Supreme Courts ruling on same sex marriage does not abolish or change the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

 

I believe no matter what the entire Constitution is being chipped away at via the Supremes.

 

IMO same sex marriage is a moral issue and I believe it has opened the door to many perversions, with the exception of pornography which probably opened that door.

[Keenly]

Quite frankly, I think these 'discrimination' laws are out-dated and the SC ruled correctly.

 

Businesses should be able to buy and sell from whom and to whom they choose...

 

So people.should be able to refuse service to black people, gay people, and women right?

 

I can't imagine why anyone would want discrimination to.be legal, unless they intended to discriminate..

[pureinheart]

So we're blaming the discriminated for being discriminates, and your questioning the existence of a protected class, the very existence of which was made necessary by your groups desire to discriminate against them.

 

 

Okay...

 

Wow ... to disagree with is the same as to discriminate against- now your playing games.