You read Aramaic? If not, I believe every other version of the bible is an interpretation, subject to the prejudices of the ones who interpreted it.

I insult you personally because we have courteously allowed you left wing idiots to dominate the conversation for way too long. Your ideas are proven not to work. Are proven to cause human pain and suffering every where they are tried. And yet you assholes keep pushing it. "We are smarter. We can get it right this time." Is the mantra of the left.

Your ideas are not worth consideration. You are to be laughed at, ridiculed and pushed into the dust bin of history, just as are your stupid, leftist ideas. We no longer have time to be civil. Your kind is well on the way to destroying this Constitutional Republic. You must be beaten, crushed, destroyed, immediately.

Well said! I would never deny a service of work to anyone because of discrimination of what makes them happy. No matter what God or conscience we choice in the regards for happiness. We only live once as I believe in and true Christianity is not to be judge for the raft of God will come back to to be judged on their doings. Open arms is what he gives us and we are all brothers and sisters according to the beginning of our time. God made woman from a.....man. Never take work home and never be compromised in your own beliefs. Lesson well learned I say from self experience. Black and white same as good and evil, no room for average when you can always be above!

Below you will find the reiteration of certain points regarding the so-called "Anti-gay AZ law" from the three of the links I provided in another thread. I feel it would be good to review how other Christians perceive this question. A little time to look at each might help in understanding.

1. "It’s not that these rights don’t matter. Rather, they should be a SECONDARY ISSUE for Christians.
Before considering legal rights, Christians wrestling with this issue must first resolve the primary issue of whether the Bible calls Christians to deny services to people who are engaging in behavior they believe violates the teachings of Christianity regarding marriage. The answer is, it does not."


2. "Nor does the Bible teach that providing such a service should be construed as participation or affirmation. Yet Christian conservatives continue to claim that it does. So it seems that the backers of these bills don’t actually believe what they are saying. Because if they truly believe that a vendor service is an affirmation, then they need to explain why it is only gay and lesbian weddings that violate their conscience.
"Before agreeing to provide a good or service for a wedding, Christian vendors must verify that both future spouses have had genuine conversion experiences and are “equally yoked” (2 Corinthians 6:14) or they will be complicit with joining righteousness with unrighteousness. They must confirm that neither spouse has been unbiblically divorced (Matthew 19). If one has been divorced, vendors should ask why. Or perhaps you don’t even have to ask. You may already know that the couple’s previous marriages ended because they just decided it wasn’t working, not because there were biblical grounds for divorce. In which case, you can’t provide them a service if you believe such a service is affirming their union."
here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/conservative-christians-selectively-appl...

3. As our culture wars progress, we’re apparently supposed to stake out purist territory, declare “Here I stand, I can do no other” and then battle relentlessly; since we’re all completely and 100% certain of the rightness of our positions — every one of ‘em — we battle in absolutes. Things are so black and white that shades of grey do not exist and therefore there is no need to listen to an opponent, no need to even state his argument back to him to his satisfaction before telling him why he’s wrong. There is only the thrust and the parry. And the thrust. And the thrust. And the damnable thrust.
More importantly, and absent any specific argument, to chip away at the value of individual conscience could lead us where we do not wish to go, a place where individual actions are trumped by erroneous consensus. Rosa Parks followed her conscience. The Stonewall protesters followed their consciences. People willing to toss the importance of individual conscience into the wind should bear in mind that they might want to claim it for themselves someday, and not be able to."


4. "While Jesus socialized with those the temple priests would condemn, and healed the “unclean” lepers, he used those opportunities to teach about the love of God and the wideness of God’s mercy. . .Jesus’ service, then, was a means to gentle evangelization and that is perhaps something these Christian businessmen and women should consider, even if it seems counterintuitive to the character of evangelization, as Americans understand it. . . baking a cake for a same-sex wedding, even if one does not agree with the concept, may well come under the heading of walking along a road for two miles with someone who “presses you into service” for one. That jibes, I think, with a similar theological point being made by Baylor University’s David Garland: ‘How can you witness to someone to whom you will not serve?’"

5. "I have reveled in the fast-paced give-and-take of the internet for many years, but increasingly, no one is listening to anyone. There is no more give-and-take, there is only take-and-shove-down.
I’m beginning to hate it. It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt."
link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/02/26/culture-wars-its-all-fun-and-games-u...


6. "That is why we need to ask other questions. We also need to ask whether a particular organization is already applying religious principles in their business, or have just begun invoking them now when they have happily taken money from all sorts of people in the past. That's what I really want to know in this case. As far as I know, we have not seen these caterers and others like them insisting on their right to refuse to provide for other groups whose weddings are at odds with the teachings of the Bible. Why has it only come up in connection with catering for gays and lesbians?
My guess is because what matters to them is not following all the teachings of their religious texts, or consistency on religious objections, but a deep dislike for gays and lesbians that they do not feel towards those who violate the first two commandments, or Jesus' teaching on divorce."

7. "That dislike, when it is allowed to dictate how you treat others and whether you provide the services that your company offers, is what is known as discrimination. That it is motivated by religion does not matter (except to make it all the more reprehensible). Your right to discriminate in this way is not safeguarded by the first amendment. And treating your being prevented from discriminating against others as though that were discrimination against your freedom to discriminate is despicable."
A copy and paste from this link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/02/gay-wedding-cake-discrimination.h...

Below you will find the reiteration of certain points regarding the so-called "Anti-gay AZ law" from the three of the links I provided in another thread. I feel it would be good to review how other Christians perceive this question. A little time to look at each might help in understanding.

1. "It’s not that these rights don’t matter. Rather, they should be a SECONDARY ISSUE for Christians.
Before considering legal rights, Christians wrestling with this issue must first resolve the primary issue of whether the Bible calls Christians to deny services to people who are engaging in behavior they believe violates the teachings of Christianity regarding marriage. The answer is, it does not."


2. "Nor does the Bible teach that providing such a service should be construed as participation or affirmation. Yet Christian conservatives continue to claim that it does. So it seems that the backers of these bills don’t actually believe what they are saying. Because if they truly believe that a vendor service is an affirmation, then they need to explain why it is only gay and lesbian weddings that violate their conscience.
"Before agreeing to provide a good or service for a wedding, Christian vendors must verify that both future spouses have had genuine conversion experiences and are “equally yoked” (2 Corinthians 6:14) or they will be complicit with joining righteousness with unrighteousness. They must confirm that neither spouse has been unbiblically divorced (Matthew 19). If one has been divorced, vendors should ask why. Or perhaps you don’t even have to ask. You may already know that the couple’s previous marriages ended because they just decided it wasn’t working, not because there were biblical grounds for divorce. In which case, you can’t provide them a service if you believe such a service is affirming their union."
here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/conservative-christians-selectively-appl...

3. As our culture wars progress, we’re apparently supposed to stake out purist territory, declare “Here I stand, I can do no other” and then battle relentlessly; since we’re all completely and 100% certain of the rightness of our positions — every one of ‘em — we battle in absolutes. Things are so black and white that shades of grey do not exist and therefore there is no need to listen to an opponent, no need to even state his argument back to him to his satisfaction before telling him why he’s wrong. There is only the thrust and the parry. And the thrust. And the thrust. And the damnable thrust.
More importantly, and absent any specific argument, to chip away at the value of individual conscience could lead us where we do not wish to go, a place where individual actions are trumped by erroneous consensus. Rosa Parks followed her conscience. The Stonewall protesters followed their consciences. People willing to toss the importance of individual conscience into the wind should bear in mind that they might want to claim it for themselves someday, and not be able to."


4. "While Jesus socialized with those the temple priests would condemn, and healed the “unclean” lepers, he used those opportunities to teach about the love of God and the wideness of God’s mercy. . .Jesus’ service, then, was a means to gentle evangelization and that is perhaps something these Christian businessmen and women should consider, even if it seems counterintuitive to the character of evangelization, as Americans understand it. . . baking a cake for a same-sex wedding, even if one does not agree with the concept, may well come under the heading of walking along a road for two miles with someone who “presses you into service” for one. That jibes, I think, with a similar theological point being made by Baylor University’s David Garland: ‘How can you witness to someone to whom you will not serve?’"

5. "I have reveled in the fast-paced give-and-take of the internet for many years, but increasingly, no one is listening to anyone. There is no more give-and-take, there is only take-and-shove-down.
I’m beginning to hate it. It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt."
link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/02/26/culture-wars-its-all-fun-and-games-u...


6. "That is why we need to ask other questions. We also need to ask whether a particular organization is already applying religious principles in their business, or have just begun invoking them now when they have happily taken money from all sorts of people in the past. That's what I really want to know in this case. As far as I know, we have not seen these caterers and others like them insisting on their right to refuse to provide for other groups whose weddings are at odds with the teachings of the Bible. Why has it only come up in connection with catering for gays and lesbians?
My guess is because what matters to them is not following all the teachings of their religious texts, or consistency on religious objections, but a deep dislike for gays and lesbians that they do not feel towards those who violate the first two commandments, or Jesus' teaching on divorce."

7. "That dislike, when it is allowed to dictate how you treat others and whether you provide the services that your company offers, is what is known as discrimination. That it is motivated by religion does not matter (except to make it all the more reprehensible). Your right to discriminate in this way is not safeguarded by the first amendment. And treating your being prevented from discriminating against others as though that were discrimination against your freedom to discriminate is despicable."
A copy and paste from this link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/02/gay-wedding-cake-discrimination.h...

The odd thing is, since I "do" have gay friends, and while I can't speak for the entire gay community, I can say that "my" gay friends are all inclusive. All they want to do is lead "normal" lives and they wish to not be considered "alien". I've never heard any of these friends, several who own their own businesses, even voice anything remotely discriminatory towards "straight" individuals which would make a case of the kind you described above rather unlikely to occur in the first place. Oh, guess I forgot to mention that I'm more or less liberal, but then you probably surmised that any way. :lol:

Of course, when I lived in Hawaii, and would be invited to parties in the community, folks would forget that I was a haole, and in the middle of a story putting down non-locals, would suddenly realize the content of their story, and would say "oh, we don't mean 'you'", making me laugh. I can't say that my friends from "the community" don't disparage straight folks, but I would lay you odds that they don't.