Forcing Christians to Condone Sin is Tyrrany
Jan 2, 2016 02:43:16 #
This article shed some new light into why the Klein's refused to bake a cake altogether. Even if their beliefs are wrong, what they did shouldn't have been sue-able because, at the time, they were complying with state laws. Baking a cake specifically for a homosexual marriage could have gotten them charged with aiding and abetting a crime as homosexual marriages were still illegal in that state when they refused. Anyway, this is an interesting read:
Forcing Christians to condone sin is tyranny
Posted by Bob Livingston Views
The persecution of Christian bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries is not about justice or the rule of law. Its about advancing the perverted agenda of the gay rights crowd and imposing their immorality on everyone.
The Kleins own an Oregon bakery called Sweet Cakes by Melissa. They drew the ire of the gay rights crowd when in January 2013 they declined to make a cake for the so-called wedding of two women: Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman. One month later, the two women filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. At the time, same sex marriage was banned in Oregon. It would be eight months before the state even recognized same sex weddings from other states and more than a year before a federal judge would unconstitutionally strike down Oregons ban on same sex weddings.
In other words, religious convictions aside, the Kleins declined to participate in a practice that was then illegal in their state. Their religious objections to participating in a so-called gay marriage were just icing on the cake, so to speak.
Six months after the complaint, in August 2013, the Bureau of Labor and Industries opened its inquiry. Again, this was before the state even recognized same sex weddings of any kind as legal, which it began doing in October.
In April, as a result of the inquiry, an Oregon administrative law judge who is an employee of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (the importance of this fact is revealed below) recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000 for violating the states public accommodation law by denying Rachel and Laurel full and equal access to their bakery, which the state considers a place of public accommodation.
Last week, the Kleins lawyers requested the case be reopened after public records requests unearthed multiple emails, telephone calls and private meetings between employees of the bureau including its commissioner Brad Avakian, who hires the bureaus administrative law judges and members of Basic Rights Oregon, the states largest gay promoting organization in the state. The communications reveal a very cozy relationship between the bureau and Basic Rights Oregon, and that the gay rights organization was consulting with bureau employees about the case during the inquiry.
The emails also reveal that Avakian purchased tickets costing hundreds of dollars to fundraisers and gay p***e parades to benefit Basic Rights Oregon while the agency was conducting its inquiry. I put quotes around the word inquiry because the whole operation has been revealed as a sham a kangaroo court. Not so coincidentally, Avakian received at least $12,800 in campaign donations from Basic Rights Oregon and its PAC from 2007 to 2014.
And in testimony during the inquiry, Aaron Cryer, Rachaels younger brother who was living with the couple at the time, claimed that a representative of the bureau told him he was unsure on whether or not we should pursue the case right now or wait, just because of marriage e******y in Oregon becoming a thing, and we were looking at the scope as a bigger whole.
Avakian revealed his inherent bias in the case in a Facebook post he made in February 2013. Before he had heard any evidence in the case, Avakian posted a pronoun challenged message claiming: Everyone has a right to their (sic) religious beliefs, but that doesnt mean they (sic) can disobey laws that are already in place. Having one set of rules for everybody ensures that people are treated fairly as they go about their daily lives, and he linked the post to a local news report about a Food Network host offering to make a wedding cake for the couple.
Avakian makes the final ruling in cases for the bureau and has the authority to adopt all or any part of the administrative law judges recommendation regarding the Kleins case. Hes expected to issue his ruling this summer. Clearly, he is incapable of making an impartial decision.
Its also clear that Oregons public accommodations law runs afoul of the states Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In short, its the Kleins religious freedom rights that are being violated.
In Article I of the Oregon Constitution, we find:
Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case wh**ever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
If the Kleins are compelled by the states public accommodation law to violate their religious convictions their rights of conscience against participating in a gay wedding, then that law is illegal because it violates their freedom of worship and freedom of religious opinion rights guaranteed them under sections 1 and 2 of the states Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court and gay marriage
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on gay marriage when it hands down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Regulating marriage is not a power granted (enumerated) to the Federal government in the Constitution. Its not an issue over which the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction.
If the court rules gay marriage is legal, it will destroy the institution of marriage and religious liberty in America. Such a ruling would violate Christians rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment as incorporated by activist judiciaries under the magical 14th Amendment. I would say it would also destroy the rule of law, but all pretenses that America is a nation of laws were dropped long ago.
Plus, the fix on that case is also likely in. Two justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have officiated at gay marriage ceremonies and should have recused themselves from the case. They are anything but impartial arbiters.
In an 1885 decision, the Supreme Court included in its majority opinion in Murphy v. Ramsey that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Part of the decision reads:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.
And in the U.S. v. Windsor case that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court essentially ruled, as Chief Justice John Roberts opined, that DOMA was unconstitutional because it interfered with the states control of marriage.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage would not only overturn 130 years of precedent, it would conflict with a recent prior ruling of the same court. Also, the court is likely to cite the magic 14th Amendments equal protection clause if it so rules.
But the 14th Amendment, which was never constitutionally ratified, had nothing to do with gay marriage nor most of the things for which it is used as justification. The states that did ratify the 14th Amendment all had laws on the books prohibiting sodomy.
Marriage in the U.S. has historically been defined as the monogamous union of one consenting heterosexual male and one consenting heterosexual female. If the court can simply remove one word from that definition in order to redefine marriage for gays and make it also mean to be between two men and/or two women, whats to stop it from removing or redefining the other words to make a marriage a union of two women and one man, three men and one woman, one woman and one dog, one man and two young girls, two women and one computer, or any other combination mans perverted mind can conjure up, just to satisfy some perceived aggrieved class?
The answer: Nothing.
Why the Christian cannot accept gay marriage
Inevitably, conversations on this subject turn to the questions of why cant a Christian accept gay marriage and why cant a Christian participate in a gay wedding by providing a good or service.
God established marriage in Genesis 2 as between one man and one woman:
Then the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him Then the man said,
This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:18, 23-24, ESV)
It was this passage Jesus was quoting in Matthew 19 when he reaffirmed for the Pharisees what makes a lawful and godly marriage in response to their question about divorce.
Many seeking to find justification for their sin claim Jesus never mentioned gay marriage and, therefore, never condemned it. But in affirming what marriage was, Christ eliminated what marriage wasnt.
Jesus spoke several times about fornication, which is a general word covering unlawful (that is Gods law) sexual intercourse outside of its rightful place in the marriage of one man and one woman. He called sex outside lawful marriage sexual immorality in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:1-9. That clearly covers sex between same sex couples and sex between unmarried heterosexual couples whether adultery or fornication.
Jesus also told the disciples in John 14:16-17 that there were concepts and principles he would not address that would be addressed by the Holy Spirit, which would guide the disciples to all t***h. The Holy Spirit guided the authors of the New Testament, so the epistles are an extension of Jesus and, therefore, Gods teaching.
If one dismisses the epistles, or any of the books of the New Testament, then he doesnt believe Jesus and is not a Christian, wh**ever his claims to the contrary.
In writing about homosexuality in Romans 1 (calling it a shameless act) and 1 Corinthians 6 (saying those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom), Paul was writing the word of God as given him by the Holy Spirit, which was by extension the message of Christ. (1 Corinthians 14:36-38)
But Paul also wrote that those who suppress the t***h or ignore Gods righteous decree of the t***h and give approval to those who practice sexual immorality or to a host of other sins mentioned in Scripture are just as guilty as those who practice it.
It is commonly said that Christians are to love the sinner and h**e the sin. That is true. But that does not mean the Christian can condone, accept or participate even tangentially in the sin.
Forcing Christians to do so against their will is tyranny and a violation of their rights under Gods law and natural law.
Forcing Christians to condone sin is tyranny
Posted by Bob Livingston Views
The persecution of Christian bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries is not about justice or the rule of law. Its about advancing the perverted agenda of the gay rights crowd and imposing their immorality on everyone.
The Kleins own an Oregon bakery called Sweet Cakes by Melissa. They drew the ire of the gay rights crowd when in January 2013 they declined to make a cake for the so-called wedding of two women: Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman. One month later, the two women filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. At the time, same sex marriage was banned in Oregon. It would be eight months before the state even recognized same sex weddings from other states and more than a year before a federal judge would unconstitutionally strike down Oregons ban on same sex weddings.
In other words, religious convictions aside, the Kleins declined to participate in a practice that was then illegal in their state. Their religious objections to participating in a so-called gay marriage were just icing on the cake, so to speak.
Six months after the complaint, in August 2013, the Bureau of Labor and Industries opened its inquiry. Again, this was before the state even recognized same sex weddings of any kind as legal, which it began doing in October.
In April, as a result of the inquiry, an Oregon administrative law judge who is an employee of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (the importance of this fact is revealed below) recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000 for violating the states public accommodation law by denying Rachel and Laurel full and equal access to their bakery, which the state considers a place of public accommodation.
Last week, the Kleins lawyers requested the case be reopened after public records requests unearthed multiple emails, telephone calls and private meetings between employees of the bureau including its commissioner Brad Avakian, who hires the bureaus administrative law judges and members of Basic Rights Oregon, the states largest gay promoting organization in the state. The communications reveal a very cozy relationship between the bureau and Basic Rights Oregon, and that the gay rights organization was consulting with bureau employees about the case during the inquiry.
The emails also reveal that Avakian purchased tickets costing hundreds of dollars to fundraisers and gay p***e parades to benefit Basic Rights Oregon while the agency was conducting its inquiry. I put quotes around the word inquiry because the whole operation has been revealed as a sham a kangaroo court. Not so coincidentally, Avakian received at least $12,800 in campaign donations from Basic Rights Oregon and its PAC from 2007 to 2014.
And in testimony during the inquiry, Aaron Cryer, Rachaels younger brother who was living with the couple at the time, claimed that a representative of the bureau told him he was unsure on whether or not we should pursue the case right now or wait, just because of marriage e******y in Oregon becoming a thing, and we were looking at the scope as a bigger whole.
Avakian revealed his inherent bias in the case in a Facebook post he made in February 2013. Before he had heard any evidence in the case, Avakian posted a pronoun challenged message claiming: Everyone has a right to their (sic) religious beliefs, but that doesnt mean they (sic) can disobey laws that are already in place. Having one set of rules for everybody ensures that people are treated fairly as they go about their daily lives, and he linked the post to a local news report about a Food Network host offering to make a wedding cake for the couple.
Avakian makes the final ruling in cases for the bureau and has the authority to adopt all or any part of the administrative law judges recommendation regarding the Kleins case. Hes expected to issue his ruling this summer. Clearly, he is incapable of making an impartial decision.
Its also clear that Oregons public accommodations law runs afoul of the states Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In short, its the Kleins religious freedom rights that are being violated.
In Article I of the Oregon Constitution, we find:
Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case wh**ever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
If the Kleins are compelled by the states public accommodation law to violate their religious convictions their rights of conscience against participating in a gay wedding, then that law is illegal because it violates their freedom of worship and freedom of religious opinion rights guaranteed them under sections 1 and 2 of the states Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court and gay marriage
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on gay marriage when it hands down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Regulating marriage is not a power granted (enumerated) to the Federal government in the Constitution. Its not an issue over which the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction.
If the court rules gay marriage is legal, it will destroy the institution of marriage and religious liberty in America. Such a ruling would violate Christians rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment as incorporated by activist judiciaries under the magical 14th Amendment. I would say it would also destroy the rule of law, but all pretenses that America is a nation of laws were dropped long ago.
Plus, the fix on that case is also likely in. Two justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have officiated at gay marriage ceremonies and should have recused themselves from the case. They are anything but impartial arbiters.
In an 1885 decision, the Supreme Court included in its majority opinion in Murphy v. Ramsey that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Part of the decision reads:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.
And in the U.S. v. Windsor case that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court essentially ruled, as Chief Justice John Roberts opined, that DOMA was unconstitutional because it interfered with the states control of marriage.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage would not only overturn 130 years of precedent, it would conflict with a recent prior ruling of the same court. Also, the court is likely to cite the magic 14th Amendments equal protection clause if it so rules.
But the 14th Amendment, which was never constitutionally ratified, had nothing to do with gay marriage nor most of the things for which it is used as justification. The states that did ratify the 14th Amendment all had laws on the books prohibiting sodomy.
Marriage in the U.S. has historically been defined as the monogamous union of one consenting heterosexual male and one consenting heterosexual female. If the court can simply remove one word from that definition in order to redefine marriage for gays and make it also mean to be between two men and/or two women, whats to stop it from removing or redefining the other words to make a marriage a union of two women and one man, three men and one woman, one woman and one dog, one man and two young girls, two women and one computer, or any other combination mans perverted mind can conjure up, just to satisfy some perceived aggrieved class?
The answer: Nothing.
Why the Christian cannot accept gay marriage
Inevitably, conversations on this subject turn to the questions of why cant a Christian accept gay marriage and why cant a Christian participate in a gay wedding by providing a good or service.
God established marriage in Genesis 2 as between one man and one woman:
Then the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him Then the man said,
This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:18, 23-24, ESV)
It was this passage Jesus was quoting in Matthew 19 when he reaffirmed for the Pharisees what makes a lawful and godly marriage in response to their question about divorce.
Many seeking to find justification for their sin claim Jesus never mentioned gay marriage and, therefore, never condemned it. But in affirming what marriage was, Christ eliminated what marriage wasnt.
Jesus spoke several times about fornication, which is a general word covering unlawful (that is Gods law) sexual intercourse outside of its rightful place in the marriage of one man and one woman. He called sex outside lawful marriage sexual immorality in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:1-9. That clearly covers sex between same sex couples and sex between unmarried heterosexual couples whether adultery or fornication.
Jesus also told the disciples in John 14:16-17 that there were concepts and principles he would not address that would be addressed by the Holy Spirit, which would guide the disciples to all t***h. The Holy Spirit guided the authors of the New Testament, so the epistles are an extension of Jesus and, therefore, Gods teaching.
If one dismisses the epistles, or any of the books of the New Testament, then he doesnt believe Jesus and is not a Christian, wh**ever his claims to the contrary.
In writing about homosexuality in Romans 1 (calling it a shameless act) and 1 Corinthians 6 (saying those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom), Paul was writing the word of God as given him by the Holy Spirit, which was by extension the message of Christ. (1 Corinthians 14:36-38)
But Paul also wrote that those who suppress the t***h or ignore Gods righteous decree of the t***h and give approval to those who practice sexual immorality or to a host of other sins mentioned in Scripture are just as guilty as those who practice it.
It is commonly said that Christians are to love the sinner and h**e the sin. That is true. But that does not mean the Christian can condone, accept or participate even tangentially in the sin.
Forcing Christians to do so against their will is tyranny and a violation of their rights under Gods law and natural law.
Jan 2, 2016 08:31:16 #
Chameleon12 wrote:
This article shed some new light into why the Klei... (show quote)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excellent article. Excellent information. Only one thing can be added to this article: Forcing ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS AGAINST HIS WILL IS TYRANNY and a violation of his rights under God's law. Needless to say our nation is rapidly becoming a dictatorship, and it isn't a kindly dictatorship - it is a cruel and baseless one.
Jan 2, 2016 08:37:11 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
Tasine wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excellent article. Excellent information. Only one thing can be added to this article: Forcing ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS AGAINST HIS WILL IS TYRANNY and a violation of his rights under God's law. Needless to say our nation is rapidly becoming a dictatorship, and it isn't a kindly dictatorship - it is a cruel and baseless one.
Excellent article. Excellent information. Only one thing can be added to this article: Forcing ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS AGAINST HIS WILL IS TYRANNY and a violation of his rights under God's law. Needless to say our nation is rapidly becoming a dictatorship, and it isn't a kindly dictatorship - it is a cruel and baseless one.
Great article with information valuable for all of us who are against "weddings" between two of the same sex, as well as polyamorous "weddings". Never though of some of the very important facts about the case, which the media and the L***Q groups very carefully hid. Your response as far as tyranny is what I have thought for some time, but could not state as well as you have.
Jan 2, 2016 09:38:01 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
Chameleon12 wrote:
This article shed some new light into why the Klei... (show quote)
Which Christian precepts do we pick? You do realize that not all Christian brands believe the same things don't you? The next problem would be, who decides what is a sin and what isn't? Then, the third problem will be - what do we tell the OTHER religions, when they claim THEIR religious rights are being trod upon? Or do you propose that every individual make those up for themselves and that they be allowed to do as they please?
We must either adhere to the Constitution as written, or modify it by the amendment procedure, but we are NOT authorized to modify it at will, or ignore portions we don't quite agree with. The reality is, Christianity is a PERSONAL choice, that is, between God and one's self - it is NOT a National issue - nor a political issue. Baking a cake is not condoning the lifestyle of the persons the cake is being baked for, it is simple a cake. If one believes that it DOES condone this or that and that their religion forbids it - then they must make a choice - and live with the consequences.
In case you're not well read in the scriptures - that is EXACTLY what Christians are called upon to do - make choices based on what one believes is God's will - then live with the consequences, No where does the Lord suggest that one attempt to modify society to suit one's own version of Christianity - or judge those who do not believe exactly as one's self. That's called the arrogance of the original sin - and is MORE egregious than the sin being judged.
Jan 3, 2016 11:08:25 #
While I understand the awkward position this conflict has created for conscientious religious observers, the t***h is that the bakers have not been fined for their position was much as for publishing the lesbian couples names and addresses on Facebook allowing masses of other "Christians" to "offer opinions," "minister to them," threaten their safety, even their lives!
http://www.advocate.com/marriage-e******y/2015/9/30/sweetcakes-melissa-owners-refuse-pay-fine
Sweet Cakes by Melissa Owners Still Won't Pay Marriage Discrimination Fine
Aaron and Melissa Klein
For nearly three months, the antigay bakers have balked at paying the fine for discriminating against a lesbian couple and publishing their home address online.
BY BIL BROWNING
SEPTEMBER 30 2015 6:16 PM EDT
502SHARES
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, have so far refused to pay the $135,000 fine for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple and inflicting intentional emotional distress by publishing their names and home address online. The fine, levied by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, has been unpaid for nearly three months, while the Kleins make the rounds of religious conservative conferences and gatherings, and rake in donations.
The couple scored a bonanza of more than $500,000 via an online fundraiser established by the religious right to pay the couple's fees. Yet in a court filing, the Kleins argue that the fine of $135,000 levied July 2 is excessive and would lead to "financial ruin," according to Oregon newspaper Willamette Week.
BOLI commissioner Brad Avakian denied the request, pointing out the money the couple raised via crowdfunding sites and ordering that the money they owed be held in escrow, as the Kleins appeal the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Emails obtained by Willamette Week show a back-and-forth between the couple's attorney and Jenn Gaddis, the chief prosecutor in BOLI's administrative prosecution unit. Gaddis tried to settle the case by finding ways the Kleins could "satisfy their obligation without putting up cash," to no avail.
"If we can come to agreement on the terms and conditions of a bond or irrevocable letter of credit," Gaddis said in an email to the Kleins' attorneys, "the agency will stay collection of the emotional distress damages from your client."
The Kleins' lawyers responded, "Our clients do not have a bond or irrevocable letter of credit in place and have no further plans to obtain one."
"Please inform the agency of when your clients will tender payment," Gaddis responded. "Otherwise we have no other option but to docket the judgement against them. It is unfortunate that they will not seek the bond or irrevocable letter of credit, that you had initially stated they were interested in seeking, when they have clearly raised close to $500,000 with which to pay the damage award."
The Kleins' refusal puts them at risk of a lien on their property or seizure of assets.
The bulk of the fine levied against the bakery owners was for infliction of emotional distress. The couple published the names and home address of the lesbian couple who filed the complaint, leading to death threats and constant harassment from the religious right.
While the Kleins have dodged the fine, they are not staying out of the limelight. The couple attended last week's Values V**er Summit in Washington, D.C., where they and antigay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis were feted. It's the second straight year the Kleins spoke at the religious conservativeoriented event.
http://www.advocate.com/marriage-e******y/2015/9/30/sweetcakes-melissa-owners-refuse-pay-fine
Sweet Cakes by Melissa Owners Still Won't Pay Marriage Discrimination Fine
Aaron and Melissa Klein
For nearly three months, the antigay bakers have balked at paying the fine for discriminating against a lesbian couple and publishing their home address online.
BY BIL BROWNING
SEPTEMBER 30 2015 6:16 PM EDT
502SHARES
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, have so far refused to pay the $135,000 fine for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple and inflicting intentional emotional distress by publishing their names and home address online. The fine, levied by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, has been unpaid for nearly three months, while the Kleins make the rounds of religious conservative conferences and gatherings, and rake in donations.
The couple scored a bonanza of more than $500,000 via an online fundraiser established by the religious right to pay the couple's fees. Yet in a court filing, the Kleins argue that the fine of $135,000 levied July 2 is excessive and would lead to "financial ruin," according to Oregon newspaper Willamette Week.
BOLI commissioner Brad Avakian denied the request, pointing out the money the couple raised via crowdfunding sites and ordering that the money they owed be held in escrow, as the Kleins appeal the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Emails obtained by Willamette Week show a back-and-forth between the couple's attorney and Jenn Gaddis, the chief prosecutor in BOLI's administrative prosecution unit. Gaddis tried to settle the case by finding ways the Kleins could "satisfy their obligation without putting up cash," to no avail.
"If we can come to agreement on the terms and conditions of a bond or irrevocable letter of credit," Gaddis said in an email to the Kleins' attorneys, "the agency will stay collection of the emotional distress damages from your client."
The Kleins' lawyers responded, "Our clients do not have a bond or irrevocable letter of credit in place and have no further plans to obtain one."
"Please inform the agency of when your clients will tender payment," Gaddis responded. "Otherwise we have no other option but to docket the judgement against them. It is unfortunate that they will not seek the bond or irrevocable letter of credit, that you had initially stated they were interested in seeking, when they have clearly raised close to $500,000 with which to pay the damage award."
The Kleins' refusal puts them at risk of a lien on their property or seizure of assets.
The bulk of the fine levied against the bakery owners was for infliction of emotional distress. The couple published the names and home address of the lesbian couple who filed the complaint, leading to death threats and constant harassment from the religious right.
While the Kleins have dodged the fine, they are not staying out of the limelight. The couple attended last week's Values V**er Summit in Washington, D.C., where they and antigay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis were feted. It's the second straight year the Kleins spoke at the religious conservativeoriented event.
Jan 3, 2016 16:07:30 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
Singularity wrote:
While I understand the awkward position this confl... (show quote)
The slant of the article is very obvious by the declaration that the couple are anti-gay in reality they are pro Christian ten commandments. just like the florist, they were very willing to sell product to the two lesbians , or the florist was welling to sell products to the two homosexual men, with the exception of things that would celebrate and validate their same sex unions, which are immoral by Christian standards following the Bible and the 10 commandments. In particular the lesbians, who freely admitted they had sought out a Christian establishment to attempt to do business, obviously for their own political purposes. That the bakery published their names publicly was not right however. they should just have spread the word by private discussions that the two activists were seeking to promote their behavior and their claim that anyone who did not go along or refused to be intimidated was a h**e filled homophobe.
Jan 3, 2016 17:01:23 #
Chameleon12, I don't remember anybody requiring Christians to support anything they don't like. I believe that Christians must obey the law even though they may not agree with it. They have the right to lobby their government and v**e for a P**********l candidate that would appoint conservative Justices.
In this Republic, there is a wall between Church and State! It is this wall that guarantees us Freedom of Religion.That means that the state is protected by interference by a religious group. It also means that any Church can tell the government to go to hell. And finally it means that I don't have to pay taxes to support a Church in which I don't believe in? I agree with this policy of freedom of religion. I think everybody of every religion, Church, Synagogue, Mosque and Oriental temple should do as well!!! quote=Chameleon12]This article shed some new light into why the Klein's refused to bake a cake altogether. Even if their beliefs are wrong, what they did shouldn't have been sue-able because, at the time, they were complying with state laws. Baking a cake specifically for a homosexual marriage could have gotten them charged with aiding and abetting a crime as homosexual marriages were still illegal in that state when they refused. Anyway, this is an interesting read:
Forcing Christians to condone sin is tyranny
Posted by Bob Livingston Views
The persecution of Christian bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries is not about justice or the rule of law. Its about advancing the perverted agenda of the gay rights crowd and imposing their immorality on everyone.
The Kleins own an Oregon bakery called Sweet Cakes by Melissa. They drew the ire of the gay rights crowd when in January 2013 they declined to make a cake for the so-called wedding of two women: Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman. One month later, the two women filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. At the time, same sex marriage was banned in Oregon. It would be eight months before the state even recognized same sex weddings from other states and more than a year before a federal judge would unconstitutionally strike down Oregons ban on same sex weddings.
In other words, religious convictions aside, the Kleins declined to participate in a practice that was then illegal in their state. Their religious objections to participating in a so-called gay marriage were just icing on the cake, so to speak.
Six months after the complaint, in August 2013, the Bureau of Labor and Industries opened its inquiry. Again, this was before the state even recognized same sex weddings of any kind as legal, which it began doing in October.
In April, as a result of the inquiry, an Oregon administrative law judge who is an employee of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (the importance of this fact is revealed below) recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000 for violating the states public accommodation law by denying Rachel and Laurel full and equal access to their bakery, which the state considers a place of public accommodation.
Last week, the Kleins lawyers requested the case be reopened after public records requests unearthed multiple emails, telephone calls and private meetings between employees of the bureau including its commissioner Brad Avakian, who hires the bureaus administrative law judges and members of Basic Rights Oregon, the states largest gay promoting organization in the state. The communications reveal a very cozy relationship between the bureau and Basic Rights Oregon, and that the gay rights organization was consulting with bureau employees about the case during the inquiry.
The emails also reveal that Avakian purchased tickets costing hundreds of dollars to fundraisers and gay p***e parades to benefit Basic Rights Oregon while the agency was conducting its inquiry. I put quotes around the word inquiry because the whole operation has been revealed as a sham a kangaroo court. Not so coincidentally, Avakian received at least $12,800 in campaign donations from Basic Rights Oregon and its PAC from 2007 to 2014.
And in testimony during the inquiry, Aaron Cryer, Rachaels younger brother who was living with the couple at the time, claimed that a representative of the bureau told him he was unsure on whether or not we should pursue the case right now or wait, just because of marriage e******y in Oregon becoming a thing, and we were looking at the scope as a bigger whole.
Avakian revealed his inherent bias in the case in a Facebook post he made in February 2013. Before he had heard any evidence in the case, Avakian posted a pronoun challenged message claiming: Everyone has a right to their (sic) religious beliefs, but that doesnt mean they (sic) can disobey laws that are already in place. Having one set of rules for everybody ensures that people are treated fairly as they go about their daily lives, and he linked the post to a local news report about a Food Network host offering to make a wedding cake for the couple.
Avakian makes the final ruling in cases for the bureau and has the authority to adopt all or any part of the administrative law judges recommendation regarding the Kleins case. Hes expected to issue his ruling this summer. Clearly, he is incapable of making an impartial decision.
Its also clear that Oregons public accommodations law runs afoul of the states Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In short, its the Kleins religious freedom rights that are being violated.
In Article I of the Oregon Constitution, we find:
Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case wh**ever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
If the Kleins are compelled by the states public accommodation law to violate their religious convictions their rights of conscience against participating in a gay wedding, then that law is illegal because it violates their freedom of worship and freedom of religious opinion rights guaranteed them under sections 1 and 2 of the states Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court and gay marriage
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on gay marriage when it hands down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Regulating marriage is not a power granted (enumerated) to the Federal government in the Constitution. Its not an issue over which the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction.
If the court rules gay marriage is legal, it will destroy the institution of marriage and religious liberty in America. Such a ruling would violate Christians rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment as incorporated by activist judiciaries under the magical 14th Amendment. I would say it would also destroy the rule of law, but all pretenses that America is a nation of laws were dropped long ago.
Plus, the fix on that case is also likely in. Two justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have officiated at gay marriage ceremonies and should have recused themselves from the case. They are anything but impartial arbiters.
In an 1885 decision, the Supreme Court included in its majority opinion in Murphy v. Ramsey that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Part of the decision reads:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.
And in the U.S. v. Windsor case that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court essentially ruled, as Chief Justice John Roberts opined, that DOMA was unconstitutional because it interfered with the states control of marriage.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage would not only overturn 130 years of precedent, it would conflict with a recent prior ruling of the same court. Also, the court is likely to cite the magic 14th Amendments equal protection clause if it so rules.
But the 14th Amendment, which was never constitutionally ratified, had nothing to do with gay marriage nor most of the things for which it is used as justification. The states that did ratify the 14th Amendment all had laws on the books prohibiting sodomy.
Marriage in the U.S. has historically been defined as the monogamous union of one consenting heterosexual male and one consenting heterosexual female. If the court can simply remove one word from that definition in order to redefine marriage for gays and make it also mean to be between two men and/or two women, whats to stop it from removing or redefining the other words to make a marriage a union of two women and one man, three men and one woman, one woman and one dog, one man and two young girls, two women and one computer, or any other combination mans perverted mind can conjure up, just to satisfy some perceived aggrieved class?
The answer: Nothing.
Why the Christian cannot accept gay marriage
Inevitably, conversations on this subject turn to the questions of why cant a Christian accept gay marriage and why cant a Christian participate in a gay wedding by providing a good or service.
God established marriage in Genesis 2 as between one man and one woman:
Then the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him Then the man said,
This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:18, 23-24, ESV)
It was this passage Jesus was quoting in Matthew 19 when he reaffirmed for the Pharisees what makes a lawful and godly marriage in response to their question about divorce.
Many seeking to find justification for their sin claim Jesus never mentioned gay marriage and, therefore, never condemned it. But in affirming what marriage was, Christ eliminated what marriage wasnt.
Jesus spoke several times about fornication, which is a general word covering unlawful (that is Gods law) sexual intercourse outside of its rightful place in the marriage of one man and one woman. He called sex outside lawful marriage sexual immorality in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:1-9. That clearly covers sex between same sex couples and sex between unmarried heterosexual couples whether adultery or fornication.
Jesus also told the disciples in John 14:16-17 that there were concepts and principles he would not address that would be addressed by the Holy Spirit, which would guide the disciples to all t***h. The Holy Spirit guided the authors of the New Testament, so the epistles are an extension of Jesus and, therefore, Gods teaching.
If one dismisses the epistles, or any of the books of the New Testament, then he doesnt believe Jesus and is not a Christian, wh**ever his claims to the contrary.
In writing about homosexuality in Romans 1 (calling it a shameless act) and 1 Corinthians 6 (saying those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom), Paul was writing the word of God as given him by the Holy Spirit, which was by extension the message of Christ. (1 Corinthians 14:36-38)
But Paul also wrote that those who suppress the t***h or ignore Gods righteous decree of the t***h and give approval to those who practice sexual immorality or to a host of other sins mentioned in Scripture are just as guilty as those who practice it.
It is commonly said that Christians are to love the sinner and h**e the sin. That is true. But that does not mean the Christian can condone, accept or participate even tangentially in the sin.
Forcing Christians to do so against their will is tyranny and a violation of their rights under Gods law and natural law.[/quote]
In this Republic, there is a wall between Church and State! It is this wall that guarantees us Freedom of Religion.That means that the state is protected by interference by a religious group. It also means that any Church can tell the government to go to hell. And finally it means that I don't have to pay taxes to support a Church in which I don't believe in? I agree with this policy of freedom of religion. I think everybody of every religion, Church, Synagogue, Mosque and Oriental temple should do as well!!! quote=Chameleon12]This article shed some new light into why the Klein's refused to bake a cake altogether. Even if their beliefs are wrong, what they did shouldn't have been sue-able because, at the time, they were complying with state laws. Baking a cake specifically for a homosexual marriage could have gotten them charged with aiding and abetting a crime as homosexual marriages were still illegal in that state when they refused. Anyway, this is an interesting read:
Forcing Christians to condone sin is tyranny
Posted by Bob Livingston Views
The persecution of Christian bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries is not about justice or the rule of law. Its about advancing the perverted agenda of the gay rights crowd and imposing their immorality on everyone.
The Kleins own an Oregon bakery called Sweet Cakes by Melissa. They drew the ire of the gay rights crowd when in January 2013 they declined to make a cake for the so-called wedding of two women: Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman. One month later, the two women filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. At the time, same sex marriage was banned in Oregon. It would be eight months before the state even recognized same sex weddings from other states and more than a year before a federal judge would unconstitutionally strike down Oregons ban on same sex weddings.
In other words, religious convictions aside, the Kleins declined to participate in a practice that was then illegal in their state. Their religious objections to participating in a so-called gay marriage were just icing on the cake, so to speak.
Six months after the complaint, in August 2013, the Bureau of Labor and Industries opened its inquiry. Again, this was before the state even recognized same sex weddings of any kind as legal, which it began doing in October.
In April, as a result of the inquiry, an Oregon administrative law judge who is an employee of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (the importance of this fact is revealed below) recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000 for violating the states public accommodation law by denying Rachel and Laurel full and equal access to their bakery, which the state considers a place of public accommodation.
Last week, the Kleins lawyers requested the case be reopened after public records requests unearthed multiple emails, telephone calls and private meetings between employees of the bureau including its commissioner Brad Avakian, who hires the bureaus administrative law judges and members of Basic Rights Oregon, the states largest gay promoting organization in the state. The communications reveal a very cozy relationship between the bureau and Basic Rights Oregon, and that the gay rights organization was consulting with bureau employees about the case during the inquiry.
The emails also reveal that Avakian purchased tickets costing hundreds of dollars to fundraisers and gay p***e parades to benefit Basic Rights Oregon while the agency was conducting its inquiry. I put quotes around the word inquiry because the whole operation has been revealed as a sham a kangaroo court. Not so coincidentally, Avakian received at least $12,800 in campaign donations from Basic Rights Oregon and its PAC from 2007 to 2014.
And in testimony during the inquiry, Aaron Cryer, Rachaels younger brother who was living with the couple at the time, claimed that a representative of the bureau told him he was unsure on whether or not we should pursue the case right now or wait, just because of marriage e******y in Oregon becoming a thing, and we were looking at the scope as a bigger whole.
Avakian revealed his inherent bias in the case in a Facebook post he made in February 2013. Before he had heard any evidence in the case, Avakian posted a pronoun challenged message claiming: Everyone has a right to their (sic) religious beliefs, but that doesnt mean they (sic) can disobey laws that are already in place. Having one set of rules for everybody ensures that people are treated fairly as they go about their daily lives, and he linked the post to a local news report about a Food Network host offering to make a wedding cake for the couple.
Avakian makes the final ruling in cases for the bureau and has the authority to adopt all or any part of the administrative law judges recommendation regarding the Kleins case. Hes expected to issue his ruling this summer. Clearly, he is incapable of making an impartial decision.
Its also clear that Oregons public accommodations law runs afoul of the states Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In short, its the Kleins religious freedom rights that are being violated.
In Article I of the Oregon Constitution, we find:
Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case wh**ever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
If the Kleins are compelled by the states public accommodation law to violate their religious convictions their rights of conscience against participating in a gay wedding, then that law is illegal because it violates their freedom of worship and freedom of religious opinion rights guaranteed them under sections 1 and 2 of the states Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court and gay marriage
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on gay marriage when it hands down its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Regulating marriage is not a power granted (enumerated) to the Federal government in the Constitution. Its not an issue over which the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction.
If the court rules gay marriage is legal, it will destroy the institution of marriage and religious liberty in America. Such a ruling would violate Christians rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment as incorporated by activist judiciaries under the magical 14th Amendment. I would say it would also destroy the rule of law, but all pretenses that America is a nation of laws were dropped long ago.
Plus, the fix on that case is also likely in. Two justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have officiated at gay marriage ceremonies and should have recused themselves from the case. They are anything but impartial arbiters.
In an 1885 decision, the Supreme Court included in its majority opinion in Murphy v. Ramsey that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Part of the decision reads:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.
And in the U.S. v. Windsor case that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court essentially ruled, as Chief Justice John Roberts opined, that DOMA was unconstitutional because it interfered with the states control of marriage.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage would not only overturn 130 years of precedent, it would conflict with a recent prior ruling of the same court. Also, the court is likely to cite the magic 14th Amendments equal protection clause if it so rules.
But the 14th Amendment, which was never constitutionally ratified, had nothing to do with gay marriage nor most of the things for which it is used as justification. The states that did ratify the 14th Amendment all had laws on the books prohibiting sodomy.
Marriage in the U.S. has historically been defined as the monogamous union of one consenting heterosexual male and one consenting heterosexual female. If the court can simply remove one word from that definition in order to redefine marriage for gays and make it also mean to be between two men and/or two women, whats to stop it from removing or redefining the other words to make a marriage a union of two women and one man, three men and one woman, one woman and one dog, one man and two young girls, two women and one computer, or any other combination mans perverted mind can conjure up, just to satisfy some perceived aggrieved class?
The answer: Nothing.
Why the Christian cannot accept gay marriage
Inevitably, conversations on this subject turn to the questions of why cant a Christian accept gay marriage and why cant a Christian participate in a gay wedding by providing a good or service.
God established marriage in Genesis 2 as between one man and one woman:
Then the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him Then the man said,
This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:18, 23-24, ESV)
It was this passage Jesus was quoting in Matthew 19 when he reaffirmed for the Pharisees what makes a lawful and godly marriage in response to their question about divorce.
Many seeking to find justification for their sin claim Jesus never mentioned gay marriage and, therefore, never condemned it. But in affirming what marriage was, Christ eliminated what marriage wasnt.
Jesus spoke several times about fornication, which is a general word covering unlawful (that is Gods law) sexual intercourse outside of its rightful place in the marriage of one man and one woman. He called sex outside lawful marriage sexual immorality in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:1-9. That clearly covers sex between same sex couples and sex between unmarried heterosexual couples whether adultery or fornication.
Jesus also told the disciples in John 14:16-17 that there were concepts and principles he would not address that would be addressed by the Holy Spirit, which would guide the disciples to all t***h. The Holy Spirit guided the authors of the New Testament, so the epistles are an extension of Jesus and, therefore, Gods teaching.
If one dismisses the epistles, or any of the books of the New Testament, then he doesnt believe Jesus and is not a Christian, wh**ever his claims to the contrary.
In writing about homosexuality in Romans 1 (calling it a shameless act) and 1 Corinthians 6 (saying those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom), Paul was writing the word of God as given him by the Holy Spirit, which was by extension the message of Christ. (1 Corinthians 14:36-38)
But Paul also wrote that those who suppress the t***h or ignore Gods righteous decree of the t***h and give approval to those who practice sexual immorality or to a host of other sins mentioned in Scripture are just as guilty as those who practice it.
It is commonly said that Christians are to love the sinner and h**e the sin. That is true. But that does not mean the Christian can condone, accept or participate even tangentially in the sin.
Forcing Christians to do so against their will is tyranny and a violation of their rights under Gods law and natural law.[/quote]
Feb 1, 2016 04:50:09 #
Singularity wrote:
While I understand the awkward position this confl... (show quote)
Are you sure about that? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere.
Feb 1, 2016 04:52:00 #
Singularity wrote:
While I understand the awkward position this confl... (show quote)
Oh, I see that now. Yeah, that's definitely not cool. However, the fine should have been for that alone, not everything else.
Feb 1, 2016 08:07:21 #
no propaganda please wrote:
The slant of the article is very obvious by the de... (show quote)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Absolutely correct. The political left is too enthralled with Alinsky's "rules" and has lost all pretense of humanity in the process. I am not a Christian, yet I would have done exactly as the ones in the articles who wouldn't bend their beliefs for the satisfaction of those trying to trap them, and once I declared myself non-Christian, they would have said I was lying and continue with the issue until they could WIN the game by getting me arrested. They just cannot comprehend the fact that there are moral people with principles WHICH ARE THE SAME AS CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES. THERE [I]IS[/]SUCH A THING AS MORALITY OUTSIDE CHRISTIANITY, but the left believes that only the left knows anything and the sad part is that the political left doesn't even grasp the MEANING of morality - they think it belongs only to Christians; ergo it is safe to attack and destroy it. They are so wrong it is pathetic.....unfortunately for the nation, it is also exceedingly DANGEROUS to civilization.
Feb 1, 2016 08:49:14 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
[quote=Tasine]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Absolutely correct. The political left is too enthralled with Alinsky's "rules" and has lost all pretense of humanity in the process. I am not a Christian, yet I would have done exactly as the ones in the articles who wouldn't bend their beliefs for the satisfaction of those trying to trap them, and once I declared myself non-Christian, they would have said I was lying and continue with the issue until they could WIN the game by getting me arrested. They just cannot comprehend the fact that there are moral people with principles WHICH ARE THE SAME AS CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES. THERE [I]IS[/]SUCH A THING AS MORALITY OUTSIDE CHRISTIANITY, but the left believes that only the left knows anything and the sad part is that the political left doesn't even grasp the MEANING of morality - they think it belongs only to Christians; ergo it is safe to attack and destroy it. They are so wrong it is pathetic.....unfortunately for the nation, it is also exceedingly DANGEROUS to civilization.[/quote]
The "progressives" know how to make up their own morality, the concept that if you think it is right, then it is right for you. They use as their validation pagan cultures where sacrifice of babies on the alter of their "gods" sex with children and the keeping of s***es claimed in battle was considered normal and acceptable. the only one they reject is for one individual to own another they substitute for that the idea that the government owns all of us and we have no right past what the state allows, which can be removed when ever the state wants to do so. American soldiers being disciplined for stopping Muslims from raping boys and the government take over of private land are just two examples of the results of moral relativism as it happens in America.
Absolutely correct. The political left is too enthralled with Alinsky's "rules" and has lost all pretense of humanity in the process. I am not a Christian, yet I would have done exactly as the ones in the articles who wouldn't bend their beliefs for the satisfaction of those trying to trap them, and once I declared myself non-Christian, they would have said I was lying and continue with the issue until they could WIN the game by getting me arrested. They just cannot comprehend the fact that there are moral people with principles WHICH ARE THE SAME AS CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES. THERE [I]IS[/]SUCH A THING AS MORALITY OUTSIDE CHRISTIANITY, but the left believes that only the left knows anything and the sad part is that the political left doesn't even grasp the MEANING of morality - they think it belongs only to Christians; ergo it is safe to attack and destroy it. They are so wrong it is pathetic.....unfortunately for the nation, it is also exceedingly DANGEROUS to civilization.[/quote]
The "progressives" know how to make up their own morality, the concept that if you think it is right, then it is right for you. They use as their validation pagan cultures where sacrifice of babies on the alter of their "gods" sex with children and the keeping of s***es claimed in battle was considered normal and acceptable. the only one they reject is for one individual to own another they substitute for that the idea that the government owns all of us and we have no right past what the state allows, which can be removed when ever the state wants to do so. American soldiers being disciplined for stopping Muslims from raping boys and the government take over of private land are just two examples of the results of moral relativism as it happens in America.
Feb 1, 2016 09:13:59 #
no propaganda please wrote:
The "progressives" know how to make up t... (show quote)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can add nothing to this fantastic explanation!!!!!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 1, 2016 09:37:31 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
Tasine wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can add nothing to this fantastic explanation!!!!!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
I can add nothing to this fantastic explanation!!!!!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Thank you
We have to keep reminding people of what really is at stake. All cultures are not the same. So far the "progressives" are pushing hard for American believers in Islam, the death cult, to be left alone in what ever area they inhabit in America. Allowed to use shiriah law, have many wives, marry little girls and rape little boys, because that is their culture. They are forcing schools to teach Islam, but never speak of the ten commandments, force Islam compliant food on all of us, and force companies to have paid prayer times for their workers.
By the way I have read that slaughtering animals to be Islam compliant means no nonMuslim inspectors in the facility and no code of cleanliness that is not included in the Qu'ran. If someone has information to the contrary, please post it so it can be discussed.
Feb 1, 2016 10:35:30 #
Tisane, Your post ranks with the most absurd I have ever read on OPP, and thats saying a lot.! One of several possibilities:
1. Just plain old hyperbole
2. complete ignorance of the liberal/ progressive ideology 3.Outragious lies
Which one?Maybe you have a great source of drugs.
1. Just plain old hyperbole
2. complete ignorance of the liberal/ progressive ideology 3.Outragious lies
Which one?Maybe you have a great source of drugs.
Tasine wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can add nothing to this fantastic explanation!!!!!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
I can add nothing to this fantastic explanation!!!!!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 1, 2016 10:58:39 #
saltwind 78 wrote:
Tisane, Your post ranks with the most absurd I have ever read on OPP, and thats saying a lot.! One of several possibilities:
1. Just plain old hyperbole
2. complete ignorance of the liberal/ progressive ideology 3.Outragious lies
Which one?Maybe you have a great source of drugs.
1. Just plain old hyperbole
2. complete ignorance of the liberal/ progressive ideology 3.Outragious lies
Which one?Maybe you have a great source of drugs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, I thought you had all the drugs. I thought that because it is obvious you NEED some.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.