Indiana Governor Signs State Religious Freedom Restoration Act

PenceINDIANAPOLIS — The governor of Indiana signed the state “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” into law on Thursday, resisting critics who asserted that the legislation would allow people of faith to “discriminate” against homosexuals.

Gov. Mike Pence signed SB 101 into law in a closed ceremony, with an estimated 70 t0 80 invited guests attending the event.

“Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith,” he said in a statement. “The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.”

The bill mirrors the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law in the 1990’s by then-President Bill Clinton. The legislation prohibits the government from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion,” unless there is a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means is used in furthering the interest.

Pence noted that while the federal government provides religious freedom protections, some states do not.

“Last year the Supreme Court of the United States upheld religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that act does not apply to individual states or local government action,” he said. “In order to ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year our General Assembly joined those 30 states [who have passed local legislation] and the federal government to enshrine these principles in Indiana law, and I fully support that action.”

States that have preceded Indiana in passing a Religious Freedom Restoration Act include Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Illinois and Connecticut.

  • Connect with Christian News

While some have stated that the bill will open the door for discrimination against homosexuals, Pence refuted such claims as the law mentions nothing about homosexuality or any particular issue at all.

“This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved,” he said. “For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation’s anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.”

“Indiana is rightly celebrated for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance, and values of our people, and that will never change,” Pence stated. “Faith and religion are important values to millions of Hoosiers and with the passage of this legislation, we ensure that Indiana will continue to be a place where we respect freedom of religion and make certain that government action will always be subject to the highest level of scrutiny that respects the religious beliefs of every Hoosier of every faith.”

Pence is a professing Christian and attends Community Church in Greenwood, Ind.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Paul Hiett

    Why not just be honest and call this the “Freedom to Discriminate” bill?

    • Better AndBetter

      Religious hypocrites be honest? Not gonna happen.

    • Sam Thompson

      why not read the bill?

  • Better AndBetter

    Religious hypocrisy rules unbridled… how pathetic.

    • Aaron Mason

      When it comes to hate, it’s hard to beat a conservative christian republican.

      • Beth Shank

        Or the race supremacy groups which now I am free to not serve, OH, btw, I am Christian and I will serve BLGT. The bill says “Freedom”

      • williamwalker

        Gays are the gold standard.
        You kill each others with AIDS, so you even hate yourselves.

    • parquee_hundido

      Nerd

  • Gary

    Business transactions should be voluntary. This law helps guarantee that they are in Indiana. I wish my state would pass a similar bill.

    • Better AndBetter

      And allow discrimination based in distaste for your death cult?

      • Gary

        Why do you want to force people to do business against their will?

        • Paul Hiett

          They voluntarily opened that business.

          • Gary

            But you want to force them to do business with those that YOU choose for them. You choose your own associations, and let others do the same.

        • Better AndBetter

          That wasn’t the point of my question.

          Would you allow people to discriminate against people who follow your religion in public accommodations?

          • Gary

            Yes. All business transactions should be voluntary for everyone.

          • Paul Hiett

            So a business should be able to say, “I believe my religion doesn’t want me doing business with blacks”, and refuse to service someone based on color?

            That’s exactly what this bill allows.

          • Gary

            I am for voluntary business transactions. Obviously, you want the government to force people to do business with those they would rather not do business with.

          • Better AndBetter

            Been law for a very, very long time… and special considerations for those who have fallen for mythology.

            The hypocrisy stench is nauseating.

          • Gary

            Where is the hypocrisy? There is none.

          • Better AndBetter

            Liar.

            People who have chosen to follow religion get public accommodations protections in the Civil Rights Act that they wish to keep from others.

            How is that NOT hypocrisy?!

          • Gary

            I am opposed to the Civil Rights Act.

          • Better AndBetter

            I wasn’t referring to you… I was referring to the law, including Indiana’s new law (which is already costing them millions of dollars: I hope it costs them more).

          • Gary

            Everyone should have the right to choose who they do business with. Even perverts.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No one is trying to deny you and other perverts the ability to believe as you wish, shocking and horrible as your beliefs are to decent people.

            We draw the line at discrimination. You discriminate, we sue, you lose, end of story.

            If you don’t like it, you and other filth like you can leave our country. Good riddance.

          • Gary

            Drop dead.

          • Paul Hiett

            A business that serves the public should not be allowed to discriminate who they do business with.

          • Gary

            Yes, they should.

          • Paul Hiett

            Back to separate water fountains, eh?

          • Gary

            If the fountains are privately owned and the owner wants to have separate ones.

          • Paul Hiett

            What a shame people like you exist in the world today.

          • Gary

            YOU are the shameful one. You are immoral.

          • Parque_Hundido

            You hate freedom. You hate America.

          • Gary

            I am the one who is standing for freedom. I believe people should be free to make their own business decisions.

          • Paul Hiett

            As long as it only supports your personal viewpoint.

          • Parque_Hundido

            You are a bigot. You are advocating for legalized bigotry.

            You are an embarrassment to our country.

            You hate freedom. You hate America.

          • Gary

            You are a bigot as well.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Wi cannot tolerate those like you, who advocate against America. You want to destroy our country.

          • Gary

            You and your immoral ilk are the ones who are destroying America. And you are too stupid to understand it.

          • Parque_Hundido

            You are the one who does not accept our laws and our freedoms. Move to Iran.

          • Paul Hiett

            The difference between you and I is that I don’t need a book to tell me to love my neighbor, to treat everyone with the same love and respect I would want to be treated with.

          • Gary

            You don’t love your neighbor. You want to force people to do what YOU want them to do.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sorry Gary, but yeah, I do tend to give people the kind of loving and respectful treatment I feel we all deserve. I do that without believing that some mythical deity will give me access to heaven. I do it because it’s the right thing to do as a human being.

          • Gary

            You have no basis for concluding that anything is the right thing to do.

          • Paul Hiett

            I look at the way Christians treat people who believe differently than they do, and I act the opposite.

          • Gary

            Yes, you do act in opposition to Christianity.

          • Paul Hiett

            Absolutely I do, and I’m proud of it!

          • weasel1886

            Yup being hateful is a Christian moral

          • Aaron Mason

            Says the guy trying to force people to be hateful like him.

          • Gary

            If you would pay attention, you would notice that I am not the one who wants to force people to conduct business with people they would rather not do business with.

          • Aaron Mason

            Keep that hate going, it’s taking years off your life and we’re all better for that.

        • weasel1886

          Sounds like Alabama logic 1955

          • The_Physetor

            You would know, you were probably in your 40s back then.

    • Parque_Hundido

      You should found a country where you can discriminate at will.

      In the US, what you want to do violates the Constitution.

      • Gary

        No, it does not violate the Constitution.

        • Parque_Hundido

          Sorry, but we have nearly two centuries of jurisprudence that contradicts what you’re saying.

          You’re advocating for what the confederacy wanted. You will lose. You are an embarrassment to our country.

          • Paul Hiett

            So is the entire state of Indiana.

          • Gary

            You and your filthy, perverted ilk have embarrassed the country.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Please leave our country. You and your ilk are a cancer. The sooner we are rid of you, the better off we will all be.

            You are a shameful embarrassment to our country.

          • Gary

            Go to Hell.

          • Paul Hiett

            Isn’t Gary a good example of a Christian?

          • Gary

            It is Christ who made the arrangements for you to go to Hell.

          • Paul Hiett

            Based on the Bible, you’re going there too. There’s no way someone like Jesus would allow your kind of hate to infiltrate Heaven.

          • Better AndBetter

            Gary’s pride alone is enough reason for him to bake with those he hates.

          • Paul Hiett

            You still have that screenshot where he says he wants to kill the gays?

          • Better AndBetter
          • Paul Hiett

            So brilliant. How’s that “love they neighbor” thing going for you, Gary?

          • Gary

            Loving your neighbor does not include endorsing his sin. You fail to grasp that.

          • Better AndBetter

            Alluah Akbar!!!

            You’re no different than they.

          • Paul Hiett

            Even your Jesus wouldn’t condone killing someone for whom they love.

          • Gary

            I don’t care who you love. Unless you mean love=sex.

          • Parque_Hundido

            You can send me the weather report in advance, I’m sure.

            You are an embarrassment. You are a cancer on our country.

            Shame on you.

          • Gary

            It is immoral, wicked people like you who have embarrassed the country. You are trash.

          • Parque_Hundido

            You are a foul stain on our country. You are a shameful embarrassment. Please leave.

          • Gary

            And if I don’t?

          • weasel1886

            You are proof that many Christians are evil

          • Gary

            I am evil for wanting everyone to be free to choose who they do business with?

          • weasel1886

            I would hate to live in a world you would create

          • Better AndBetter

            Awwww, look… Gary is angry again.

            What a shock… not.

          • weasel1886

            You are pure Satan evil

          • Better AndBetter

            Aye… even the Christian Post couldn’t deal with Gary’s hate and anger… booted him from the site.

            He blames THEM.

          • Gary

            Prove it.

    • Ino Yamanaka

      Voluntary to the customers decision, not the business.

      If it was left up to the business then the rights of citizens would be violated. And per the history of this country, since it has been left up to the business before, that would be a bad idea.

  • Parque_Hundido

    Indiana moves south to join the bigot belt. What a sad day fo Indiana, for freedom and for equality.

    We will sur. this law will be rendered meaningless. Count on it.

    • Ino Yamanaka

      Lol, it’s true a few law suits later and this bill will be done.

      It’s funny though because religious nuts who are incapable of thinking critically will be all like “no it wont, this bill will stand forever”….just like 15ish years ago when they were all like “gay marriage will NEVER happen in this country”.

    • parquee_hundido

      OOh, aren’t you scary?

      • Parque_Hundido

        Look what I’ve done to you! LOL

    • Weasel1886

      BFD

      • Parque_Hundido

        We agree.

  • Parque_Hundido

    Those who support this law are supporting the destruction of American values. Hatred and discrimination have no place in our country. Shame on Indiana.

    • Gary

      Said the pervert who hates God and Christians.

      • Paul Hiett

        The sad thing is, Gary, your hatred stems from a choice your parents made for you when you were born. That is, to indoctrinate you into Christianity…and obviously a hateful sect of it.

        Your religious beliefs are nothing more than an accident of geography.

      • Aaron Mason

        Do you still believe in Santa Claus?

      • weasel1886

        So posting sign saying No Catholics or Jews Allowed, would be OK with you?

        • Paul Hiett

          Pretty soon we’ll be requiring stars and rainbows be painted on store windows.

          • Gary

            Rainbows for queers? What would the stars be for?

          • Paul Hiett

            You clearly don’t know your history.

          • Gary

            Stars for Jews? Is that what you meant?

        • Gary

          Yes.

          • weasel1886

            Sounds like Germany 1939

        • parquee_hundido

          You’re such an assho/e

          • weasel1886

            Why am I an ahole? I’m on your side.
            I was just asking a question of another poster

      • Aaron Mason

        Move to Iran, you’d be welcome there with your religious hate.

        • Gary

          No. I would rather you move.

          • Aaron Mason

            I’m a veteran and I earned my place here. You’re free to relocate to where your hate will be accepted.

      • Parque_Hundido

        You hate freedom and you hate America.

        • parquee_hundido

          You hate straight men.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Flattery… Are you coming on to me again?

    • NCOriolesFan

      Tell that to gays who are attacking Christian businesses around the USA.

      • Paul Hiett

        Attacking? You don’t have a clue what the word means.

      • Ino Yamanaka

        Suing a business for discriminating against you does not equal “attack christian businesses”.

        Also, there is no such thing as a “christian” businesses. Clearly you’ve never filled out a business application before, but there is no place for you to designate that your business is a “christian” business.

      • Parque_Hundido

        Who are they? I would love to meet them and offer support.

        • williamwalker

          Hate much?
          Yeah, you do.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I hate bigots.

          • Whatever

            Good, then you must hate yourself. And rightly so.
            Hate is for losers like you who are unable to love.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No. This kind of hate is reserved for bigots like you.

  • Beth Shank

    I just wish that the entire bill was easy to find, first of all – I’ve only found segments which do not list any groups. And, I wish that before the bill was signed, the one-sided media would have posted the actual verbiage instead of telling us what they “read” out of it. I also wish lawmakers would hold forums and take public opinion of how matters should be handled. I don’t want to serve organizations like the KKK and pro-abortionist and other hate groups. As a Christian, I would still serve GLBTs and non-Christians, I have many friends of various compositions. Franklin Graham (Billy Graham’s son if you don’t know who he is) endorses the bill but you do not hear mainstream media showing anyone supporting it and why they do. There are states that have similar laws but people still get sued for all kinds of reasons. When I try to get more active in understanding laws, I can’t find the answers. I went to a town meeting on another law and really didn’t get answers, only attitude. I went to the Indiana government site and I’m not finding the bill. Educate us instead before you cause so much turmoil.

    • christiannewsnetwork

      Hi Beth, the bill is linked in the article. Simply click on where it says SB 101, which is in blue, meaning that it is linked.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Unrepentant non-religious hypocrites end up in the same place as unrepentant religious hypocrites. Both are on the same side.

  • Paul Hiett

    It boggles my mind that throughout history, and around the world even today, humanity puts the choice of one’s religion above the rights of humanity as a whole. Ones religion is nothing more than a geographical accident, and yet from country to country, around the world, religious rights always seem to trump human rights.

    When is the world going to wake up?

    • parquee_hundido

      You’re right, your mind is definitely boggled.

  • FoJC_Forever

    This bill may or may not protect people from being attacked and forced to succumb to antichrist groups in general, and, specifically, homosexual groups who force their perversion on others. The latter is currently the most vocal group trying to undermine Christianity, but they are not alone.

    American law permits women to have their babies murdered while in their womb. The innocent blood cries out for Justice, and it will come. God’s mercy extends to those who repent of Sin, not to those who make excuses for it or accept sin as good and right.

    • Ino Yamanaka

      Nothing is being forced on you, you are delusional

  • NCOriolesFan

    It’s FUN to hear all the pro-gays liberals go barking how they’ll boycott Indiana. Oh boy, I say let them boycott. Who cares since gays are only less a percentage point of the general population. Where they boycott, they’ll be MORE common sense business for Indiana.

    • Paul Hiett

      Try at least 3%

    • weasel1886

      It’s not just gays that will boycott. This will change when cities start losing money. Dollars always triumph over morals to the faithful

  • Tangent001

    We’ll see how this plays out in the courts. The first few test cases will be interesting. A lot will hinge on the interpretation of what constitutes a ‘substantial burden’ to faith.

  • Sam Thompson

    I read the whole bill just now and it didn’t really say a thing about refusing service to gays. It really only said that the government cannot burden someone’s freedom of religion unless it has a legitimate means to. And even then they have to use the least restrictive means to. Its just a law that says the government cannot violate someone’s religious freedom.

    • Paul Hiett

      Is that really what you think it does? Why not be honest with yourself and admit exactly what this bill allows?

  • Fat Messiah

    The ban hammer has fallen again… seems truth and challenge is not appreciated by the delicate sensibilities here.

    No problem… no problem at all.

    • Paul Hiett

      And yet Gary can still post…

  • TheBBP

    If their hateful agenda wasn’t clear before, look at how they desire to bring an entire state to it’s knees so that they can force Christian businesses to support gay unions.

    • Paul Hiett

      Oh yeah, it’s the gays enacting legislation to promote hate.

      I really don’t think you understand.

      • Richard

        Gays are not satisfied with being accepted, they desire to force others to accept their lifestyle as ‘normal,’ which is isn’t.

        This law allows those who disagree with the gay lifestyle to exercise their freedom. This is fair and reasonable.

        • Paul Hiett

          Who’s accepted? Ya’ll keep trying to pass legislation to legalize your hate!

          No, Richard, hate is never an acceptable reason to discriminate.

          • Richard

            By your own definition, aren’t you hating those who disagree with the gay lifestyle?

            You are right, your hate of those who disagree with you is an unacceptable reason to discriminate.

          • Paul Hiett

            No Richard, I don’t hate anyone. I simply disagree with hatred, and using that hatred to justify how we treat others.

            Amazing, isn’t it, that an atheist shows the love and compassion that Christians always claim they have?

          • Richard

            How can those who disagree with the gay lifestyle be accused of being hateful, yet gays who disagree with those who disagree with their lifestyle aren’t being hateful?

            It’s either all or nothing. You can’t have it both ways.

            Atheists only show love and compassion for what they believe in. Christians love everyone, but not sin.

          • Paul Hiett

            The difference, Richard, is that gay people don’t go enacting legislation that enables them to act out their hate on anyone.

            Christians are constantly looking for way to force people to accept their beliefs, and live by those beliefs. Whether it’s legislation in Indiana that allows people to turn their hate into action. or a senator in Arizona who thinks church attendance should be mandatory.

            You’re so blinded by your faith that you’ve forgotten how to feel compassion for anyone with a different view than yours.

          • Richard

            Yes, they do. They force people to have to quit their jobs, close their shops because of gay activism.

            Not blinded at all. Sin is sin. You are blinded by your inability to discern sin.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…you have no clue what you’re talking about. No one was forced to quit or close their business. They chose that path themselves. They were given a choice…do your job, or quit. They chose not to do their jobs.

            I don’t expect you to understand what a choice is, since your parents chose your religion for you, but Google is easy to use.

          • Richard

            Yes, they were. Deny it as you might.

            Gays are all about suppressing opposition. They aren’t about tolerance and acceptance. You aren’t fooling anyone.

          • Tangent001

            As I understand it, gays are not suggesting that straight people shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

        • Fat Messiah

          Like your like-minded kin in the KKK, you don’t have to “accept” anything.

          End special protections in public accommodations for religion or admit you’re a hypocrite.

          • Richard

            The USA is a predominantly Christian country. If you don’t like it, you can choose to move.

          • Fat Messiah

            Then you are a bloody hypocrite.

            And you also forget, genius, that it protects RELIGION… that is ALL OF THEM, not just the ones who grovel before Jehovah.

          • Richard

            Are you an atheist?

          • Fat Messiah

            I’m an unapologetic agnostic.

            If there is a god, it ain’t the sky monster you guys and muslims promote.

          • Richard

            Christians don’t promote a muslim god.

            Christians love people, but hate the sin. All of the nice words you use won’t change the fact that homosexuality is a sin.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ah, the old Christian mantra…”we don’t hate the sinner, just the sin.”

            Nothing more than a weakly veiled admission of hate for anyone who is different.

          • Richard

            Your comments are hate-filled. Why is it that gays are so full of hate? It must be the deep-seated hurt and confusion that causes gay behavior.

          • Paul Hiett

            So by your logic, the majority should decide what is best for everyone else?

          • Richard

            Yes. Isn’t that democracy?

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re as ignorant as Gary sometimes it appears. No, Richard, the majority should never be allowed to dictate what is law. Were you home schooled? Did you fall asleep in history class?

            Do the words “Jim Crow” mean nothing in your world of unadulterated hate?

          • Richard

            “the majority should never be allowed to dictate what is law. ”

            Are you suggesting the minorities should dictate law? How ludicrous.

            Gays use the ‘hate’ word to try and suppress a different belief. It is a pathetic attempt to silence critics. It also shows a lack of a reasoned argument to defend the immoral behavior.

          • Paul Hiett

            *sigh*

            You really shouldn’t be debating anyone regarding this. Your inability to understand US history has hamstrung any notion you may have had in being able to present a valid argument.

            When the majority enact a law that discriminates against the minorities, it does more harm than good, which is why we need laws to protect them. Doing away with the Jim Crow laws was a great thing for this country, as it helped march civil rights forward in this country.

            I don’t expect you to understand, because as you’ve pointed out, you have no clue about history.

          • Richard

            Put-downs, another gay tactic.

          • MisterPine

            No, Richard. Gays use the ‘hate’ word to describe their experiences, such as when they are beaten up and stamped on by Christians.

          • Richard

            No, MisterPine. Gays use the word hate in a desperate attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle. It is a form of bullying.

          • MisterPine

            No, Richard. Are homosexuals trying to prevent Christians from marrying? No. Are Christians trying to prevent homosexuals from marrying? Yes. The only thing homosexuals are trying to stop Christians from doing is discriminating in fact, and you don’t like it. Who is the bully here?

          • Richard

            Homosexuality is a behavior. It’s not a race or color. Society needs to stand against immoral behavior or else the floodgates of immorality are opened.

            Why do you approve of homosexual behavior, yet not other forms of immoral behavior? What makes your immorality better than another?

          • MisterPine

            No, Richard. Homosexuality is an attraction. You might never touch another person and you can still be homosexual so it has nothing to do with “behaviour” which makes the actions of a few busybody Christians that much more appalling.

            I suggest to you that your “morality” is the one that needs a rethink and you can start by using sources a little bit more authoritative and a little more recent than what’s found in a 2000 year old book.

        • Covered California

          Bs. Asking for products or services that a business already provides is not “forcing” their “lifestyle” on anyone. I wish you guys would stop being such pansies and hiding behind your bible and just straight up say “I hate [email protected]!”

    • Fat Messiah

      Nah, Indiana can keep their discrimination… they will just lose out on MILLIONS of dollars to state coffers every year by being discriminated against by companies that disagree with them.

      That’s called poetic justice…

    • Ino Yamanaka

      Doing your job is not an act of supporting gay unions

    • Weasel1886

      Twit

  • Fat Messiah

    The Civil Rights Act protects those who have chosen to follow a religion… ANY religion… in places of public accommodations.

    Yet here, those very people wish to be able to discriminate against other law-abiding citizens in places of public accommodations.

    Legally, this is textbook hypocrisy…

    I’m happy for the $millions$ that this is costing Indiana and I hope it costs them a whole lot more.

    Such hypocrisy should hurt.

  • Ino Yamanaka

    Just like the bans to same-sex marriage, this bill won’t last long. A few law suits later and it will be gone.

    When will you religious zealots learn? Doing your job is not an act of you agreeing to my lifestyle. Doing your job is not an act of you accepting my lifestyle.

    Doing your job is only you agreeing to the lifestyle you choose, which is to have a business and to sell your product/service to customers.

    You guys will never win this fight.

    • Richard

      “You guys will never win this fight.”

      The fight is already won. It doesn’t really matter what laws man makes. What really matters is what God thinks and what He does on the final day of judgement.

      You can party now and behave the way you choose. But don’t think your behaviors won’t have consequences in the end.

      • Paul Hiett

        ROFL…a geographical accident lands Richard into Christian beliefs, and he thinks he’s figure out the answers to everything, and everyone else is wrong.

        That’s so cute.

        • Richard

          I chose to accept Christ. I submit to God’s authority.

          God made us and everything around us. He is supreme.

          You are a mere human with no ability to create. Yet, you exercise the gift God gave you and put yourself on your throne.

          That’s not cute at all. Before God calls your number, you really should take some time and figure out your beliefs…because based on your final answer, your eternity is set.

          • Paul Hiett

            Your religious beliefs are nothing more than a geographical accident. I can easily prove this, btw.

            Your choice of a deity gives you no rights over other men. None.

          • Richard

            “Your religious beliefs are nothing more than a geographical accident. I can easily prove this, btw.”

            Please do.

            “Your choice of a deity gives you no rights over other men. None.”

            God is sovereign over all creation…even you. You just don’t know it yet.

          • Paul Hiett

            Which God? Yours?

          • Richard

            The only God. He is God to everyone, including you.

            Unless you can prove God doesn’t exist. Can you?

          • Tangent001

            No-one can prove a negative. Prove to me that God exists.

          • Paul Hiett

            But that’s not how Richard works. You must prove his deity does not exist.

            If you ask him to prove another deity does not exist (his own logic, mind you), he will then require you to prove it does.

          • Tangent001

            Typical double-standard.

          • Richard

            Not at all. If you want evidence to prove God, it’s all over the Internet. But you first have to look for it. Denying it doesn’t negate it.

          • Tangent001

            I’m not doing your homework for you.

          • Dennis Velco

            You probably can’t read.

          • Richard

            “that’s not how Richard works. You must prove his deity does not exist.”

            If you believe God doesn’t exist, you would need to prove that.

            You’ve already admitted you can’t. You have great blind faith.

          • Tangent001

            You cannot prove a negative.

            I do not believe in God, gods, or extra-natural forces because I see no empirical or logical evidence.

          • Paul Hiett

            No Richard, the burden of proof is always on the positive claimant. I don’t expect you to understand this, because logic is not part of the home school curriculum.

          • Richard

            No one is asking you to prove a negative, but to disprove a real historical person. Can you?

          • Tangent001

            To which ‘real, historical person’ are you referring?

      • Ino Yamanaka

        “What really matters is what God thinks and what He does on the final day of judgement.”

        God has no opinion on homosexuality. Your own opinion stems from the bible which was written by men, not god.

        “You can party now and behave the way you choose. But don’t think your behaviors won’t have consequences in the end.”

        My behavior won’t have consequences because my behavior is just how god intended it to be. It is impossible to exist in this world unless god made you exist.

        • Richard

          “God has no opinion on homosexuality.”

          The Bible is the only God-inspired book on earth. Unless you can prove it wasn’t. Can you?

          “My behavior won’t have consequences”

          Can you prove that? Can you prove God doesn’t exist?

          • Paul Hiett

            No more than you can prove that Odin does not exist. Do you want to lose that argument again too?

          • Richard

            Never lost it the first time. But one has to illogical and reasonable to see why the ‘Odin’ nonsense is just that – a silly nonsensical attempt to defend the blind faith of atheism.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then prove Odin is not real. Should be easy. Although, if the last time we discussed this is any indication, you’ll refuse, or you’ll give the same non-sensical answer of, “but I agree with you Odin is not real”.

            If you can’t prove that Odin is not real, then your choice of a deity will fall under the same scrutiny, and you will have no choice but to admit that it’s not real either.

          • Richard

            Do you believe Odin is real? If so, what evidence do you have?

          • Paul Hiett

            Once again I point to your own hypocrisy. You demand proof from us that your god does not exist, but when faced with your own logic regarding other deities, you attempt to turn the tables and demand proof from us of another deity’s existence. It doesn’t work like that.

            Thank you for admitting that you believe Odin is as real as your deity.

          • Richard

            Is that a yes or no?

          • Paul Hiett

            Based on your admission that Odin is as real as your deity, that would mean it’s a yes, Odin is real.

          • Tangent001

            All that you need to find the reality of Odin in your heart can be found in the ‘Poetic Edda’ and ‘Prose Edda’.

          • Richard

            Yes, fiction. You should talk with Paul about that. He believes Odin is a real person.

          • Ino Yamanaka

            “The Bible is the only God-inspired book on earth. Unless you can prove it wasn’t. Can you?”

            I 100% agree with you. It’s god inspired. Written by men who were inspired by the idea of “god”.

            “Can you prove that? Can you prove God doesn’t exist?”

            Can you prove he does exist? Cause so far there is no proof that god exists but there is proof everywhere that god does not exist. A lack of proof is proof itself.

          • Tangent001

            Actually, by worshiping God, you are actually worshiping Krishna. It says so in the Bhagavad Gita:

            “Those who worship other gods with faith and devotion also worship me, Arjuna, even if they do not observe the usual forms. I am the object of all worship, its enjoyer and Lord.”

          • Richard

            “you are actually worshiping Krishna, Arjuna ”

            No. That’s a mistake on your part. There is only one real God. The rest are imaginary constructs of humans.

          • Tangent001

            A Hindu would say that your God is just another manifestation/aspect of Brahma. Why are they wrong?

          • Paul Hiett

            “There is only one real God. The rest are imaginary constructs of humans.”

            OMG…HAHHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAH..oh man that’s hilarious.

        • Paul Hiett

          BTW, Ino, RIchard here will demand that you prove that God is not real. Should you then counter him, logically, to prove that another deity is not real, he will then demand that you prove it is.

          The funny thing is, he has no clue about his own hypocrisy.

          • Richard

            “The funny thing is, he has no clue about his own hypocrisy.”

            Atheism = no evidence. None!

            Christianity = all the evidence. Plenty!

            It only seems like hypocrisy to you because you deny all the evidence. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

            God is real. I’ve personally experienced Him countless times.

            You can deny it, but that doesn’t negate the truth of if.

          • Paul Hiett

            You have evidence that your deity is real? By all means, submit it and we can see how well it stacks up against the evidence that Odin is real.

          • Richard

            Do you believe Odin is real?

    • Oshtur

      How can YOU win? Religious people marry and have children and families and communities of faith to give their lives meaning.
      You have nothing. Zip.
      No judge or law can make losers into decent, respectable citizens or give meaning to your pointless lives.
      You win nothing. You’ll never be the equals of decent people because you aren’t decent. To gain self-respect you have to be a good person, and that is beyond you.
      You lose.

      • Ino Yamanaka

        “How can YOU win? “

        By winning in court. It turns out that logic and law causes us to win more in court than the bible causes you guys to win in court.

        “Religious people marry and have children and families and communities of faith to give their lives meaning.You have nothing. Zip.”

        If you have to have kids inorder to have meaning to your life, then you are a very lousy spouse to your spouse.

        I have my own husband and my own communities. And if we choose it, we can also have kids.

        “No judge or law can make losers into decent, respectable citizens or give meaning to your pointless lives.”

        Thank you for admitting that despite how a judge rules, you are still a meaningless human being.

        “You win nothing.”

        We win equality. It’s you who literally win nothing because at the same time, you literally lose nothing.

        “You’ll never be the equals of decent people because you aren’t decent.”

        Aren’t decent to your own individual opinion, nothing more.

        “To gain self-respect you have to be a good person, and that is beyond you”

        Being a good person is not specific to being straight.

        Take yourself for example. This entire response you’ve given is filled with nothing but hate “you aren’t decent”, “you aren’t respectable”, “you have nothing”, etc. You are just full of hate.

        “You lose.”

        The courts are clear, it’s YOUR side that is losing, not mine.

        • scottrose

          Courts can’t turn a scumbag into a human.
          Epic fail, girl. Go back to that restroom and see how many guys you can infect, you’re probably up to 6 figures by now.

          Oh, BTW, NO you can’t have kids. takes a woman to make baby, you moron.

          • Ino Yamanaka

            “Courts can’t turn a scumbag into a human.”

            Good thing that isn’t a reality of life that any of us are dealing with then.

            “Oh, BTW, NO you can’t have kids. takes a woman to make baby, you moron.”

            We can have kids and BTW it doesn’t take a woman to have kids, it takes eggs and sperm. And the day that you prove that eggs or sperm are men or women is the day you can win this argument.

  • Paul Hiett

    Pay attention folks…even the business owners in Indiana are upset over this.

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/27/news/companies/businesses-fight-indiana-gay-discrimination/index.html

    Pence has secured the end of his political career.

    • Richard

      Give it a rest, Paul. No one is buying your kool-aid.

      • Paul Hiett

        Other than anyone with half a brain, and the influential business leaders in the state of Indiana…you’re right.

        • Richard

          Another put-down. Way to follow the gay agenda.

          • Tangent001

            You love it and you know it. It let’s you feel all righteous and stuff.

    • Whatever

      Oh my yes, Pence can’t sleep at night thinking a bunch of vile barflies don’t like him. Poor fellow, being hated by the ones at the bottom of the cesspool.

  • Richard

    The gay agenda:

    1. Gain sympathy by playing the “stop the bullying” card.
    2. Gain acceptance by playing the “born this way” card.
    3. Normalize their immoral behavior by changing marriage laws.
    4. Normalize gay marriages by adopting children.
    5. Indoctrinate their children into the gay lifestyle (this will increase normalization).
    6. Infiltrate all learning institutions so they can flood them with gay propaganda.
    7. Suppress all opposition through gay activism.

    The public has been duped. The gay agenda is now on display and almost complete.

    Throughout all of this, an underlying tactic is to call opponents bigots, hate-filled, bullies, and cowards. This is intended to intimidate and silence critics by resonating with point 1 (the bully card) and 7 (suppression).

    • Paul Hiett

      This is why you’re a Christian, RIchard…

      http://www.worldreligions.psu.edu/images/artimages/maps/worldmap.jpg

      No other reason.

      • Richard

        Your misassumptions are your undoing.

        • Paul Hiett

          It’s proof, Richard. But like most Christians, you refuse facts.

          • Richard

            It’s only proof in your mind. Choosing Christ is a decision…an act of the will.

            Rejecting Christ is also a decision…an act of the will.

            Choose wisely for the consequences are eternal.

          • Paul Hiett

            Dispute the graph, Richard, if you disagree with it.

            Can you effectively dispute what it proves?

          • Richard

            How are Chinese saved? Jews saved? Muslims? Buddhists?

            Not by geography.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, can you prove the graph is not true? Dispute what it proves, that ones religion is mostly a geographical accident.

          • Richard

            There are over 2 billion Christians, and from all countries. Your misassumption has been disproven.

          • Paul Hiett

            http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

            This article and graph supports the other graph. The existence of Christians has nothing to do with why various religions are in certain areas of the world.

            Why are you unable to prove that the first graph is wrong? Why am I so easily able to support its claim with other graphs and studies?

            There’s a simple reason…I’m right. One’s religion is primarily a reflection of one’s geographical location. This is clearly true for the majority of the worlds population.

          • Richard

            It’s sad you have to grasp so desperately to support your faith. That should give you pause.

          • Paul Hiett

            I notice you can’t refute the proof.

            🙂

          • Richard

            Already done.

    • Ino Yamanaka

      My gay agenda today:
      1. Chipotle
      2. Watch porn
      3. Several hours playing Bloodborne
      4. Watch more porn
      5. Have a cigar, a drink, and read a couple chapters of my book
      6. More Bloodborne
      7. Even more porn
      8. Dinner
      9. Bed time.

      • Paul Hiett

        Your bed time’s at 9?

        • Ino Yamanaka

          That was a list, not hours

          • Paul Hiett

            😉

      • Richard

        You forgot to mention troll on Christian discussion forums under the false pretence that you may sway some to your gay way of thinking.

        • Ino Yamanaka

          Arguing with coherent ideas and facts is not trolling.

          • Richard

            “Arguing with coherent ideas and facts is not trolling.”

            That’s the point…they don’t have any coherent ideas and their arguments are moot.

          • Ino Yamanaka

            Arguments are moot only because you say so.

            Your side offers up BS, with a thick layer of bible, and my side offers up logic and tolerance.

            You guys can’t win this fight when all of your arguments stem from an fairytale that you have faith in.

          • Richard

            “Your side offers up BS, with a thick layer of bible

            Can you prove your assertion? Until you can, your assertion is false.

            “and my side offers up logic and tolerance”

            Sure you do. That’s why all we get is insults, put-downs, and illogical nonsense.

          • Ino Yamanaka

            “Can you prove your assertion? Until you can, your assertion is false.”
            The article in question is proof of the matter. Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Such BS. It’d be more accurate to call it “freedom discriminate act”.

            And the logic we offer up is that that bill wont last. It won’t be long until a business owner uses their fake right to then discriminate against a gay person, a few law suits later, and the bill is found unconstitutional.

          • Richard

            I guess time will tell.

          • Ino Yamanaka

            Just like 15ish years ago, before any ban was overturned on same-sex marriage, when people like yourself would exclaim “gay marriage will NEVER happen”.

            Yes, time will tell.

          • Richard

            It will…especially when God says time is up. He is the final arbiter, not man. No matter what man decides for himself, God has final say and His decision is final…no matter how much you may disagree.

          • Tangent001

            Ah, so ‘Wait ’til your Father gets home!’ is the best you’ve got?

          • Ino Yamanaka

            Ah, right. God. That invisible thing that also said same-sex marriage would never pass.

            How’s he doing, whats he up to lately?

          • Richard

            “That invisible thing that also said same-sex marriage would never pass.”

            He never said that. He allows our free will…until He says time is up.

          • Tangent001

            Actually, Ino is chock full of coherent ideas.

          • Richard

            Can you name one?

          • Paul Hiett

            Every. Single. One.

          • Richard

            That’s. None.

      • Jeff Jankowiak

        trash

  • Brenda Golden

    Nothing says bigot like a queer who doesn’t get his way. They feel no one has the right to not support them. The pathetic part is that in their hypocrisy they see no one as having rights except them. Why is it discrimination when businesses won’t serve queers but it is okay when a queer business owner won’t serve those who celebrate being straight or traditional marriage. Hypocrisy and bigotry.

    • Paul Hiett

      Where has a gay business owner refused to serve a Christian or someone who is straight?

      • Richard

        How much is the gaystapo paying you? Is this your regular job…proselytizing homosexuality?

        • Paul Hiett

          Those who support equal rights are always in the minority, and will always have to endure the hatred from intolerant people like you hiding behind your religion.

          • Richard

            More name calling and suppression tactics….sad that that is all gays have to defend their immorality.

          • Paul Hiett

            Name calling? You think that’s name calling? Man, you must have run home from the playground every day if you think that’s name calling.

          • Richard

            Mature adults don’t name call or put down. They have reasoned discussions….which is lacking from gay activists.

        • Jeff Jankowiak

          Spreads like a virus.

        • MisterPine

          So you claim to be a loving Christian but think nothing of using your hateful little firebrands like “Gaystapo”? And how does anyone “proselytize homosexuality”? Care to find me one single homosexual who is trying to turn others into homosexuals? If you think that’s how homosexuality works, no wonder you are so out to lunch on this subject. Gays don’t recruit.

      • TheBBP
        • Paul Hiett

          Let me get this straight…ya’ll claim, all the time on here by the way, that gays are “targeting” Christian business owners (despite having no idea who is and who is not Christian), yet you applaud this guy who is specifically targeting people who might be against intolerance? That’s your argument?

          Have you given this much thought? It makes me wonder how many businesses said they would write his hate-speech, and he just chose not to include those in his video.

          Furthermore, I know one of the bakers offered to make him a cake, and give him all the materials needed to write the message himself. That’s a great compromise, is it not?

        • Tangent001

          Businesses can refuse based on the message being requested, not the identity of the buyer. This guy was asking that ‘Gay Marriage is Wrong’ be written on the cake.

          • Paul Hiett

            What BBP and Richard can’t understand, is that gay people looking for a wedding cake or photographer aren’t asking a business to write a hate filled message, like this bozo. They’re simply asking for what all couples who are getting married have asked for.

            Why this is considered an “attack” on Christians is beyond me.

          • Tangent001

            They have a desperate need to feel ‘persecuted’.

          • Paul Hiett

            I don’t think there’s a Christian in America that knows what persecution is.

          • Tangent001

            In point of fact, Christianity has more access to the public consciousness in America than any other ideology. What they call ‘persecution’ is simply a lack of preferential treatment.

        • Ino Yamanaka

          You do realize that that isn’t a relevant comparison, right?

          The guy in the video is calling pro-gay bakeries and asking for a cake that says “gay marriage is wrong”.

          The only way that video would be relevant is if a gay person calls up a pro-traditional marriage bakery and asks them for a cake that says “traditional marriage is wrong”…..which hasn’t ever happened, ever.

          And also businesses can refuse based on the message request, as you demonstrated in your video, but not by the identify of the buyer, like every law suit that has happened to this effect so far.

    • David Wade

      What “way”- being treated equally? The law doesn’t stand a chance in hell of surviving a Constitutional challenge.

      • williamwalker

        Another poofter

        • David Wade

          Homophobic much? 😉

    • Kara Connor

      Citations, please. Your hate-filled little diatribe highlights the animus behind your faux-persecution complex, and that you are using your supposed religious beliefs as a cover for your bigotry, being too cowardly to just admit it.

  • Richard

    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened Professing to be wise, they became fools,” – Romans 1:18-22

  • RWH

    If this bill is like Colorado’s Proposition 2 of a about two decades ago, the Supreme Court will shoot it down quickly. The Court stated that a state cannot pass legislation that singles out a particular group for denial of redress under the law. I believe that it would also apply to goods and services.

    • Paul Hiett

      Unfortunately, Indiana may have worded this bill to effectively hide their hate and bigotry. I assume this new law will be challenged shortly. It will be interesting to see how that goes.

  • Richard

    Atheists and homosexuals think they are onto something new, even good. But they have been around since the beginning of time. There is nothing new about any of them. In fact, Paul addressed this in Corinth over 2000 years ago:

    “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

    “Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

    “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” – 1 Cor 1:18-31

    • Paul Hiett

      “Atheists and homosexuals think they are onto something new, even good.
      But they have been around since the beginning of time. There is nothing
      new about any of them. In fact, Paul addressed this in Corinth over 2000
      years ago:”

      Yes, Richard, atheists and homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time. What should that clue you into?

      • Richard

        “What should that clue you into?”

        That your nonsensical arguments have been around since then, as well. And that sin remains sin.

        Unless we turn to Christ, we will die in our sins.

    • David Wade

      God crated homosexuals, for what purpose- to antagonize devout Christians or to teach them tolerance?

  • SFBruce

    This is a bad law. There is no state wide ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation, but a few localities have such protections. Unfortunately, this law will neuter those protections. Proponents of this law will claim it protects against religious discrimination, but it’s actually a license to discriminate against LGBT people. I hope this law, and others like it, are overturned as soon as possible.

    • Richard

      “LGBT people”

      They aren’t a ‘people.’ They are regular people, like all people, but who choose the homosexual (sinful) lifestyle. I would no more condone that than ped o philia, rape, or beast iality.

      • Paul Hiett

        You’re really equating homosexual people with criminals that prey on children, women, and animals?

        • Richard

          Sin is sin.

      • SFBruce

        I really don’t care what you condone, especially since you think it’s entirely appropriate to compare loving relationships between adults to things like rape and murder. I do care, however, that Indiana has seen fit to legalize discrimination against LGBT people. And yes, despite your objections we are, indeed, people. People who have no more chosen our sexual orientation that you have.

        • Richard

          “loving relationships between adults to things like rape and murder”

          What’s the difference between a loving relationship to someone who loves to molest children…someone who loves to kill.

          If the entire gay argument is love, people love all kinds of things. Should we condone them all?

          • Paul Hiett

            And this, folks, is why home schooling is a bad idea.

          • Richard

            More put downs in place of a reasoned argument. How accepting, tolerant.

          • Paul Hiett

            Says the guy calling gay people murderers, pedo’s and animal lovers. Yes, such compassion…you’re so like your Christ!

          • Tangent001

            Homosexuality is consensual, child molestation is not. This isn’t rocket science here.

          • SFBruce

            What’s the difference between loving someone and killing someone? For starters, all the major faith traditions and humanist philosophies strongly recommend the former, and just as strongly discourage the latter.

  • Richard

    “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” – 2 Cor 4:4

    • Tangent001

      “Ham and swiss on marble rye with lettuce, onion, tomato, pickle and brown mustard. Side order of cole slaw. Large iced tea and an oatmeal cookie.” – Lunch 12:15

      • Richard

        Another example of a ‘reasoned’ argument from gay supporters.

        • Tangent001

          You are no fun at all!

          • Richard

            If you realized the predicament you are in, you’d also see that it is no laughing matter.

          • Paul Hiett

            Prove that we’re in a predicament. You can’t can you?

          • Richard

            Jesus, who is a historical person, said that He is the only way back to God.

            Unless you can prove Jesus isn’t God, or that He lied, His observations are true. Can you?

          • Paul Hiett

            I asked you to prove that we’re in a predicament. The Bible claims it, but the claim is not the proof.

            You can’t prove it, can you?

          • Richard

            “The Bible claims it, but the claim is not the proof.”

            The Bible contains over 2000 prophecies that all came true, including over 300 about Christ. They’ve all come true.

            So what the Bible says about other things is true, too. Unless you can prove them wrong. Can you?

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, there’s not a single prophecy in the Bible that’s been proven to have been fulfilled outside of the Bible, so yeah, I can prove it not true.

            Now, if you can’t prove that your deity is true, then it’s not. You can’t, can you?

          • Richard

            Once again your ignorance on the subject shines through. Read up on the destruction of Babylon, Persia, the arrival of Alexander the Great, his destruction of Sidon and Tyre, Egypt, and so. Many of the prophecies can be evidenced by world events and archeological discoveries.

          • Paul Hiett

            None of those things were prophecies come true. Anything written that alludes to such were written after the fact and therefore not reliable.

            If you can’t prove your deity is true, then it’s not. You can’t, can you?

          • Richard

            “None of those things were prophecies come true. Anything written that alludes to such were written after the fact and therefore not reliable.”

            Another demonstration of your ignorance of the facts. Denying the truth doesn’t make it untrue. Atheists have to go great lengths protect their blind faith. Ignoring the truth, history, archeological, and scientific evidence speaks of just how desperate they are to maintain their blind faith.

      • williamwalker

        Dumb queen

  • Richard

    “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'” – King David

    • Tangent001

      “I am heat; I give and withhold the rain. I am immortality and I am death; I am what is and what is not.” – Lord Krishna

      • Richard

        The quote from King David sums up your response nicely: a foolish comment from someone who says there is no God.

        • Tangent001

          Why does it bug you that I do not believe in your God?

          • Richard

            It doesn’t bug me at all. You are free to choose whatever beliefs and lifestyle you desire.

            My heart aches for you because you don’t know what you are missing, or where the consequences of your behavior will lead.

            People who know God know He is real. And with His reality come real consequences, whether you believe that or not.

            I come to these discussions out of love, in the hopes that people like you will re-evaluate their beliefs before it’s too late.

            There are only three main purposes in life:
            1. To find salvation in Christ.
            2. To help others find salvation in Christ.
            3. To develop Christ-like character.

            At the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is being reconciled to God. Other than that, nothing else really matters because it is of little, if any, lasting value.

          • Tangent001

            Thanks for your concern, but I do not require a transcendent agency to be a good person.

          • Richard

            No you don’t. But without God, there is no good.

          • Tangent001

            And you wonder why people are leaving religion in droves?

          • Richard

            And you wonder why atheism is a small minority belief system. The only driving force in atheism is self-centeredness and the desire to be your own god.

          • Paul Hiett

            I guess you haven’t been paying attention to how fast atheism is rising. Our youth, those that aren’t home schooled, are learning more every day, and the more they learn, the more educated they become. Sadly for dinosaurs like you, recent studies show that the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to be religious.

            Feel free to Google that btw, it’s true.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Got tired of losing the arguments on Christmas, Easter, and the Declaration of Independence, I see, eh, Mr. Hiett? That’s fine.

            Yes, atheism has made the meteoric rise from just under 1% of the U.S. population to over 1% of the pop. Wow! Would you like a cookie?
            Recent studies show that the more propagandized by college professors a person is, the less likely they are to be religious.
            Fixed it for you.

            If you can’t prove that gravity is true, then it’s not. You can’t, can you?
            Care to square that with what you’ve written, Mr. Hiett?

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL, I handed you your butt regarding Christmas and Easter. I’d love to see you make that same claim again today. Tell us all how Christmas was first celebrated in 207 AD!!!!

            I can prove gravity is true by dropping something.

            Care to prove a dead person can come back to life 3 days later?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Christmas was already being observed on December 25th by A.D. 204, is what Hyppolytus of Rome said, which destroyed your claim that Christmas came from the Roman observance of Sol Invictus. There, I said it again, Mr. Hiett.

            That doesn’t prove gravity is true. Scientists still can’t explain how gravity works. We just know that it’s there and make certain predictions based on it.

            Well over 500 witnesses saw Christ after His Resurrection, probably more like 700 to 1,000 saw Him.
            Next?

          • Paul Hiett

            Can you please explain why you are the only individual who thinks Christmas was first celebrated in 204 AD? Do you really think you know more than every person on earth, which includes respected historians who actually know what they’re talking about? Why does no one else, anywhere, support your claim?

            And yes, it does prove gravity works. You asked if I could prove that gravity works. Drop something. Proven. Next?

            Who saw this happen? Do you have a source outside of the Bible to help you prove this?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I already did explain it, earlier today. You ignored it. So, I’ll repost it here:

            No, Mr. Hiett, I’m not the only one. It’s actually quite main-street thought today, as my links have proven. Just because you are ignorant of it, says more about you, than it does about me. The fact that you think that you speak for all 7 billion people on the planet is more evidence of your delusions, rather than you knowledge of the subject.

            You are just regurgitating the vastly flawed & debunked historical-critical theories of the past two centuries. But, don’t take my word for it. Maybe you’ve heard of Pope Benedict XVI? One of the greatest theologians & biblical scholars of the past 500 years?
            In his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, Pope Benedict comments:
            “The claim used to be made that December 25 developed in opposition to the Mithras myth, or as a Christian response to the cult of the unconquered sun promoted by Roman emperors in the third century in their efforts to establish a new imperial religion. However, these old theories can no longer be sustained” (pp., 107-108).

            http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-christmas/

          • Paul Hiett

            You reference the website of a Christian as a rebuttal to the fact that the first Christmas was celebrated in 336?

            Just…wow. I don’t even know where to begin on this. What do you think he’s going to say?

            What is the date that everyone but you accepts as the first celebrated Christmas?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            The first celebration of Christmas was the night Christ was born, when the shepherds showed up, and then a little later, by the Magi.

            As for when Christians first officially celebrated it, we don’t know, since no record has survived to our time. But, again, we know that December 25th was observed by Christians by A.D.204, which is the point you refuse to deal with.
            What is your source for the first celebration of Christmas in A.D.336?
            p.s. I don’t wish to high jack this thread, as we did yesterday; so, it would be better to reply to me in yesterday’s thread, not here.

          • Tangent001

            Mid-winter makes no sense for the birth of Christ. Didn’t angels visit shepherds tending their flocks in the field? If it was indeed December 25, those sheep would have been indoors.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Winter in Judah is actually quite mild. It’s not as cold as it gets in northern Europe, where this trope originated, if I remember correctly.
            I spent the winter in the desert of the Saudi/Iraqi border, in 1990, as part of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. It only got down to the lower 50s/upper 40s at night, in late December.
            In fact, on Christmas day, I was on guard duty, and a pack of camels came up to our concertina wire gate, munching on the brush. We were wondering if three wise men might not be far behind! Ha-ha!

          • Paul Hiett
          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I asked for a source, not a google search, but, whatever. (Can’t remember the other thread?)
            This is your proof?
            In an old list of Roman bishops, compiled in A. D. 354 these words appear for A.D. 336: “25 Dec.: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae.” December 25th, Christ born in Bethlehem, Judea.

            I’m sorry, Mr. Hiett, but where is the word “celebrate” in that quotation? Isn’t that what your whole flimsy argument is based? My quote from Hyppolytus of Rome says the same thing!
            As I said, epic fail.

          • Paul Hiett

            Since you’re unwilling to actually learn on your own…

            http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/301-600/the-1st-recorded-celebration-of-christmas-11629658.html

            “For the first three hundred years of the church’s existence,
            birthdays were not given much emphasis–not even the birth of Christ.
            The day on which a saint died was considered more significant than his
            or her birth, as it ushered him or her into the kingdom of heaven.
            Christ’s baptism received more attention than his birthday in the
            January 6th feast of Epiphany.”

            This ends the debate, clearly.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            That quotation is completely accurate. In what way does it prove that the first celebration of Christmas was in A.D.336?
            My proving you wrong ended the debate, actually.

          • Paul Hiett

            Since, again, you refuse to read the links I post, or educate yourself, I’ll quote another sentence from that same article from a CHRISTIAN WEBSITE!

            “Today is Christmas day (Christ’s mass). But for the first 300 years of
            Christianity, it wasn’t so. When was Christmas first celebrated? In an
            old list of Roman bishops, compiled in A. D. 354 these words appear for
            A.D. 336: “25 Dec.: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae.” December 25th,
            Christ born in Bethlehem, Judea. This day, December
            25, 336, is the first recorded celebration of Christmas.”

            I could quote from many, many websites that support this as well, but the fact that this comes from a Christian website should have given you some indication of how wrong you are.

            You are simply being intellectually dishonest at this point.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You’re repeating what I’ve already copied and pasted. Are you going to answer me? Where is the word “celebrate” in the Latin quote? It says the same as Hyppolytus, which you dismissed, remember?
            This quote, “This day, December 25, 336, is the first recorded celebration of Christmas,” is the author’s erroneous opinion. Not a fact. He obviously was unaware of the A.D.204 quote from Hyppolytus.
            You, Mr. Hiett, are the one being intellectually dishonest, I’m afraid.

          • Paul Hiett

            This is from a Christian website!!!!!! Do you want non-Christian websites as well?

            http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-first-christmas.html

            “Somehow all of these elements converged to the formal celebration of
            Christmas on Dec. 25. For instance, Christmas was celebrated in Rome by
            Pope Liberius (352-66) on Dec. 25. On Dec. 25, 379, St. Gregory Nazianzus
            preached a Christmas sermon in Constantinople. In the Cathedral of Milan,
            St. Ambrose (d. 397) celebrated Christmas. Therefore, by; the year 400,
            generally, the birth of Christ was set on Dec. 25 with the exception of
            Palestine, where it was celebrated on Jan. 6 until the mid-600s, when
            it was then transferred to Dec. 25.”

            You have NOTHING to back up your claim and I have website after website, article after article, proving you wrong.

            All you are doing, clearly, is arguing for the sole purpose of arguing. It’s as if you’d rather just argue from a false point rather than admit an atheist knows something about Christianity than you do.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Where, in that quote, does it say “was first celebrated,” Mr. Hiett. I know this is hard to accept, since you defined the parameters, but there is no need to get upset. That quote is giving the list of dioceses that were observing Dec. 25th as the day that Christ was born. You are seeing something in these quotations that isn’t there. (We Catholics are Christian, by the way.)
            Now, are you going to answer my question? You kept harping on me about Hyppolytus’ quote not mentioning “celebrate.” Your quote, from A.D.354 (i.e., the list of bishops) doesn’t mention “celebrate” either. Only the author makes the erroneous assertion that A.D. 336 was the first “celebration” of Christmas. Shall I put both of our quotes side-by-side to illustrate the point?

          • Paul Hiett

            Is that the only reference you have? Some obscure Roman trying to establish the birthdate of Jesus?

            I mean, that’s all you seem to be referencing, while I have provided you multiple sources proving that Christmas was not celebrated until, at the earliest, 336 AD?

            Did you not read this? “For the first three hundred years of the church’s existence,
            birthdays were not given much emphasis–not even the birth of Christ.
            The day on which a saint died was considered more significant than his
            or her birth, as it ushered him or her into the kingdom of heaven.
            Christ’s baptism received more attention than his birthday in the
            January 6th feast of Epiphany.”

            This further proves that birthdates were NOT celebrated at all, even for religious figures.

            Again, do you have anything to refute the proofs I have provided here? I’ve provided you multiple sources now, and yet you cling to this unknown Roman and his rather insane way of determining Jesus’ birthdate. No one in his right mind would think you’ve provided any kind of proof about when Christmas was first celebrated.

            Here’s another one…http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2000/dec08.html

            “If observed at all, the celebration of Christ’s birth was usually lumped
            in with Epiphany (January 6), one of the church’s earliest established
            feasts. Some church leaders even opposed the idea of a birth
            celebration. Origen (c.185-c.254) preached that it would be wrong to
            honor Christ in the same way Pharaoh and Herod were honored. Birthdays
            were for pagan gods.”

            More proof…

            “Western Christians first celebrated Christmas on December 25 in 336,
            after Emperor Constantine had declared Christianity the empire’s favored
            religion.”

            Any argument from you now is clearly meant only to continue an argument.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Yes, I did read it. Unlike you, Mr. Hiett, I read your links. Which is why I know that you skipped over some pertinent information, in your latest:

            Not all of Origen’s contemporaries agreed that Christ’s birthday shouldn’t be celebrated, and some began to speculate on the date (actual records were apparently long lost).
            As I stated.

            The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273….
            Wrong, but still earlier than your adherence to A.D.336. Did you read your own link?

            As a theologian asserted in 320, “We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it.”
            Still earlier than 336. And it denies any pagan origin.

            It’s funny that you keep referring to Hyppolytus of Rome as “some obscure Roman” when he is a saint and an early Church Father, with several written works that survived. Which brings me back to the evidence you keep refusing to deal with. I’ll put the quotes back-to-back, to make it easier for you.
            First, your source, i.e., the list of bishops from A.D.354:
            In an old list of Roman bishops, compiled in A. D. 354 these words appear for A.D. 336: “25 Dec.: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae.” December 25th, Christ born in Bethlehem, Judea.

            Now, my quote, from A.D.204:
            For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years.

            They’re practically identical. Neither quote mentions “the first celebration,” do they, Mr. Hiett? Only the author of your source makes that conclusion, because he was ignorant of Hyppolytus’ writings, it appears.
            All of your sources, even the Catholic priest, are relying on poor scholarship from the past two centuries, which was still propagated in Catholic circles up until the 1990s. You really need to read more recent scholarship, such as the quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, from 2000, “However, these old theories can no longer be sustained.”
            You atheists really shouldn’t discuss subjects like Christianity until you know what you’re talking about. Getting talking points from atheist sites and finding links that prove your supposed point is not making an argument, I’m afraid. Original sources always trump modern suppositions.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re not comprehending what it says. The choice of Dec 25 was not the year they celebrated it. For God’s sake, read the words!

            Non-Christian AND Christian sites support the facts. You can choose to accept the facts, or bury your head in the sand. Your choice.

          • The Last Trump

            Wow. Nick’s really mopping the floor with you isn’t he? Almost hard to watch. Almost. 🙂
            You might want to stick to your “witty” banter with fellow atheists.
            Clearly you’re out of your league.

          • Paul Hiett

            All you do is launch ad hom attacks and contribute nothing to a conversation. I assume the reason for that is because you lack the mental capacity to keep up.

          • The Last Trump

            You seem to have forgotten the “debates” we’ve shared. Or you’re just intellectually dishonest. Whichever.
            Unlike some, I don’t feel the need to comment about every little thing to every single person here. And, let’s face it, Nick’s doing just fine on his own without my interfering. Sorry if my simple observation hurt your tender feelings.
            I’ve witnessed you make the same kind of observations about others dozens of times. Guess that makes you a hypocrite, huh? No matter.
            As you were. Again, sorry I interrupted the thrashing Nick was giving you.
            Back to the entertainment! 🙂

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            If you’ve liked our exchange, so far, LT, check out my latest reply!

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You’re the one not comprehending, Mr. Hiett. Is English your second language?
            Perhaps you should go back to the thread from yesterday, and re-read how this began?

            “The choice of Dec 25 was not the year they celebrated it.”

            What does that even mean? Who is they? The choice of the day is not the year? It’s not my fault that you can’t express yourself better than you do, ya’ know?

            Hyppolytus’ words are proof that the Christians of Rome were observing December 25th as the birthday of Christ, i.e., Christmas, in A.D. 204. Which predates Sol Invictus (274) AND your claim of Constantine (336).
            Why is this so hard for you to understand, Mr. Hiett? How old are you? Are you just out of college? That would explain much.
            If you’re still not getting it, just read the links I provided, since they go more in-depth than I am able. And, since you obviously haven’t read them, yet.

          • Paul Hiett

            I doubt you’ll see this, but you never know…

            http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

            Just another website and article proving you wrong, yet again.

            “There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early
            Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c.
            160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman
            celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan”
            practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with
            similar festivities at that place and time.1 As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point.”

            Your problem here is that you don’t understand your history. Birth dates weren’t celebrated at that time by Christians. That alone debunks any claim you have been trying to make. Further, this is not the first article I have linked to that discusses that point. You can say anything you want about Christians trying to determine what date he was born on, but as for actually celebrating Christmas…sorry Nick, but the facts speak for themselves.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            It would be nice, Mr. Hiett, if you would bother to read my links. But, it would really be nice if you’d bother to read your own links, too! Because it actually strengthens my position and debunks the atheists’. The author, Professor McGowan, is very fair in his article.
            (Thanks, for this link, Paul. I’ll be able to use it against other atheists when they make the bogus claim that Christmas came from pagan festivals!)

            If you had read past the first few paragraphs, you would have come across these gems:
            “There are problems with this popular theory [Your theory], however, as many scholars recognize [So much for your Nick versus 7 billion meme, eh?]. Most significantly, the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) [Did you catch that?] and the earliest celebrations that we know about (c. 250–300) come in a period when Christians were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions [And that?] of such an obvious character.
            […]
            “The December 25 feast seems to have existed before 312—before Constantine and his conversion, at least [I.e., before 336].”

            Earlier in the article, the author clearly explains that efforts to fix the date of Christ’s birth were already under way by the end of the Second Century, A.D.:
            “Finally, in about 200 C.E., a Christian teacher in Egypt makes reference to the date Jesus was born. According to Clement of Alexandria, several different days had been proposed by various Christian groups. Surprising as it may seem, Clement doesn’t mention December 25 at all. Clement writes: [The quote gives examples of others who have fixed the date, which are all over the calender from April to August.]
            […]
            “Clearly there was great uncertainty, but also a considerable amount of interest, in dating Jesus’ birth in the late second century.
            […]
            “Despite its popularity today, this theory [Your theory] of Christmas’s origins has its problems. It is not found in any ancient Christian writings, for one thing. Christian authors of the time do note a connection between the solstice and Jesus’ birth: The church father Ambrose (c. 339–397), for example, described Christ as the true sun, who outshone the fallen gods of the old order. But early Christian writers never hint at any recent calendrical engineering; they clearly don’t think the date was chosen by the church. Rather they see the coincidence as a providential sign, as natural proof that God had selected Jesus over the false pagan gods.
            […]
            It’s not until the 12th century that we find the first suggestion that Jesus’ birth celebration was deliberately set at the time of pagan feasts. A marginal note on a manuscript of the writings of the Syriac biblical commentator Dionysius bar-Salibi states that in ancient times the Christmas holiday was actually shifted from January 6 to December 25 so that it fell on the same date as the pagan Sol Invictus holiday.5 In the 18th and 19th centuries, Bible scholars spurred on by the new study of comparative religions latched on to this idea [As I’ve repeated told you, Mr. Hiett].”

            The author does mention your list of bishops from A.D.354, so, he is obviously unaware of Hippolytus of Rome’s mention of Christmas in A.D.204.
            Next time, Mr. Hiett, read the entirety of your source. That way, you won’t get bit in the backside.
            If you remember, my initial response to you contained an error, which I readily admitted. I have no problem recognizing when I make mistakes. Unlike some others…

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ve already proven that there isn’t a single…not one…Christmas “tradition” that is Christian in origin. Of course, you already know this even if you refuse to accept it.

            As for when the first Christmas was actually celebrated, you continue to ignore the facts for whatever reason. I think you just like arguing for the sake of arguing. The fact remains that celebrating birthdays didn’t happen back then, especially not for Christians.

            I’ll give you another link, and yet another article proving you wrong.

            http://www.sundaytimes.lk/111225/Plus/plus_12.html

            “Christmas was not celebrated during the first three centuries for two
            reasons. Firstly, the early Christians were awaiting the Imminent
            Coming of Jesus and secondly in Rome in those days, no birthdays save
            that of the emperor could be celebrated.”

            Gee Nick, kinda hard to “celebrate” something you can’t celebrate. Let’s see another one:

            http://www.hcna.us/columns/history-of-christmas.htm

            “The Church didn’t celebrate the birth of Jesus
            for 300 years after his death and resurrection.”

            Another one? Ok then…

            http://christianity.about.com/od/christmas/f/christmashistor.htm

            “Ultimately, December 25 was chosen, perhaps as early as A.D. 273. By 336 A.D., the Roman church calender definitively records a nativity
            celebration by Western Christians on this date. Eastern churches
            maintained the January 6 commemoration together with Epiphany until
            sometime in the fifth or sixth centuries when the 25th day of December
            became the widely accepted holiday.”

            That one, if you read it, even references Hippolytus for ya. Your problem is that you fail to realize that when someone is right, they can usually find article after article to support their stance. That’s why I’ve been able to post so many different links for you.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Again, I must ask you, Mr. Hiett, do you even read these links? Or, do you just google key words, looking for only the people who agree with you, and then copy and paste what shows up on the google page, without even going to their sites? Because, these last three links have no sources or footnotes, are not scholarly works (unlike your last link, which bit you in the backside), and the last two are…anonymous.

            I can google “are there alien abductions” and could provide hundreds of links to support that premise. It wouldn’t make it true. Providing links to people (anonymous people) just repeating other false information is not the same thing as presenting evidence or making an argument. Why should I care what Lenard Ranjith Mahaarachchi thinks? He couldn’t even get simple historic facts correct. Do you also agree with these words, from Mahaarachchi?
            For those doubting Thomasas, who refuse to believe in the historicity of Jesus, well history has it this way. Josephus the historian refers to Jesus in his Antiquities, BK I8. A passage here reads thus, “At this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if he can be called a man) and performed marvellous things and became the master of those who joyfully received the truth, and many of the Jews, also the Greeks followed him. This was the Christ, being denounced by the priests of our nation to Pilate, he was condemned to die on the cross.”

            Perhaps it would help to remind you of how this all started? When I corrected my initial mistake (about confusing Saturnalia with Sol Invictus), you replied with:
            You’re still wrong! Even Sol Invictus predates Christimas. You really need to vet your answers before you post them.
            First, no one knows the dates of when Jesus was born. The only reason Dec 25th was chosen was because many Christians were also already taking part in Sol Invictus ceremonies, not the mention many of the other pagan traditions/celebrations regarding the Solstice. In fact, this time period was chosen in order to help transition pagans to Christianity, to keep some of their traditions alive.

            I’ve thoroughly debunked your assertion, with the help of some of your links, remember? I’ve also conceded the point that some of Christmas’ customs & traditions had pagan roots, but, were Christianized. The main point being, that the sole tradition of Christmas, i.e., the observance of Christ’s Advent, born of the flesh in Bethlehem of Judea on December 25th, was NOT pagan in origin. It was, by definition, Christian.

            I’m sorry, but I stick with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and all the other biblical scholars, views on this subject; rather than the obscure musings of anonymous bloggers, okay?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            p.s. I forgot this other quote which demolishes the atheists’ false claims about Easter, and confirms everything I showed you, Mr. Hiett:
            Easter, a much earlier development than Christmas, was simply the gradual Christian reinterpretation of Passover in terms of Jesus’ Passion. Its observance could even be implied in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 5:7–8: “Our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the festival…”); it was certainly a distinctively Christian feast by the mid-second century C.E., when the apocryphal text known as the Epistle to the Apostles has Jesus instruct his disciples to “make commemoration of [his] death, that is, the Passover.”

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            p.s. Just in case you’re still confused, Mr. Hiett, here are some more quotes from another source, with the link to follow (you’ll have to read more than the first few paragraphs, though):

            The early Church eventually formalized Natalis Christi in 350 a.d. under Pope Julius I.

            Though the pagan festivities may have served as a catalyst, the selection of this feast for this day was neither sudden nor arbitrary. In fact, December 25th had already enjoyed preeminence among Christians as the birthday of Christ long before the papal decree. According to Pope Benedict XVI, the first person to clearly assign Christmas to its current feast day was St. Hippolytus of Rome.5 In his Commentary on Dan­iel, which was written c. 204 a.d., St. Hippolytus wrote: “For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years.”6 Writing roughly 150 years before any known records which designate December 25th as Natalis Invicti, Hippolytus gives no mention of the Roman feast. It would seem the Christian use of the date was quite independent from all pagan solemnities.
            […]
            Thus, the common criticism of the celebration of Christmas on December 25 made by some Christian sects — i.e., that the date of Christmas is another trapping of paganism in which the Catholic Church has gone astray — is not based on fact.
            http://insidethevatican.com/news/lead-story/the-25th-of-december-pagan-feast-or-patristic-tradition

          • williamwalker

            Dork

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            As to your other two points, nobody said “works.” Prove gravity is true, as you expect us to prove that God is true, okay?
            Saint Paul mentions these 500 witnesses in 1 Cor. 15:3-8. The New Testament is as reliable, if not more, than other sources from that period. Paul wrote 1 Cor. c.A.D.57, when many of those witnesses were still alive.

          • Paul Hiett

            I asked you provide a source outside of the Bible. I’m well aware of what the Bible says. Can you provide a source outside of the Bible that proves the Bible is true? Clearly, such a feat would have been recorded by many of the people there. The Romans certainly would have recorded such a miraculous occurrence, so there must be some corroborating evidence, right?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I reject your rejection of the New Testament as accurate history. Christ is better attested to than Homer or Hannibal’s crossing the Alps.
            And, no, we wouldn’t expect the Romans to mention these miracles in detail. But, Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny all mention Christ and His followers.

          • Tangent001

            The historicity of Jesus is by no means a settled matter. The writings of Josephus, for example, that mention Jesus are likely forgeries. However, even if there was a person named Jesus who was executed by the Romans, that is not evidence of divinity.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Sorry, Tangent001, it is a settled matter.
            Even your fellow atheists say as much:
            http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html

          • Tangent001

            Um, one guy’s blog does not ‘settle’ the matter.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Try reading his essay, first. You know, like having an open mind?

          • Tangent001

            That is not accurate. Recent surveys show that 3% identify as atheist and another 5% are agnostic. 21% identify as not being religious, up from only 5% in 1972.

            http://www.christianpost.com/news/number-of-americans-who-say-they-have-no-religion-hits-record-high-survey-finds-136253/

          • Paul Hiett

            HAH!!!! I was just about to post that article along with this one…
            http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/

            Says the same thing basically.

            You’ll have to excuse Nick here, he still thinks our Christmas traditions are Christian in origin.

          • Tangent001

            A disciple of Kirk Cameron?

          • Paul Hiett

            Wouldn’t surprise me…

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            It wouldn’t surprise you if a Catholic was a disciple of Kirk Cameron, Mr. Hiett?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Nope. I’m a proud Catholic.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Well, Tangent001, since Mr. Hiett only mentioned atheists, that was the bogus claim with which I was dealing. 2% would be pushing it.

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s more like 2.4%, but that was back in 2012, so it’s a safe bet it’s higher today. Also, that number doesn’t include those who are too afraid to speak out and admit they’re atheists. You should read Reddit, and you’ll see just how difficult it is for atheists to come out today, especially for our youth.

            It’s actually enough of a problem that websites like this have to exist: http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/ask/what-do-i-do-when-ive-been-kicked-out-of-the-house-for-being-an-atheist/

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            If that figure came from the MSM, it’s not surprising. Since, they are anti-Christian to begin with. Clear case of confirmation bias.
            But, for the sake of argument, I’ll grant the 2.4% figure. Again, that’s it? Wow. What a tremendous increase!
            You about the same pop. as the Jews, without any of the influence.

          • Paul Hiett

            But it’s an indication that more and more people are turning AWAY from religion. We’re at 20% now that don’t identify. They may not come out as “atheist”, but 20% should be an eye opener for you.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Yes, Mr. Hiett, I will agree with that secular humanism has made terrible inroads into our society. And, if that had been your claim, I wouldn’t have objected. But, your claim was that atheism is rising at a rapid rate. The data does not support that claim, sorry.

          • Parque_Hundido

            How ironic that you dismiss a source for not matching you ideological bias, only to label as “confirmation bias” the problems you invent to dismiss that source.

            Irony much Nick?

            Maybe idol worship and child abuse is taking its toll.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I believe a rise from 1% to 3% is a 300% increase. That’s quite a pop.

            Your innumeracy probably holds you back in life.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            More multiple postings, Parque? You need another hobby, besides following me around the interwebs, hanging on my every word. (And, trust me, I wouldn’t waste my time to set up a phony disqus account. You’re not worth it, I’m afraid.)
            Your math skills are far superior to your knowledge of history and the Catholic Church, that’s for sure! But, statics are frequently used to lie, and hide the truth. Especially, by atheists and anti-Catholic bigots.
            So, when a group that has a hundred million members adds another million members, they’ve only increased by one percent. If another group, that only has 1,000 members adds 2,000 more members, it’s increased its rolls by 300%.
            But, the fact remains that the former group has a million more members, while the latter only has a mere two thousand. Not quite a pop, really. To which group would you rather belong, Parque?

          • Parque_Hundido

            Oh sweetie, some of us have these things called smartphones. They allow us to be mobile and multi task. If you weren’t a child molester, you might be able to hold a job and own a smartphone.

            You might also be able to attend a school that isn’t controlled by idol worshiping child molesters. You might learn something!

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Poor Parques, I’m so sorry that I deprived you of my words of wisdom over the weekend. I’m sure that you cried yourself to sleep during the past two nights. Unfortunately, I have a life, and had family and friends to see. I hope that you had a great Palm Sunday, when our Lord and Savior arrived triumphantly into Jerusalem, almost 2,000 years ago. Have a great Holy Week, Parque, And, may God bless your family, too.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I figured you lost your internet privileges. I’m guessing I was right.

            Yes, I saw sheeple walking around with palm branches on Sunday. There are times when I forget that Christianity is obsessed with human sacrifice and canibalism, but never around crucifixion day.

            This is my favorite catholic holiday. I love the blood, the gore, the drama. It’s almost like Halloween, but with an S&M twist.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            So, sad, Parque. You are so deluded and lost. I pity you so much.
            Oh, Christianity has nothing to do with human sacrifice, by the way. The Catholic explorers who came to the New World stopped the savages, like the Aztecs, from performing that sick practice, over four centuries ago. Unless, you were thinking about the 100 million people killed by atheist communists?

          • Parque_Hundido

            I’m definitely thinking of Catholic communion as an example of ritualized cannibalism. As for the whole crucifixion thing, do I really need to go into detail about the catholic fixation with human sacrifice? That’s anthropology 101.

            The explorers who came with Columbus, Magellan and others were not Catholic, they were mercenaries. Catholicism didn’t take root in Spain or Portugal until the early 17th century and religious orders played no appreciable role in colonial affairs until around the same time. Prior to then, delegations were largely military.

            As you’ve evidenced previously, our knowledge of history is poor, tainted by too much blood drinking, idol-worshiping and maybe brain damage from re-enacting rituals of human sacrifice. Do you also re-enact burning at the stake, use of the rack or any of the other savage forms of torture that your people pioneered and brought to the new world?

          • Tangent001

            You have a false perception of atheism and atheists.

          • williamwalker

            They kill lots of people, nothing false about that.

          • Paul Hiett

            We do?

          • Richard

            Atheist regimes have killed more Christians in the last 100 years than all of the religious wars put together.

          • Richard

            My perception is accurate.

  • Trevor Thomas

    ALL law “discriminates.” For well over two centuries homosexual behavior was illegal in the U.S. (See: http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/2012/06/to-define-marriage-we-must-discriminate.html) Each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. Thomas Jefferson himself authored such a law for the state of Virginia, prescribing that the punishment for sodomy was to be castration. (You think modern courts will look to this for guidance?)

    It is also noteworthy that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (the Fourteenth Amendment being ratified in 1868) did nothing to prevent all 50 U.S. states, including each state that entered the union after 1868, from enacting laws against homosexual behavior. As recently as 1961, sodomy was a felony in every state in the U.S.

    In other words, for nearly 200 years and without any Constitutional conflictions or any serious debate, homosexual behavior in America was seen as immoral and therefore illegal. (See: http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/2014/02/same-sex-marriage-paganism-founders-and.html) This is not about “rights” for homosexuals. This an attempt by liberals to force the acceptance of homosexuality and all of its perversions on the U.S.

    • Richard

      Two thumbs up!

      • MisterPine

        Up what orifice?

    • Paul Hiett

      Kind of like how the Civil Rights act of 1964 forced whites to accept blacks as equal.

      • Trevor Thomas

        Nope. Not like it at all.

        • Paul Hiett

          Actually, yes, just like it. I noticed you didn’t speak about how slavery was legal and accepted in this country too. I wonder why? I noticed you said nothing about Jim Crow laws. Hmmmm, I wonder why.

          A white person marrying a black person was illegal too. I see you neglected to bring that up too.

          Yes, tell us all about how homosexuality was rightfully illegal, but those other things weren’t.

          • Richard

            Not even close.

          • Trevor Thomas

            Slavery was debated from the founding of the U.S. and within a matter of decades, the bloodiest war for Americans was fought over it. Also, the Northwest Ordinance (enacted just after America’s founding) made slavery illegal in that region. Also, it was Christian abolitionist (William Wilberforce, etc.) that led the fight against slavery. So again, not the same at all. One can’t change ones skin color. Your sexual behavior is a decision. (Rather telling: the VAST majority of black pastors in America agree with me.)

          • Paul Hiett

            Was slavery legal in the US? Yes or no.

            Was interracial marriage allowed in the US until 1967? Yes or no?

            Tell me again how it’s not the same?

          • Richard

            Should we legalize child molesting because the molester ‘loves’ children?

          • Paul Hiett

            And the award for most non-related post of the day goes to Richard!

          • Richard

            What’s the difference between gay marriage based on ‘love’ and child molestation based on ‘love?’

          • Kara Connor

            Consenting adults. Obviously a hard concept for you.

          • Richard

            More put downs. Gay activists are filled with hubris.

          • Tangent001

            Molestation is non-consensual. That’s why we call it ‘molestation’.

          • MisterPine

            Wow, you really struggle with the concept of consenting adults, don’t you?

          • Crono478

            “Kind of like how the Civil Rights act of 1964 forced whites to accept blacks as equal.”

            Kind of like how people are forced to accept transgenders’ right to choose which bathroom they would use based on their gender identity.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You’re not “forced” to do anything by transgender rights laws, other than mind your own business in the bathroom.

          • Crono478

            It is not about minding our own business in the bathroom. Many people especially women and girls disagree with you. They do not support this at all because they do not feel safe with transgenders around them.

            Even your atheist friend do not support this too.

          • Bill

            so effing what? if those stupid *itches have a problem they should suck it up and get over it.

          • Crono478

            Good to see you use this language toward women. I am sure that they will appreciate what you just said about them.

          • Bill

            and I should care why? if they have a problem with who uses a public toilet then they should just piss at home.

          • Crono478

            If you have daughters, wife and mother, then you could try repeat what you told me to them.

          • Bill

            I don’t need to, my mother thinks transgenders should be allowed to use the rest room of their choice. not every one is some stupid *itch jumping at shadows.

          • Crono478

            It is just sad that you resort to name calling and don’t really understand that they may have legitimate reasons behind their concerns over this.

          • Bill

            their reasons aren’t legitimate. if someone was going to rape then them not allowing men in the women’s restroom isn’t going to stop them. and if they feel uncomfortable then they should just suck it up and piss at home

          • Covered California

            How do you feel about the fact that lesbians are allowed in the ladies room?

          • SpeakTruth

            I am a woman and I have no problem with it. If a transgendered person comes in a women’s bathroom, that would mean that person identifies as a woman. Women have stalls in our bathrooms anyway. How many cases of transgendered people attacking women and children have you heard of? No, it is Christian politician proposing these bills “for the safety of women and children”, but to appeal to their voting base. These “religious protection laws” and “bathroom safety laws” are reprehensible. At least have the guts to say you want the right to discriminate against the LGBT community and stop trying to convince people otherwise.

          • Crono478

            I do because homosexuality and transgenderism is against Bible. LBGT community is not only one that sins against God. In fact, all of us are sinners and we are guilty of breaking all of 10 commandments. We deserve God’s judgment for our sins. However, Jesus took our place and bore His wrath on the Cross. Bible says that we will be saved from God’s judgment if we repent of our sins and believe in Jesus as Our Savior.

          • SpeakTruth

            Yes, but thankfully we all are not forced to follow the rules in other people’s religious texts. No one took my place and I only seek forgiveness from real people that I have wronged in some way.
            I am sure you are also glad we do not live in a theocracy where religious law is enforced.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Then surely you plan to sell your daughter into slavery, as its in the bible. And you want to stone to death those who wear poly-cotton blends, as that’s also in the bible.

            You’re just a foolish sheep.

          • Crono478

            You are a fool who says in your heart that there is no God.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Are you going to sell your daughter? Are you denying the bible?

          • Richard

            Your understanding of the Biblical text is your problem, not the text itself.

            If you took some time to learn about what you are criticizing, that would clear up your misunderstanding.

          • Parque_Hundido

            There’s nothing wrong with my excellent command of the bible fairy tales.

            What’s wrong is that you dislike being confronted with the truth.

          • Crono478
          • Parque_Hundido

            So, are you going to sell your daughters into slavery? Are you going to have your father’s child? Will you stone to death anyone caught wearing mixed fiber fabrics?

            Or are you going to deny the bible?

          • Crono478

            The answer is in the link. I can’t help you if you are ignoring information that I have to you.

          • Parque_Hundido

            There was no answer in the link. I guess you’re going to deny the bible. Hypocrite.

          • Crono478

            There is, that just tells me that you are not willing to have a honest conversation with me. Therefore, I will not discuss with you any further about this.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I read that garbage, which is just an extended excuse for ignoring the rules of your bible. You show great dedication to hypocrisy. Calling you out on your hypocrisy makes you sulk like a child. Typical.

          • Crono478

            Haha, you honestly have no idea what you are taking about.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Oh, but I do. That’s why I can so easily dismiss your link as self serving garbage. Either you accept the bible as a collection of stories articulated through metaphor or you think of it literally. You can’t pick and choose to suit your needs. That’s the essence of hypocrisy.

          • Richard

            You are the foolish sheep because you don’t even know you are ensnared by your master, satan. Satan is the great deceiver and you’ve been deceived.

            Here are your choices:
            1. Welcome Christ into your life and be freed from evil.
            2. Remain ensnared by satan and be engrossed in evil.

            The choice is yours.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Here are some suggestions for you to be less sheep like:

            1. Admit that your whole life is based on superstitions.
            2. Ditch those superstitions and grow up.
            3. Get a life.

            You’re welcome.

          • Richard

            Is this your mature response?!

            Non believers have to resort to such nonsense to support their blind faith. That in itself should be a sizable red flag.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Your entire world view is based on a fairy tale, with a special emphasis on the worst part of the bible: the New Testament. It’s not just bad fiction. It’s poorly written.

          • Covered California

            Aww you don’t FEEL comfortable around them. Lol that’s really a basis to take away their rights.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Nonsense. The only threat to them is that of hyperventilating from their own hysterical overreaction.

          • Paul Hiett

            For the record, I do not support that. If you have male parts, you use the mens restroom, and if you have womens parts, you use the womens bathroom. Also, it’s apples and oranges that you’re comparing to.

          • Trevor Thomas

            Yes. Slavery was legal and interracial marriage illegal, but that has nothing to do with this matter. Right now, in many states, same-sex marriage is “illegal.” Does this make it right in your mind? The legality of an issue doesn’t determine the morality of said issue. And no, not everything that is immoral should be illegal. However, sexual perversions (especially homosexual ones) are very dangerous and unhealthy. See: http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/p/dangers-of-homosexuality.html

          • Paul Hiett

            Many states? I don’t think you know what the term “many” means. 13 out of 50 is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “many”.

            Also, Trevor Grant is a fool, along with anyone else who thinks a naturally occurring behavior is somehow perverse or immoral.

          • Tangent001

            I think that it his own web site. Look at the names.

          • Trevor Thomas

            It is.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…that’s just awesome.

            I bet his head would explode if learned that over 1500 species of animals, humans included, engage in homosexuality.

          • Trevor Thomas

            If the SCOTUS rules in favor of states that banned same-sex “marriage,” that number will (again) be over 30. The fool is the one who rejects the absolute truths of his Creator. Murder is “naturally” occurring, does that make it “right” or moral?

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you really think SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of your Bible? Seriously..don’t think about it in terms of what you want, think of it in terms of what direction this country is moving.

            Also, murder is not a naturally occurring behavior. Not sure where you got that from, and has nothing to do with the discussion of homosexuality.

          • Trevor Thomas

            I didn’t say that it would. But if it does, what I said stands. So I suppose that if it’s legal, it must be moral, right?

          • Paul Hiett

            Slavery was legal, but not moral (unless you read the Bible, then it is morally acceptable).

            Forcing blacks to ride in the back of the bus was legal, but not moral.

            Bans on SSM were legal, but not moral. Soon the remaining 13 states will have no choice.

            The real sad thing here, overall, is that Christians who claim their religious beliefs are being infringed upon because gays want to marry, or have the right to purchase goods/services from businesses, are only using their Bible to justify infringing on the rights of others.

            Gays only want to be treated equally. That’s it.

            Is our society really so morally immature that we can’t allow SSM, or to treat gays and lesbians with the same respect and
            compassion we treat everyone else with?

          • Trevor Thomas

            So you’re for the polygamous or incestuous who only want to be treated “equally.” And your for prostitutes who only want to be treated “equally.” And if one couple wants to marry another so that they can obtain health benefits, SS benefits, etc., you’re going to be okay with that, right? Or do you mean to “discriminate” when you define marriage and exclude those who wish to “marry” multiples or a close relative?

            Of course, you must be for protecting the unborn children who only want an “equal” chance at life. Surely you’re not so “morally immature” that you wouldn’t want to protect the most defenseless and innocent among us?

          • Paul Hiett

            None of those things have anything to do with SSM. Please don’t try and use such dishonest tactics, it really weakens your stance and paints a picture of you as being even more intolerant.

            The only discussion being had is that of SSM.

          • Trevor Thomas

            So you are willing to “discriminate.”

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m not willing to discriminate against gays and lesbians, no.

          • Richard

            “Gays only want to be trusted equally”

            Ped o files would like that too. Should we condone that too? How about marital infidelity? Polygamy? Mother with son? Father with daughter?

          • Paul Hiett

            We’re only discussing SSM. If you wish to discuss those things, go find an article about it.

          • Richard

            We’re discussing immoral behavior, therefore, all of the others apply and are relevant. Do you have an answer? Should we condone and ‘accept’ them too?

          • Covered California

            Yep I’m shivering in my boots!!

          • SpeakTruth

            That is why we don’t judge morality based on a 2,000 year old text. We use our big evolved brain to figure out the difference between two adult, consenting, tax-paying, US citizens getting married to each other and pedophiles. And while my big brain can figure out that pedophelia is bad, how do you come to that conclusion? Can you please give me chapter and verse in the bible?

          • Tangent001

            Actually, murder is pretty much unique to human beings. We are the only species that deliberately kills a member of our own for reasons other than food, mating privileges, and territory.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s a good point. So let’s stop arguing about whether homosexuality is “natural” or not.

          • Tangent001

            The question is not really relevant. Religion is not ‘natural’ either.

          • MisterPine

            Murder is naturally occurring? Did you actually just say this?

          • Parque_Hundido

            No. Again, you misunderstand the facts of the case law.

          • Richard

            Naturally occurring?! What makes it natural, your opinion?

          • Paul Hiett

            Biology. I know, it’s “scary science”, something you probably didn’t encounter in your home schooling, but the cool thing is it’s never too late to learn!

          • Richard

            Biology. Haha. You’re funny. Didn’t you notice that gay parts don’t fit together?! So much for your logic. It remains faulty.

        • Richard

          Paul keeps thinking that engaging in the homosexual lifestyle is similar to race and color. This is a logical error on his part.

          He should be equating it to other immoral behaviors.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ah yes, because the Bible tells me so. The Bible also tells you to keep your women silent in Church, 1 Corinthians 14_34-35. I doubt you’re supporting the Bible on that front though.

            The Bible gives clear instructions on how to treat your slaves, as well as who can be your slave. How many slaves do you own and do you treat them as it says in the Bible?

          • Richard

            As I mentioned to you in a previous discussion, your problem is not knowing how to understand the Bible. That isn’t a God issue, but a ‘you’ issue.

          • Paul Hiett

            Tell me how I am interpreting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 incorrectly. By all means, I’d love to hear this one.

          • Richard

            Women in that day weren’t educated on Biblical matters. For them to speak up out of ignorance wasn’t healthy for the church in Corinth. Paul’s letter to them was about their church’s matters, including this one.

            This is by no means a general rule to be followed by everyone, but for the church in Corinth at that time.

            Your comment on the slave issue is of a similar misconception.

          • Paul Hiett

            Riiiiiiiiiiiight…it was only meant for “that time”. Sure Richard…anything you don’t agree with, let’s just say it was meant for “that time” and has no bearing on todays world, which is why it’s in the Bible which is God’s word which is apparently not meant to be followed by anyone today.

            That’s exactly what you just said.

          • Tangent001

            Historical context is everything! (unless it is inconvenient to your position)

          • Kara Connor

            The bible is their god’s timeless and unchanging word, except when it is superseded or changes.

          • Paul Hiett

            Or conflicts with desires they have.

          • parquee_hundido

            Why does that concern you? You’re not a woman.
            Oh, wait – you are.

          • MisterPine

            Paul is correct to say that homosexuals are being treated as the blacks were. No logical errors at all.

          • williamwalker

            You gals sure stick together. Clones of each other.

          • MisterPine

            We just don’t fly the flag of faith-based hate, that’s all. Always standing on guard against Christian bigotry.

          • parquee_hundido

            You’re a liar and a fool. Gays don’t attend separate schools. HIV has rotted your brain.

          • MisterPine

            You are a hater and a bigot. Imagine how stupid you are going to look in 30 years with attitudes like yours.

          • Marvels of life

            This dude is from Mexico City Mexico.
            Info for you. Don Calaca FB.

            Today, after 6 consecutive years of programme we regret to inform you that there will be no program The voice of the beyond was admitted in the hospital, it was just a surprise and not gave us time to alert as it was due Keep you informed of the recovery of the voice, let us hope that everything goes as it should go out We ask all an apology and we hope to see you next Wednesday
            Fantasmas.com.mx

          • Parque_Hundido

            You people are all the same.

          • Marvels of life

            LOL, nothing scares me. Especially coming from a little Mexican that has no influence over American policy at all. I did find your pictures to be entertaining. I’m all about Halloween that is one of my favorite holidays. You should calm down. It really isn’t about you at all. There is nothing wrong with being a Mexican and Parque Hundido is a beautiful place. I really enjoyed looking at all the pictures. Your a grown man, stop acting like your something your not. Have a little tequilla and buy one of those hats for a nice ciesta lol.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I don’t really care what you think but I’ll point out that I have more influence over US public policy than you will ever have.

            I’m not sure what internet site you’re referring to, but I imagine that your internet research is of equal quality as your insipid posts.

            I’m glad you like the Parque Hundido, though I take it you’ve never actually set foot in Mexico City, given that your attempts at demeaning Mexican stereotypes draw from TGIFridays or spring break in Alabama, not the DF.

            By the way, it’s spelled “siesta” and there is no such thing in Mexico City. You tried to insult me by trotting out stereotypes that instead painted you as a provincial bigot. Well done.

          • Marvels of life

            Thanks for the correction. I’m sure you know exactly what I’m talking about but that is between you and me. No, never in Mexico City nor do I have a desire to be there. I paint you exactly as you are. A Mexican. I don’t have anything against Mexicans at all, I know some that live in the U.S. and they do have influence in U.S. Policy. As for you, you have none. So why think you do? And I doubt very seriously you have any influence over anyone in the U.S. Don’t play games, it will just make you look worse Don.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Wherever you got your ‘education’, you should getyour money back. Although I’ve lived in Mexico (and many other countries), I’m not a Mexican national.

            Also, ‘don’ is not a name. It’s an honorific title, much like ‘Mr.’. That you think you come across as anything other than a hillbilly is a testament to your lack of self awareness.

            Again, as you’ve just reinforced, I have more influence over US social policy than you can ever dream of having.

            I’d warn you about “looking worse”, but I’m not sure you could.

          • Marvels of life

            LOL calm down your going to have a heart attack.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Well, seriously, lay off the Google. You see how it can lead you astray. So who is that Don fantasma guy? I lived in the DF for years and never heard of him. He reminds me of the noches en blanco guy from RNE.

          • Marvels of life

            LOL, Google.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Let me guess… Bing? LOL

          • Marvels of life

            Oh brother, come on dude there are much better research tools.

          • Parque_Hundido

            There certainly are but you’re not using them either.

            You are a colossal moron.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I’m curious. How did you come to the conclusion that (1) I’m a Mexican national and, (2) that i was this person out of the 12 million in Mexico City?

          • Marvels of life

            I have a specific set of skills and tools. That is all I can tell you.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I would consider getting your money back.

            While I’ve lived in Mexico City and own an apartment overlooking the Parque Hundido (formally known as Parque Luis Urbina), I am not a Mexican national and had never heard of that guy until you suggested I visit that website. I currently reside in a US city, though I spend much of my time outside the country.

            Seriously, you come across as a bit naïve. By ‘naïve’, I mean ‘hayseed’ or ‘hillbilly’. Your English isn’t that good, did you really think you’d pass off that attempt at Spanish as anything other than an embarrassing gaffe?

          • Marvels of life

            (smile) and so it goes, and so it goes.

          • Marvels of life

            I’ll tell you what I’m gonna do. I’m going to take what I have found, and I’m going to demonstrate to anyone interested exactly who you are, what you look like, where you live, what you do, who you hang out with. I will mention some of your friends names in the process as well. Now, you can keep all of that private, or you can continue to play games. If I hear from you again you obviously don’t believe I am able to do so. Otherwise, I don’t really need to speak with you again. I know exactly who you are.

          • Parque_Hundido

            By all means, do that. I’d love nothing more than to see you make a complete fool of yourself.

            I want to guess what your tools are. Do you have a secret decoder ring? X-Ray goggles?

            You don’t have the first clue about who I am, where I live or the people with whom I spend time. Your only clue is one I gave you, the name of a park in Mexico City.

            By all means, let’s see your super secret decoder ring.

          • Marvels of life

            Find a place where I can reveal the information to you and I will. I believe in privacy and even your privacy. But if you want to see first hand what I know please pick a place and I will show you. I’m very serious about that. People are creatures of habit, and a little research ties everything together. Think about this. There are millions and millions of people all over the world. Now how would it be possible for me to know your Mexican, and live in Mexico City? How would I know that your house has Halloween items on your front lawn? How would it be that you confirmed you live in Mexico City as an example. But if you insist on more information, find a place that is not here and is private and I’ll show you everything that ties into who you are. It isn’t rocket science lol. It’s being able to use tools and find the circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Right here. Post it right here.

            You’re either a colossal moron or so hopelessly naïve as to effectively be a colossal moron.

            By the way, people don’t have front lawns in Mexico City.

            How do you get through the day without putting your fingers in light sockets?

          • Marvels of life

            ok

          • Parque_Hundido

            I’m waiting.

          • Parque_Hundido

            He doesn’t have to wait. He looks stupid now.

          • Dennis Velco

            They don’t have brains, they think with their groins. They have no morals, no emotions, like animals in heat, not capable of love or compassion.

          • Clive Johnson

            That’s a bigoted stereotype. Is this what the Bible teaches you to do?

          • Paul Hiett

            Is that how you talk to other people in public? You throw out insults like that? Or, is the power of hiding behind your monitor suddenly given you some testicles?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Parque is on your side, Mr. Hiett. He’s one of you.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Looks like someone either has a reading comprehension problem or set up an account to stalk me. LOL.

            Parquee is in your side Nick. He’s one of you. For all I know, you ARE Parquee.

          • MisterPine

            Is it butter, or is it Parque?

          • Parque_Hundido

            Huh?

          • MisterPine

            Sorry, bad joke…there used to be a commercial for Parkay margarine where they said “butter or Parkay”…

          • Parque_Hundido

            Oh, of course. Well, I want to be that queen who shows up and says that “it’s not good to fool Mother Nature”.

          • Covered California

            You dont choose who you’re attracted to. Remember that thing called puberty? Maybe you did just wake up one day tho , picked a girl on the street and consciously thought “I’m gonna like HER.”

          • SpeakTruth

            It is similar because all are consenting, adult, US citizens, Richard. What is so hard for you to understand? No one cares that you think one is immoral and the other isn’t. We don’t give out rights and freedoms based on who is living a biblically moral life. You are free to marry the person of your choosing (as long as she consents), and so should gay and lesbian people. It is perfectly moral if you use rational thinking rather than looking in a book to see what people thought thousands of years ago.

    • webshade

      Excellent post! These people do not understand the notion of law or rights. It simply conflicts with their illicit obsessive desires to covet what they want by any means and to force it on everyone else. This is the reason that they reject any arguments against what they want!

      • Paul Hiett

        Is that not what you are trying to do with your particular version of religion? Are you not guilty of doing the exact same thing?

        • webshade

          I’m not guilty of trying to do anything. Who is forcing you to believe in God? Has anyone who is a homosexual or their supporters been taken to court and sued because of your disbelief in God?

          • Paul Hiett

            You want the rest of us to live based on your choice of a religion. Again, how is that not what you’re accusing the LBGT crowd of doing?

          • webshade

            You appear to be confused Paul. The first amendment states:

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            So, in terms of religion, how is this me making or wanting you to live based on my religion? (I assume you mean Christianity). Congress has made no such law requiring anyone to adhere to any religion. Indirectly, the government is creating a problem in regards to the 2nd part of the religious clause of not prohibiting the free exercise of said religion, in this case, Christianity.
            The homosexual movement, by suing Christians who own businesses simply because they find the homosexual lifestyle to be immoral, and do not want to compromise that closely held conviction by participation in homosexual weddings or lifestyle as if they approve of it, while the government and the homosexuals demand that they compromise those beliefs is utterly wrong!! So, this is not about bigotry, hate, homophobia, or any other accusation against them. It is an honest conviction of the wrongness of it and the threat of being forced by law to give approval.
            Do you understand?

    • SpeakTruth

      What does that have to do with anything? Slavery was legal for years. Jim Crow was legal for years. Women were denied the right to own property or to vote for years. Inter-racial marriage was illegal for years. As society became more educated those laws were changed. That is what is happening now with gay rights.
      These “religious liberty/freedom laws” are given to all of us in the Constitution already. To argue that anyone is “forcing” acceptance of gay and lesbian people is ridiculous. No one cares if you “accept” them or “approve” of them. Your acceptance is not required, sir. What we do expect is for every citizen to be treated with dignity and respect. And yes, as much as I do not “accept” your religious beliefs nor do I approve of what you believe or what you preach, I would treat you as every other customer that came into my business. I would not deny you service because I find you morally bankrupt.

    • Parque_Hundido

      Your history us abysmal. Homosexuality wasn’t illegal, sodomy was. That this difference is lost on you comes as no surprise.

      People like you hate freedom. You hate America.

  • OldArkie

    Homosexuals preach tolerance, yet they do not want any tolerance in the Christians community, they want solid laws saying that the Christians cannot say that homosexuality is a sin against God. They want complete freedom, yet most of them do not want the Christians to have complete freedoms. They want to suppress God’s Word, making it illegal to speak God’s truth. They show hate, we show love, that Jesus died for them and they can change if they repent, confess their sins, accepting Jesus, putting their faith in Christ. Them they can have the strength to do anything, Philippians 4:13, even leaving behind their homosexuals ways.

    • Paul Hiett

      So the answer you put forth is to use your Bible and your larger numbers to force them to live under your religions rule.

      Do you not see hypocrisy here?

      • Richard

        God’s rules trump humans’ sinful desires. Get used to it. Eternity is a very long time.

        • SpeakTruth

          Not for those of us that don’t believe in supernatural beings. The US Constitution rules in this country, sir.

          • Richard

            Eternity is still a very long time whether you believe it or not.

          • SpeakTruth

            Lol! I understand the concept. I just think you holy book is no different than any other religion’s holy book. I just try to treat my fellow human beings how I wish to be treated. It is a nice idea, don’t you think?

          • Covered California

            That’s the dangerous part of these blind faith followers… Be it Christian, Muslim, whatever. They refuse to look at other humans from an objective standpoint. They only support “freedom” if it fits with THEIR worldview.

          • Richard

            You mispresumed. Mine isn’t a blind faith. I know God personally. You can too if you humble yourself before God, ask for forgiveness, and ask Christ to be Lord of your life. Then you, too, will know the truth and it will set you free from your bondage to sin.

          • Covered California

            Are you 100% sin free?

          • Richard

            No. But I can recognize sin and not try and make it ‘acceptable’ and ‘normal.’

          • MisterPine

            That isn’t Christianity. That is fundamentalist Christianity.

          • LightningJoe

            Richard, look at it from my point of view, if only for the hundredth part of a second…

            Your “personal” Gawd is assuredly personal, and that is because your Gawd is only a circuit in your own brain, activated by your “belief.” A circuit that cycles endlessly between the “most” “moral” positions you can conceive of, on any subject at all, and vomits up a “judgement,” that you feel you can extend to other people’s actions.

            Don’t be surprised if people NOT inside of your own head… don’t see it that way.

            Your beliefs have NOTHING TO DO with the morality seen by other people. Beliefs vary radically; but morality is a common perception among humans.

            I’m an Atheist, and my level of morality is far and above that of MOST of the Christians I’ve ever met. Not only that, but it is more durable as well. I don’t have to visit a like-thinking crowd every Sunday, in order to keep my story straight, and maintain my moral posture.

          • angelintraining75

            Its funny to me how you talk about things you know nothing about. It makes you look foolish.

          • Covered California

            Kisses!

          • Richard

            Nice ideas don’t eliminate the consequences of rejecting Christ. It’s better to be loving and speak the truth than make you feel good and you end up separated from God for eternity.

            I appreciate it when people warn me of a danger I don’t acknowledge.

          • SpeakTruth

            So, you would appreciate a Muslim man telling you that you are not doing what Muhammad commands, thus will not be rewarded after you die? Or a Mormon telling you that God doesn’t approve of you drinking caffeine? Or a Jehovah’s Witness man telling you that you should let your child die rather than letting her receive a blood transfusion because that is God’s will?
            And you mistake my not believing there is a “son of God” and rejecting him. I don’t reject Zeus either, I just don’t believe he is a god to worship. I reject the fact that stories written by men 2,000 years ago are historically accurate.
            Also, I don’t want you to “make me feel good”. I want you to serve me in your for-profit business like you serve every other customer, as I would serve you like every other paying customer. I don’t like your lifestyle or beliefs, but it is a bad precedent to allow businesses to decide only to serve those customers in which they approve or agree, or hire and fire people for the same.

          • Richard

            Mohammed was a man who created his own religion.
            Joseph Smith was a man who made his own religion.
            JW’s are misguided in their thinking.
            Zeus is folklore….fiction.

            ” I reject the fact that stories written by men 2,000 years ago are historically accurate. ”

            Do you not believe any history?

            Christianity is based on the real, one and only God. The God who revealed Himself to the world. Who demonstrated Himself in many ways – testable and verifiable. Such as predictive and fulfilled prophecy. And, Jesus coming to earth to save the world. Being killed for claiming to be God, then rising on the third day to prove He is the one and only God.

            In all of the other faiths, it’s man trying to work his way back to God. With Christianity, it is God coming back for us and making a way where we couldn’t.”

            “I don’t like your lifestyle or beliefs, but it is a bad precedent to allow businesses to decide only to serve those customers in which they approve or agree, or hire and fire people for the same.”

            Tell that to the many people who were forced out of their jobs because they didn’t want to do something they didn’t believe in.

            Gay supporters speak of tolerance. Yet, they aren’t. They view the gay lifestyle as ‘normal.’ It isn’t. Never will be.

            But you can be saved from it through Jesus. That choice is yours.

          • bobmead1960

            She does not want to see the proof of God. She wants to expose her believe that there is no God. She can’t see what she doesn’t get!

          • SpeakTruth

            Additionally, I guess you consider the Golden Rule as merely a nice idea?

          • Richard

            I find it hypocritical to use the parts of the Bible you agree with but at the same time reject the very principles the Bible is built on – God and the redeeming work of Jesus.

            Just goes to show that gay supporters will say and do anything to further their agenda.

          • SpeakTruth

            Lol! The bible didn’t invent the golden rule, Richard. The rule of reciprocity/golden rule has been found in many cultures and greatly predates the bible. Human beings figured that rule out long before Jesus needed to remind his followers. I am not a hypocrite. There are beautiful passages in the bible as in many other religious texts. Those ideas are not only in the bible. People lived millions of years before the bible with no idea they needed it to figure out how to co-exist with their fellow man.
            Just goes to show how egocentric anti-gay people are that they don’t realize that other cultures figured things out long before their bible was written.

          • Richard

            Where do you think those nice ideas came from?

            God was evident from the beginning of creation. If you think man evolved from pond scum and came up with morality on his own, you really are in need of a rethink.

          • SpeakTruth

            Richard, we KNOW humanity evolved from very simple life forms. Where did the ideas come from? Trial and error, logic, observation, etc. Of course we came up with morality on our own.

          • Richard

            “we KNOW humanity evolved from very simple life forms. ”

            No we don’t. That’s just a speculation. The other thing is, where did first life come from? Recent research has ruled out from another planet.

            Macroevolution has never been proven true, it was just assumed. But recent research is showing macroevolution is a false assumption.

            So then what? A

            And why don’t dogs have morals? Other animals? Why just humans?

          • BarkingDawg

            Richard, you failed science in High School, didn’t you.

          • Richard

            No, but you obviously did. Macroevolution never was true. It’s always been assumed, but never proven.

          • Mutated Spleen

            Well, really, that’s just because you don’t understand the scientific concept of “proof”. Regardless, even using the laymen definition of proof…it’s still be a hell of a lot closer to “proven” than anything in your silly fairy tale book.

          • Richard

            I understand it fine. Speculation isn’t proof.

            “it’s still be a hell of a lot closer to “proven” than anything in your silly fairy tale book

            Only for people who haven’t taken the time to study it.

          • SpeakTruth

            With all due respect, Richard, it is not speculation. I understand that evolution conflicts with your book of “facts”, however, people didn’t understand genetics, biology, carbon dating and other means of determining the age of things, chemistry, etc. 2,000 plus years ago. They did the best they could. We have discovered many things since then. Evolution is as much fact as gravity. There are mountains of evidence that prove that we evolved from very simple life forms and continue to do so just like all other life.
            How did it all start? We don’t know that exactly. Scientists are still working on that, but we do know that a god wasn’t necessary.
            Why don’t dogs and other animals have human morals? Because they aren’t human. Anyway, some animals do show empathy, grief, loyalty, monogamy and other traits once thought exclusive to humans. Any species that possess those qualities do so because those qualities are beneficial. And our species has found that certain ideas are harmful to our continuation, like murder and theft.

          • Krauss Allie

            Sorry SpeakTruth, but I can’t let you get away with stating a falsehood as truth. Macroevolution is most certainly NOT a speculation, and “recent research is” most certainly NOT “showing macroevolution is a false assumption”.

            You certainly don’t need to accept the theory of evolution, but if you wish your username to carry any weight you do need to maintain your intellectual honesty, and that means you cannot make patently false statements. Regardless of your own opinions about the validity of evolutionary theory, you are simply lying if you tell people that evolution is NOT the currently accepted most likely explanation for the diversity of life we observe on the planet. You claim runs counter to this, and is therefore false. Outside of biased and unscientific sources like AiG and other creation organizations, you will find NO legitimate scientific source to back up your claim that research suggests macroevolution is false.

            Please sir, don’t say things that are demonstrably untrue with a username titled, “SpeakTruth”. There’s a limit to the amount of irony I can handle in one day.

          • SpeakTruth

            Krauss Allie, I think you may have posted to the wrong person. I am definitely on your side! I agree with everything you stated. I was responding to “Richard” when he denied evolution as fact. He is the one that spoke of macro evolution having been disproved.
            No worries! I have accidently responded to the wrong person myself, especially when I have gotten frustrated by someone’s ignorant post!
            Take care!!

          • Paul Hiett

            Kind of like how you claim some parts of the Bible are only relevant for that time period when it was written?

          • Richard

            “Kind of like how you claim some parts of the Bible are only relevant for that time period when it was written?”

            As always, Paul, you have no knowledge of what you talk about. You should fix ‘your’ problem of understanding so that you stop making foolish and uninformed comments.

          • Paul Hiett

            Are you saying you did not make that claim?

          • angelintraining75

            The truth is still the truth whether you choose to believe in it or not. So yes it goes for you too. Also, the constitution said marriage is between a man and a woman. But now the constitution has been changed. You’re very ignorant if you think this is not a dangerous thing. If the government can easily change the constitution any time it disagrees with something in it…who is to say that the next time they change it, it wont affect you in a negative way? I wonder what you will say when they start taking away YOUR freedom..

          • SpeakTruth

            Well, I agree with you about the truth is the truth whether you believe it or not.
            Also, if you are referring to the U.S. Constitution, it doesn’t define marriage at all. Sorry.
            I am very ignorant? Oh, the irony! Yes, the Constitution can be changed, but not easily. It is very difficult to change it, but can be done and has been done. As society grows more enlightened and we learn more about ourselves and our world, we realize we were wrong about some things. For instance, we realized that it was wrong for women not to be able to own property or to vote, so we amended the Constitution. We realized slavery was wrong, so, we amended. We thought drinking was bad, we amended. We realized we made a mistake about drinking, we amended. Society has finally realized gay couples should have the same rights as everyone else. We don’t need to amend, because this is already stated in the constitution, and the Supreme Court will confirm that this month.
            No one is taking freedoms away from Christians. Making Christians abide by the same laws, rules, and regulations as everyone else is not take your freedom away. Extending your rights to gay people isn’t taking your freedom away.

      • OldArkie

        Force, no way, your placing words in my mouth, I did not use the word force. I did however use the word freedom, you must have missed it thinking freedom means force, you’ve got complete freedom, to make ones choice about Jesus. Jesus is knocking at the door, will you let Him in? By the way, Jesus will not force His way in, He will come in only if you open the door and invited Him in.

        Re 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

        Do you not see your hypocrisy? I’m trying to help you see Jesus’ truth, open your Bible and study it, and learn the truth.

      • bobmead1960

        Who says you have to follow God? You can do what you want as long as you live on earth. My book proves all the hard questions for men without much scripture. It is based on logic and reasoning to men want a preponderance of evidence that proves God exists.

        • Paul Hiett

          We don’t follow “God”, but we’re tired of folks like you trying to make us live the way you do.

          • bobmead1960

            It is obvious that you don’t wish to follow God. I am not forcing a change in your lifestyle. I am just an advocate promoting the ways of God and wishing they obey because it is the best for them. Pretty simple. Good day!

          • The Last Trump

            Says the guy on the CHRISTIAN website 24/7!!
            Too funny! (And hypocritical)

          • Evan Hurst

            That goes for all of them. Other than their hate for Christians, they have zero emotion in their so-called lives. They’re sad things.

      • angelintraining75

        I see the hypocrisy here…its in YOUR comment. Its completely one sided. Nobody is trying to force anything on gay people. Its the total opposite. They are trying to force Christian business owners into participating in their lifestyle even though they know it goes against the Christian religion…and many other religions. We do NOT care how they live. But we have the right and SHOULD have the right to refuse to participate in it. You dont want us to push our religion on them but you think its fair for them to push their lifestyle on us and fair for them to try to force us to participate in it?? That is hypocrisy.

    • SpeakTruth

      It isn’t just the LGBT community that works for tolerance. Millions of straight people support equality for all people in this country. No one ever told you that you can’t say “homosexuality is a sin”. No one cares if you accept that gay people exist or have feelings. No one said you had to stop hating gay people. You can keep on hating all you want. What you should NOT be able to do is deny a person service in your for-profit business because they are gay. You should not be able to fire someone because they are gay. You should not deny them the right to get married because they are gay. Otherwise, hate away! Preach away!
      I despise your beliefs and lifestyle. I find it repulsive. However, if you came into my business and needed or wanted service, I would treat you like I treat all of my kind, compassionate customers. I would vote for you to be able to marry the person you love as long as you are an adult and the other person consents.
      See how that tolerant thing works now?

      • angelintraining75

        Your entire comment shows that you have no idea what you’re even talking about. NONE of the Christian business owners that are being sued by people who are gay, hate them. These business owners have been serving them even though they knew they were gay. But when a gay couple comes in and asks a Christian business owner to perform a service for their wedding, it goes against their religious beliefs and a Christian is not going to jeopardize their soul for a business transaction. If you knew anything about the cases where Christian business owners are being sued, you would know that the business owners always treated gay people with kindness and respect and did not refuse them until they asked them to perform services for their wedding. A Christian cannot participate in that. Most religions are not allowed to participate in it.
        And nobody has said anything about firing anyone who is gay. That does not even apply here.
        Bottom line…people are free to practice whatever lifestyle they choose but they do not have the right to try to force others to participate in it…especially if it goes against their religion.
        It amazes me that you have the nerve to talk about tolerance as if you practice it. You obviously do not. According to your hate filled comment, you are only tolerant of the things you agree with. That is not tolerance. Buy a dictionary before making any more stupid comments.

        • SpeakTruth

          With all due respect, ang, it is you who has no idea what you are talking about. I am very familiar with the court cases, and I did not say those particular business owners necessarily hated anyone. I am aware they served gay people previous to denying them service relating to their wedding. The haters to whom I was referring are those who actively work to deny the LGBT community equality, whether it be the right to marry, the right to adopt, the right to be treated with dignity. I do, however, strongly disagree with any law giving only one group of people the right to discriminate. For it is only the religious that have been given the special right to decide who they would like to serve, hire, fire, rent to, etc. based on THEIR beliefs. They can choose, for instance, to deny to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple, but happily bake a wedding cake for a straight couple in which both man and woman have been twice divorced. Why is it only gay couples these business owners find so “sinful”? Why can’t non-religious business owners with strongly held beliefs decide not to serve science deniers or republicans or religious people? Why can’t a racist business owner who hates black people refuse them service? It is a strongly held belief. They can’t, and shouldn’t be able to refuse service because people would not be able to count on services or goods at any given time. What if every Christian business owner decided to refuse service to gay couples? Would that be ok with you? What if every Christian business owner decided to refuse service to couples who live together without being married? It is absurd. If a business owner is not prepared to serve the general public, then they should not be in business. And IF they are allowed to refuse service to people only committing one particular sin according to their bible, then they should be required to post a sign on their door stating they don’t serve gay people preventing gay people from being humiliated and informing the rest of us who will take our business elsewhere.

    • Parque_Hundido

      Actually, we don’t care what you say. We care what you do.

      If you discriminate against us, we will sue. We will win. We will have no mercy on you.

      That is all.

      • Richard

        You win nothing…but maybe a few years to continue to live in sin.

        The battle is already decided. Satan lost and so will you if you continue to follow him.

        • Parque_Hundido

          We will take everything you have. You get to keep your superstitions.

          • Richard

            You won’t take anything…except yourself to eternal separation from God.

            You can believe God is a superstition if you want to, but your opinion doesn’t make it true. I know God is real (it’s not just my opinion). You don’t know He is real because you don’t know Him.

            Make no mistake. God is sovereign. His will will be done no matter what you believe.

          • Parque_Hundido

            We will take every last cent you have. You are free to take with you whatever comfort your superstitions provide.

          • Richard

            As I said, you won’t take anything other than yourself to eternal separation from God.

            He loves you and wants you to know Him as I and billions of other people do. But He’ll allow you to reject Him. That’s up to you.

            But unless you’ve traveled the entire universe and beyond to verify God isn’t real, yours is only an opinion, but not fact. Are you willing to risk eternal separation from God for the sake of your unproven opinion?

          • Parque_Hundido

            How is your god anything more than a figment of your overactive imagination? If you need to rely on fairy tales to know right from wrong, you are an inherently weak person.

          • Richard

            “How is your god anything more than a figment of your overactive imagination?”

            Simple. God is real. He interacts in real ways. It has nothing to do with imagination.

            “If you need to rely on fairy tales to know right from wrong, you are an inherently weak person.”

            A weak person is one who makes up his own right and wrong. That’s easy. It takes courage to truly seek God and to submit to His authority.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Why is your god more real than, say, a Star Wars character? Why not submit to R2D2?

          • Richard

            This is your mature response? A nonsensical reply? How old are you, 10?

          • Parque_Hundido

            I might ask the same thing of a man whose entire world system is based on a fairy tale.

            You still haven’t answered my question.

          • Richard

            “based on a fairy tale.”

            Are you able to prove the historical record false? Because that is what you’ll need to do to prove God is a fairy tale. Can you?

          • Parque_Hundido

            You mean the historical record of Adam and Eve? Noah and the ark? LOL.

            You people are hilarious. If you learn to understand metaphor, there will be no stopping you.

          • Evan Hurst

            Who cares if your questions get answered? You’re not important.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I appear to be important enough to merit your response. Irony much?

      • Evan Hurst

        You’re a liar, colleges already have codes against any criticism of hate speech. Old gals like you were behind it. You’re fascists, you tolerate no dissent. Immoral and intolerant – talk about a sleaze combination.

        • Parque_Hundido

          You’ve obviously never been to a college. That explains your misuse of the term “fascism”.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “they want solid laws saying that the Christians cannot say that homosexuality is a sin against God.”

      Examples?

      “making it”illegal to speak God’s truth.”

      Examples?

      “we show love”

      Supporting laws which harm citizens is not showing love.

      • Richard

        Supporting laws that condone immoral behavior is not showing love, but disrespect for society.

      • angelintraining75

        You said…”Supporting laws which harm citizens is not showing love”
        This law does NOT harm them. They have a right not to have our religion pushed on them and we should have the right not to have their lifestyle pushed on us. A gay couple suing a flower shop owner because she could not make the flowers for their wedding because it goes against her religious beliefs…is THEM pushing their lifestyle on US…and we will NOT comply. Then having a judge say that this couple can sue, not just her flower shop, but also everything she owns….that is going way too far and it totally violates her religious rights.

        They have the right to live that lifestyle if they choose but they do not have the right to try to force everyone to accept it.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “This law does NOT harm them.”

          That is yet to be seen. My comment regarding harm was supporting laws which make it illegal for two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage. Do you support such laws? If so, then you support harming citizens.

          “is THEM pushing their lifestyle on US”

          No, it is holding people accountable to the law. Laws which were put into place by either a vote of citizens or their elected representatives. They can sue, not because a judge said they can, but because citizens have the right to initiate legal action when someone breaks the law. Do you believe citizens should NOT be able to initiate legal action when they have been a party to someone breaking the law?

          There is no religious right to operate a business outside the confines of the law.

          No one can be “forced” to accept something. Each of us is free to accept or not accept whatever we care to.

    • Mutated Spleen

      See, no, you have it wrong. LGBT people don’t want laws saying that Christians can’t say whatever. Most LGBT people are totally behind freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

      What LGBT people want is laws saying they aren’t forced to be subjected to your religion if they don’t want to be. Similar to how you would be really, really angry if there was suddenly a law that said you had to abide by tenets of Islam with which you do not agree.

      LGBT people do not want you to lose your rights, they just want to have those same rights. LGBT people will keep their sexuality out of your bedroom as long as you keep your religion out of theirs.

      • Evan Hurst

        You’re a liar, your goal is to silence anyone who disapprove of your disgusting lifestyle. You hate anyone who is different from you.

        • Mutated Spleen

          That’s some high quality trolling.

          I legit loled.

        • LightningJoe

          I agree with Spleen here. You have no idea what you are talking about.

          Everything Spleen said is true. You have NO need to fear LGBT.

          No one is going to force you to do ANYTHING with or for them, EXCEPT treat them like the people they are. If you run a business with pretensions to “public accommodation,” then you MUST serve any and all members of the public, INCLUDING any LGBT person who wants to buy your goods or services.

          Not liking that simple, civil fact, is what HATE really is.

  • Kyle

    Mr. Pence, you’re getting plenty of mud flung at you – wear it as a badge of honor, consider the source. You’re getting hated by people whose only emotion is hate. Decent people know you have done right.

  • Parque_Hundido

    Mr. Pence, prepare to be the George Wallace of the Hoosier state. You are an embarrassment to all decent people.

    • Mr. Avatar

      Mr. Pence, your a true American hero! Your a role model for all Americans who value liberty for religious beliefs. A true patriot that doesn’t cave into the liberal deceit and lies to target business owners who believe in practicing their faith in all walks of their life’s. There is a fine line between decency and mutual respect and the liberal community has crossed it. You can always tell a true liberal, lies, fabrication and the twisting of current laws are always present. As if, they have a dark cloud over their head with a neon sign that reads reprobate.

      • Parque_Hundido

        You’re certainly in good company. Many Alabamans opposed civil rights. But it seems odd that you would want to be on the wrong side of history, taking a stand for bigotry.

      • Paul Hiett

        Ah yes, “mutual respect”. Tell me all about this mutual respect you have for others while you hold up your Bible and try to force everyone to live under your rules.

  • BarkingDawg

    Already the fallout from business leaders opposed to this stupid law is happening. Cummins, NCAA, Salesforce, among others are looking to relocate activities from the state over this.

    • Richard

      Sure they are. More gay propaganda.

      • BarkingDawg

        “We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement Thursday afternoon.

        He said the NCAA will “work diligently” to ensure competitors and visitors at next week’s Final Four are not “negatively impacted by this bill.” Emmert also said the organization, which is based in Indianapolis, will “closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce.”

        http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/

        • Richard

          So where does it say they are all moving?

          • BarkingDawg

            Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

          • Richard

            I comprehend just fine. The NCCA said nothing about closing up and moving…which you falsely asserted.

            Lying is another gay supporter tactic to push the gay agenda.

          • MisterPine

            So BarkingDawg is gay too? I had no idea there were so many of us here who are gay by your decree.

          • Richard

            Christian forums are filled with gay activists working at social engineering. They use the same tactics.

          • MisterPine

            And that doesn’t sound at all like a paranoid conspiracy theory, does it? I probably don’t even live in the same country as you.

          • Richard

            Those are the facts. You, Paul, and others are proof of it. We’ve also got history to prove same.

            Denying it doesn’t negate it.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m not gay, Richard, as much as I am getting the impression you want me to be. Sorry, I have a girlfriend…

      • BarkingDawg

        Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff says he doesn’t want his employees subjected to discrimination as part of their work for the San Francisco-based company, and he is cancelling all required travel to the state of Indiana following the signing of a religious freedom law that some say allows business to exclude gay customers.

        http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/26/salesforce-ceo-says-company-is-cancelling-all-programs-in-indiana-over-lgbt-discrimination-fears/

      • BarkingDawg

        “In our eyes, the law is entirely unnecessary. The reactions to it are not unexpected or unpredicted; passing the law was always going to bring the state unwanted attention,” said Kevin Brinegar, CEO of the state chamber (of Commerce).

        http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-indiana-religious-freedom-20150327-story.html#page=1

      • BarkingDawg

        “Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state’s economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years,” wrote Adrian Swartout, owner and CEO of Gen Con.

        http://www.cnbc.com/id/102538002

      • BarkingDawg

        “We’re disappointed with the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” said a Cummins spokesman. “Cummins believes it’s bad for business and bad for Indiana and sends the message that the state is unwelcoming.” He added, “We are a global company in a competitive environment and it could hinder our ability to attract and retain top talent.”

        http://www.cnbc.com/id/102538002

      • BarkingDawg

        Its president and CEO Michael Huber said: “We warned of the impending negative economic impact this legislation would have on our ability to attract and retain jobs, talent and investment, noting the bill will encourage current and potential residents, and visitors to take their business elsewhere. Within moments of this legislation being signed, this warning became a stark reality. The Indy Chamber pledges to work with our partners across the state to strengthen nondiscrimination policies at the state and local level. This is clearly not how we want to be perceived and is not reflective of how we do business in Indianapolis.”

        http://www.cnbc.com/id/102538002

        • Paul Hiett

          Pay attention Richard, you just had your butt handed to you.

  • Richard

    What makes homosexual behavior better and more acceptable than other immoral behaviors?

    • SpeakTruth

      What makes it immoral at all?

      • Richard

        If that is your opinion, why not approve of everything from ped o filia to parents marrying their children?

        How about people marrying their pets (think of the tax implications, pets are very loyal)?

        • Paul Hiett

          When you understand what the word “consent” means, then maybe you’ll understand why your question is irrelevant.

          • BarkingDawg

            Richard is all about the hate.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ll answer for him…”we don’t hate the sinner, we hate the sin!”

          • Richard

            That’s correct. You finally got something right.

          • MisterPine

            Translation: “We hate the sinner.”

          • Richard

            Gays are so good at misassumptions.

          • MisterPine

            Bigots are so good at labels.

          • Richard

            Ah, name calling again…a main tenet of gay activism. Suppress opposition at all costs. How mature of you.

          • MisterPine

            Just because a person stands up for gay people against Christian bigotry and hate doesn’t make them gay, so why do you assume that? In fact why are you assuming so MUCH in everything you post, are facts so hard to obtain?

          • Richard

            Your comments are bigoted and hate-filled. Why can’t you accept and tolerate my view of homosexuality?

          • MisterPine

            Because you are basing it on not facts but on fables. Your faith which you’ve convinced yourself is the right one is now being imposed on those of us who don’t follow it, and there isn’t a single non-religious reason to oppose homosexuality. That’s why.

          • Richard

            Can you prove God is a fable?

            You are basing your entire position on your opinion and personal desire. That is another slippery slope. Care to slide down it?

          • MisterPine

            I would never say God is a fable, because I’m an agnostic and don’t think we can know what God is (if he/it exists). But I can easily and without hesitation say that your book is a fable, written by human beings.

            And no, that’s not what a slippery slope argument is. A slippery slope argument is when people say things like “if we let people marry their same-sex partners, soon they will want to marry their dogs and their house plants.” As you are doing.

          • Richard

            “But I can easily and without hesitation say that your book is a fable, written by human beings.”

            Can you prove your assertion? If you can’t, it’s just another misassumption on your part.

            The slippery slope is exactly what I’m pointing out. Since none of you can dispute it, that is a real concern. What’s next? Parents allowed to marry their children? Multiple partner marriages? The freedom to marry your pet?

            Lower the age of consent to 6 years old so peds can marry their victims?

          • MisterPine

            The burden of proof is on you, or at least on those who’d have us believe the Bible is the word of God. Since God’s never endorsed His own book, I’m going to suggest that’s an impossible thing to do. I could write a book tomorrow and say God “inspired” it, what would be the difference?

            I live in Canada where gay marriage isn’t even thought twice about, and no one’s been lining up to marry their pets or engage in polygamy or marry their begonias. I could point to other countries and say the same thing. That’s why your slippery slope arguments fail.

          • Richard

            “Since God’s never endorsed His own book,”

            Why is it you people criticize what you haven’t got a clue about? That just demonstrates ignorance, not intelligence.

            Jesus referred to the scriptures as from God. So you have NT being fulfilled in Christ, and Christ attesting to it.

            If you don’t believe it is true, it’s your burden to prove.

            But based on your last comment, you can’t.

            So the next time I see you post that the Bible is not the word of God, you are deliberately lying.

            “That’s why your slippery slope arguments fail.”

            Aren’t you aware of the many cases before the courts in Canada? Polygamy is one.

          • MisterPine

            What haven’t I got a clue about, Richard? If God wrote the Bible, or breathed it, why has he not made that fact known to us? Why should we follow a book written by people who simply SAY it’s God’s words?

            A book SAYS Jesus referred to the scriptures as from God. We don’t know if that happened. Burden of proof isn’t on me, it’s on you since you’re making the statement.

            The next time you see me post that the Bible is not the word of God, you’ll know that I’m right.

            “Many cases before the courts in Canada”? Link please?

          • Richard

            “If God wrote the Bible, or breathed it, why has he not made that fact known to us?”

            Do you mean:
            Creating the universe from nothing?
            Life from non life?
            Revealing Himself throughout Jewish history?
            Leaving mankind with His inspired word and history?
            Predictive and fulfilled prophecy (which only the Bible has)? Sending Christ?
            Christ arriving and performing many miracles in front of thousands upon thousands of people?
            Being killed because He claimed to be God?
            Rising from the dead to prove it?
            Personally interacting with billions of people from then on? Giving everyone a personal invitation to know Him?
            That isn’t enough?

            What are you expecting?

          • MisterPine

            Proof and evidence would be nice.

          • Richard

            Would you consider yourself a sinner?

          • MisterPine

            No.

          • Richard

            Do you think lying is okay? Stealing? Leading people to commit immoral acts?

          • MisterPine

            Of course not. But I call those wrongs or evils or crimes (as the case may be). “Sin” is a word invented by Christians to control people using fear, guilt and shame.

          • Paul Hiett

            No doubt the clergy in your religion would love that.

          • Richard

            No doubt gays will really like that, since they have the highest incidence of child molestation and abuse.

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s actually very incorrect. Either you’re too lazy to look up the facts, or you’re lying.

            Either way, that’s pretty sad of you.

          • Paul Hiett

            Says the guy equating gay people with child molesters and rapists.

          • Richard

            What’s the difference, Paul? They are equally immoral?

          • MisterPine

            Got proof of that, outside of your religious texts?

          • Richard

            God created mankind. He knows what is best.

            You aren’t God. You are a victim of your own desires.

            I’ll side with God on this.

          • MisterPine

            What you’re siding with is the words of men who told everyone they were writing on behalf of God. People who like to talk on God’s behalf are pretty common in religion.

          • Richard

            God spoke for Himself. Did you forget Jesus is God…walked the earth for over 30 years?

            Unless you can prove Jesus wasn’t God. Can you?

          • MisterPine

            You’ve got a bigger challenge on your hands proving to me that Jesus existed at all.

          • Richard

            No challenge at all. Most historians acknowledge Jesus as being a real historical person. Jesus has both Christian history, Biblical history, and non biblical historians who wrote about Him.

            Denying His existence doesn’t negate it. Unless you can prove all these sources are wrong. Can you?

          • MisterPine

            Even if you get past Jesus’ existence, you’ve got a lot more work to do to show how he was the Son of God. Ever heard of Apollonius of Tyana? By many accounts he did a lot of the same things Jesus is credited with including miracles. The Jesus story is by no means the only one of its kind.

            And can you find me some words from Jesus, any words at all, specifically relating to homosexuality? No? Then why are you treating it like it’s at the top of the “thou shalt nots” in the Ten Commandments when it didn’t make the cut at all?

          • Richard

            “Even if you get past Jesus’ existence, you’ve got a lot more work to do to show how he was the Son of God”

            Jesus is a matter of the historical record. Only people ignorant of history claim otherwise.

            Being killed because He claimed to be God is one evidence. Rising from the dead to prove it is another.

            “The Jesus story is by no means the only one of its kind.”

            There is a lot of fiction about rising from the dead. But only Jesus proved it.

            Jesus is God. God doesn’t change. There are many passages that refer to homosexuality as being immoral.

            Paul, handpicked by God to spread the good news, also spoke against homosexuality on God’s behalf.

            You can deny this is true, but that doesn’t make it untrue.

          • MisterPine

            Just in a quick search on Google, I see an awful lot of reasons to believe Jesus didn’t exist. I’m not saying one way or the other but that’s because to do so is impossible.

            You are in effect saying “it’s true because I say it’s true”. Only Jesus proved it? Where’s the proof? Note that when I say proof, I don’t mean faith. I mean facts. And if Christianity were factual and didn’t require faith, there’d be a lot more Christians.

            The passages that refer to homosexuality as being immoral were not from Jesus. Even if what you say about Paul is true, which I doubt, Paul is not God.

          • Richard

            Atheist websites is your source? They are notorious for leaving out important information and half-truths. Try searching historical resources.

            “You are in effect saying “it’s true because I say it’s true”.”

            No. I’m saying it’s true because it is supported by numerous avenues of evidence.

            Christianity has all of the evidence. But believing in God is seldom about evidence, and almost always about the will.

            There are many websites that have good information about the Bible, Christ, and Christianity. Seeing as though you know very little about it, that demonstrates the role will plays.

            “The passages that refer to homosexuality as being immoral were not from Jesus.”

            God is Jesus. Look up: Leviticus 18:22

            Paul was commissioned by God to represent Him. Look up: Romans 1:26-27

            Jude is Jesus’s half brother. Look up: 1 Jude 7

          • MisterPine

            I never said atheist websites. You did.

            There is no “evidence” Christianity or any other faith is factual. That’s why it’s called faith.

            Bible quotes are written by human beings.

          • Richard

            “I never said atheist websites. You did”

            Those are the only places that deny Christ was a real person.

            “There is no “evidence” Christianity or any other faith is factual. That’s why it’s called faith.”

            Wrong. Faith is putting your trust in something. That doesn’t necessarily mean without proof.

            “Bible quotes are written by human beings.”

            Do you not believe anything man writes?

            The Biblical text was written by people inspired by God, and who witnessed Him while on earth.

            Your comments are baseless assertions, nothing more.

          • MisterPine

            I wouldn’t take a Christian or atheist website seriously in equal measure unless they were focusing on facts. So again, you need to stop assuming that’s what I’m doing.

            It is intellectually dishonest to claim that a website that says Jesus did not exist would automatically be an “atheist” one. It could be a website with a historical focus and no agenda. That’s your problem. You are seeing imaginary agendas everywhere.

            There’s no evidence of Christ living, being the son of God, or any of it. That’s something you have put your faith in based on the words of an ancient book. I have the right to disagree with the writers of that book and the people who demand I believe them.

            What I believe are FACTS. To say that the Bible was inspired by God is not a fact. Your comments are the baseless assertions, not mine.

          • Richard

            Aren’t your comments hatefilled?

          • Richard

            You are okay with parents marrying their children?

          • BarkingDawg

            As pointed out above, repeating slippery slope arguments is a FAIL on your part. try to come up with something new.

          • Richard

            Fail, does that mean you can’t answer the question?

          • Richard

            How about an answer?

            Slippery slope indeed. It’s true and you know it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Who said anything about that? Why is the first thought of a Christian that of pedophilia or coitus with animals?

          • Richard

            What’s the difference between that and homosexuality?

          • MisterPine

            Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent. Consent.

          • Richard

            What about parents marrying their consenting children?

            What about polygamy between consenting adults?

            What about pets that give their consent?

          • MisterPine

            If the children are adults then I seriously don’t care, although again you’re imagining a scenario that no one wants. Attractions aren’t normally formed between adults and their children.

          • BarkingDawg

            Other than in your family, is that common?

          • Richard

            Another mature response…a tell-tale sign you have no reasonable answer.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re the one bringing up parents marrying their children. Exactly how is that considered “mature”?

          • Richard

            Deflection. Another gay supporter tactic.

          • MisterPine

            Oh come on, Paul isn’t deflecting anything, why are you trying to equate parents marrying their children to homosexuality? I’ve never heard such rubbish!

          • Richard

            “why are you trying to equate parents marrying their children to homosexuality?”

            If both (or more) are consenting, and are in love, what is the difference?

            “I’ve never heard such rubbish!”

            If morals are subjective, than anything goes. Can’t you see that?

          • MisterPine

            Um, because one occurs, and the other doesn’t?

          • Richard

            You apparently aren’t aware of the implications of moral relativism. If that is the standard by which society should live, the get ready for a dictatorship, because in a morally relativistic society, those with the most power win.

          • MisterPine

            Richard, where are the people wanting to marry their children?

          • Richard

            Still in the closet waiting for the gay thing to settle.

          • MisterPine

            And do you actually believe that?

          • Richard

            Yes. Man has a propensity to engage in immoral behavior…and of any sort. To believe otherwise is naive and requires turning a blind eye to history.

          • MisterPine

            All right Richard, well we aren’t going to have a long wait to prove you wrong. If you honestly believe there are a bunch of people out there secretly waiting for the right chance to come out of the closet to marry their children or parents, then it’s really not a surprise you’re being raked over the coals here.

          • Nick_from_Detroit
          • MisterPine

            I didn’t miss it, this is one random nutcase like the woman from a couple years ago who “married” the Eiffel Tower.

          • MisterPine

            “If morals are subjective, then anything goes.”

            If that were even partway true, we’d be seeing people murdering each other in the streets constantly, daily, nonstop. You really need to think your statements through before posting them. Morality doesn’t require Christianity. It doesn’t even require God.

          • Nick_from_Detroit
          • MisterPine

            I already said that there were a handful of freaks out there but this is hardly going to turn into an epidemic where people are going to start to marry their parents on any kind of widespread level. Anyway it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Well, 15 – 20 years ago there were only a “handful of freaks out there” who wanted to redefine marriage. Who are you to deny two consenting adults the “right” to get married, if they are in love? Sound familiar?

          • MisterPine

            Actually, no, it doesn’t sound familiar at all. If you seriously think that there were next to no homosexuals 15-20 years ago I would really like to know what rock you’ve been living under. It’s been around forever, and for most of that time people have kept quiet about it, lives lies in loveless marriages, and generally lived in shame. Thank God that has changed.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You’re not comprehending what I wrote, Mr. Pine. I was using your words to explain “that there were next to no h0mosexuals 15 -20 years ago” who were pushing for completely changing the definition of marriage to include members of the ss.
            Now, back to my question: Who are you, Mr. Pine, to deny two consenting adults (daughter and father) this so-called “right” to get married, if they are in love?

          • MisterPine

            I comprehend just fine, Nick from Detroit. I’m sure at one time there were next to no women or blacks pushing for the right to vote either, until they got annoyed enough and mobilized themselves to do something about it. Marriage predates Christianity anyway, so you don’t get to dictate who can and can’t marry based on your religion.

            “Now, back to my question: Who are you, Mr. Pine, to deny two consenting adults (daughter and father) this so-called “right” to get married, if they are in love?”

            I simply don’t care, Nick from Detroit. If they’re adults and it’s consensual then let them. However, I don’t think there are very many people who would choose to do so, and I fail to see what this has to do with allowing same gender couples to marry. Now here’s a question for you. Why do you feel your religion should trump the rights of those who do not FOLLOW your religion?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Yes, Mr. Pine, marriage predates the Incarnation, but, it goes back to Adam & Eve, when God instituted the covenant of Holy Matrimony. So, we Christians have much to say on the subject. And, we will continue to, into the future.

            You don’t care, Mr. Pine? If it were two people you were related to, I bet you’d care! If your mother wanted to marry your brother (or any other combination, e.g., your brother and sister), you’d be okay with that? I don’t believe you. You’re copping out, in order not to contradict yourself. If you fail to see how this relates, I can’t help you.
            Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and thousands of years of human history show that society is better off when a man and woman commit to each other for life to raise the product of their union: children.

          • MisterPine

            I don’t believe Adam and Eve existed, Nick from Detroit. But I do know that marriage goes back a lot further than the Bible. So I do not recognize the Bible as authoritative in this matter, and it seems that I’m not alone since all that’s required to get married this days is a visit to the Justice of the Peace. No church ceremony required. I’m sure Christians have a lot to say about it, but I doubt there is much they can DO about it.

            ” I don’t believe you. You’re copping out, in order not to contradict yourself.”

            Nick from Detroit, why would you ask me a question only to accuse me of lying in my response? I believe that makes you intellectually dishonest. If my brother and sister wanted to marry of course I would not like it but it would also be none of my business. And that is the key here…if two homosexuals who are consenting adults wish to get married, it is none of YOUR business, or the business of any other Christian. It does not affect your own relationship in any way. If you don’t like homosexual marriage, don’t marry a homosexual. Simple. But it is not your place to use your religion to tell others that they don’t have that right.

            I also find it very interesting that you say nothing about the polygamy that takes place in the Bible, if you think Christianity holds marriage so sacred.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            It matters not if you don’t believe in Adam & Eve. The idea of covenant family bonds are found in many ancient Near East histories.
            I was saying that I don’t believe that you don’t care ,in general; not the specific question that I asked. That was my rhetorical way of proving that you would, in fact, care, as you’ve now admitted.
            Your twisted attempt to remain hypocrisy free has now made you a proponent of incestu0us marriage. Congratulations, Mr. Pine.
            Marriage is not a right. It is between a man and a woman, and has always had restrictions. Always has. In EVERY culture throughout history. If homosexuals want to get married, marry someone of the opposite s3x. Simple.
            Finally, yes, polygamists have more claim to be included in the marriage covenant, and, yet, every State has laws against bigamy & polygamy. In addition to lncest marriage, are you also for polygamy, Mr. Pine?

          • MisterPine

            “Your twisted attempt to remain hypocrisy free has now made you a proponent of incestu0us marriage. Congratulations, Mr. Pine.”

            Nick from Detroit, I wonder if you know what a “strawman argument” is. That is when you attack your opponent for a position they never took and a point they never made. Intellectually dishonest as always, you have turned my indifference over an incestu0us union and turned it into support. In fact, I don’t “support” gay marriage either as much as have no opinion about it, mostly because it doesn’t affect my life in any way. I wonder, Nick from Detroit, if you can explain to me how it affects YOUR life. I wonder if there is any single honest reason you can give that is unrelated to your religion. Why do you feel your religion entitles you to try to ruin the lives of people you do not know who have no effect on you?

            But getting back to your strawman, I see you now trying to draw me into a second one: “In addition to incest marriage, are you also for polygamy, Mr. Pine?” I’m not FOR incest marriage, Nick from Detroit. Why are you playing this game? Why are you attempting to dishonestly make my position something that it is not, and never has been? I simply don’t care, and because I’ve told you before, it’s none of my business. Is it any of YOUR business, Nick from Detroit?

            Also, simply because marriage has had assorted restrictions on it in various points in time, there is no reason we should restrict them now merely because a couple of the Abrahamic religions, which do not dictate the law anyway, happen to disapprove. I do not wish to be ruled by your faith/belief/practice/superstition, Nick from Detroit, and there’s not a single legal reason that I should be.

        • MisterPine

          Slippery slope argument. And I doubt very much you could present me with a list of people clamoring to marry their pets anyway, apart from a few crazy people.

          And yes, for the last time, look up “consent,”

          • Richard

            Why not? There’s probably just as many people who want to marry their pets as there are gays.

          • MisterPine

            If you seriously believe that to be true, then you’re more off the rails than I’d originally thought. One in ten people is homosexual. One in ten people doesn’t want to marry his hamster.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Can I quote you on that?

    • Nick_from_Detroit
      • Richard

        Thanks for the link. Kind of makes my point.

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          No problem, Richard.

      • Paul Hiett

        Oh yeah, they’re lining up in droves based on that article. And what, exactly does that have to do with SSM?

        It’s a rhetorical question, Nick…the answer is “nothing”.

        • Nick_from_Detroit

          I don’t believe “lining up in droves” was the criteria, Mr. Hiett. This was more of a slippery slope and camel’s nose under the tent type argument.

    • Parque_Hundido

      What makes Christianity more acceptable than other messianic death cults?

  • Richard

    After almost two hours, not one gay proponent offered a reasonable answer as to why homosexual behavior is better and more acceptable than any other immoral behavior.

    This is very telling. Even after all this time, they can’t answer that question either. And they say there is no slippery slope. We’re already well on it.

    • Paul Hiett

      When you can prove that Christianity invented morals, and that the rest of the world did not already have the same morals in place long before Christianity, then you can establish Christianity as law.

  • BarkingDawg

    On Saturday, Angie’s List CEO Bill Oesterle said the company would halt an expansion in Indianapolis that was scheduled to break ground in the days following after the signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. “We are putting the ‘Ford Building Project’ on hold until we fully understand the implications of the freedom restoration act on our employees, both current and future,” Oesterle said.

    “Angie’s List is open to all and discriminates against none and we are hugely disappointed in what this bill represents,” he said, and the company is evaluating alternatives for a headquarters expansion in other locations.

    Ouch.

    • Paul Hiett

      Even Jan Brewer wasn’t stupid enough to sign that law.

      • BarkingDawg

        Indiana Governor, Mike Pense was thinking of getting into the 2016 presidential race. After this debacle, I can only quote, what another famous hoosier once said:

        ‘Cause they told me, when I was younger
        Sayin’ “Boy, you’re gonna be president”
        But just like everything else, those old crazy dreams
        Just kinda came and went

  • BarkingDawg

    Given the current pushback from major businesses and organizations, how long will it take for the state to backtrack and repeal this law?

    I give it a month.

    • Paul Hiett

      It all depends on which business makes the mistake of using this to discriminate.

      • Evan Hurst

        Paulette, the bitter old poofter, so bored and lonely.

        • Paul Hiett

          By your insult, I can see you’re a Christian. Must be a really good Christian, yeah? All set with God and Jesus, who must be so proud to see you say such things.

          Proud of yourself in the eyes of your savior?

    • Parque_Hundido

      Turns out, a week!

  • TampaZeke

    Boy, articles like this bring all the insects out of the woodwork, all those losers who work as waiters, hairstylists, busboys, mostly live with their moms. What a loathsome “community” to be part of, people who share nothing with each other except deadly viruses. No wonder they hate themselves.

  • Lynda Falls

    She served them with kindness for years, just as she did all her customers. What she could not do was take part in an event that her faith says is wrong because it would be harmful to her spiritually, emotionally and mentally. She served them for years in her place of business but could not go to another place of business or another building and do something that would violate her conscience, act contrary to her beliefs and damage herself, plus disregard her freedom to not have to do things that violate her conscience or else be severely punished. She severed them for years with kindness but they expected her to participate in behaviour that violates her conscience and beliefs, when she is supposed to have the freedom not to do that. She sold them flowers for years. But now they wanted her to leave her place of business to go to another building to attend and help with an event that her faith forbids her to do. She always treated them kind.

  • sfo6000

    The only sin I see from this allowing others to get away with treating people who are different like trash. To say that you’re only concern with freedom of religion is a lie. The Government will most likely stop discriminating LGBT’s so you want the states to do the dirty work. That’s the heart of the matter. I wasn’t around the Civil Rights era but I see the seminaries between then and now. The “so called” Christians had issues with Afro Americans moving up in the nation. Segregation was no longer accepted in the Government so the States created laws to divide people without uttering the word Segregation. Then get “offended” when someone call you out on it. I see the same BS today with the LGBT’s. You create the same laws to ridicule them but act “offended” when you get called out. I don’t have a problem with Christians. Only with those who don’t allow others to live their own lives. That’s another sin. Live and let live. That’s what America is in a nutshell. The LGBT community is not asking you to love their lifestyle. They want the right to pursue their own happiness. Something we straight people can do without question. To keep harping about what is done at the bedroom isn’t a reason why you refuse service to others. It’s insulting to have to go somewhere else when you know you’re wrong for denying service. So as long as you believe that you have the right to do so you will always be called out and shamed. There’s no going around it. Don’t like it? There’s a flight to Moscow you can catch within the hour.