Pro-Lifers Challenge Addition of Abortive Mothers to St. Louis Nondiscrimination Ordinance

ST. LOUIS, Mo. — Pro-life entities in St. Louis, Missouri have filed suit to challenge the recent addition of abortive mothers to the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance.

As previously reported, Board Bill 203 was presented earlier this year by Alderman Megan Green, who said that the protections were necessary to keep employers and landlords from acting adversely when a mother chooses to the end the life of her unborn child.

“Employers can have their own beliefs,” she told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “but they shouldn’t be able to impose those beliefs on people or fire someone because of those beliefs.”

The bill makes it illegal to “fail or refuse to hire, to discharge or otherwise to discriminate against any individuals with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of their reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status.”

In addition to prohibiting landlords from turning down an applicant for their “reproductive health decisions,” the ordinance also criminalizes those who “print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated, any statement, advertisement or publication, or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment” in expressing that the entity has hiring preferences and specifications regarding the matter.

The move passed 17-10 in February, with some council members opining that the ordinance causes unnecessary division in that it is based on a controversial subject. Alderman Joseph Vaccaro presented an amendment to send the matter back to committee for further debate, but it was rejected.

Roman Catholic groups had vowed to challenge the ordinance in court, and on Monday, they followed through with their promise. Plaintiffs in the filing include a number of Catholic elementary schools under the Archdiocese of St. Louis, a Catholic non-profit that provides pro-life counseling and housing to pregnant women, a local manufacturing company, and its Catholic owner.

  • Connect with Christian News

They state that as pro-life organizations, they be free to hire only those who share their values and mission—especially in the case of Plaintiff Our Lady’s Inn, whose daily work is to help expecting mothers to choose life.

“The law would therefore force nonprofit organizations like Our Lady’s Inn, whose mission is to promote and facilitate abortion alternatives, to hire abortion advocates, despite their opposition to the ministry’s reason for existence,” explained Sarah Pitlyk of the Thomas More Society, which is representing the entities in court.

“Ordinance 70459 prevents Plaintiffs—religious institutions, faith-based employers and pro-life organizations—from making employment and housing and real estate decisions consistent with their institutional missions and sincere moral and religious beliefs about human life,” the complaint likewise echoes.

“Ordinance 70459 denies religious and pro-life organizations the right to practice their faith, to freely associate around a common cause, to speak freely, and to be true to their missions,” it says.

The legal challenge notes that the ordinance subjects organizations to lawsuits simply because they decline to hire individuals who are actively “advocating, promoting, participating in or providing abortions” contrary to the purpose and mission of the entity.

“This exposure compels Plaintiffs to censor their opposition to abortion rather than risk expensive litigation,” the complaint states.

The Catholic entities are therefore seeking a declaration that the ordinance unlawfully violates the freedom of association, speech and religion, and are asking for an injunction against its enforcement.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Unrepented sins as a willful continuance such as blasphemies, homosexual lifestyles, transgenderism, abortion, and their supportive attitudes should not be categorized into non-discrimination items. It means prohibition of morality and brings discriminations against moral people especially the Christians. Liberals’ abnormal immorality and their tyrannical attitude makes it impossible to co-exist with them.

    • sandraleesmith46

      That’s exactly correct; these aren’t at all “anti-discrimination” laws but REVERSE discrimination laws, making it lawful to discriminate against people of faith and morality.

      • Colin Rafferty

        How would this allow discrimination against people of faith and morality?

        • sandraleesmith46

          Since you choose to ignore that fact, I can’t make you “know” it. It’s blatant in the 1st Amendment: “freedom of expression” of faith; that means you LIVE it every day all the time, not just Sunday morning for an hour or so. Those laws VIOLATE that all over the place.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I’m not ignoring it, I’m asking you to explain. You say that it is discriminating against people of faith. You say that it is stopping you from living your faith. I don’t see it. How is it happening?

            Just stating that it does this is meaningless. Please give an example of how it’s stopping you from living your faith.

          • sandraleesmith46

            You didn’t read my post then. I did explain it.

          • Colin Rafferty

            All you did is say that it’s stopping you. You never responded to me, just made baseless claims.

            What is it stopping you from doing? How are you not allowed to practice your faith? How are you being discriminated against?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Americans attack the Christians for not supporting Sodomy and the mental illness of transgenderism. It’s Western whites’ new way of installation of global slavery upon the Planet Earth. You guys have been too well-fed, and the life has been too easy for you. Well-fed rich people seek warped amusement by oppressing the moral poor people. It is a shame for mankind to submit to the rich Western pervs this century. Westerners are good and moral only if they are Christian. Westerners have no morality other than Christianity.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You have zero examples of Christians being forced to support sodomy. I will admit that you are forced to allow it, but then, what people do in their private lives is no one else’s business.

            Now allowing you to impose your religion on other people is not religious oppression.

            Now you’re going to go all Kim Davis on me and try to say that her choice of working for the government allows her to discriminate against people. Or how there are poor bakers who are required to serve everyone who wants a cake. Because they are running a public business.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I gave you so many names and you are living in denial because you are on the oppressor’s side. And it is wrong for USA to destroy Christian businesses for refusals to serve Sodomy; USA is becoming a criminal against human rights and freedom this century.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Yes, you have given me the exact names that I just described. People who are being stopped from using their positions of power to discriminate. Every single instance you give is of a Christian discriminating against someone, and the government having to step in and stop them from discriminating.

            Now personally, I don’t blame all Christians when a nasty few choose to discriminate.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Sin cannot be discriminated against. Today’s West is being insane to force everyone to support someone else’s abnormal sins such as homosexuality and transgenderism. Christians must condemn sins. Those who don’t are not being truly Christian; they are being cowardly or bribed or falsely educated.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You want to condemn sin, go ahead. As always, you have zero example of people being punished for their words. You only have examples of Christians Who Discriminate.

            If you think that being truly Christian is to stop me from sinning, that’s your problem, not mine. You are free to live your life as you wish, and everyone else is also.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are living in denial. You would not admit facts. The Western nations jail the pastors for preaching against homosexuality, and it’ll be worse if things are being left alone. Western Liberals falsely promise other people’s freedom, but their promises are nothing.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Blah blah blah. No they don’t. The only names you list are Christians Who Discriminate. Name one person in the US who was jailed for preaching against homosexuality. Please.

            You used the term “preaching”. Please don’t move the goalposts to “discriminating while acting as a member of the government”.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Read my previous comment and do your work. USA and Western Europe are one set. Every individual has rights to live out God’s truth and a Christian conscience without having to have to endorse other people’s sinful lifestyles; if he or she cannot, such nation has no freedom of conscience. Anyone in any position must deny to endorse same-sex “marriage”; that is freedom.

          • Colin Rafferty

            “Do your work”. Hahahahaha!

            I’ve always been 100% consistent. If you want to personally follow your religion, that is fine. If you want to preach about how everyone else should follow your religion, that is fine. If you have a public business, or are a government employee, and want to discriminate against people who don’t follow your religion’s beliefs, that is illegal discrimination, and also morally wrong.

            Now you keep claiming that people are being arrested and fined and jailed for their speech. If that is the case, that is wrong. But it is not the case, and you have never given one example of it.

            If you want to talk about Kim Davis, who actively used her government power to discriminate against people, let’s talk about that.

            If you want to talk about Sweet Cakes by Melissa, who refused to serve a couple because of their gender, and whether that is illegal, or should be illegal, that’s fine with me.

            But don’t keep moving the goalposts. You claim people have been arrested and jailed for their speech. You have never given a single instance. Ever. If you have any, just name one.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, you are not all consistent; you are not moral, either. Rejecting to serve homosexuality is not committing a discrimination. Homosexuality is this century’s West’s filthy imperialism that enslaves everyone on earth. Western Sodom is trying to subdue everyone by making them bow down before Sodomy. God will punish the Western Sodom before it destroys its own children further.

            I gave you many examples and you keep denying. They were arrested in the West for speaking against homosexuality. Kim Davis is only one victim among many. There are 50 lawsuits that involves Christians with clear conscience in the USA alone. Read the news. Even in this site. The Western culture is a violation against human rights for forcing people to serve sexual immorality and gender falsehood.

            You are at ease with bullying the Christians only because all theWestern powerfuls are on your side. No submission to the Western pervs no matter what. It is a disgrace to submit as a human being to Western pervs this century. I gave you the list and you are living in denial. Facts are meaningless to the people like yourself. You Westerners need Christianity because you have no other salvation or morality.

          • Colin Rafferty

            As you well know, Davis was not jailed for her speech. She was jailed for using the force of the State to illegally discriminate.

            You have never once given an example of someone in the US arrested for speech. Never once. And you still haven’t. Claiming there are “50 lawsuits” is misleading and dishonest, because zero people have been oppressed for their speech.

            What Christians have I bullied? None!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            USA jailed Christians for living out the Holy Bible and a clean Christian conscience. Co-existing with the Western liberals without being persecuted is now impossible for Christians. Yes, I did. Read my previous comment to you. You are bullying the Christians by forcing us to support homosexual depravity. Ex-christian childless West’s new filthy imperialism.

          • Colin Rafferty

            No they don’t. You have never given a single example. Your previous comment named Davis, who was jailed for her illegal discrimination, not because of her religious beliefs.

            How are US residents being forced to support homosexual depravity? All you are required to do is ignore it, and mind your own business.

            Are we stopping you from actively discriminating against people? Ye we are. If you intend to stop people from getting married, or stop people from checking into a hotel, that’s you going out of your way to intrude on someone else’s rights. Too bad.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I gave you at least 10 examples and you ignored. Kim committed no discrimination. American Sodomites are violating religious freedom. USA forces people to treat homosexual sin as one of lifestyles, though such sin cannot be considered as a lifesyle. Discrimination was done by the whites against the colored. Now American Sodomites are persecuting the Christians right after such era was over. Marriage is between one man and one woman; all others are sinful and false.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You gave one: Davis. And if you can’t see how she discriminated, I’ll spell it out, so maybe you can understand.

            1. Same gender marriage is legal in all fifty States in the US, including hers.
            2. She was the county clerk, and responsible for providing marriage licenses to anyone who is legally qualified to marry.
            3. She refused to give a couple the license they asked for, and based it on the gender of the couple.

            That is Davis acting as a member of the government refusing to provide legal services to them because of their gender.

            It’s pretty much black and white law.

            Why she did this has exactly zero bearing on the actual discriminatory actions.

            So now that we have Davis out of the way, who was jailed for her actions, can you please give me the other nine people (who don’t exist) who were jailed for their speech.

            Also, why are you getting all racist about this?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, I gave you examples close to 10. You just ignored them. A farmer in Michigan is being bullied for refusing Sodomy. The list is endless. You are living in denial. Western whites discriminated the peoples of colors for a long time, and Christians should not be discriminated this century by the Western whites for refusing to serve Sodomy. It’s slavery by the West all over again. Man cannot obtain freedom except by the Holy Bible. Westerners are being racist by equating the peoples of colors and sexually depraved groups.

          • Colin Rafferty

            As you well know, the farmer is being denied a permit because of his actions, and not because of his speech.

            I am seriously wondering if you are intending to be honest with me. You keep claiming this list of 10, and keep insisting that you’ve given it to me. I must have somehow missed it, can you please just copy&paste?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, it’s your job. Look for the relies you got. Freedom and human rights are violated if one cannot live out God’s truth and the clear Christian conscience. Sppech and actions are the same. American liberals do not know what it means to hold a religion because they are too immoral and disloyal to everything noble.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I’ve looked, and cannot find it. I’m sure you know these people off the top of your head.

            Speech and actions are different. Saying “you deserve a punch in the nose” is different from punching someone in the nose. A good saying is “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me”.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Research this newsite and lifenews site. There are many examples in Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and USA. Demanding people to accept homosexuality/transgenderism means demanding people to give up one’s own faith. God condemned such depravities and Christians cannot accept those. Westerners do that only against the Christians and leave the Muslims and Jews alone. Americans should not desire to become slave owners after all these years.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Grace, when you claim something exists, and refuse to provide an example, and tell people to do their own research, people see going to start thinking you are making this all up.

            There are no examples in the US of people going to jail or getting fined for their speech. Only for their actions. I know it. You know it. If you honestly had an example, it would take ge far less time for you to write the name than to tell me how bad a researcher I am.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I did and you are denying the facts. I don’t have time for people like you. This newsite is full of examples of Western Sodomites’ hate crimes. Speech and actions are the same. If one cannot refuse to serve the Sodomites’ falsehood, such civilization has no freedom. It’s a matter of time that USA will jail Sodomy-opposing pastors at this rate.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Oh I see. You redefine your English again, so speech and actions are the same. I assumed when you said “speech” you meant the common definition.

            Well in your definitions of speech, yes people have been jailed and sued because of their “speech”. But they haven’t been because of things they say.

            What is your preferred term for “the act of talking or writing”? I usually call that “speech”, but I’ll use your term if it makes our discussions meaningful.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Freedom of speech means living out the truth without being persecuted. You are altogether confused because today’s Western culture mixes the peoples of colors and the sexually depraved and gives false education. People are jailed for speaking against homosexuality in the West. Stop being a denier and face the reality. Learn how the freedom developed in the Western civilization again. It was for access to the Holy Bible and living it out, not to be subdued by the racist Western Sodomites in the 21st century.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Sure, if you consider acting the same as speaking, then you are correct. But to the rest of the English speaking world, this is nonsense.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Liberals have no logic. Telling Nazis where the Jews are hiding and directly handing them over to Nazi soldiers are one and the same thing. You Western whites should stop desiring to control mankind by installing Sodomy. An old trick. Tyrants use same tactics everywhere. It’s Western children who will get hurt the most. Remember what happened to Nazi Youth members. Evil education hurts the civilization’s own children the most. You must stop.

          • Colin Rafferty

            It’s interesting that your analogy is comparing denouncing Jews with denouncing gays.

            But I would argue that telling the Nazis where Jews are is an action, and not speech, just like telling a couple they may not buy a cake is an action. Because the result is that

            What’s far more interesting is your implication that simply saying gays ought not to be able to buy wedding cakes is somehow being punished. Because that, of course, does not happen.

            But you’ll stick with your definitions, and the rest of the world with stick with ours.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You Western whites must stop comparing the Jews and sexual pervs. Western pervs should bake their own cakes and not force Christians to accept Sodomy. Such conduct is a violation against human rights and against freedom. Western nations are Sodomic villains this century; admit the fact. Listen to the Christians in your land and regain freedom.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Grace, you are the one who made the analogy between gassing Jews and denying gays rights. I was kind of surprised by that, but it sure wasn’t me.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Both handing the Jews over and baking for perversion cause are the same thing – sinning against the Creator God. The West forces Sodomy as Nazis forced handing over the Jews. Lack of freedom and conscience. Please get the point.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Well there you go. Not being allowed to discriminate against two people who love each other and want to make a life-long commitment is morally equivalent to assisting in genocide. You have an interesting moral compass.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Homosexuality is sin. Abortion is sin. Handing innocent people over is sin. It is wrong for the society to demand people commit sins. The West needs freedom of conscience to treat homosexuality and transgenderism as sin.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You are free to practice your religion as you see fit. You are not free to force others to practice your religion. And you are not free to impose your religious beliefs on your customers.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Not free. The nation punishes those who don’t support Sodomy. No customers should demand workers and businesses to do evil. The West must stop demanding people to accept Sodomic sins.

          • Colin Rafferty

            That is correct. If you actively discriminate against people in your business, or if you try to use the power of your government position to discriminate, you will be punished.

            And that is appropriate, because you will also be punished for discriminating against Christians.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Rejection of Sodomic sins is not discrimination but a right thing to do. No Christians demand gay people to bake Christian cakes or do anything. Liberals make it impossible for people to co-exist, by being tyrannical against others.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Of course it’s discrimination. Check the dictionary. What you’re trying to say is that you think it should be allowed. You don’t think that sexuality is something that ought to have protection. The US Constitutioncan interpreted by the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

            As for your idea of turnabout, if a baker refused to make a cake because the wedding was Christian, that baker would also be punished. I don’t know why you’d think otherwise.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. Rejection to have anything to do with homosexuality is not discrimination but normal morality. Dictionaries and laws do not accept depravity, and nothing in this world should make people accept or serve homosexual depravity. Constitution never meant to protect sexual depravity. Current Western culture makes all moral people suffer from persecutions by installation of homosexuality as the only standard of the land, which is wrong.

            Only the sexually depraved will be protected at this rate, but not the others. You are wrong. Gays don’t need to bake cakes for Bible messages which Christians would not demand gays to do anyway. It is Western Sodomites’ one way oppression and must be opposed by all free and normal people to keep human rights and freedom and equality and morality on earth.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You are factually incorrect about the US Constitution and sexual depravity. Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell are the two prime cases there. You don’t like those decisions, and you disagree with them, and you even think they are a sign of the coming Apocalypse. But they actually happened.

            And you can feel free to define your own words. But that only muddles your message. If you actually want to convince people of their logic of your position, you need to use clear language, and that means use the same meanings of words that everyone else uses.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. The creators of US constitution never imagined to protect any sexual depravity of today’s Western world. They expected every American to be Christian-moral. Constitution protects Christians living out the Biblical Christianity, but gay Western culture makes such rights and freedom impossible because Western Sodomites are allowed to oppress people to submit to Sodomy.

            Liberals seek no peace. You know that fully. Today’s secular Americans are disloyal to anything noble and do not comprehend religious freedom because they only sleep around with anything like animals. Playboys only become traitors. You guys need Christian education to regain humanity. Liberals have no logic, but at least you are given God’s truth and warnings in this news site.

            Americans must stop trying to enslave mankind with Sodomy this century; the woes will only return to America. Read Isaiah chapter 40 and Jude 1. It’s useless for today’s Americans in trying to establish a depraved Sodom on earth; the world’s population received the copies of the Holy Bible from the American fathers already.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You are probably correct about the views of the founders. They would be as horrified about gay marriage as they would of women getting the vote or of slaves being freed.

            That doesn’t change what the law actually is, and what the meanings of Lawrence or Obergefell are.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Western whites made a grave mistake by putting skin colors and depraved lifestyles together in the same category. I truly wish Western whites would stop that woeful racism because immoral culture hurts the children the most.

          • Colin Rafferty

            How am I being racist by pointing out that the founding fathers would have been horrified with the idea of the slaves being freed?

            What category am I putting blacks and gays in?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Western whites were rather normal average humans when they owned slaves. Everyone had to work hard at that time simply to survive, slave or free. Christian whites helped and educated the colored, and the slaves broke free by learning how to read and write and obtain what the Holy Bible teaches. Western white men did not blaspheme God or push Sodomy or lust over and rape the children of colors or massacre the millions of unborns at that time. They had sense of honor.

            It’s horrible this century mankind have to face Sodomy-pushing Westerners. The West is not sorry for any of its past atrocities. Western whites rant equality by comparing inter-racial marriage and the sinful same-sex “marriage” and listing racial minorities and the sexually depraved together. Western whites will always insult the peoples of colors at this rate. It got to be stopped. Westerners should learn that skin colors and sexual sins are two different matters.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I know that you did not grow up in the US, so never took a US History class, but your ignorance of slavery in the US is astounding. The slaves that broke free were few and far between. We fought a civil war to free them, and it had nothing to do with the Bible.

            The Africans that were enslaved were taught Christianity so that they would have a Heaven to hope for, rather than trying to free themselves in this life.

            As for “white men did not … lust over and rape the children of colors”, that is grossly untrue. Slave rape was not just common, but expected.

            And I’ve explained numerous times, don’t use the word “colored”. It is a racist slur here in the US. Your continued use of that word, and your apparent idolization of the antebellum era could make people think that you are, in fact, a racist.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I read Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass and Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The history says white Christians wanted to free the slaves and gave them education. Illiteracy makes men slaves. Civil War was one thing; it’s really the Biblical thinking that makes men free. Africans saw the English men’s God and willfully converted to Christianity like all others did because Christianity is true and good and life-saving. Pagan Imperial Japan mimicked the Superpowers and the conversion was zero.

            Western men usually did not touch other races but today they do because they are immoral today. Look up what the tourists are doing to Asian children. Secular men lost the sense of honor for not-having virgin brides in the land. Men are far perv worse today. It’s been wrong for today’s Westerners to bash the yesteryears’ Westerners because today’s generation is far worse than former days. Have some fairness. Westerners who place the peoples of colors and the sexually depraved together are the racists.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Wow, you not only don’t know history, but you have very racist views. You deny the fact that white-on-black rape happened all the time in the slave pens, and criticize modern-day consensual mixed-race relationships. Do you think it is wrong for a white person to marry a black person?

            And saying “illiteracy makes men slaves” is a nice homily, but in the 16th through 19th century, it was guns and horses and whips and chains that made men slaves. And it was a war that took over half a million lives that freed them.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I know both history and current condition. No, modern men perceive the yesteryears by their own standard and are wrong. Different races did not touch each other unlike today’s perv tourist men and playboys do. Interracial marriage is not wrong but those who dislike it should not be bashed, either.

            Today, men kill millions of children in wombs just because they are perceived inconvenient. Today is guiltier. Slaves can beat the slave owners by excelling, but the unborns are truly defenseless. American Christians did great job in previous centuries, but today the number of slaves is over 200 million worldwide. Western Sodom deepens the grief by instaling Sodomic mentally ill culture on earth.

  • Tangent002

    Yes, we must preserve the ability to “slüt-shame” women at all costs!

    • Ben Welliver

      Nothing wrong with that. Christians have always been opposed to the sexual objectification of human beings. Women should be encouraged to respect themselves and aim for something higher than being an object for men to use. Promiscuity inevitably harms women more than it harms men.

      • Chris

        “Nothing wrong with that.”

        Nothing wrong with you attempting to shame someone for the crime of doing something you don’t like? How is that different to bullying?

        • Amos Moses

          do you accept evolution ………….

          • MarkSebree

            Irrelevant.

          • Amos Moses

            nope … you are irrelevant …. the question was not directed at you …….

          • MarkSebree

            You posted in a public forum. Thus, anyone can answer.

            Your question was completely non sequitur. It had nothing to do with the topic of the previous post. It was completely off topic, and thus irrelevant to the discussion.

          • Amos Moses

            sorry … nope …..

          • MarkSebree

            If you think your question is relevant, then explain its relevancy to the discussion. Preferably in complete sentences and thoughts, if you are capable of them. Your writing style indicates a more disjointed, illogical thinking pattern.

          • Amos Moses

            objection as to form noted ….. i do not care ……..

          • MarkSebree

            Non Sequitur rejected. I repeat, “f you think your question is relevant, then explain its relevancy to the discussion. Preferably in complete sentences and thoughts, if you are capable of them.”

            If you cannot explain why you think that your question “do you accept evolution” was relevant to the discussion, then you are admitting that it was not relevant and was in fact a red herring.

    • Amos Moses

      Some of them want to use you
      Some of them want to get used by you
      Some of them want to abuse you
      Some of them want to be abused.

      • TheLastHonestLawyer

        Sweet dreams are made of cheese
        Who am I to dis a brie?

        I’m not sorry. 🙂

        • Amos Moses

          actually ….. that was pretty good ….. lol ……..

  • Ambulance Chaser

    “‘[R]eproductive health decisions’ is so overbroad as to include any decision that is any way related to contraceptive use or abortion.”

    Yes, it is. But I can’t imagine any “decision that is any way related to contraceptive use or abortion” that a landlord or employer would need to concern themselves with.

    • sandraleesmith46

      None of which options is in the least “healthy’ or “reproductive”! Just saying.

  • Amos Moses

    Breaking News …. even abortion is a forgivable sin ….. if a person repents and agrees with God how wrong it is ………….

    • MarkSebree

      And if a person does not believe that abortion is a sin, then it is not a sin. What’s more, according to their beliefs, assuming that they are Christian, they agree with God and thus have nothing to repent for.

      Your beliefs do not apply to anyone except yourself. If you want to claim that your beliefs apply to others, then because of the principles of equal rights in this country, you are admitting that other people beliefs apply to you as well, and you are subject to what is considered to be a sin according to their beliefs. You cannot demand that others follow and be subjected to your beliefs without other people being able to demand that you follow and be subjected to their beliefs in equal measure.

      • Amos Moses

        “And if a person does not believe that abortion is a sin, then it is not a sin. ”

        nope …. sorry …. faulty logic ….. ERROR …… if you violate the law ….. say you run a stop sign or murder someone ….. and the police pull you over and you say …… “i dont believe that law” ……. you still get a ticket or go to prison if you believe it or not ………….

        • MarkSebree

          “nope …. sorry …. faulty logic”

          Not at all. The concept of what is and is not considered to be a sin is dependent on the person’s individual beliefs. Change the person’s beliefs, and you change what is and is not considered to be a sin. If you remove the religion entirely, you remove the entire framework in which the concept of “sin” can exist.

          “if you violate the law ….. say you run a stop sign or murder someone ….. and the police pull you over and you say …… “i dont believe that law” ……. you still get a ticket or go to prison if you believe it or not”

          Irrelevant. Abortion is not against the law. What’s more, you were not talking about objective, secular law, you were talking about your personal religious beliefs, beliefs that do not apply to anyone except you.

          And, given your answers, such as they were, it is obvious that you think that everyone else is beholden to your personal, irrational beliefs. This, due to the USA’s principles of Equal Rights, that means that you accept that you are beholden to everyone else’s personal beliefs, and you are subject to being held as a “sinner” according to beliefs that you personally do not hold. Thus, you have committed many sins like eating pork and beef for example. Not properly honoring their deities. Working on Friday, Saturday, and/or Sunday. And so on. You cannot have it both ways. Your beliefs do not get special privileges and considerations that other people’s beliefs do not also get.

          • Amos Moses

            no … it is not …. it is not mans opinion …. it is Gods opinion ………… and so actually NOT an opinion ………….

          • MarkSebree

            “no … it is not …. it is not mans opinion …. it is Gods opinion ………… and so actually NOT an opinion ………….”

            No, it is YOUR opinion. And it is only an opinion. And your personal opinion does not matter. Your beliefs and opinions do not apply to anyone else except you. Your deity does not exist outside of your imagination. And that means that anything that you claim to be your deity’s opinion is really nothing more than your opinion, and that you do not want anyone to question your opinion or examine it too closely. Too bad that strategy does not work for most people that can think for themselves.

            However, you have admitted that you are subject to everyone else’s beliefs since you seem to think that everyone else is subject to yours. That means you are a “sinner” in virtually every other religion including other denominations of Christianity. And if you think that you are not subject to anyone else’s beliefs, then you should actually read for comprehension what I wrote, particularly the last paragraph.

          • Amos Moses

            “No, it is YOUR opinion.”

            wrong ………..

          • MarkSebree

            I am quite correct. YOUR religion, YOUR subjective beliefs, and YOUR opinion.

            And you have also accepted that you are subject to the beliefs of all other religions in the world since you seem to expect that everyone else is subject to your beliefs.

          • Amos Moses

            and what evidence do you have …. other than YOUR opinion that is what it is ………….. ZIPPO ……..

          • MarkSebree

            You have provided your opinion to a public forum with nothing objective to support it. You demand that others accept your claims without question or examination. You refuse to support your claims when they are challenged, and instead engage in logical fallacies life “moving the goal posts”, “red herrings”, “straw men”, trying to “shift the burden of proof”, and others. The ONLY thing that you reference is your person beliefs and your personal interpretation of your mythology. You provide nothing objective to support your claims.

            Your own words and your own posting style is my evidence that your claims are nothing but your own opinion, and nothing more. But then, despite your delusions to the contrary, basic logic and debate states that the one that is making the affirmative statement is the one that is responsible for supporting that statement. I have provided the challenge, not the claim. You are the one that is claiming that your opinions come from your deity, yet you cannot even objectively show that your deity even exists.

          • Amos Moses

            No …. i have given the biblical perspective …. that you reject … because you reject truth ……

          • MarkSebree

            No, I do not reject the truth, I embrace it. However, your “biblical perspective” is more properly stated as being your personal beliefs in your interpretation of your mythology. It is not the truth, it is your personal opinion. And that is a truth that you cannot accept. Claiming that your personal, unsubstantiated opinion is anything more than that just because you claim to pull it from your interpretation of your mythology does not excuse you from having to objectively support your opinion, or excuse you from explaining why anyone should care what your personal religious opinions are in the first place. They are not the “truth”, and they have little to nothing to do with reality.

            You have never supported your claims about anything. You only run away when challenged. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to accept your demands for them to follow, or even pay attention to, your personal beliefs. Nobody is subject to them except you. Invoking logical fallacies does not change that fact.

          • Amos Moses

            “being your personal beliefs in your interpretation of your mythology.”

            AGAIN ….. is that a scientific or theological argument and what evidence do you present …..

          • MarkSebree

            Your complete lack of objective supporting evidence of your claims is my main evidence, as well as the complete lack of objective evidence that your deity even exists. YOU are the one making positive assertions. YOU are the one that is demanding that others accept your claims without critical thought or examination. YOU are the one that seem to think that everyone is beholden to your beliefs and opinions. Therefore, YOU are the one that needs to support your claims. Trying to invoke the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof does not relieve you of the burden of proof.

          • Amos Moses

            “Your complete lack of objective supporting evidence of your claims is my main evidence”

            AGAIN …… you have no evidence it is so ….. and the QUESTION IS …… what evidence do YOU have that it is “mythology” …… that is a positive , i am guessing “scientific” claim ….. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE …… absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence …….. so where is YOUR evidence this is so ……….

          • portlandeastside

            But….for an abortion to succeed, someone has to die….that is not theology.,And since the unborn child is killed, it has been murdered. That’s a fact. So the slaughter of the innocents is ok?

          • sandraleesmith46

            I think you may be directing that to the wrong poster; Amos Moses is presenting the Biblical view and that would be that abortion is murder of an innocent life.

          • MarkSebree

            even though the Bible in Numbers 5 gives the directions for making an abortive potion.

          • sandraleesmith46

            HORSE PUCKEYS! It’s BC, not an abortifactant!

          • MarkSebree

            It only works if she is pregnant. Remember, it is supposed to be a “test of a woman’s infidelity”. (Note: there is not such a test for men). That means that it is an abortifacient.

          • sandraleesmith46

            NO sir; it works if she has committed adultery! No pregnancy required.

          • MarkSebree

            You REALLY need to learn some science. Biologists have studied that potion. They think that the most likely active ingredient is ergot, a fungus that is common on grains such as people would bring to the temple. One of its side effects is that it can cause an abortion.

            Biologically, there is no way to telling if a woman has had sex with just her husband, or with a hundred men. If the woman is not pregnant, the potion is not likely to have much an effect on her. If she is pregnant with her husband’s fetus, it will have the same effect as if she is pregnant with her lover’s fetus. No magic is needed.

          • MarkSebree

            You have again moved the goal posts. The ORIGINAL question was what objective evidence do you have that your deity exists. This is a question that you refuse to answer, which is why you continue to engage in red herrings, moving the goal posts, shifting the burden of proof, and and other logical fallacies.

            Now, as to why I call your mythology a mythology, it comes down to simple definition, and that fact that your beliefs fit into the definition perfectly.

            First, let establish the definition of “mythology”:

            Dictionary dot com

            Mythology:

            1. a body of myths, as that of a particular people or that relating to a particular person

            2. myths collectively.

            4. a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered

            [British Dictionary definitions for mythology] (still the same page)

            1. a body of myths, esp one associated with a particular culture, institution, person, etc

            2. a body of stories about a person, institution, etc: the mythology of Hollywood

            3. myths collectively

            Since it is endemic to the definition, here is the definition of “Myth” as well.

            1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

            4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

            5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

            British Dictionary definition of Myth (again, same page)

            1. a. a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age taken by preliterate society to be a true account, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs, etc, came into existence

            b. another word for mythology (sense 1), mythology (sense 3)

            2. a person or thing whose existence is fictional or unproven

            3. (in modern literature) a theme or character type embodying an idea

            Now let’s check those words in Merriam-Webster:

            Mythology:

            1. an allegorical narrative

            2. a body of myths: such as

            a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people

            Myth:

            1. a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon (ex. creation myths)

            So, in summary, a myth deals with fictional or fictionalized events or stories primarily dealing with gods, demi-gods, legendary heroes. They are often used by a culture or people to explain some rite, ritual, set of laws, or practices.

            A mythology is a collection of myths.

            Your religion and its main book is a mythology because it deals with deities, demigods (like Jesus and angels), legendary heroes like David and Samson. It includes events that are clearly impossible, which speaks of magic. It includes laws and rites for its people to follow. It is centered arounds particular cultures and people, the Hebrews in the Old Testament, and the Christians in the New Testament. In other words, the Bible is a mythology because it fits the definition to a “T”. I call Christianity and your Bible a mythology because it is a mythology.

            And now you have an example of how to explain something clearly using objective, secular references. However, I doubt that you will learn anything from it, nor do I expect you to ever actually support your claims or opinions.

          • Amos Moses

            you are the one making a POSITIVE ASSERTION OF FACT that it is myth ….. goal posts in tact ….. where is your evidence ….. absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence …… definitions ARE NOT EVIDENCE ……………… WHERE IS THE BEEF …..

          • MarkSebree

            Actually, you are making the positive assertion that your deity exists, and I do not see you providing any evidence. Unlike you, I did support my position that your religion is a body of mythologies. You just could not read the facts.

            Christianity is a myth because it fits the definition perfectly. You just cannot accept that fact. Unlike you, I used neutral references to support my claim. You, however, cannot support your claims at all.

            The “beef” certainly is not with you. There is no “burger” at all in your “bun”. And if you cannot support your claims that your deity exists, there is no reason why anyone should have to follow or even pay attention to your beliefs.

          • Amos Moses

            no … the PRESUPOSITION here is that God exists ….. not a claim ….. there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary ………. in fact everything you see is evidence of His existence ……….. and you have NO EVIDENCE it is a myth ………… truth is either accepted or rejected …. you reject truth …. again ……… SO WHAT …………

          • MarkSebree

            “the PRESUPOSITION here is that God exists”

            Sorry, but you do not get any special privileges. The presupposition, i.e. the default, is that something does not exist until objective evidence or logical, rational arguments show that it does. Your claim is nothing more than “because I say so”, which is not a valid argument.

            “there is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary”

            Actually, there is no evidence that your deity even exists. There does not have to be any evidence that it does not exist since that is the default logical position..

            “in fact everything you see is evidence of His existence”

            No, it is not. That is a subjective opinion, and does not show that your deity exists in any way. It is also an example of a circular argument, a divine fallacy, and an appeal to belief since you are assuming that your deity exists, and then claiming that everything much have come from it. That is also a subjective opinion since there is no reason why someone who does not believe in your deity should accept your pronouncement and opinion just on your say so.

            “and you have NO EVIDENCE it is a myth ”

            You apparently cannot read. I already explained to you why your religion is a mythology. It fits the definition, which I provided for you with where they were from, to a “T”. You just cannot accept the truth.

            “truth is either accepted or rejected”

            I accept the truth, and reject your delusions and unsupported opinions.

            “you reject truth”

            No, I accept the truth. You, apparently, cannot handle the truth. That is why you prefer your fantasies. And the truth is that your deity does not exist outside the imaginations of its believers. Just like every other deity.

            You cannot support your claims. Therefore, there is no reason why anyone should accept them. This forum does not change the default presupposition, nor excuse you from your responsibilities.

          • Amos Moses

            SORRY …. but YOU get no special privileges ……. “the default, is that something does not exist until objective evidence” …. EVERYTHING your eye sees is the EVIDENCE of God …… YOU deny that truth ….. WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO DISCUSS …… you are blind to the evidence ………

          • MarkSebree

            “YOU get no special privileges ”

            Unlike, I am not asking for any. You want your opinion to be the default even though you are the one making the positive assertion that your deity exists, and yet you refuse to provide any objective evidence that it does. You are trying to invoke the logical fallacies appeal to belief and shifting the burden of proof, and I am not letting you get away with either. You also cannot formulate an intelligent rebuttal against opposing points that you do not like.

            “EVERYTHING your eye sees is the EVIDENCE of God”

            In your personal opinion, which is subjective. However, I have been asking for OBJECTIVE evidence. Evidence that does not require personal belief or opinion when examined. You Have never been able to provide any. What makes you think that your “evidence” will given the same answer to a Shaman (any region), a Wiccan, a Hindu, a Buddhist, an atheist, or anyone else of any other religion? Objective evidence does not rely on personal beliefs. You are claiming that I am supposed to accept your personal beliefs no matter what I or anyone else believes.

            “YOU deny that truth”

            No, that is your job. I accept and embrace the truth. And the truth does not match your personal opinions.

            “WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO DISCUSS”

            Your objective evidence of the existence of your deity for a start.

            “you are blind to the evidence”

            You have not presented any objective evidence for me to see. All you have done is presented your subjective beliefs and opinions and then demand that I accept them just because you write them.

          • Amos Moses

            no … it is NOT my opinion …… it is the truth …. the truth is NOT an opinion ……….. and you are the one making the POSITIVE ASSERTION HE DOES NOT ………… WITHOUT any way to prove your assertion ……..

          • MarkSebree

            “it is NOT my opinion …… it is the truth”

            No, it is your opinion. That is why you cannot support your claims objectively. Religion by definition is an opinion since it is only true for people who believe in that religion. It has no objective reality.

            “the truth is NOT an opinion ”

            That is one of the few accurate things that you have said. However, your opinions about what are the facts and what is opinion is not accurate.

            “and you are the one making the POSITIVE ASSERTION HE DOES NOT”

            Actually, a claim that something does not exist is a negative assertion, not a positive one. The positive assertion is that something does exist. And I did not actually make the assertion that your deity does not exist, I said that your had not presented any objective evidence that your deity exists, which you have not.

            You are the one that made the positive assertion that has not been supported. You have made claims that your deity exists, but you have not supported your claims objectively. And while I did make claims that your religion is in fact, I supported those claims using objective sources. However, I may have given your intelligence more credit that that you were due.

            Start with my previous post where I gave you the definition of a “myth” and “mythology” using standard dictionary definitions, which you were unable to refute. It states that a myth is “a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon”. The Bible is a set of traditional stories about the Hebrews in the Old Testament, and the early Christians in the New Testament. These stories are about supposedly historical events. These tales also explain practices, rituals, and try to explain natural phenomenon (why women experience so much pain during childbirth, why human beings suffer during life, where a rainbow comes from, why snakes have no legs, etc.). An additional definition that I presented was “the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people”. And the Biblical stories do indeed deal with deities (Yahweh/Jehovah), demigods (Jesus), and legendary heroes (David, Samson, Elijah, Job, etc.) And since a mythology is a collection of these myths, that makes the Bible a mythology since it is a collection of myths by definition.

            “WITHOUT any way to prove your assertion”

            Actually, I just proved my positive assertion that your Bible is a mythology using the objective, published dictionary definitions of a “myth” and a “mythology”. I showed that the Bible fits the definition to a “T”.

            “and without any way to prove that assertion”

            And I did prove my assertion, which is something that you have never done.

            “ALL YOU HAVE is your opinion”

            You are projecting again. I have objective facts. Nothing that I claimed is based on my opinion. I provided objective definitions for what a myth and a mythology are using citable sources, and I have ties the Bible to those definitions using common knowledge about the Bible.

            You, however, are still stuck without any way to support your opinions.

          • Amos Moses

            nope ….. the truth is the truth whether you believe it or not …… has nothing to do with “claims” ….. you can jump off a building and swear all the way down that gravity does not exist ……. but the truth will put a SUDDEN stop to it when you hit the ground ………..

          • MarkSebree

            “the truth is the truth whether you believe it or not”

            And your religious beliefs are not the truth. If they were, you would be able to support your claims objectively.

            “has nothing to do with “claims””

            That is why your claims do not matter. You cannot support your opinions with any objective facts.

            “you can jump off a building and swear all the way down that gravity does not exist ……. but the truth will put a SUDDEN stop to it when you hit the ground”

            Which has nothing to do with this discussion. Your analogy has no similarity to your religious beliefs and opinions, nor your opinion that everyone else should be subject to your beliefs and yet you should not have other people’s beliefs imposed on you. You are demanding special privileges with respect to your beliefs, and you are being denied those privileges.

            There is a basic difference between your personal religious beliefs and gravity. Your personal beliefs are subjective. They do not apply to anyone else except you. That is why you have been unable to support your personal claims objectively.

            Gravity, however, has an objective reality. It does not matter what your personal beliefs are. Gravity is measurable and definable. Different people conducting similar experiments with the intent to measure the force of gravity will come up with similar results no matter what their personal beliefs are. It does not matter if the people are Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Shinto, Shamanists, Asturans, Agnoistics, Atheists, Chinese Traditionalists, or Jedi. They will all get the same results within experimental error. The same cannot be said for your personal beliefs.

          • Amos Moses

            “If they were, you would be able to support your claims objectively.”

            not a claim ….. and you do not accept objectivity ……

            “Which has nothing to do with this discussion.”

            has everything to do with this discussion …… there is no your truth and my truth …… there is the truth ……… and the truth is either accepted or rejected …… truth is not measured by anything ….. it IS THE MEASURE of EVERYTHING …… and if you do not already know the truth …… then you are lost …… you reject the truth …. you are lost …………..

          • MarkSebree

            “not a claim ….. and you do not accept objectivity”

            Actually, your claims are in fact claims, especially since you cannot support them with anything more than your opinion. And despite your delusions, I do accept objectivity. I also recognize the difference between being objective, and being subjective, which you do not.

            “there is no your truth and my truth …… there is the truth”

            This is in part correct. When you are speaking about religion, “your truth” and “my truth” most certainly exist because that supposed truth is rooted in the speaker’s personal beliefs and opinions. However, if you are speaking of the real world and objective reality, then it is the facts which are important. You have no facts to support your claims, which is why you cannot support your claims when you are challenged.

            “and the truth is either accepted or rejected”

            And the objective truth and facts can be shown without relying on other people believing the same things that you do. I accept the truth, and you cannot.

            “truth is not measured by anything”

            That depends on what you mean by “the truth”. For you, when you refer to “the truth” you are referring to your personal opinions and beliefs, not objective reality.

            And religious opinions by their very nature cannot be measured since they do not exist in the real world.

            “it IS THE MEASURE of EVERYTHING”

            No, your personal religious beliefs and opinions are the measure of nothing.

            “if you do not already know the truth”

            Which I do and you cannot seem to accept. That is why you cannot support or defend your claims. All you can do is demand that I accept your personal beliefs and opinions for no reason whatsoever.

            “then you are lost”

            Which explains why you have lost.

            “you reject the truth …. you are lost”

            Again, you are projecting. I have accepted and embraced the truth all along. You cannot accept the truth that your religious opinions and beliefs are not applicable to anyone else, and nobody is required to accept or kowtow to them, especially when you cannot defend them.

            I have won. You have lost, again.

          • Amos Moses

            truth is not a claim ……….. FAIL …………

          • MarkSebree

            “truth is not a claim”

            And what you write is not the truth. It is an unsupported personal opinion that has no relationship with reality.

            ” FAIL ”

            You have indeed failed again. You certainly have not given me any reason to accept your ignorant pronouncements as anything other than your personal opinion.

          • Amos Moses

            you are lost …. you do not know the truth …… and you cannot tell me about that which you do not know ………………….. truth is the map ….. you have thrown it away and said ….. “we dont need no stinkin’ map” ……. you are in the dark ….. and you think you can just make it up as you go ……. FAIL ………..

          • MarkSebree

            “you are lost”

            No, I am not. I know exactly where I am.

            “you do not know the truth”

            I have a lot better idea of it that you do. You are confusing your personal opinion and religious beliefs for “the truth”, when they are actually unrelated to the truth at all.

            “and you cannot tell me about that which you do not know”

            That is why I don’t try to. I do tell you about what I do know, however, and you cannot accept it, nor can you support your own claims and opinions. You just expect me to accept them simply because you spew them forth.

            “truth is the map”

            No, it is not. It is a statement of objective fact. All you have are subjective opinions and beliefs that have no bearing on reality.

            “you have thrown it away and said ….. “we dont need no stinkin’ map””

            That sounds like your reaction rather than mine. I have been asking you all along to support your claims and assertions, and you keep running away from doing so.

            “you are in the dark”

            Actually, it is pretty bright where I am. After all, unlike you, I am in the light of knowledge, reason, and logic. You prefer the darkness of superstition, blind belief, and ignorance.

            “and you think you can just make it up as you go ”

            That is also more like what you do. You only use your personal opinions and beliefs, and you have no respect for anyone else’s beliefs. You apparently think that everyone should kowtow to your pronouncements just because you voice them, when in fact nobody is bound by your opinions or beliefs.

            “FAIL”

            You have indeed failed again. You continue to look like an ignorant fool.

          • Amos Moses

            truth is the standard by which ALL claims are measured …. you have it bassackwards ………. truth is knowable outside of any other pursuit such as science, logic, philosophy, etc ….. FAIL ……… if you do not know the truth it is because you reject it and the truth is not in you ……

          • MarkSebree

            “truth is the standard by which ALL claims are measured”

            And that is why you keep losing. You have no facts or truth to support your claims. All you have is you ignorant religious opinions and beliefs, which nobody else is subject to.

            “you have it bassackwards”

            No at all. That is why I can defend my position intelligently, and you can only demand that I accept your opinions and claims for no reason whatsoever. You cannot accept that neither I nor anyone else is subject to your personal beliefs or opinions, and there is no reason why anyone has to accept them.

            “truth is knowable outside of any other pursuit such as science, logic, philosophy, etc”

            Actually, no it is not. Not if you are talking about objective reality. Philosophy is mostly opinions and arguments, so it contains no “truth” in the objective sense. Logic is mostly a study on how to frame arguments and the loopholes in arguments. Science requires testing and repeatability, among other things, to know what the “truth” is. It uses the peer review process to reduce the chance of error and researcher bias. Therefore, it is the field that has the best chance of finding the truth about some aspect of the universe. And science by its nature excludes the beliefs of people from being a consideration.

            “FAIL”

            Yes, you have failed many times to support your claims and your positions. That is why you have failed as a debater.

            “if you do not know the truth it is because you reject it and the truth is not in you”

            Which means that “the truth is not inside you” since you reject the truth. Unlike you, I accept the truth. That is why I have been able to support my statements, and I have been able to blow holes in your claims with such ease. You just run away and demand that I accept your ignorant pronouncements simply because you utter them. That speaks of hubris and arrogance. And that is why you fail.

          • Amos Moses

            there is nothing to lose ……. facts are not the truth …… claims are not the truth ….. and you are subject to all truth whether you acknowledge it or not …. the truth does not care if you accept it or not …… it is the truth and will always be the truth no matter what you think or what you think you can prove about it …………

            “That is why I can defend my position intelligently,”

            yeah ….. but you do not know the truth …….. and defending a lie is meaningless …… until you know the truth ….. you are wasting your time and mine ………..

            “Science requires testing and repeatability, among other things, to know what the “truth” is.”

            Science is a methodology ….. it is not the truth …. and while it may help you understand the truth ….. the truth exists whether you use science or not ………… methodologies are not truth ………… and if you do not already know the truth …. all you will get is error ……….

          • MarkSebree

            “facts are not the truth”

            Actually, objective facts are the truth since they explain reality.

            “claims are not the truth”

            That is why I reject your claims, because they contradict reality.

            “and you are subject to all truth whether you acknowledge it or not”

            As have you. However, I have been acknowledging the truth and countering your personal opinions and beliefs with it.

            “the truth does not care if you accept it or not”

            Unlike you, I do accept the truth. You run from it, which is why you cannot support your claims.

            “it is the truth and will always be the truth no matter what you think or what you think you can prove about it”

            And that is why your claims are rejected. They are not the truth. They contradict reality. They are nothing more than your personal opinions and beliefs. And your opinions often contradict reality.

            ” but you do not know the truth”

            I am far more familiar with the truth than you seem to be. All you have are your personal opinions and beliefs.

            “and defending a lie is meaningless”

            That must explain why your cannot support your claims. You know that they are lies, and you know that you cannot defend them. I certainly have not been lying, which is why I can so easily punch holes in your ignorant pronouncements.

            “until you know the truth”

            Which I do. Or at least, I know it far better than you are ever likely to.

            “you are wasting your time and mine”

            I have been trying to educate you. Such is the role of the more knowledgeable. You are just a poor student. Since you cannot support your claims and cannot abide any challenges to your opinions, you have lost repeatedly and constantly.

            “Science is a methodology”

            Not quite. Science is a body of knowledge about a variety of topics which explain how the world works. The methodology come in for the experiments to determine and expand that knowledge. Different mythologies can yield the same results, which acts as a cross-check to verify that the results are valid.

            “[science] is not the truth”

            Science is far closer to the truth than your opinions are. And because of the iterative nature of science, it continues to expand the body of knowledge that we have, and thus determining more and more of what is the truth about reality and the world around us.

            “and while it may help you understand the truth ….. the truth exists whether you use science or not ”

            However, science helps us find what the truth is. Your opinions only promote ignorance since they only to you.

            “methodologies are not truth”

            No, but the results of valid experiments (what you are calling methodologies) are the truth. That is why they pass peer reviews, and why other experimenters with different beliefs get the same results.

            “and if you do not already know the truth …. all you will get is error”

            Actually, your statement is completely false. The purpose of scientific experimentation is to find the truth. It is to find out the answers to questions that the experimenter has. In professional science (as in MS and PhD levels), the people conducting the experiments do not know the answers. That is why they are conducting the experiments in the first place. They are eliminating variables, defining needed conditions, running the experiments, examining the results, and then repeating the process over and over and over again until they find the answer to their questions. They continue searching until they find the answer, the truth. After that, they (usually) publish their findings so that other scientists can examine and duplicate their work, verifying it, as well as using those results and methods to further their own experiments to find their own answers. Science is the the ultimate search for the truth.

            However, I do not think you know what the word “truth” means. You are using it to refer to your personal opinions and personal religious beliefs. That is not the “truth”, and it does not appear to have any bearing or relationship with reality. That is why you cannot defend your claims and opinions in an objective manner. That is why you seem to think that everyone is obligated to accept your pronouncements without any critical thought and without questioning what you claim at all. Your attitude displayed your hubris and sense of “privilege” and “entitlement”. You do not think you have to explain yourself, and you do not think that you have to support your position just because you are “a Christian”. You cannot accept that the world does not work that way, and that you do not get any special privileges, and that nobody at all is obligated to accept your opinions about anything, especially if you cannot defend them.

          • Amos Moses

            no … if you do not know the truth …. then you do not know if your facts are the truth …… and you do not know the truth ……….

          • MarkSebree

            “if you do not know the truth …. then you do not know if your facts are the truth”

            You must have a very different definition of “truth” than everyone else then. By what you have written before, I would hazard a guess that your personal definition of “truth” boils down to simply your personal, subjective, ignorant opinion.

            Objective facts help define what the truth is. That is because objective facts do not change with the beliefs of different people. Thus, if you are talking about actual facts, then you are talking about the actual truth.

            “and you do not know the truth”

            I have a lot better grasp of it than you are ever likely to have since you are confusing the “truth” with your personal beliefs and opinions, and you cannot and will no accept any objective facts which contradict your personal beliefs and opinions.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Jesus IS THE Truth; as in sole and objective TRUTH; you reject Him and His Word, ergo you reject Truth!

          • MarkSebree

            Prove it objectively.

            I do not reject the truth. I embrace it.

          • sandraleesmith46

            YOU said you reject Jesus; you can’t “embrace truth” while rejecting its very Personification!

          • MarkSebree

            No, I reject your hateful, ignorant, intolerant, misogynistic mythology. Your deity is not “the very personification of truth”. And his followers are very prone to lies and rejecting the truth when it is presented to them.

            And your statement is a subjective opinion. It is not an objective proof of your claims.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Jesus is the Personification of Truth; reject Him and you reject truth! His followers are all still human and, unfortunately, capable of and prone to sin; same as the REST of humanity. It’s not subjective opinion, it’s FACT, those “stubborn things” as John Adams called them, and the objective proof happened nearly 2000 years ago!

          • MarkSebree

            Actually, your entire rant is your subjective opinion and personal belief. There is nothing objective in it. And the way to show that is it subjective is to change your beliefs to something else. Nothing you say applies.

          • sandraleesmith46

            I think what we’ve got here is an unrepentant sinner who doesn’t want to repent and thinks he has the right to force HIS religion on us.

          • MarkSebree

            And, as usual, you would be wrong. I have nothing to repent for because nothing that I have said is a sin ACCORDING TO MY BELIEFS. Your beliefs do not apply to me or to anyone else.

            And where am I forcing any of my beliefs onto you? I have not actually given any of my beliefs to you, and I am not demanding that you follow them in any case.

            What I am doing is challenging your attitude and apparent belief that everyone else is subject to your beliefs and should be forced to kowtow to them. I am challenging your unsupported claims that your deity exists, and that your interpretation of your mythology is the only “correct” one. I am challenging your attitude that women should be forced to suffer for your beliefs, and that her beliefs, her health, her future, and her family (about have of women who get abortions already have children) does not matter.

            I am challenging your claims and asking you to support them in an objective manner.

          • sandraleesmith46

            It’s against GOD’s law which is SUPREME!

          • MarkSebree

            Prove that your deity exists, and be sure that your proof is objective. The Bible was written by men, and it was written primarily to control the general population. No deity required, just an examination of human nature, especially the nature of those in power and the cultures of the time period.

      • sandraleesmith46

        Sorry, what YOU choose to believe doesn’t change the FACT of sin! And all Christians, as well as all others have plenty to repent for, it just varies in extent and nature. “Equal rights” doesn’t mean 1 group has the right to trample on another’s rights; what you’re advocating does exactly that. We aren’t demanding anyone follow our rules; just GO elsewhere to get what you want!

        • MarkSebree

          Sorry, but your beliefs do not apply to anyone else. Sin is not a fact, it is an opinion. It has no objective reality.

          I have nothing to repent for since I have not sinned according to my beliefs.

          “Equal rights” doesn’t mean 1 group has the right to trample on another’s rights”.

          And yet that is exactly what you are advocating. You want to trample the rights of women. You want to trample the rights of non-Christians. You want to trample the rights of more liberal Christians who’s interpretation of the Bible is different from yours.

          “what you’re advocating does exactly that.”

          Where am I advocating that any group’s rights be trampled? Challenging your pronouncements is not trampling your rights. Challenging your religious beliefs is not trampling your rights. Defending the rights of others is not trampling your rights.

          “We aren’t demanding anyone follow our rules”

          Actually, yes you are. You are demanding that everyone be subject to your religious beliefs and opinions. You are demanding that women be prevented from getting an abortion for whatever reason, just because you think that it offends your beliefs. You are the one that keeps referencing your beliefs and demanding that I be subject to them, and you obviously do not care what my beliefs are on any subject.

          “just GO elsewhere to get what you want!”

          No. I shall not leave. I will continue to challenge the narrow-minded desire that is so common here that appears to want to impose their version of evangelical, dominionistic, theocratic “Christianity” on everyone, preferably with the government’s help. I will continue to oppose Seven Mountains Dominionism where ever I find it. And I will continue to defend this country from domestic enemies who want to destroy it from inside.

          • Adagio Cantabile

            Don’t you gays have any life at all other than bashing Christians? What a sad bunch of losers.

          • MarkSebree

            You are a sadder loser than I will ever be. What makes you think that I am gay? My calling you out on your claims does not mean that I am gay, and my sexual orientation does not change the validity of my questions or statements.

            If you are trying to impose your beliefs onto others, and demand that they be bound to your beliefs and your concept of what and is not a “sin”, even to their detriment, then you need to be questioned and you should not be allowed to evade the questions like Amos always does.

  • Michael C

    Should businesses be permitted to fire a woman from her job or deny her a place to live on the basis of her personal reproductive decisions?

    I’m all cool with people disagreeing about stuff but we’re talking about discrimination in housing and employment.

    • sandraleesmith46

      Housing is one thing ; employment is another matter. If the place of employment is a Christian institution, be it Church, school, or other, that value system of the employee or perspective employee sends a contrary message to that of the business. WHY should they be forced to hire that person or keep her on, sending that contrary message? Would the military place a pacifist as its top officer? It would be contrary to the message needed.

      • Michael C

        If you don’t know how civil rights laws work and you’re curious about they’re applied and who they apply to, there’s lots of information available on the internet.

        • sandraleesmith46

          I understand how they work: they VIOLATE the rights of SOME people to give special privileges to grant special protections and made up “rights” to others.

  • This style 10/6

    Not only do “pro-life” groups want to harass women entering an abortion clinic, they now want to hound them ever after. True Christian charity rears its ugly head again.

  • Colin Rafferty

    It’s impressive how much the “pro-life” organization is lying. The bill is strictly about the pregnancy or termination thereof, and not about the person’s beliefs. They claiming that it would force them “to hire abortion advocates”. That is a lie. It will force them to hire someone who might have had an abortion. Which is very different.

    • sandraleesmith46

      Sorry, sonny, it’s exactly about your VALUES; and what they say to others.

      • Colin Rafferty

        My values are to tell the truth, and not lie in order to promote my views. This organization is dishonest. What does this say about the organization?

        • sandraleesmith46

          Which organization is “dishonest”?

          • Colin Rafferty

            Sarah Pitlyk of the Thomas More Society says that would force them “to hire abortion advocates”. That is a lie. It would do no such thing.

  • bowie1

    I suppose a company could find some other legal reason to hire or fire their preference when it might secretly be for some other illegal reason. Who’s to know?

  • james blue

    As long as it’s consistent and they think landlords and employers should also be allowed to turn pro lifers away.

  • Darlene

    They always have to wrap everything in a euphemism – “reproductive health decision.” No, it’s killing your own unborn child. Most human beings who ever lived on planet earth believed that a woman who would do that to her own child was the lowest of the low.

    • Colin Rafferty

      That’s because the law covers far more than abortion. It means you can be fired for using birth control. You can be kicked out of your apartment because your landlord sees you buying condoms in the drug store. You can be turned down for a job because you have a child. Or because you don’t have a child.

      This still sounds like a good idea to you? You think people should be discriminated against because they do or don’t have children? That’s what this law is allowing.

      • sandraleesmith46

        NONSENSE: it means no such thing!

        • Colin Rafferty

          Of course it does. If you had read the article, you would have seen in the fourth paragraph their quote from the bill: “because of their reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status”.

          You can close your eyes and believe what you want, but that doesn’t make it the truth.

          So I’ll ask you, too: do you think a landlord should be allowed to evict a tenant for using condoms?

          • sandraleesmith46

            I read the article and I’m stating flatly, there is NOTHING “reproductive” or “healthy” about any of their agenda.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Whose agenda are you talking about? I’m talking about the law.

            The law stops landlords from discriminating against people who use birth control. It’s right there in the article. You just read it again.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Western culture is a violation against human rights on Planet Earth. Western nations must stop forcing sexual depravity upon the people. You guys need Christianity for sanity.

          • Colin Rafferty

            No one is forcing sexual depravity on anyone. You can choose to be sexually depraved, or choose not to be. Take your pick!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Doing something and supporting it is the same thing. Secular Westerners don’t get it because they live for nothing noble. You guys need Christian education to be decent.

          • Colin Rafferty

            You do a disservice to honest debate if you make up your own meanings for words and then use those meanings to “prove” a point.

            By your definition, I am forcing sexual depravity. So what. Your mean translates into real English as “I am allowing sexual depravity”. I certainly accept that.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The West forces people to serve same sex “marriage” which is a sin. It is not just evil but also a violation against the God-given human rights and freedom.

          • Colin Rafferty

            The West doesn’t force businesses to serve same-sex marriage, it forces businesses that provide marriage services to serve all people, not just the marriages they approve of.

            And same-gender marriage is just one kind of marriage you might disapprove of. Some people don’t like May/December romances, or mixed-race marriages, or divorcees remarrying. But they all have to be served as well. There’s nothing special here about same-gender.

            Except in your own head. But you know what, that’s your own problem, not the rest of the world’s problem. If a person who wants to provide marriage services has a problem with some kinds of marriages, they need to find a different line of business. It would be as stupid as a devout Muslim working in the driver’s license office, and refusing to give women licenses.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            But the West punishes those who refuse to serve Sodomic rituals. That’s wrong. Marriage is between one man and one woman alone. All others are sinful and wrong, according to God’s standard. Immoral Western culture is no standard of anything on Planet Earth. You guys are puffed up right now just because of having powers and riches.

            Those will be gone anytime. The West is better-off because of the hard-working Christian forefathers. West’s inclination to Sodomy this century is the world’s crisis. Pagans oppress those who are weaker and different, but Ex-christian West force immorality upon normal people. The latter is a worse case.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I am sorry, but I’ve never known any weddings where Sodomic rituals were performed. Can you please give me an example of someone who is punished for refusing to server a Sodomic ritual. Or just an example of a wedding that contained a Sodomic ritual?

            I don’t think I’d want to attend.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Sodomic rituals means gay weddings. America should wake up; how could it even imagine to force people to serve gay weddings, unless the culture itself is mentally ill or extremely evil? How can they do that if they are humans? Gay wedding is blasphemous like a Satanic ritual to Christians. Today’s West has no discernment or freedom.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I’ve been to gay weddings. There was no sodomy involved in either the ceremony or the reception afterwards.

            In no case was I invited on any of the honeymoons, thought I’m certain they were filled with sodomy.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Being homosexual = being Sodomic. The West needs repentance. No submission to Western pervs, in any case. What a stupid reason for peoples of colors to be bullied in the West.

  • portlandeastside

    The Catholic church is exactly right….No employer whose “brand” features pro-life tenants that are a significant part of that brand… should be liable for discrimination charges.

  • sandraleesmith46

    It’s not about “discriminating” against them, so much as saying their VALUES aren’t wanted in a particular establishment! Christian establishments don’t want that message, rightfully so. And the 1st Amendment freedom of assembly SHOULD be protecting that right. It sends the wrong message.