• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Blemonds said:
Yes. All the words of the Bible are the words of Jesus
Click to expand...

No it was from Paul, writing about idols and in particular Roman idols.
So you believe every word in the bible is the word of God?
PS- Jesus is in the NT- God is in the OT and NT.
If so which version?
 
Blemonds said:
Yes. All the words of the Bible are the words of Jesus
Click to expand...

Sorry, no they aren't. Well, unless you can prove Jesus was around during the old testament. And no, the Trinity wasn't applicable at that time...if you believe in such.
 
Removable Mind said:
Feel free to copy and paste directly from the Constitution, which support the claim you made above...
Click to expand...

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

"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."

I would also like to add that the laws in question violate the fourteenth amendment.
 
Last edited:
Blemonds said:
The facts are on my side, as your posts demonstrate
Click to expand...

and yet you cant point them out, keep dodging lol
the qoute above fails and facts win again
 
JANFU said:
No it was from Paul, writing about idols and in particular Roman idols.
So you believe every word in the bible is the word of God?
PS- Jesus is in the NT- God is in the OT and NT.
If so which version?
Click to expand...
Paul wrote under inspiration from God. And Jesus is throughout the Bible
 
Removable Mind said:
Sorry, no they aren't. Well, unless you can prove Jesus was around during the old testament. And no, the Trinity wasn't applicable at that time...if you believe in such.
Click to expand...
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Yes, Jesus was in the Old Testament and the Trinity is from everlasting to everlasting
 
Blemonds said:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Yes, Jesus was in the Old Testament and the Trinity is from everlasting to everlasting
Click to expand...

And your opinion on original Sin- Still with us?
 
A private businesses should not be able to deny service to any person for any reason!
 
Henrin said:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

"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."

I would also like to add that the laws in question violate the fourteenth amendment.
Click to expand...

There's no servitude without payment involved. There's no holding someone against their will.

A person who has a public business can create a "For members Only" business.

You forget the "DEPRIVED --- WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW! Therefore my due process is SUING somebody's ass off.
 
Removable Mind said:
There's no servitude without payment involved. There's no holding someone against their will.
Click to expand...

Paying someone that was forced to serve you does not change the fact that they were forced to serve you.

A person who has a public business can create a "For members Only" business.
Click to expand...

Which does not entirely depart them from government punishment. Furthermore, they must take certain actions that they might not desire to take if they were to go that route.
 
Removable Mind said:
There's no servitude.
Click to expand...

thats actually all that needs said because that fact is true as many many court cases prove and show. the false and desperate claims of servitude and force as always failed and never been taken seriously.
 
disneydude said:
Not a non-response at all. Your dodge is noted. You post was simply playing the "Religious martyr" card. WWJD? Do you think that he would turn away the gay person or turn him away and then claim he was a martyr due to the backlash? If you don't know the answer, read about the man.
Click to expand...

My point was that you didn't respond to my point, you brought up a different subject altogether. I played no such "Martyr card", it is the gay activist who has interjected their own Card by making religious liberty = to bigotry. Remember it is the institutional force that is the most egregious form of discrimination, this law considers the protected class of religious individuals from institutional force. The Gay card is a red herring. WWJD? I don't believe he would partake in any display of unrepentant sin. I'll let you decide what the definition of unrepentant sin is. BTW. I have a good understanding of what the bible teaches about Jesus, Thank you.
 
Chainsaw said:
A private businesses should not be able to deny service to any person for any reason!
Click to expand...

A private businesses should be able to deny service to any person for any reason!
 
AGENT J said:
thats actually all that needs said because that fact is true as many many court cases prove and show. the false and desperate claims of servitude and force as always failed and never been taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Then it is your duty to defend their logic that is obviously faulty. You can start by defending the claim that the thirteenth amendment only protects from conditions found in black slavery. Have fun.
 
Blemonds said:
Your point?
Click to expand...

You are a so called Bible whiz, why should I need to explain a simple question that is integral to religious teachings.
You were wrong before as I and another member noted, yet you fail to see that.
Just wanted to see if you are wrong again.
Meanwhile off for a beer and a chat with the Devil. You do believe in Hell don't you?
Gives ya time to Goggle.
 
JANFU said:
You are a so called Bible whiz, why should I need to explain a simple question that is integral to religious teachings.
You were wrong before as I and another member noted, yet you fail to see that.
Just wanted to see if you are wrong again.
Meanwhile off for a beer and a chat with the Devil. You do believe in Hell don't you?
Gives ya time to Goggle.
Click to expand...
Your question is bizarre. That's why I asked your point. My position on original sin is that it was original sin. And no, I wasn't wrong before
 
Henrin said:
Paying someone that was forced to serve you does not change the fact that they were forced to serve you.



Which does not entirely depart them from government punishment. Furthermore, they must take certain actions that they might not desire to take if they were to go that route.
Click to expand...

I'm not gonna force anybody to serve me. I'm just going to sue them if they don't.

More Henrinbabble...isn't gonna get ya where you want to go.
 
Removable Mind said:
I'm not gonna force anybody to serve me. I'm just going to sue them if they don't.

More Henrinbabble...isn't gonna get ya where you want to go.
Click to expand...
Shall we call that tolerance?
 
Removable Mind said:
I'm not gonna force anybody to serve me. I'm just going to sue them if they don't.

More Henrinbabble...isn't gonna get ya where you want to go.
Click to expand...

:roll: So basically if they fail to serve you and you take them to court for it the state will punish them for the failure to serve you. That's not government force how?

What was the punishment based on again? Oh right, the failure to provide someone else their service, labor, property, and association. How nice, so it is a violation of the thirteenth amendment like I said it was.

You know what else it is a violation of? Oh lets see, the first and fourteenth amendment. What amendment did the courts try to use again? Oh right, the fourteenth amendment. Funny how it actually violates that amendment.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
Sorry, no they aren't. Well, unless you can prove Jesus was around during the old testament. And no, the Trinity wasn't applicable at that time...if you believe in such.
Click to expand...

Jesus said "before Abraham was I AM". To know what that meant to His contemporaries, look at the response from His hearers. Note the context at the end of verse 53. Then the response verse 59; the response of stoning is punishment for blasphemy, claiming to pre exist Abraham and using a reference to the omnipresent (I AM).

John 8: 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’[a] 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
 
Henrin said:
There is a difference between something being ok and that something being legal. I hope I don't need to explain to you the difference.
Click to expand...

it should be illegal. sorry. Jim Crow ****ed it up for the whole class, and if you ask me, i say good riddance to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom