LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heck, it seems pretty clear that homosexuals are also more loving than god.

More importantly, they're winning.

Since god always plays on the winning side we can see where god wants us to be.
 
It is not just one lone person who has been victim of the radical homosexual agenda...

What's the homosexual agenda ?

How the hell do you define homosexual anyway ? The way I see it, it means someone attracted to the same sex. That doesn't sound ideological to me.
 
Last edited:
kellyb...
Words of wisdom indeed:
The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians
Chapter 6
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-cor/6?lang=eng

OK - I'll bite...

for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?

Would that be LDS? With the emphasis on unrighteous?

and what communion hath light with darkness?

Also LDS? Emphasising darkness?
 
OK - I'll bite...

for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?

Would that be LDS? With the emphasis on unrighteous?

and what communion hath light with darkness?

Also LDS? Emphasising darkness?

I think she's trying to distract us from her lies about homosexuals by admitting her own marriage was an example of being "unequally yoked."
 
What does, Jesus, Joseph Smith, or any god care about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? How are any of the above wronged by anyone in a same sex relationship?

We'll assume for the purposes of this discussion Jesus is not presently as dead as Julius Caesar.
 
It seems hatred against Janadele is starting to overpower critical thinking, and I'm getting a little embarrassed for the skeptic side.

First of all, I said that the bakery was a "public business" not a "public entity".

Second of all, "public businesses" are indeed subject to Constitutional protections. For example, do you recall how segregation was removed from buses, stores, diners, and so on?

That is because such businesses benefit from public services (such as police protection, fire services, and so on), therefore such businesses are subject to the Constitution.

As far as I know, federal anti-discrimination law has everything to do with protected classes under the 1964 Civil Rights acts and nothing to do with the religious establishment clause in the Constitution.

The federal protected classes don't even specifically include "sexual orientation," though many state laws do and it seems that federal law is heading that way.

For example, from the Federal Highway Administration's employee guide:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/eeo.cfm

Sexual orientation is not a protected basis under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Allegations of sexual orientation discrimination are processed under the Department's "Procedures for Processing Claims of Sexual Orientation


Same for housing. No federal law prevents someone from refusing to rent or sell to gay couples, though state laws might:
http://apartments.about.com/od/protectedclassesfaq/f/sexorientation.htm
Federal law does not protect people against housing discrimination based on their sexual orientation. However, the District of Columbia, several cities and towns, and the following states include sexual orientation as a protected class in their housing discrimination laws

So this is a state-law issue, not a Constitutional one, because it's not based on the Constitutional religion clause.

That's a quote from the Christian bible.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the evil, bigoted and hate-inspired cult of LDS.

The Christian Bible is one of the three central scriptures of the LDS church, so yes, it has a lot to do with the LDS church. The Bible has also been used to justify evil, bigotry and hate by many other Christian religions the same way Janadele is using it, so her interpretation isn't unique to LDS beliefs and is in line with many Christian sects.
 
Just to address your points, ...

First of all, I said that the bakery was a "public business" not a "public entity".

Second of all, "public businesses" are indeed subject to Constitutional protections. For example, do you recall how segregation was removed from buses, stores, diners, and so on?
That is because such businesses benefit from public services (such as police protection, fire services, and so on), therefore such businesses are subject to the Constitution.

Thanks.
Great post. What is needed is an understanding that private businesses who serve the public have rights that must be balanced with the needs of the public they serve. There is no bright and shinny line. We are a nation of laws not of men (people). Those people have inalienable rights but those rights are not unlimited. If you want the benefits of living in a society then you must be prepared for the responsibilities of living in that society.

It's your right to hate gays and lesbians. It's not your right to refuse them service based solely on their relationship status.
 
More importantly, they're winning.

Since god always plays on the winning side we can see where god wants us to be.


You might have meant this facetiously, but in actual fact American Christians, like many people, do judge which side God was on in retrospect by the course of history. In liberal Christian churches, for instance, I've heard often about how the divine will gave courage to the Civil Rights protest marchers, gave eloquent expression to the thoughts of the Rev. Dr. King, and opened many peoples' eyes to the bigotry behind segregationist politics. Eventually this was sufficient to move even the "prophets" of the LDS to change their minds about what they thought God willed.

A century or so earlier, the same thing happened with regard to American slavery. Now, the same thing is happening, and will happen, with regard to gay rights and sexual tolerance.

Of course, those on the other side of such moral struggles never perceive them as a process of coming around to the true plans and desires of a caring God, but instead, as the insidiously growing influence of the devil. (Which then furthermore leads to the conclusion that for the devil to have acquired such power to thwart God's will, we must be living in the End Times.) The fact that they're choosing to exalt the devil's strength and belittle God's, such that every time they see moral change happening they immediate conclude "the devil's causing it," never seems to faze them. It is only in the rear view mirror that they can see which side the devil was really on.

(A few centuries earlier still, something very similar to this happened with regard to witchcraft, in a remarkably short interval. Within just a few years after the Salem witch trials, which were seen and written about at the time as not only a war but a "last stand in the new world" against the rising power of Satan and his recruited minions, it was not the numerous surviving accused witches but the accusers and judges who were publicly declaring their repentance for having been under Satan's influence. [In many ways, the aftermath of the Salem trials is a more fascinating subject for historical study than the trials themselves. The community didn't just shrug and say "glad that's over" and move on. There were intellectual and emotional tidal waves that are still relevant today.])

Whether it's due to the influence of the Holy Spirit overcoming the devil, or just the moral consensus of mortals evolving over time, the LDS and their "prophets" will soon have their eyes opened, as they have before, to which side they should have been on. Proposition 8 was a moral test for them, a temptation if you will, and they will come to realize that they failed it like the God-fearing citizens of Salem failed theirs.

Or if not, then despite their resilience in the past they will this time end up marginalized, like such formerly upright and respected organizations as the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
It seems hatred against Janadele is starting to overpower critical thinking, and I'm getting a little embarrassed for the skeptic side.

As far as I know, federal anti-discrimination law has everything to do with protected classes under the 1964 Civil Rights acts and nothing to do with the religious establishment clause in the Constitution.

The federal protected classes don't even specifically include "sexual orientation," though many state laws do and it seems that federal law is heading that way.

For example, from the Federal Highway Administration's employee guide:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/eeo.cfm

Same for housing. No federal law prevents someone from refusing to rent or sell to gay couples, though state laws might:
http://apartments.about.com/od/protectedclassesfaq/f/sexorientation.htm

So this is a state-law issue, not a Constitutional one, because it's not based on the Constitutional religion clause.

The Christian Bible is one of the three central scriptures of the LDS church, so yes, it has a lot to do with the LDS church. The Bible has also been used to justify evil, bigotry and hate by many other Christian religions the same way Janadele is using it, so her interpretation isn't unique to LDS beliefs and is in line with many Christian sects.
You seem to be arguing the letter of the law Pup. Which is fine. But clearly gays and lesbians are a class of citizens that have been historically discriminated against.

Arguing in your favor for the moment, gays and lesbians are gaining political and social clout at both the local and federal level and in the end SCOTUS could rule that because of that fact they don't qualify for protected class status.

That said, there is, IMO, compelling interest to grant gays and lesbians protected class status regardless. Refusing to provide services based on sexual orientation smacks of lunch counters, fountains and buses. Just a little bit of history repeating IMO.

We will see. In the long run the battle is over. In less than a generation the sentiments of Janadele will be seen the same as using the "N" word. It won't come too soon as there are good and bad people in every group and people ought to be judged by their ethics, compassion and prudence.

Not what they do in the privacy of their homes so long as they are consenting adults. There is no compelling basis to discriminate against gays and lesbians in a secular society.
 
Last edited:
I see no hatred for Janadele, only for the bigotry she espouses. I don't hate her, I just pity her. It must be a nightmare for her to be living in the 21st century, seeing most of the world move towards love, compassion, tolerance and equality for all, and knowing that the hatred she has for her fellow men is poisoning her mind and separating her further from her God.
 
It is not just one lone person who has been victim of the radical homosexual agenda... there have been many, however such is off topic to this thread.
You brought the example of that particular bakery up, it's not our fault that what actually happened doesn't accord with your report. You can bring up another specific example if you like.

The LDS position on discrimination (be that against LGBT people, black people or anyone else) is absolutely on topic for this thread.
 
Do you still think this, Janadele?
Jesus was of the linage of David, and Caucasian. The same linage which populated Britain.

Wait, did she actually write that glob of absurd drivel?

Seriously?!?

For some reason I thought that slab of racist dogma fell out of favor when they granted blacks full souls in 1978.

Caucasian ? Wasn't he Jewish ?

Yes, he was a Jew. No, he would not have been white. Actual Mormons can comment on the ******, racist drivel the LDS church has spewed over time about race and the Jews.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.


And how was he of the line of David when Joseph wasn't even his father ?

That's one of the criticisms of the book of Mathew raised on a recent episode of Irreligiosophy.

Matthew

More Matthew
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yeah. About that:

This is the first time I have heard Warren speak. It seems to me that the authorities had no right to invade the FLDS Temple nor to confiscate these records, and certainly not to make them public. An unbelieving world does not understand that the Lord sanctions sexual relationships for the conception of children within righteous marriage.

The Lord does not sanction the misuse of the powers of creation and the sexual perversions so clearly evident and flaunted in todays world. These are those who are evil.
 
:eye-poppi

In her defense, she also made the following claim in the same thread:

It is my understanding that at the time of the marriages all ladies were of an age legal in their State of residence.

She wasn't endorsing pedophilia or child rape, but expressing complete and total ignorance of the facts being reported in the media. I also suspect she might not have realized this was a splinter group condemned by the LDS church she worships, and not an actual branch of said church.

Still, feeling compelled to comment on the case despite her mind-numbing levels of ignorance about it casts her in a poor light to say the least. I'm going to be charitable and assume she really WAS ignorant of the facts, despite having been directed to and claiming to have listened to information about the arrest.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom