It’s called a conviction. Satirically saying ‘because feelings’ is extremely offensive.
Isn't a personal feeling or belief the literal definition of 'conviction'?
Whats the reasoning behind your conviction?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
It’s called a conviction. Satirically saying ‘because feelings’ is extremely offensive.
Here is a closer example to the baker questionYour hypothetical situation is extreme. If it were the case I'd agree on working towards a society like we have today, perhaps that may need some government control. In the real world it is a very small minority that would refuse business and a very minor inconvenience to go somewhere else.
It is not an infringement of rights for a business to refuse service. It is an infringement on rights to compel someone to provide a service.
What are your thoughts on Womens only gyms such as Fernwood? Are they gender discriminatory or should they be compelled to allow Men to join. What are your thoughts on clubs and bars trying to keep an equal gender balance inside and denying people entry based on gender or social status? Should Male/Female sex workers be compelled to provide a service to both the opposite sex and the same sex?
Thus it is rank hypocrisy and double standards from gay lobby groups and the like to dismiss the valid claims made by churches to be afforded protection under the law to prevent them being abused by people they disagree with when they expect the same standards to be afforded to them.
Joined a week ago with a paid account and you’ve spent half your 8 posts discussing gay people. Bit of an obsessionIs this forum an actual subsidiary of Tumblr ??? Lol
Only one Gough. Marriage celebrants and religious organisations should be entitled to decide if they wish to perform same sex marriages.Don't verbal me Lebs, my point remains. Why does homophobia need protection in law when sexism, and racism is discouraged? I'd also be interested in seeing how many of those demanding bigots need protection in law from NTTAWWTs are also certain the S18 (c) of the RDA is going to destroy Australia and should be removed.
Only one Gough. Marriage celebrants and religious organisations should be entitled to decide if they wish to perform same sex marriages.
SSM is going to pass into law and no matter what you think, celebrants and religious organisations will not have to perform same sex marriages against their will.And interracial ones.
SSM is going to pass into law and no matter what you think, celebrants and religious organisations will not have to perform same sex marriages against their will.
Lol! said the poster with 450 posts about it.Joined a week ago with a paid account and you’ve spent half your 8 posts discussing gay people. Bit of an obsession
You do realise that’s about 5% of my posts over years, yeah?Lol! said the poster with 450 posts about it.
Ohhhhhh is that who it is? Why is it always deadshits from the no side creating fake accounts?Don't get too Strung Out.
Why would celebrants get a free bigotry pass?SSM is going to pass into law and no matter what you think, celebrants and religious organisations will not have to perform same sex marriages against their will.
It is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against Nazi's everyone knows that.How about the Jewish baker and a Nazi cake?
Are there religious texts that have anti interracial marriage in them? The mainstream texts have sodomy = sin etc. so I have no issue where a religion of "repute" ie long standing mainstream refuses to carry out the ceremony. After all if you want a religious ceremony you should be adherents of the religion.
Are there religious texts that have anti interracial marriage in them?
I don't see colour, Chief. Only actions and behaviour!
Who is molek I know of moloch and tennis player molik...I am sure someone could find something to support an objection to interracial marriage.
Then again a priest could just object on the grounds that the couple's burnt offering had a defect, or that they wore clothes of mixed fibers, or had failed to properly cleanse themselves after eating the flesh of an animal that doesn't chew cud and has cloven hooves, or had sacrificed their children to Molek.
Lots of ways to get around it.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
https://www.shmoop.com/leviticus/molek.htmlWho is molek I know of moloch and tennis player molik...