Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[aCultureWarrior]

Back to the ADF's defense of Christian baker Jack Phillips and why I have some concerns about that defense. I'll post each ADF argument separately and respond with my concerns.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-4&p=5093004&viewfull=1#post5093004

4 Key Arguments We Are Making To Defend Jack Phillips At The Supreme Court
By Sarah Kramer Posted on: | August 31, 2017

You should be paying attention to the case of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips. After all, your freedom depends on it.
Jack is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to restore his right to live and work according to his faith after being sued by a couple for declining to design a custom cake for their same-sex wedding. Today, Alliance Defending Freedom filed its opening brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Jack’s behalf. Here are a few key arguments we are making in his case, and why you should care:

[1] Jack should have the freedom to say “no” to some custom artistic projects while saying “yes” to all people.
Jack’s decision to decline the custom cake order had nothing to do with the same-sex couple that requested it. Jack will sell anything off his shelves to those who walk in the store. In fact, he offered to do just that for the couple suing him.
This case is really about whether Jack has the freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to celebrate a particular event that violates his faith. And this is not the only event he has declined to promote. He has turned down a cake for a divorce party. He has turned down cakes for bachelor parties and Halloween. He serves all people, but does not celebrate all events.
https://adflegal.org/detailspages/b...-to-defend-jack-phillips-at-the-supreme-court

Please don't downplay that this religious freedom issue is not about homosexuality, because it is. People of faith (and many who aren't, but don't goosestep to the LGBTQ agenda) have been harassed/threatened with death, assaulted, their private property destroyed, fired from their place of employment and brought up on criminal charges because of the LGBTQ movement (btw: the LGBTQ movement wouldn't exist if homosexuality were recriminalized).

While Jack Phillips might have his own view of things like celebrating a divorce, partying with some buddies before an upcoming marriage or little children screaming "Trick or Treat!" on the night of Oct. 31, unlike homosexuality, those things are not intrinsically immoral in the eyes of God as seen in Holy Scripture.

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/JackPhillips1.jpg

Criticism of reason #2 coming up...

 

[Rusha]

I see that you're using the word "legal" again. Surely you're not basing your moral code/worldview on what's legal are you Sandy?

Can we go with your statement from earlier in the post when it comes to what you believe should be legal or illegal?

Legal does not always equate to moral. Insofar as your favorite topic, you have yet to show any basis outside of religion for making homosexuality illegal.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Can we go with your statement from earlier in the post when it comes to what you believe should be legal or illegal?

Originally Posted by Rusha
Liberty for ALL, except for actions that intentionally harm other non-consenting individuals

Legal does not always equate to moral. Insofar as your favorite topic, you have yet to show any basis outside of religion for making homosexuality illegal.

I was hoping that you would confirm that your above statement from your earlier post is the basis for what you believe should be criminal laws.

While we're at it, I must have missed your answer to this question:

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
It appears that you're stating that all of man's laws are legitimate laws. You're well aware that many Christian business owners (bakers, florists, innkeepers, photographers, etc.) have broken man's laws by refusing to cater to proud and unrepentant homosexuals in order to stay faithful to God. Again: how can it be possible to adhere to man's laws (in these cases, cater to a homosexual wedding) and still be faithful to God?

Regarding me supposedly not establishing a basis for recriminalizing homosexuality outside of what Holy Scripture says about it (not that God's Word isn't enough) and the fact that the LGBTQ gaystapo is suppressing religious freedom?

Child indoctrination
Changing invaluable institutions
The harm it brings to those who engage in homosexuality/transgenderism
The high financial $$$ cost that those who engage in homosexuality/transgenderism bring to society (medical, psychological, court cases, etc. etc.).

 

[Rusha]

I was hoping that you would confirm that your above statement from your earlier post is the basis for what you believe should be criminal laws.

While we're at it, I must have missed your answer to this question:

It appears that you're stating that all of man's laws are legitimate laws. You're well aware that many Christian business owners (bakers, florists, innkeepers, photographers, etc.) have broken man's laws by refusing to cater to proud and unrepentant homosexuals in order to stay faithful to God. Again: how can it be possible to adhere to man's laws (in these cases, cater to a homosexual wedding) and still be faithful to God?

Regarding me supposedly not establishing a basis for recriminalizing homosexuality outside of what Holy Scripture says about it (not that God's Word isn't enough) and the fact that the LGBTQ gaystapo is suppressing religious freedom?

Child indoctrination
Changing invaluable institutions
The harm it brings to those who engage in homosexuality/transgenderism
The high financial $$$ cost that those who engage in homosexuality/transgenderism bring to society (medical, psychological, court cases, etc. etc.).

Spin it however you like. Your thread is about criminalizing other human beings based solely on your religious beliefs. There is a double standard in regards to wishing to making something illegal because you believe it causes harm to the individual.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding me supposedly not establishing a basis for recriminalizing homosexuality outside of what Holy Scripture says about it (not that God's Word isn't enough) and the fact that the LGBTQ gaystapo is suppressing religious freedom?

Child indoctrination
Changing invaluable institutions
The harm it brings to those who engage in homosexuality/transgenderism
The high financial $$$ cost that those who engage in homosexuality/transgenderism bring to society (medical, psychological, court cases, etc. etc.).

Spin it however you like. Your thread is about criminalizing other human beings based solely on your religious beliefs. There is a double standard in regards to wishing to making something illegal because you believe it causes harm to the individual.

Since you refused to answer a question that I asked twice (if Christian business owners can fully embrace their faith while being forced to cater to immoral behavior) I can only assume that we both agree that Christianity and the LGBTQ/sexual anarchist movement cannot coexist?

While I'm on the topic of unanswered questions, I assume that pedophilia and pederasty (something that is very common within the homosexual movement) would fall under your "Liberty for ALL" laws?

Liberty for ALL, except for actions that intentionally harm other non-consenting individuals

As far as the points I made above: Yes, my moral code/worldview come from God as seen in Holy Scripture;

i.e. your problem is with God, not me.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

4 Key Arguments We Are Making To Defend Jack Phillips At The Supreme Court

[2] Designing custom cakes is artistic expression protected by the First Amendment.
Jack designs custom cakes through drawing, sculpting, and painting. There is no doubt that there is artistic expression and creativity involved in the custom cakes that Jack designs. It’s why a journalist once called Jack’s shop “an art gallery of cakes.” And artistic expression, just like painting on a canvas or sculpting a chunk of marble, is protected under the First Amendment. (Even the ACLU can’t disagree with that!)
https://adflegal.org/detailspages/b...-to-defend-jack-phillips-at-the-supreme-court

Fine, if you want to put Jack Phillip's artistic expression in the same category as Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ": https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/sep/28/andres-serrano-piss-christ-new-york and homosexual pedophile Robert Mapplethorpe's pornography : https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...bscene-perfect-moment/?utm_term=.e37f1a3fc148
http://unframed.lacma.org/2012/10/11/the-controversial-act-of-taking-pictures-of-children/

by saying that all artists are entitled to free expression, then do so, but please don't set SCOTUS precedent that says religious freedom must be tied to art.

https://mlsvc01-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/ffcf37a9001/0c2398a2-abfb-4797-be87-1f2280a02338.jpg

 

[aCultureWarrior]

4 Key Arguments We Are Making To Defend Jack Phillips At The Supreme Court

[3] The government should not have the authority to compel or to suppress art.
As we just discussed, art is constitutionally protected as speech. And just like the First Amendment guarantees that the government will not silence or compel our speech, the same is true for artistic expression. As the Supreme Court has ruled before: “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence.”
If the government has the power to force artists to portray certain messages or celebrate certain events through their art, then freedom for all of us is at risk. Eliminating the free expression of some endangers it for everyone – and with it goes freedom of speech and our other basic civil liberties.
https://adflegal.org/detailspages/b...-to-defend-jack-phillips-at-the-supreme-court

Wow, that sounds like something straight out of the communist founded ACLU handbook. Again, if you want to put Jack Phillip's "artistic expression" in the same category as homosexual pedophile Robert Mapplethorpe's then do so (the late Mapplethorpe, who died of AIDS at the ripe old age of 42, believed that photographing an 8 year old boy in the nude, with genitalia exposed and putting it on public display for his fellow pedophiles to drool over, was "artistic expression" as well), but please don't tie in that supposed right with my right to religious freedom.

http://www.standunited.org/_media/uploaded/petition/petition_552c22b7a87eb1428955831.jpg

 

[aCultureWarrior]

There's a lot more coming in Part 4 of the "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!" thread:

*Libertarians are continuing to hijack the conservative movement, in fact they're calling themselves "conservative" and have others tricked into believing that they are.

I'll go into great detail why when the word "Libertarian" is seen anywhere near conservative, you should beware.

I'll talk about key players in the Libertarian movement, some of it's founders (one wrote an article saying that killing a disabled baby falls under parental rights and another stated that a father selling a 4 year old ("who is not an adult") to a NAMBLA member for food would be permissible...needless to say, I love exposing these filthy barbarians) and some of the people running for political office and in the media.

*An updated table of contents is coming soon.

*More information on the Degenerate in Chief, Donald Trump.

And I'll finish with my rebuttal of ADF's defense against the 'gaystapo' in the upcoming Jack Phillips SCOTUS case.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There's a lot more coming in Part 4 of the "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!" thread:

*Libertarians are continuing to hijack the conservative movement, in fact they're calling themselves "conservative" and have others tricked into believing that they are.

I'll go into great detail why when the word "Libertarian" is seen anywhere near conservative, you should beware.

I'll talk about key players in the Libertarian movement, some of it's founders (one wrote an article saying that killing a disabled baby falls under parental rights and another stated that a father selling a 4 year old ("who is not an adult") to a NAMBLA member for food would be permissible...needless to say, I love exposing these filthy barbarians) and some of the people running for political office and in the media.

*An updated table of contents is coming soon.

*More information on the Degenerate in Chief, Donald Trump.

And I'll finish with my rebuttal of ADF's defense against the 'gaystapo' in the upcoming Jack Phillips SCOTUS case.

Yes, your 200-300 ardent fans will be waiting with baited breath for all of this aCW...

Tell me though, how come, out of all of these supporters you apparently have, that none of them come to voice such support on your actual blog thread?!

What gives?

 

[patrick jane]

Yes, your 200-300 ardent fans will be waiting with baited breath for all of this aCW...

Tell me though, how come, out of all of these supporters you apparently have, that none of them come to voice such support on your actual blog thread?!

What gives?

:chuckle:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
There's a lot more coming in Part 4 of the "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!" thread:

*Libertarians are continuing to hijack the conservative movement, in fact they're calling themselves "conservative" and have others tricked into believing that they are.

I'll go into great detail why when the word "Libertarian" is seen anywhere near conservative, you should beware.

I'll talk about key players in the Libertarian movement, some of it's founders (one wrote an article saying that killing a disabled baby falls under parental rights and another stated that a father selling a 4 year old ("who is not an adult") to a NAMBLA member for food would be permissible...needless to say, I love exposing these filthy barbarians) and some of the people running for political office and in the media.

*An updated table of contents is coming soon.

*More information on the Degenerate in Chief, Donald Trump.

And I'll finish with my rebuttal of ADF's defense against the 'gaystapo' in the upcoming Jack Phillips SCOTUS case.

Yes, your 200-300 ardent fans will be waiting with baited breath for all of this aCW...

Tell me though, how come, out of all of these supporters you apparently have, that none of them come to voice such support on your actual blog thread?!

What gives?

Now now Art, you don't want me to speculate what goes on in the minds of the people who follow this thread on a daily basis no more than you want me to speculate that those who are ardent opponents of this 4 part thread very well might be practicing homosexuals themselves, so let's talk about other things shall we?

The last time you graced this thread with your presence you refused to answer a question that I presented numerous times:

Should people who have their genitalia surgically mutilated* be allowed to serve in the military and have access to powerful weapons?

*Not to be confused with the father of the modern day sexual anarchist movement, Alfred Kinsey, who took a pocketknife to his genitalia.

If you're still uncomfortable talking about genital mutilators (the T in the LGBTQ acronym) we could talk about the inseparable ties between the Libertarian movement and the LGBTQ movement and how Libertarian/atheist Walter Block found NAMBLA useful and how many icons in the LGBTQ movement were part of NAMBLA.

If you're uncomfortable about talking about the child molesters of the Libertarian and LGBTQ movements, we could talk about the great things Donald Trump has done in his Presidency for the LGBTQ movement (he made Rex Tillerson, the guy who made it possible for homosexuals to go on overnight campouts with 12 year old boys his Secretary of State, what's not to love about that?).

We could talk about if it's possible for the gaystapo and Christians to "coexist", and how it was unthoughtful of Christian baker Jack Phillips not to design a wedding cake with a depiction of the place where the two lovebirds met:

https://themighty.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gianttoiletpiconhomepage-750x456.jpg

Or we could talk about how the mother of the modern day sexual anarchist movement (Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger) met with the "extremely racist" Women of the Ku Klux Klan back in 1926 and "received a dozen or more proffers to speak to like minded groups" and how you believe

...making her out to be a racist is dishonest.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...d-Parenthood&p=5094523&viewfull=1#post5094523

So you see Art, there are numerous things to talk about other than me speculating what goes on in the minds of those that follow this thread.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Now now Art, you don't want me to speculate what goes on in the minds of the people who follow this thread on a daily basis no more than you want me to speculate that those who are ardent opponents of this 4 part thread very well might be practicing homosexuals themselves, so let's talk about other things shall we?

There's nothing to speculate. Not a single one of these supposed "followers" of yours feels sufficiently inclined to contribute or offer at least some words of support. You have an average view tally of readers that's average in itself is all. If you had 200-300 committed readers then the law of averages dictates that a percentage of those would have made an appearance and they haven't. Face it doofus, you haven't got a fan base.

Now your own "speculations" are typical of a repressed, closeted, homosexuality obsessed man. In fact the only person who knocked you into second place on the 'gay obsessed/closeted' scale was 'Just Tom'. See, straight folk do not concoct all sorts of loopy and sleazy scenarios/innuendo about posters being gay simply because they happen to believe that laws regarding homosexuality should stay as they are. Most people would be opposed to your "ideals" including Christians so by your "logic" most of the world is probably homosexual. Obviously that's absurd, so the speculation on your own orientation is justified because straight people don't obsess about gay folk and nor do they lie and invent up all manner of creeped out sleaze over straight people either.

Oh, and dude, I'm not an 'ardent opponent' of your blog. I think kooks like you should have a public say.

 

[Rusha]

i.e. your problem is with God, not me.

No, it's with you ... as well as anyone who only values freedom of their OWN religion.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

i.e. your problem is with God, not me.

No, it's with you ... as well as anyone who only values freedom of their OWN religion.

Whatever that means.

With you being an ardent pro lifer and all...

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ub58f8ebab.gif

what are your thoughts on Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and the fact that she spoke to the "extremely racist" Women of the Ku Klux Klan and received a dozen or more proffers from like minded groups"?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
...So you see Art, there are numerous things to talk about other than me speculating what goes on in the minds of those that follow this thread.

See, straight folk do not concoct all sorts of loopy and sleazy scenarios/...

Since you don't want to talk about genital mutilators in the military; NAMBLA and the LGBTQ/Libertarian movements; the gaystapo suppressing religious (i.e. Christian) freedom or the mother of the modern day sexual anarchist movement talking to a bunch of white racist inbreds back in 1926 (and receiving "a dozen or more proffers from like minded groups"), how about we try another scenario?

9 year old girl to her Uncle Art:

"Uncle Art, how come you're 45 years old and have never married and never have had a girlfriend? And how come a man named Peter Tatchell says that children as young as me sometimes enjoy having sex with adults? Is Peter Tatchell a pervert Uncle Art?"

Uncle Art's reply:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Since you don't want to talk about genital mutilators in the military; NAMBLA and the LGBTQ/Libertarian movements; the gaystapo suppressing religious (i.e. Christian) freedom or the mother of the modern day sexual anarchist movement talking to a bunch of white racist inbreds back in 1926 (and receiving "a dozen or more proffers from like minded groups"), how about we try another scenario?

9 year old girl to her Uncle Art:

"Uncle Art, how come you're 45 years old and have never married and never have had a girlfriend? And how come a man named Peter Tatchell says that children as young as me sometimes enjoy having sex with adults? Is Peter Tatchell a pervert Uncle Art?"

Uncle Art's reply:

Oh wow, you really are in the closet dude. It was this kinda sleazy rumour and lies along with the obsessions that put a huge '?' over your orientation to begin with and you're still persisting with it? Don't project your life onto mine dude. I'm straight and I don't share personal details of my private life and relationships on forums with cranks like you - as you well know. So instead of bearing false witness - which is not exactly looked upon favourably within your faith - how about you apologize for all the sleazy innuendo you've concocted about a myriad posters on here and show that you have some humility and honesty about you after all?

Or, continue to be the pompous clown living in a certain cupboard in the basement.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Oh wow, you really are in the closet dude. It was this kinda sleazy rumour and lies along with the obsessions that put a huge '?' over your orientation to begin with and you're still persisting with it? Don't project your life onto mine dude. I'm straight and I don't share personal details of my private life and relationships on forums with cranks like you - as you well know. So instead of bearing false witness - which is not exactly looked upon favourably within your faith - how about you apologize for all the sleazy innuendo you've concocted about a myriad posters on here and show that you have some humility and honesty about you after all?

Or, continue to be the pompous clown living in a certain cupboard in the basement.

At least answer the latter part of the question Art:

9 year old girl to her Uncle Art:

"Uncle Art,...how come a man named Peter Tatchell says that children as young as me sometimes enjoy having sex with adults? Is Peter Tatchell a pervert Uncle Art?"

Uncle Art's reply:

If you don't, I guess I'll just have to...

move on.

 

[Arthur Brain]

At least answer the latter part of the question Art:

9 year old girl to her Uncle Art:

"Uncle Art,...how come a man named Peter Tatchell says that children as young as me sometimes enjoy having sex with adults? Is Peter Tatchell a pervert Uncle Art?"

Uncle Art's reply:

If you don't, I guess I'll just have to...

move on.

You do that closet case. My position on child molesting has been clear for years - zero tolerance. Now go spread some more sleazy lies and bear some more false witness about folk. Silly, pompous crank.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

At least answer the latter part of the question Art:

9 year old girl to her Uncle Art:

"Uncle Art,...how come a man named Peter Tatchell says that children as young as me sometimes enjoy having sex with adults? Is Peter Tatchell a pervert Uncle Art?"

Uncle Art's reply:

If you don't, I guess I'll just have to...

move on.

You do that closet case. My position on child molesting has been clear for years - zero tolerance. Now go spread some more sleazy lies and bear some more false witness about folk. Silly, pompous crank.

I was expecting that Uncle Art's (i.e. the moral crusader) reply would go something like this:

"Leading UK homosexual activist Peter Tatchell is a pervert for even suggesting that 9 year old children enjoy having sex with adults. Pedophiles like leading UK homosexual activist Peter Tatchell should be locked up and the key thrown away."

Feel free to copy and paste if your fingers turn spastic in attempt to type the above.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I was expecting that Uncle Art's (i.e. the moral crusader) reply would go something like this:

"Leading UK homosexual activist Peter Tatchell is a pervert for even suggesting that 9 year old children enjoy having sex with adults. Pedophiles like leading UK homosexual activist Peter Tatchell should be locked up and the key thrown away."

Feel free to copy and paste if your fingers turn spastic in attempt to type the above.

Feel free to lock yourself in that closet of yours you gay obsessed nut. Maybe one of your ardent followers might finally show up on here eh?

What. A. Crank.