Ditto!Vrede too wrote:JTA wrote:The just goes back to the ancient adage "bros before hoes". God is just laying down the laws of man by instructing us that bros should not lie to other bros, but women are fair game.Seth Milner wrote:And you've still ducked my question.
"What does it (the Bible) mean then, when it says man shall not lie with a man as he would a woman?
If that were written in any venue, what, specifically does or would that mean?
Vrede too wrote:Brethren before harlots.
O Really wrote: Despite the fact that the instructions are generally clear and specific, i believe that I am personally allowed by God (who is lord and master of Heavens and Earth) to set priorities, and to determine which of the instructions (not differentiated in Leviticus which i believe to be direct instructions from God to Moses) that i may follow, and which I may ignore. I personally have the authority (either given by God or in opposition to his instruction) to decide that some instructions can be ignored, and that God doesn't mind and my making those decisions won't affect my personal eligibility for being "saved."
That's one of the best explanations I've heard. I read your post earlier this morning, and I've mulled over it all day because I had read where God gives some leeway. I had to search extensively to find what I was looking for and I believe that what you are referring to is "God turned them over to what is not convenient" or something to that effect. The NT is centered mostly on Jesus and it seems that all that is required to be "saved" is to believe in Jesus, that He is the Son of God. Nothing more about plantings, mixed cloths, beards, etc. So if you believe in Jesus and want to bed down with another man, I guess it's OK.I wonder what the Mr.B's of the world would say about that?
That puts me in the position of God's editor, changing at my own will the instructions God personally gave to Moses, and which have been recorded and passed down through thousands of years. I therefore am God's equal.
Well, that snake did say that Adam and Eve would be as gods. He left out that equal part, though.
Good question. Part of it is likely coverage. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees. Some states start their non-discrimination law with fewer. Part of it is probably "me too." Like every employer in the US has a non-discrimination policy toward the first of their employee manual. But it's not like they really have a choice. They put it in there so that when they get sued they can say "no our fault, mon" Of course they don't reiterate every other law that applies to employers as policy, do they?Vrede too wrote:Ah, thanks. Adequately? If so, why do we have state laws, other than marital status and age, repeating it?
O Really wrote:Shouldn't even be a state issue. Should be added to Title VII.
Not that that will ever be presented by a Repulsivecan Congress.
August 18, 2015
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding H.R. 3185, the Equality Act. As your representative in Washington, I want to ensure that your opinion is heard and I appreciate that you took the time to contact me.
With the recent Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage, some members in Congress are seeking to increase protections for the LGBT community. On July 23, 2015, Representative David Cicilline (RI-1) introduced H.R. 3185, the Equality Act, which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity to the prohibited categories of discrimination in a place of public accommodation. The bill would also prevent any individual from being denied access to any shared facility on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, such as restrooms, locker rooms, or dressing rooms.
Not exactly, it's a scare tactic.
As your representative, please know that I support the equal treatment of all Americans under the law. However, while I oppose discrimination, I have serious concerns with H.R. 3185. H.R. 3185 could require people who hold to the traditional definition of marriage to affirm conduct they may disagree with. I believe those with religious convictions on marriage should be able to express their beliefs and should not be required to participate in conduct that violates their conscience. Should the Equality Act come before me for a vote, I will oppose it...
Sincerely,
Mark Meadows
Member of Congress (R-NC11)
That's like saying, "those with religious convictions on marriage should be able to express their beliefs and should not be required to participate in conduct that violates their conscience," if they oppose interracial marriage. 
I'm waiting for the list of the offenders to be published. Can't wait to see how many of your highly offended liberal assholes are on the list. I'm betting they're already scrambling to get their hands on that information.
Ask me if I give a shit whether you read them or not, you poor deluded preoccupied with me, twit. We all know your a cowardly piece of shit.Vrede too wrote:Back to posting about your obsession? You're still quoting me, according to the notifications. You must delude yourself that I can see your posts or that I open them. Damn you're stupid.
"Stop them from what"?homerfobe wrote:oh yeah.
To our readers: Right Wing Watch, a project for People For the American Way, is run by a dedicated staff driven to shed light on the activities of right-wing political organizations. As a non-profit working hard every day to expose the Far-Right's extreme and intolerant agenda, our main source of support is donations from readers like you. If you use Right Wing Watch, please consider making a contribution to support this content.
Hurry! Send us your money! (don't forget to include bank account, social security, and any PIN numbers)