A Question for Thesists

[Drich]

---

see my last post.
on what?

Being Christ despite circumstance is hard no matter what. It is so much easier to just give up and adopt some sort of bastardized morality and justify whatever you want so long as no one get hurt.

---

,actually no. The US is currently jailing pastors for not marrying gay couples.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/2...dings.html

To have a pastor perform a ceremony that is against his deeply held legitmate religious views is not freedom to practice religion sport, that is a state mandated religious practice. Something our bill'o rights says we do not have to do, but popular culture says we must.

---

If this were true we would not be killing unborn babies, sanctioning gay marriages, and removing God from every aspect of public life, nor would the state mandate our religious practices.
Where do you live? maybe we should trade homes.

There are two boys lost off the coast of Florida and a radio deejay who announced this news story ended, 'our prayers are with you.' I cringed because he said this on a non Christian station. The very next break he had to appologise for expressing his religious views on company air time and made a disclaimer statement that his company did not endorse his 'prayer.'

what kind of world do we live in, where we can not offer prayer to two 14 year olds lost at sea? More over if we live in a majority Christian country then why do we have to go about daily life as if we were stepping on egg shells all the time?

If you went to china, do you think they would keep their deeply held religious/cultural views out of the public eye so as to not offend some douche bag minority? Then why do we do it here unless those numbers are not repersentivite of who and what the majority of this country really is.

---

Take another look at the article at your link.  It is regarding "wedding chapels," not churches.  Wedding chapels are basically businesses which marry people.  Businesses are not allowed to discriminate.  Churches are.

Also, as is often the case, Fox News is lying:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriag...ing-chapel

http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/co...rights-law

Next time, try looking for a reputable news source.

silly atheist, you cant refute a tertiary source with another tertiary source, unless you want to look like a fool sitting in his own 'confirmation bias.'

You need a secondary source or primary source material to refute a tertiary source like a new agency or new blog.

Lucky for you the fox news article provides a primary source to not only support everything reported it goes much further is detailing not only the fines, and jail time threatened it out lines how this threat was not constitutional. On the link I provided it provided a link to the actual 63 page legal brief filed with the city, along with Donald knapps signature on the document. Which not only verifies the complain it shows your liberal blog/rags for what they are.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/KnappComplaint.pdf

A good secondary source is the summation of the situation on the actual website of the ADF. (The attorneys defending Donald Knapp and the hitching post.)
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364
This summation is valid because it comes from the actual lawyers defending knapp.

Then a valid tertiary (third part/non affiliated source) is the boise public radio source that not only confirms the confrontation but spells out the final resolution.
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/co...rights-law

Bottom line... Next time you want to challenge me don't let the other fool you into thinking I am not well researched. I rarly have less the three points of verified reference material before I make a stand like this. Several more when a subject like this is contested.