Denver's Azucar Bakery wins right to refuse to make anti-gay cakes

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Does it work for other reasons? If someone admits to being a bigot, can we then call him Mr. Bigothead.

That display name really need to be taken :-P

[zuluweta 250]

Yes. Leviticus 19:33-34 .

If it doesn't work now, I'm sure, all things being equal, it will be added if and when they expand the religious freedom act.

Haha! Of course! I forgot that you can always refer back to Leviticus if nothing else works.

[zuluweta 250]

i'm not gonna lie, i'm a little bit jealous. g&d never addresses me offline.

Get in line, {%#! ??????????

[GandD 5,966]

Does this also include referring to things as gay where the intention of meaning is to suggest that something (a behaviour or an object, for example) is sub par?

Words have a way of evolving. "Gay" has had multiple meanings as you know so its impossible to rule out the evolution of words from one meaning to another for an individual. But typically, I would say if someone was purposely using that term in a derogatory way, it should be removed. Feel free to report such instances and we will look at them.

Let be fair folks, I'm trying to be transparent and address some of your concerns. But I can't let this turn into a moderation bash fest. As I've said before, if you have a problem with site moderation, your ally of discourse is the site discussion forum, the mod team via pm, the lead mod via pm, or the site admin via pm.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

and satan planted fossils to test our faith. he's a trip, huh. i'm smarter than you satan, can't fool me.

Except for fossil fuels. Those are the Lord's work and his gift unto us.

[GandD 5,966]

sounds like someone will be tested off line

I miss you too.

[zuluweta 250]

Except for fossil fuels. Those are the Lord's work and his gift unto us.

Yeehaa! Frack all of you infidels and unbelievers in Leviticus! ???

[Dakine10 5,452]

Would the reason of you calling him that be designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users?

No. It would be purely for my own enjoyment.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

i'm not gonna lie, i'm a little bit jealous. g&d never addresses me offline.

Don't test him or he might

No. It would be purely for my own enjoyment.

I wish I had 10++++

Now that's funny right there I don't care who you are

** The above statement was not meant to endorse or not endorse content. It was merely an affirmation of comic gold.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

And just a heads up so the rest of you guys understand what the violation is, referring to someone who is a homosexual as a homosexual is not a problem.

However, questioning another poster's sexuality would violate this section of TOS Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users.

So basically the CEHST forum should be shut down since just about every topic and post violates the above stated section of TOS.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Can you please point me to your scripture/reference that says being a sexaholic is a sin? Cuz my wife and I happen to enjoy it a lot, so I need to perhaps learn what the limit is so we can step it down a bit and remain out of the sex-sin zone...

Adultry and being a sexaholic is a sin too....

I'm sure there would be some VJers lined up for the execution box as well. Don't judge others. I will let God do the judging. We all have our secrets to bare.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

So basically the CEHST forum should be shut down since just about every topic and post violates the above stated section of TOS.

You nailed it. My favorite is the OL' Baiting post mod action. Every post on this board (or most) are bait posts. Posted to get a reaction. That one always cracks me up.

Glad you been holding down the middle while I been hard at work.

Guess what car I sell the most of.. Prius. More than any other salesman by a long shot. I think it's because My moderate personality and deep social conscious shine thru

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I do not. I was just responding to another poster's comment on biblical nonsense. Pretty much nothing in the bible makes sense as a measuring stick today, considering it was written by men who lived in completely different times thousands of years ago. I mean, fire was a rare treat back then, and sulphur and brimstone were seen as bad juju, right? Yet nowadays I can light up a farmer's match anytime I please, and it is good.

I don't think that homosexuality is any more significant than heterosexuality, personally. In the dark, we all look alike, and as long as it's between two consenting adults, where is the harm? Anyone who uses the bible or quran or whatever written word of someone who has been dead for hundreds or thousands of years to judge others today... well, that seems a tad silly, in my book. Those books are filled with some good advice (like loving thy neighbor, or treating "illegal aliens" like a native - which the bible did NOT say even 50 years ago, but it has been re-written to say that now), but they also contain the bigotry that existed at the time they were written, and when viewed today, it becomes more transparent that the writers of that time were simply trying to get people to believe THEIR way was the right way.

If you want a direct answer to your quoted passages, you need to look at the context of the times they were written. We know that Leviticus was written at some point around 500 BC and that the letters in Romans were written it was in the late 50s AD.

Was homosexuality bad then? I would argue YES. In a society where woman had to rely on their husbands to survive, it was detrimental. In reality, gay marriage as we see it now has only been really functional for the common person through the women's rights movement of the early 20th century.

(One could argue, among men it could have always been possible - but then there is the argument of a gender marriage imbalance like you see in India or China).

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply today. They have passed a few US laws that kinda supersede whatever old dude wrote that particular passage. Otherwise, it may have read:

"When a foreigner who has had a medical, applied for a visa, proven his/her income is sufficient to prevent becoming a ward of your country, and then resided in your country long enough, treat them as one of your own, for soon they will naturalize and will indeed be one of you."

While you're at it, remember to be nice to illegal aliens too.

Leviticus 19:33-34 When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

And I say... Bravo to you! Alas, I could only give ye a single +1. Brass ones, I see.

Why don't you just tell me what to say? If someone assumes that giving human rights to gay people is PC nonsense then that IS ignorance. If you have a problem with gay people perhaps this is not the site for you. Things have changed in US immigration, whether you like it or not. The flow of gay people on this site is only going to increase. It's sad that you are unable to moderate these topics properly.