seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
logically you should be ok with a police officer refusing to help a Mexican being robbed because he hates Mexicans - Revip
Except it is absolutely NOTHING like that at all. But this fact has been explained multiple times on this thread already.
There is nothing to suggest the bakers hate gays. They have a moral objection to gay marriage and prefer not to offer their services to a gay wedding ceremony.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 1 of 5] https://youtu.be/g08tw2v3b4s.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 2 of 5] https://youtu.be/rpceb5v0vbe.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 3 of 5] https://youtu.be/2xa08ukc_6i.
Living beyond one’s means involves credit. If you are not issued credit, then you cannot live beyond your means
Using cash reserves and liquidating assets to pay regular costs is living beyond means. It's a reasonable stop-gap to a short-term problem. The cult's problems are long-term.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
The baker should not be allowed to refuse service because the customer was gay. The issue was being asked to make a cake for a gay wedding.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
The bigoted baker would claim it violates his conscience/religious rights to bake a cake for the black couple
No it wouldn't that would rightly be illegal. This is NOT what happened in this case.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Very pleased to see the right outcome in this case.
Nobody should be compelled to act contrary to their conscience even if we disagree with their opinions.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 1 of 5] https://youtu.be/g08tw2v3b4s.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 2 of 5] https://youtu.be/rpceb5v0vbe.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 3 of 5] https://youtu.be/2xa08ukc_6i.
My summary. Please tell me if I have facts wrong.
In short, the organisation has peaked.
However fast or slow it proves to be (SBF v Morph) the future is one of decline.
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
Hooby you really don't understand it do you?
There are three possibilities.
1 - DNA sequences identical across all species
2 - DNA sequences randomly different across all species
3 - DNA sequences vary in a pattern that exactly corresponds to the relationships previously identified by evolution.
Turns out the answer was number 3.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 1 of 5] https://youtu.be/g08tw2v3b4s.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 2 of 5] https://youtu.be/rpceb5v0vbe.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 3 of 5] https://youtu.be/2xa08ukc_6i.
I think these 3000 properties earmarked for sale might be in addition to kingdom halls. This online presentation took place in 2016 but the programme to identify kHalls for sale and merger is ongoing since then.
Edited to correct date.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 1 of 5] https://youtu.be/g08tw2v3b4s.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 2 of 5] https://youtu.be/rpceb5v0vbe.
leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 3 of 5] https://youtu.be/2xa08ukc_6i.
And yet there is a comment on one of the clips that states that contributions have never been higher.
Is that a lie of is the crisis simply that they are terrible at budgeting? If so they are admitting to carelessness with 'the Master's belongings'. Hardly a sign of being 'faithful or discreet'.
tommie robinson has reported often about what he sees as the demise of british society by the imposition of 'sharia' norms.. https://www.infowars.com/update-tommy-robinson-gets-13-months-for-livestreaming-outside-courthouse/?utm_source=nightly+newsletter&utm_campaign=9e3ceb30f6-email_campaign_2018_05_25_03_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e12661a83c-9e3ceb30f6-38680565.
yesterday he was jailed for 13 months for reporting outside a court in the uk.
his was a non violent offence.. what no community service?
