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.
But would that sign be incorrect if it hung in Masterpiece Bakery? It would be honest. Perhaps he could add "due to sincerely held beliefs" to soften it.
And if it's acceptable to refuse to make a custom made gay wedding cake it should be acceptable for a photographer to say they'll take your portrait but not your gay wedding photos, or MC your birthday party but not your 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.
Apologies, I meant the sign should read "custom made wedding things for heterosexuals only"
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.
Nothing gives some members of JWD a raging hard-on quite like a gay topic.
Looks very like a short term win for the baker if you read the grounds for the decision: it wasn't about protecting Masterpiece's right to freedom of religious belief but about the fact that Colorado was hostile to their religious views, describing them "despicable". It was this that was impermissible. The ruling does not settle the wider issues referred to in this thread.
If the USA were to allow bakers, photographers, MC, musicians, venues to say no to legal gay weddings on religious grounds, are they to post "Heterosexuals Only" in their shops and on their websites? I'd rather know than ask and be refused...
For the record, I think marriage and weddings are an anachronism.
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?
Tommy Robinson is just an ordinary bloke
yeah, we've all joined the BNP by mistake at some time or another. #apologist
i went on line looking for old jw songs and some of them were pretty good and some were just awful!.
did you ever like any of those songs?
.
published today.
jehovah's witnesses accused of silencing victims of child abuse.
to those who were disfellowshipped/disassociated – how did your still-in parents handle it?.
i don’t want to fade, so i am thinking about disassociating soon – i don’t care if i’m playing by the org’s rules, i just want out.. however, i am concerned about how my parents will react.
i don’t want them to become super depressed or whatever due to me leaving the org.. i don’t want them to be hurt by my decision to leave the org, but i feel like there is no way of avoiding this..
I'm not DA/DF but my departure still left my mother in a permanently depressed state and she no longer sees me - it was tears every six months anyway.
It'll hurt them however you leave but it's not you, it's the religion that's hurting them.
that was essentially my reply to a recent sms i got from the elder of the group i am supposed to be in, requesting a visit to encourage me and get to know me better.
my wife has been attending english language meetings in warsaw for the last year or so (i have never been) and i think they are getting antsy about where i stand.
i've met many of them at events my wife hosted at our house, but so far nobody has pressed me on the issue of my inactivity.. at one of the events, an elder mentioned that he'd heard i 'had been' a jw for many years and he was curious what first attracted me to the org.
Wise move. When it comes to controlling your fade, less is more.
just when you think you've seen it all comes another interesting use of a kingdom hall.a young man serenades his girlfriend with a song (possibly a watchtower song) from the stage through a microphone and backed by recorded music.
then he steps off the stage and gets down on one knee and proposes as he pulls out a ring from his coat pocket.
the large projector screen flashes up behind them with a picture of a sapphire and diamond ring.cameras capture the joyous moment as she accepts and they lock together in a loving hug.
The song is Christian Dedication: I can still recall the lyrics even though it's more than 16yrs since I heard them.
now that we have had a "sneak" preview of some of the videos for the upcoming 2018 jw regional conventions, we have opportunity to stand back and ponder their content, including their use of language - or in this case, their avoidance of certain words.
in this post, i focus on what i think is a "quaint", if not peculiar, avoidance of certain words that seems to have become a jw organization practice: they avoid use of the actual words "gay" or "lesbian" in any of the videos - even in people playing the roles of being gay- or lesbian-friendly.
a case in point is the preview of the video featuring the jw woman purchasing an item in a store where wrist bands are given away with purchases.
Having a look through the uses of the word in their articles I’m not convinced that it’s always framed within a worldly or negative quote but I agree it’s used a lot less than homosexual. Wonder how the Mormons compare.
My family (all JW) refer to me as gay, my uncle charmingly calls me a poof, so the WT choice doesn’t seem to filter into their language.
