Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Again, why waste the time when you could have "homosexuals need not enter" right on the door?No need for signage on a business, if homosexuals want to push their agenda on a Christian business it will be refused, as simple as it gets
I understand and the case was an important ruling but there’s no need to stir up controversy when it’s not necessary. Like you said no sign requiredSounds like criminal mob rule against American citizens and a Supreme Court ruling
No need to give the issue homosexuality any advertising on a Christian business, their agenda will be settled quickly in personYep, so go on and get it out in the open what clients you refuse to work with.
The issue was a gay wedding that the designer had a religious objection to. I don’t think that’s blanket permission to refuse service to gay people for any reasonAgain, why waste the time when you could have "homosexuals need not enter" right on the door?
Right. I have a business it’s my right to say no or yes. If i don’t want your money or business just be ok with it.I see your point. But if I don’t want to do a job I shouldn’t have to explain why. If I don’t want the business I should just be able to say I can’t do it. Put up a sign that says “I don’t do work for LGBTQ people “ and you’re asking for trouble.
A very important ruling, the homosexual woke agenda has been stopped dead in its tracks!I understand and the case was an important ruling but there’s no need to stir up controversy when it’s not necessary. Like you said no sign required
Waste of time, the sign would go nicely next to the no smoking one.No need to give the issue homosexuality any advertising on a Christian business, their agenda will be settled quickly in person
Why? It will get out on its own.I’m onboard, so long as they have prominent signage at their business entrances and in their advertising indicating who they refuse to serve.
Is that a trolley or a trolling?Waste of time, the sign would go nicely next to the no smoking one.
Its my proposal for an out to public accommodation laws. You get to discriminate, you just have to be up front about it.Is that a trolley or a trolling?
Your proposal is DOA, it will be taken care of at the business counter, no need to use a Christian business in advertising for homosexuals or their agendas, next!Its my proposal for an out to public accommodation laws. You get to discriminate, you just have to be up front about it.
Wouldn't the silent majority be beating a path to your door?You’re likely to lose a lot business
Yes, this was a case where the objection was (as far as I can understand) not to who was the customer, but the specific product the customer wanted. It's an objection to the product being requested, not the person requesting the product.The issue was a gay wedding that the designer had a religious objection to. I don’t think that’s blanket permission to refuse service to gay people for any reason
Hmm. No smoking. That’s been taken care of long time ago. Most people with a brain do not try to smoke indoors.Waste of time, the sign would go nicely next to the no smoking one.
Lawrence Vs Texas next up?No need to give the issue homosexuality any advertising on a Christian business, their agenda will be settled quickly in person
One thing is a fact, the conservative US Supreme Court is unraveling the progressive liberal agenda that took decades of liberal decisions to build, like a ball of yarn in a tornado, thank you Jesus!
I guess the long-standing fear of the SCOTUS becoming judicial activists is finally being realized.I think (Obergefell V. Hodges) will be up next, then (Lawrence V. Texas)
FoxNews
Clarence Thomas mentions Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell as examples of rulings that could be reconsidered
Jun 24, 2022
This wasn't a specific case of someone wanting something and the woman demanding the right to refuse. She said she WILL want the right to refuse any request with which she disagrees.Why? It will get out on its own.
More like rightly interpreting the constitution as it should have been long ago, when the liberals took majority and practiced political activismI guess the long-standing fear of the SCOTUS becoming judicial activists is finally being realized.
-- A2SG, who knew it was more a hope than a fear......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?