Being ignorant, they are in denial of the religion they themselves practice, so don't expect any of them to confirm what I am saying about it.
Thank you very much.And so you know, the [EASTERN ORTHODOX] church is very tolerant.
And so you know, the [EASTERN ORTHODOX] church is very tolerant.Thank you very much.
Yeah, actually I think that not discriminating would literally result in insanity
disciriminating is using someone's identity in some way to deny them goods or services or rights that are otherwise available, generally.
If the Church chooses not to host gay weddings (themselves, at their own Church), this has absolutely no bearing on whether or not individual members are allowed to attend or otherwise participate in gay weddings (at any other location).not talking about if they are allowed, but if the practice and teaching parishioners to not recognize gay marriages, then again it's consistent for an individual to also do the same.
Sure, but the one thing does not make the other thing mandatory. It's not a RULE. There's no rule that says "don't make gay cakes".right not mandatory, which also means they can choose to follow it in the way they think and interpret is best, which for some means no gay wedding cakes. this is very consistent, those who would attend a gay wedding or otherwise support it are the ones not being consistent when in contrast to the teachings.
as for specifics, if the baker was NOT in line with the teachings of his church/faith that would have been the primary point against him, I don't ever recall any such thing therefore it must have been consistent afaik.
it is widely known and accepted there are different interpretations/teachings based on the same books otherwise there could only be one church which could receive tax exempt status etc from the government, yet we know there are many. Therefore your claim of inconsistency/hypocrisy doesn't matter as far as allowing some "sins" but not others, i.e. remarrying divorced people.
It has been shown how the baker's objection is consistent...
...and must be accepted by the government on that basis as they already accept different churches and interpretations of the same book and recognize them as a church/religion. Freedom of religion and separation of from government must also include to a large degree non enforcement of practice and interpretation by the government.
it allows people to believe and act on faith so long as it doesn't conflict with your own perverse ideas of what that should look like.
The legislation in question is about protecting religious organizations.It has nothing to do with say, an employee at walmart refusing to give a gay couple a cake.
If a Church teaches members to "not recognize gay marriage" that should be in writing somewhere.
A religion doesn't need any writings whatsoever.
I used to volunteer at a Christian mission that did charity work. Not affiliated with any specific church. Still a religious organization.
A religious objection is not carte-blanche to follow whatever passing whim you might decide for yourself on the spur-of-the-moment.
is considered either mandatory or specifically prohibited
...different churches teach different things with different emphasis on sins, subjects etc if they teach, believe that some sins are greater or minor,
Which Church says homosexuality is worse than adultery?
If they are allowed in public schools and then infect an entire classroom, is that fair to the families whose religions do NOT object to vaccination?
The problem is that these measle carrying kids come into contact with children who have only gotten the first MMR (it requires a booster which means you aren't fully immune with only one shot),
There are lots of religions that have different categories of violations that have various punishments.by your opinion there could never be a religious objection because I don't believe there is one single religion/church that treats all sins the same or equally.
"What's the remedy for people who refuse vaccines? If someone refused then what?"
