Good, and I'll respond.
Well, we are on a religious forum, in a thread that has "Christians" in the title. So, there's that.
Same response as the first assertion.
We'll see if you need to or not.
It's your opinion that it is ridiculous. It actually applies to all cases of homosexuality...
Clearly not irrelevant as all your following words show.
All decisions that ultimately ought to be left up to the business.
Again, all businesses discriminate in some fashion. What they discriminate on, will vary. The split we have in this thread is who ought to decide such things, and why...
Where you place priority of your stories and what you treat as headlines vs. back page stuff, is as much of bias as skewing stories one way or another. I find the chart missing this. To say "minimal partisan bias" and put the likes of NPR and New York Times in there (heck all of them really) is...
So, reword to: "evidence can be used to establish some premises."
Though even that strikes me as questionable. I think the inverse is true for logical arguments, that premises establish evidence for the conclusion. Therefore arguments (that reach a conclusion) are evidence themselves of the...
Your earlier argument is challenging to go along with because 'a place to live' vs. 'wedding cake' are hard to put on same level. But in truly free market, I'd say allow the person selling to do as they wish, and let it be known what their reasoning is.
I find that many in the world, but surely...
Or I need to stop discussing with someone who spouts off two different messages about God's Word.
If circular reason can be circular, and exclude what pseudo believers think is accurate to dismiss, then what they think is what they thought. - is how I read what you wrote.
I think the idea of this thread comes down to when, if at all, is intentional killing wrong. Me I go with all the time, when it involves a person. Even in self defense. Then if you add in idea that State makes for justifiable (intentional) killing whereby it is not wrong, would mean that 1940...
I don't know what to tell you when you consider such laws real or effective, knowing that God's Law exists. Apparently, some (so called) laws were meant to be broken, and broken easily. Yet, not God's Law.
He did, and adapted his methods to the community. (Some, but clearly not all members of) The community eventually reacted to his methods and decided later to bring a halt to his methods. The community as a whole was fine before, during and after Bundy. He was not the first to invoke his methods...
What would be the evidence that establishes this premise?
I would say it would be an rational argument regarding the nature of evidence as it relates to (alleged) premises.
Probably not.
Don't you see this though as having distinction between God's Law and human interpretations or making of (secular) State laws?
Depends on who's responsible for Law. I think Ted Bundy thought himself capable of following 'Bundy's Laws' which may have conflicted with State laws...
Why didn't you specify alt right in OP?
Given how nationalism works (in theory), I can see white nationalism as being inherently prejudicial likely leading to superiority claims of white people that truly support it. Same would be true with black nationalism or gay nationalism, etc. But with...
So abortion would not be murder.
Abortion would be distinct from murder because, um, er, God did say fetus should be judged for death, and/or because it is lawful, therefore not possibly murder.
All we need then are laws that killing sprees are not murder, and they are not, right?
Because if...