21% More Americans Believe Polygamy is Socially Acceptable

[Mojo]

I'm not going to burn you in effigy but I would point out that everything involved in the cake issue is private until suddenly in the end it's not. The tools, the ingredients, the baker's time, the delivery van, everything was private property up until the very end when the government didn't like what they the baker did. The gay couple came on to private property, and forced a private citizen to work for them against his will and use his private tools and ingredients to do it. I never could figure out when this whole thing got into the public sphere.

If it was a family baking and selling cakes to other family members or a grandma baking cakes for her ladies auxiliary at church, all you said applies. But, the bakers chose to do business with the public and thereby opening themselves up to the laws of the public. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone the long arm of Uncle Sam reaching in here (read my posts on classic liberalism) but if we have to render this part of a business unto Caesar, then we render unto God our duty to evangelize and be so upfront with our witness than none can deny it. A businessman can't be a closet believer then pull out the believer card just for homosexuals. Is he baking cakes for young, fornicating sweet sixteen parties? Is he baking cakes for pedophiles? Are his cakes ending up in the hands of rapists, embezzlers, drug dealers...does he even know? We have to remember that Jesus engaged all manner of sinners in his walk. He always pointed out their sins, but he engaged with them...he "ate with sinners".

Just trying to put another spin on it and get others to think. That's the beauty of BF

 

[FollowingHim]

Is there any law anywhere that forces a business to sell to absolutely anyone? In general, everyone, even (and especially) a business owner, has a free choice whom they associate with and whom they do not.

• My insurance company does not have to agree to insure my car (e.g. if they believe I am a high risk).
• An alcohol outlet does not have to sell to anyone (e.g. someone who is intoxicated)
• A gun shop does not have to sell to anyone (e.g. someone who looks overly suspicious and stressed...)
• A restaurant does not have to sell a meal to anyone (e.g. they can reserve tables for one set of people, and refuse others as a result, or kick out someone who is causing a commotion)
• A pet shop does not have to sell a pet to anyone (e.g. they could refuse to sell hamsters to a guy who wants to feed his pet snakes, just because they like the hamsters and want them to go to a good home)

This isn't really about religion, or homosexuality. It's just about freedom. You can't force a free person to serve someone else, end of story. It doesn't matter what the reason is.

 

[rustywest4]

#FREEDOM

 

[Mojo]

Is there any law anywhere that forces a business to sell to absolutely anyone? In general, everyone, even (and especially) a business owner, has a free choice whom they associate with and whom they do not
This isn't really about religion, or homosexuality. It's just about freedom. You can't force a free person to serve someone else, end of story. It doesn't matter what the reason is.

This post has veered off into another realm, so I leave it up to you to branch it off if necessary.

Yes, you can force someone to serve if that person belongs to a designated "class". For better or worse, the US has deemed homosexuals to be on par with racial groups, or religious groups, etc. As such, they are afforded rights that other groups once had. This was the whole argument that we Yanks had in the early 1960s prior to the Civil Rights Acts. Classic liberals/libertarians like Barry Goldwater argued in favor of Freedom of Association and were deemed racists. The Congress and Courts cited "Interstate Commerce" clauses in the Constitution as justification for the Acts.

So, legally, yes, you must serve every class or group of people if you choose to do business in the public realm in the U.S. What you cited were individual cases that would apply to homosexuals and all others. But, from what I heard of the stories, the homosexuals were not engaging in the disruptive manners you described (I will stand corrected if my recollections were off). It may not be right in our eyes, but we have the Freedom of Choice to choose another way of supporting our families if the unjust laws violate our morality. That's why I mentioned subsistence farming and a barter system as a way of leaving the whole, ugly mess behind.

But, in the big picture, aren't we encouraged to be at peace with everyone? Aren't we encouraged to honor the governments we live in (you know the scriptures)? How many poly families associated with BF shout and lead marches arguing in favor of "religious freedom" to marry another wife? No, they know that they are right in Gods eyes and choose to live peacefully.

And the even bigger picture is how we associate with the sinners around us and show them the way to salvation. We are to be a light and example to all, and by our conduct and influence, others will know we are his disciples, and we will win others to Him(you know the verses). How far separated do we want to become before we are the Pharisees leaving the wounded by on the road because it infringes on our religion?

 

[Joleneakamama]

But, in the big picture, aren't we encouraged to be at peace with everyone?

As much as lies within you. That obviously has different limits for different people.
My daughter helping out with vacation bible school was told to "pretend no one was watching, and be herself," while listening to the music for this year's program. One of the girls didn't think tapping her toe was enough.

Why do people encourage gays to be themselves, and the rest of us to change to make them more comfortable?

It is the moral side that is always asked to compromise.

 

[MrB]

Is there any law anywhere that forces a business to sell to absolutely anyone? In general, everyone, even (and especially) a business owner, has a free choice whom they associate with and whom they do not.

• My insurance company does not have to agree to insure my car (e.g. if they believe I am a high risk).
• An alcohol outlet does not have to sell to anyone (e.g. someone who is intoxicated)
• A gun shop does not have to sell to anyone (e.g. someone who looks overly suspicious and stressed...)
• A restaurant does not have to sell a meal to anyone (e.g. they can reserve tables for one set of people, and refuse others as a result, or kick out someone who is causing a commotion)
• A pet shop does not have to sell a pet to anyone (e.g. they could refuse to sell hamsters to a guy who wants to feed his pet snakes, just because they like the hamsters and want them to go to a good home)

This isn't really about religion, or homosexuality. It's just about freedom. You can't force a free person to serve someone else, end of story. It doesn't matter what the reason is.

I agree but
Although don't forget that here in NZ if "I "make it about race religion or sexual orientation ...
It's called discrimination and things begin to unravel ...

 

[steve]

I am with Zec.
Just because you choose to provide a service does not make you a slave to everyone who desires to buy the portion of your life required to produce that service.

 

[aineo]

So, legally, yes, you must serve every class or group of people if you choose to do business in the public realm in the U.S.

I am not an attorney, nor have I kept up with this case very well, but it seems to me that a baker could refuse to decorate any cake using the first amendment because of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but not freedom of religion alone. I could be totally off, and @Mojo, you seem to know much more about it than I do, but I still struggle to think I can be forced to create a message that disagrees with my religious views. I read what you have written about classes or groups, but I still think our constitutional rights should trump defined classes of people.

I'm not arguing with you on this - I really don't know enough about it. I'm just thinking it through out loud.

 

[Mojo]

I am not an attorney, nor have I kept up with this case very well, but it seems to me that a baker could refuse to decorate any cake using the first amendment because of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but not freedom of religion alone. I could be totally off, and @Mojo, you seem to know much more about it than I do, but I still struggle to think I can be forced to create a message that disagrees with my religious views. I read what you have written about classes or groups, but I still think our constitutional rights should trump defined classes of people.

I'm not arguing with you on this - I really don't know enough about it. I'm just thinking it through out loud.

I'm not a lawyer either.....Andrew??? Where are you???

Just put it this way. Can a business put up a sign "No Irish Need Apply" "We Only Serve Chinese" "Kiwis Not Welcome"??

We have the American's With Disabilities Act passed in 1990s(?) that said that certain commercial businesses (medium to larger) must provide accommodations like ramps or lower counters for handicap or wheelchair bound folks. To not do so was deemed an implicit act of discrimination. Why? If you do business with the public, you cannot limit your services to only certain groups (only the able bodied). There are obvious limits, but it is the general rule.

I hope that I am completely wrong in how I interpret things since I am not a Constitutional lawyer, or any lawyer for that matter, but I don't think I am. Homosexuals have been deemed a "class" in many states, and as such, they cannot be discriminated against in the public realm of hiring, accommodations, or services.

Andrew or any lawyers please help. I am not 100% certain about this.

 

[Mark C]

I never could figure out when this whole thing got into the public sphere.

The [oversimplified] answer is "commerce" (and, yes, it's precisely how the 'Mark' IS being implemented). IOW, "by agreement". Taking a license is a request, and an offer of submission to whatever "competent authority" gives the wannabe slave that permission.

Related answer: "choice of law". YHVH's, or man's. (Note - "once upon a time" the Constitution was quite obvious in its bases on things like "honest weights and measures" -- "nothing but gold and silver coin..." -- the 'separation of powers' from Isaiah 33:22, and explicitly noted by three such references in the Declaration, and so on.) Since at least 1965 (and before that 1933) the choice of 'currency' is de facto evidence of a choice of law contrary to Scripture and the 'common law'.

"Failure to object in a timely fashion," constitutes presumed acceptance of an offer (the "deal with the devil," welcome to fascism -- literally the 'public-private partnership'.)

Much more (and there is MUCH more) is the subject of on-air classes that I've done for well over a decade now (primarily the "Come out of her, My people" Show, which is about remedy) and the title of the website (lotsa articles there, too).

I hear ya RW4 in that PM doesn't NEED legal status to be practiced or accepted in God's eyes, but there is a difference in the two items you selected. Abortion and homosexuality are not forced activities. The government merely says it will not put restrictions against those choices, thereby making it easier to participate.

Sorry, but 'au contraire.' Abortion is subsidized by people who are told at gunpoint (taxation) to support it, 'or else'. Same goes for the other State-approved Abomination. Moreover, the coercion extends to the State Indoctrination Centers (aka "Negativ Edukashun") and now moves towards criminalization of even taking public notice of the fact that "a man lying with a man as with a woman" is 'toebah' (the strongest condemnation possible in the original Hebrew.) Already we've seen severe sanctions against those (photographers, bakers) who have discovered the hard way that a business 'license' (like marriage) is one of the primary control mechanisms of "another master" that we have been warned about.

So - re: "progressive"

Don't fall into that trap!

Asking a fake god for 'equal status/recognition/'bennies' with abomination cannot be blessed of YHVH.

 

[Mark C]

Is there any law anywhere that forces a business to sell to absolutely anyone? In general, everyone, even (and especially) a business owner, has a free choice whom they associate with and whom they do not.

This is a complex (by design), deceptive, and downright disgusting topic, but absolutely key to understanding why the "law of the land" isn't what people think any more.

"Choice of law" is THE key concept. Note that the 'common law' is incorporated twice in the Constitution, but has (almost) no relevance in AmeriKa-with-a-K today. In the name of "harmonization" and a Unified Big Brother, it's the "UCC" that matters now. (Literally, "private law".)

"Licensed businesses", "in commerce" (lots of "terms of art") have truly "traded essential liberty for a little temporary security." If you've heard the myriad statements of judges saying the constitution does not apply "in my courtroom" -- you have a clue. Ever served on a jury? It's no longer a "Trial by Jury" but a jury[-rigged] trial, where "jurors" are selected for ignorance, and told to take an oath to judge "only the facts as I give it to you," and not as any informed juror once knew was in accord with the law.

No, "businesses" have traded the First Amendment for benefits (call it the 'fine print" in the Deal with the Devil). Ever wonder why the Second Amendment doesn't apply? Why "FFL's" now allow slaves to temporarily possess a firearm, but only with approval of their master?

Ever looked at a real estate contract in detail? It's eye-opening. From the 'choice of law' clause, to 'throwback' clauses that have a different (often, "one-hundred dollars" or similar - hint - see the Seventh Amendment) -- there's something going on there most people are clueless to recognize.

Esau traded his birthright to Isaac for a 'cup of pottage'. Amerikans did it for the 'socialist safety net'.

It's all "by agreement".

 

[Mark C]

PS> Once people begin to understand how "private law" has been made the de facto choice of law 'by agreement,' you'll begin to see how sharia will work...
(or else...)

 

[Mojo]

Thanks for your input Mark C. If I read your posts correctly, I believe you are supporting what I am saying. It may not be right or Constitutional, but by taking out that business license and exchanging money within the tax system, a business owner is subjecting himself to the whims of the system, regardless of opinion or conviction. This is why I've mentioned subsistence farming and bartering over and over.

**For the record, I did mention that funding of abortion and homosexual agenda was concerning to me. But our tax dollars support good and evil causes. Unfortunately, we are not afforded a line-item veto to assign our tax dollars to only certain things .

But I also want us to be careful in how we assign blame or responsibility for that sin by simply living within the system. The Islamic terrorists rationalize killing every American or Westerner by mere association of living in our open societies. By being citizens here, they count us complicit and worthy of death. True, I could choose to leave this country, but my search for the perfect system, with only holy and righteous citizens would lead me to death. For only in death will we achieve that perfect kingdom to live in.

 

[Mojo]

But to get back to the OP, and the subsequent topic of homosexual coercion of private businesses, I want to get us to look at bigger picture again.

Polygyny will not receive greater acceptance by fiat. It has grown in acceptance by popular media exposing the population to the lifestyle. It shows people having successes and struggles (just like monogamous relationships)but with a lot more love and support! We win them to our side by showing how normal this can be and by being out there in meatspace (shout out to you Andrew). And the final goal isn't even to gain advocacy, but tolerance to just leave us alone.

Likewise, the whole battle over the homosexual agenda (and other sinful practices) is leading many to disengage, rather than engage. If homosexuals only see our fire-breathing, bible-thumping, finger-pointing scowls, why would they want to accept our message?

I view the battle over the photographer and baker as sidetracking agitations by vested interests to lure us into other agendas. How many greedy, lying politicians get elected on anti-abortion and pro-family agendas only to ignore the issue or take small nibbles instead of large bites out of the issue? How many charities or causes get huge sums of money over these issues only to mismanage it or enrich their boards?

Jesus said we are to love the Lord our God and in doing this, we seek to lead holy lives according to TNK and NT. But, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. I don't know firsthand, but most stories on this forum from poly families express rejection and sometimes outright separation over this issue. The stories are filled with hurt and bewilderment. Poly families aren't necessarily looking for acceptance, but being treated as a second class citizen must be disheartening (only my conjecture).

Is it really about sin? Once again, how many drunkards, adulterers, pedophiles, idolaters, embezzlers, and so on are these businesses refusing to serve? Is that little girl at the sweet 16 party worthy of stoning because she is in rebellion towards her parents? Did the photographer investigate her? If you are not willing to serve a sinful population, be prepared to make ZERO money. Once again, if it's by sincere conviction (which I share) that homosexuality is wrong, then become a plumber ( oh wait, gays own homes too). Become an electrician (oh wait, adulterers rent apartments too). Become a homesteader (the only sinners you will serve are your wife and kids).

I'm out.

 

[Mark C]

Thanks for your input Mark C. If I read your posts correctly, I believe you are supporting what I am saying. It may not be right or Constitutional, but by taking out that business license and exchanging money within the tax system, a business owner is subjecting himself to the whims of the system, regardless of opinion or conviction. This is why I've mentioned subsistence farming and bartering over and over.

I go a step farther, as I contend does Scripture. We "cannot serve two masters." We are to CHOOSE: life, and Who we serve. That includes a 'choice of law', if we understand the form of government we once had. (ARGUABLY still do, but therein lies the rub. There are a million ways to "make the deal with the devil," and volunteer into slavery, "by agreement". Only One way out, to be "in the world," but not OF it. Whose 'law' matters?)

Revelation 18:4 is just one statement of the remedy. And it's not easy, nor obvious. The "law" really HAS been "done away with" in a land where most people are utterly ignorant of what it was anyway.

"Choose this day Whom you will serve."

Scripture tells us the straight Truth, literally hundreds of times in many different commandments, examples, and even parables.

We can and should "come out," and He is pretty clearly fixin' to bring down the World Reserve Currency anyway...

And I talk ALL the time about SILVER, because 'currency' does lie at the heart of "commerce," honest money, and 'choice of law'. It is NOT a coincidence that the Hebrew word for "silver" (the monetary metal) is exactly the same as the word for "money".

That's still true in many modern languages; Spanish slang for "cash" is "plata".)

Making "money" isn't at all what we've been told it is.

Re: barter, etc:

One can STILL make honest transactions with out brothers in a way that is LEGALLY consistent (US code, thanks to Dr. Ron Paul's time in Congress, specifies that a silver dime or quarter, since Congress approved it, is "lawful US money," and if I give somebody a bag of US 1964 quarters for a nice used car the price was in fact $1000) AND Scripturally LAWFUL. (Value for real value, 'honest weights and measures'.)

Were you aware that no less than at least half a dozen times in the Book of Proverbs alone, the Bible essentially calls the fiat US dollar (and other fake 'money', false scales, theft) an "abomination"?

 

[Mojo]

I go a step farther, as I contend does Scripture. We "cannot serve two masters." We are to CHOOSE: life, and Who we serve. That includes a 'choice of law', if we understand the form of government we once had. (ARGUABLY still do, but therein lies the rub. There are a million ways to "make the deal with the devil," and volunteer into slavery, "by agreement". Only One way out, to be "in the world," but not OF it. Whose 'law' matters?)

Revelation 18:4 is just one statement of the remedy. And it's not easy, nor obvious. The "law" really HAS been "done away with" in a land where most people are utterly ignorant of what it was anyway.

"Choose this day Whom you will serve."

Scripture tells us the straight Truth, literally hundreds of times in many different commandments, examples, and even parables.

We can and should "come out," and He is pretty clearly fixin' to bring down the World Reserve Currency anyway...

And I talk ALL the time about SILVER, because 'currency' does lie at the heart of "commerce," honest money, and 'choice of law'. It is NOT a coincidence that the Hebrew word for "silver" (the monetary metal) is exactly the same as the word for "money".

That's still true in many modern languages; Spanish slang for "cash" is "plata".)

Making "money" isn't at all what we've been told it is.

Re: barter, etc:

One can STILL make honest transactions with out brothers in a way that is LEGALLY consistent (US code, thanks to Dr. Ron Paul's time in Congress, specifies that a silver dime or quarter, since Congress approved it, is "lawful US money," and if I give somebody a bag of US 1964 quarters for a nice used car the price was in fact $1000) AND Scripturally LAWFUL. (Value for real value, 'honest weights and measures'.)

Were you aware that no less than at least half a dozen times in the Book of Proverbs alone, the Bible essentially calls the fiat US dollar (and other fake 'money', false scales, theft) an "abomination"?

With you on the idiocy of the fake monetary system we have. It's as ridiculous as the stock market based on speculation and suppositions. Gold or silver standards are the only way to go for sound currency. But, even those are tied to the system now, since the "value" of that currency is tied to dollars. It's absolute value hasn't changed, but it's perceived value has.

But this is nothing new. See WJ Bryant's famous "Cross of Gold" speech to see that this has been debated for a looooong time in this country.

 

[Mark C]

But this is nothing new. See WJ Bryant's famous "Cross of Gold" speech to see that this has been debated for a looooong time in this country.

But the difference with Bryan was NOT about "fiat money", but a dual standard. (Whether or not there should be a fixed rate of exchange BETWEEN gold and silver, like 1:20, not whether we should just live a lie instead...)

 

[Mojo]

But the difference with Bryan was NOT about "fiat money", but a dual standard. (Whether or not there should be a fixed rate of exchange BETWEEN gold and silver, like 1:20, not whether we should just live a lie instead...)

Yes, I stand corrected. Funny, though, do you think he would have even imagined the current system we now live under?

 

[Mark C]

Yes, I stand corrected. Funny, though, do you think he would have even imagined the current system we now live under?

No, none of them would have, at least OPENLY, since it's an utter violation of the Constitution, and they knew better anyway. (The only exception might have been Hamilton, from generations earlier, who was a bankster at heart.)

But, at least peripherally to the topic, the point is that a big part of the move AWAY from the Rule of Law was to choose a form of "money" that Scripture so clearly and repeatedly calls abomination. NEVER in history has a fully fiat currency survived, and much of the descent into tyranny (but not all, certainly) can be traced to 1913. And ironically, for those that know the history, the first "full-frontal" assault on the First Amendment was US v Reynolds (the 'Mormon polygamy case') in 1878. In many respects, it not only put a 'wooden stake' in the Bill of Rights, but helped to establish the jurisdictional nightmare that is the backbone of the usurpation today. (By both torpedoing a Biblical practice, and 'private' Covenant, but paving the way for regulation of a 'church' by the State Church!)

 

[Joleneakamama]

The current system is Mystery Babylon the Great.
After watching the documentary "The Money Masters" and reading other people's factual and logical analysis of the real issues, I really think that the problem is the fluctuating interest rates, and of course the debt. But really, except for the eventual necessity of having to somehow resolve the fraudulent national debt, what causes the real problems for the individual is the changing cost of living, with prices for commodities increasing, faster then the wages increase.

A long time ago (when pastors weren't duped into thinking their sphere of influence was restricted to saving individual souls) a pastor named Sheldon Emry wrote "Billions For the Bankers Debts for the People." That he said billions instead of trillions dates it! lol
Now I rarely agree with everything any individual preaches, or believes,and he is no exception, but his work can be found online, and much of it is worth considering.
Another good article that sheds light on the current financial mess can be read here. It is called Common Sense Ecconomics under July/Aug 2009 Straight Talk.

But I really think "The Money Masters" is a must see, as it really illustrates the global reach of the people causing the problem.....and what they did before and after the 1913 creation of the federal reserve.