Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.

I answered you about the cake in Message 96

Now we have revisionist law that denies God, but God won't be denied. Once a nation has honored Him, falling away is going to get severe judgment.

Except you didn't.Baking a cake isn't participating in a ceremony. The cake isn't part of the ceremony, it's part of the afterparty.Can I assume, then, that you have no biblical basis for not baking a cake?

Blackstone lived a long time ago, and I didn't find anything in the Declaration of Independence that even remotely echoes what you say about common law. I found Blackstone's commentaries over at Google Books, and searches did not find the phrase "ultra vires", maybe you can help me out there.I did find this interesting tidbit in the commentaries: So it looks like old Blackstone believed in witchcraft, and he wasn't much for separation of church and state. Blackstone doesn't seem to be particularly pertinent to this discussion.--Percy

The First Amendment isn't new. It was a tremendous, and very important, departure from then existing law, so I suppose in that sense it was revisionist. But as I have explained before, no Supreme Court majority has ever endorsed your silly interpretation. Yeah, that's what you and your lot keep saying, and it keeps not happening. You sound more and more like you're whistling past the graveyard. It's kinda funny if you think about it.

A wedding cake would be an endorsement of the rite for which it is made. That is how Christians see it and what you think is irrelevant.

LOLThey would say exactly the same thing that they did say, that no one has a right to force their religion on another.But wait, there's more.You still have not provided any evidence that a wedding cake validates or enables or sanctions a marriage.

I'm talking about revisionism since about a century ago or even less, and I'm talking about the revision OF the First Amendment above all.

Again, please show how a wedding cake endorses a marriage.

Still no chapter and verse, though.I'm just taking you at your word, and your repeated critiquing of anyone who holds unbiblical views. If the cake thing isn't in the bible, then it's unbiblical, isn't it?And as I previously explained, the cake isn't part of the rite. It's for the afterparty.

what they said was that CONGRESS may not force religion on anybody. This ridiculous revisionism that makes one religion responsible for another is totally bogus and in fact works to deprive CHRISTIANS, oddly enough not any other religion, of our First Amendment rights.

I know what you're talking about. And as I've said repeatedly, your silly interpretation is yours alone.

The Trinity isn't "in the Bible" in so many words either but it is profoundly Biblical and so is any refusal to serve a gay wedding.

Mine and a few million other Christisns' and maybe even some nonChristians.

The "revision" you keep kvetching about is called the Fourteenth Amendment. I guess since it's an amendment, it is a kind of revision, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.