mordorbund

Of course not. I wouldn't think to argue the commerce clause.
But... well.... what do you think about... a tax?

What makes you think that Trump would appoint significantly better (or less awful) justices than Clinton? I admit that some chance is better than no chance, but in his own way, Trump is as much of a corrupt liar as Clinton. I have no confidence in him at all. He is certainly not a conservative or even a Constitutionalist.

Laying on my deathbed right now, this topic is super relevant to me. I have just enough time to change my m..i..n.........

Here's my take.  I do not believe in any of these so-called " public accommodation" laws.  Ultimately everything is an agreement between two parties.  If one or both parties don't agree, there is no contract, and no obligation to render service, or exchange money.  However, if you are the employee of a company, then your contract is not between the patron and yourself.  There is a three way contract going on.  The patron is contracting with the company.  The employee is also contracting with the company, and so if the company agrees, but the employee does not, then the employee needs to find another job as they broke their contract with the employer.  So, a McD's employee cannot refuse service unless it is also the policy of the company, but if the employee is also the owner, then they are under no obligation to do business with anyone.  And although this breaks every Federal law on discrimination, I still think it should apply.  The government has no right to mandate who does business with whom and why.  Besides, the government tends to enforce the law in ways that are uneven anyway, so they become the tyrant anyway, and make up rules to fit their current cultural and social values.  Rather, I want the market to decide.  Let a business do what they want. If this tow company refuses to service Sanders supporters, so be it.  They will either lose business or gain business based on that decision.  But at least they have the freedom to do so.
 
The only exception to this is when their lack of services cause a direct and immediate loss of life or property.  I.e an ER doctor or a fireman.

You know, I had always assumed that political belief was one of the classes on which you couldn't discriminate, and I was surprised to see Sumner saying that yes, you can discriminate on that basis.
This opens up a whole new world of opportunities for--say--wedding service providers who don't want to cover gay weddings.  Just give all prospective clients a questionnaire with the following question:
Do you support legislation requiring professionals such as myself, to provide our services for events with which the professional has a moral or religious disagreement?
If they check "yes", you refuse to serve them based on political differences.

I find the traditional wording of the marriage ceremony in the Anglican Church's Book of Common Prayer to be both beautiful and apropos to this question:
 

Same reason why anyone would want to wait 5-7 years to actually own their car (which is now 5-7 years old).

So he called him fat. I can see where this is going.

From my notes back when I read it through:
Jesus

·         Sura 61:6 – Jesus prophesies of Mohammed (see footnote)

·         Sura 3:44-49 – Jesus story reaffirmed

o   Casting lots for Mary (see pseudo-Matthew)

o   Child Jesus teaching in temple

o   Playing with clay bird (bringing them to life - see infancy gospel of thomas)

o   Standard miracles

o   Virgin birth

·         Sura 4:157-159 – Jesus did not die? What of his resurrection?

 
From an online search (translators in italics, citations found here):
19:92 -
Yusuf Ali
For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
Muhsin Khan
But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent (Allah) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children).
23:91-
Yusuf Ali
No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!
Muhsin Khan
No son (or offspring or children) did Allah beget, nor is there any ilah (god) along with Him; (if there had been many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have tried to overcome others! Glorified be Allah above all that they attribute to Him!
Pickthall
Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege.
112:3 -
Muhsin Khan
"He begets not, nor was He begotten;
Shakir
He begets not, nor is He begotten.
Sahih International
He neither begets nor is born,
Jesus is Messiah, but not God
5:72 - 
Sahih International
They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
Pickthall
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
Shakir
Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.

So he called him fat. I can see where this is going.

So he called him fat. I can see where this is going.

I believe it is called a mattock.

If the orthopedic fits....

"Desirability" in men is not the same thing for all women.
If his trophy wives are the kind you want, then be him.
If you want a different woman, be the different man she finds desirable.
Lehi

Can't find the sig feature. For the curious, you can see it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160125050501/http://lds.net/forums/topic/58623-is-it-possiblecommonnormal-for-church-members-to-have-a-tree-of-life-vision/#entry851482
For the lazy, it was the following:
 

I'm obligated to like this, given my old signature (guess I'll have to bring it back).

Or maybe we should go back to the tried and tested method of arranged marriage.
Parents usually have clearer heads than the two parties involve anyway, so there'd be fewer disillusioned spouses and the weight of the community to keep couples together.
It is always a joy to hear Tevia ask Golda, My father and my mother said we'd learn to love each other, so I'm asking, "Do you love me?"
Her answer is gem:
Lehi

@Steve Noel
I hope we don't come off as being rude here, even though we do challenge your views.  You are quite respectful and knowledgeable, and I enjoy the opportunity to have a serious respectful with you.

Ultimately, revelation is the only way God communicates to man. The scriptures are words on paper. They are not magical talismans. If I don't understand the meaning of some word or expression, it does not magically become clear to me just because I read it in scripture. So in this sense, yes, understanding the ancient sources can be very helpful.
But those who understand the language of the scriptures perfectly can and often do still misinterpret and misapply them. Witness the scribes and the Pharisees of Jesus' time. The only way to avoid this is to have the scriptures revealed to you through the Spirit. That means that you must receive revelation.
You are mistaken about LDS being cynical about scripture. It is quite the opposite. When Jesus appeared to the Nephite remnant in the New World after his resurrection, his first words were about the fulfillment of scripture. One of his very first acts among the people was to examine their scriptures and chide them for having left out important events that showed the fulfillment of other scripture. When he taught the people, he quoted scripture -- the very Being who gave those scriptures originally, and who could well have simply stated them anew.
The Book of Mormon itself exists to bear testimony of the truthfulness of the Bible. The restored gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints takes the scriptures more seriously and more to heart than any other sect or people in the world. We are taught to treasure and search the scriptures. But we do not worship the scriptures. We worship God, and from him we receive the word. The scriptures play an important role in that process, and are themselves a type of revelation. But it is revelation from heaven that takes center stage.

btw, I have zero suspicions about you Steve.  I see you being clear and transparent about your motives, and I believe you.   You think you're right, and you're challenging us with what you consider difficult questions.  I have no problem with that.  
And on top of that, you're doing it kindly and civilly, without hardly a trace of passive-aggressiveness or unrighteous judgment.  That's refreshing.

This question arises from the discussion thread on angels that his diverged into a discussion on Scripture and revelation. My question is meant to probe how Latter-day Saints judge the truthfulness of teachings and/or revelations. Evangelicals insist that all teachings and experiences must be judged by Scripture. If someone claims that an angel gave them a revelation from God that does not agree with Scripture, then we reject that revelation. On this basis, Evangelicals reject the teachings/revelations of Muhammad. On this same basis, Evangelicals say that the teachings and revelations given to Joseph Smith were not from God. So we view Scripture as a ruler by which we measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation that is claimed to be from God. I am trying here to understand on what basis Latter-day Saints judge the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation that is claimed to be from God.

You read too much into my question Lehi. I am not in a class (I finished my last class for my degree last week!), reading a book, or referencing internet sites on how to witness to Mormons. There are similarities between the stories of Muhammad and Joseph Smith, but that is not my point. I am seeking to understand the ruler by which Latter-day Saints measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation.

@An Investigator - what kind of books do you currently read?

Elder Oaks told the story of a veteran who came to him, more than a little concerned that, as a soldier, he had broken the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" because of a talk that he, Elder Oaks, had given at the last conference. The apostolic response was, "we give general counsel". A conference or other talk is not individual advice, and no one should take it as such.
And, I ask again, what does he (or she, if you insist) want the Brethren to do? Stop telling us to get married?
Lehi

So, what does this writer want "our leaders" to do or say?
Do they control any one but themselves? Are they supposed to find mates for all the singles in the Church?
And, especially for men, what are they, individually, doing about changing their own plights?
This may appear heartless, I can't change how any reader sees this, but again I ask. What does he expect? If he had his dearest wish granted, how would it change his world?
So, what "is being taken on when an LDS man marries" that is different for this guy (or these guys) compared to what I took on, or any other LDS man? Is the commandment to multiply and replenish not valid any more? Are we no longer supposed to tell men to stop hanging out, start dating, and get married, because marriage is a sacrifice?
I didn't see an answer, nor did I see a real suggestion as to how this problem could be solved. This morning, in our High Priests' Group meeting, one brother made, essentially, the same complaint (on behalf of his single brother), and, like this article, long on chiding, long on pleading, but missing entirely was anything practical anyone, the Brethren, a bishop, or I could do, beyond being sensitive.
I'm not going to yell at anyone because he's not married. Gotta son who is single (no fault of his, as his ex-wife has told him, my Jacquie, and me many times), and I understand the frustration of his being single. But that hasn't made him start ranting at the Brethren to change the whole Church so he won't feel affronted at every meeting. And, while he's not quite ready to marry again, he recognizes that he most likely will at some point, and he's doing the kinds of things that will allow that to happen.
Lehi

I'm not a convert, but I did go through a period of inactivity and soul-searching, during I married my Evangelical husband.  He is VERY anti-tithing to any church, including his own (says "it's my money").  As I've become more involved in church again, and further strengthened my testimony, tithing has been a thing of much prayer search for me.  I am now comfortable with the idea because:
1)  It really isn't my money.  Saying that it's "my money" is like my 2 year old saying that they are "her fries and I can't have any"-- in reality I'm the one who bought the fries, gave them to her, and I could literally drown her in fries if I wanted to.  Her giving me one of "her" fries is about her showing thankfulness and a lack of pride.  It's the same as tithing.
2) If we are unwilling to depart with are money for Heavenly Father... which are we really having being our god?  
3)  My family of 3 lives well below poverty rates.  But... we're ok.  Honestly, I feel that we have plenty and more than we need.  Us Americans are spoiled rotten: we don't really need fancy cars, fancy TV's, and all the junk we have.  I look at other places, the way people live in 3rd world countries... and I am spoiled rotten.  I have been given so much, and I too should give.