We've already been through this Jhana. You appear to be having difficulty processing and retaining information.
Morality is not subjective. It is objective and the reason it is objective is because objective reality really exists. We speak of the metaphysical in objective terms for both the material reality and the supernatural.
Murder, for example, is immoral. Whether it's legal or illegal or considered moral (as it has in many different cultures throughout human history into antiquity) or immoral by a people group's culture doesn't change the fact that murder is objectively immoral.
It is a true statement that murder is immoral no matter whether or not a people group accept that it is immoral.
The post modern revisionist relativist pluralistic definition of morality that liberals now posit is that morality is purely subjective to culture and arose as a result of linguistic markers during the process of human evolution. It's not difficult to see that this is a ridiculous false assertion.
In that definition, a witch doctor selling occult curses in Africa to make people sick is exactly as moral as a Christian pastor praying to God for one of his parishioners to be healed if each people group view their respective activity as moral.
Nonsense. The occult is a power emanating from the devil and selling curses to make someone sick is immoral and evil. The people group that believes this is moral are merely deceived.
That contrasts not compares to the pastor praying to God for his parishioner to be healed. Moral belief is not subjective to each person. Rather Jhana, people align or fail to align with the truth to the extent that they do.
I've already refuted your false assertion that just because a people pass a law that equates to the law being objectively moral (e.g. right), even though you just argued that is impossible for a law to be objectively moral, and therefore it is immoral (e.g. wrong) to break any law passed whatsoever.
I don't want to go in endless circles with you because you can't accept the truth and simply rewind and continue making the same false assertions repeatedly.
The truth is that business laws are rescinded regularly for many reasons and one of those reasons is because people come to realize they passed laws that were immoral! That's why immoral Jim Crow laws were repealed. That's why laws that once allowed manufactures to put heroin in cough syrup were repealed. That's why laws that allowed employers to work little children eighteen hours a day in sweat shops as prisoners were repealed. And that's why I'm arguing against persecuting moral people because they refuse to surrender their human rights (which no law can rightfully take) and their Constitutional rights (by the perverse perverting them).
The people that passed a great many immoral laws thought they were moral at the time they passed them. So were they once moral and then became immoral? No. They were always immoral and the people finally repealed them aligning themselves better with objective morality.
What you liberals want to do is go backwards and pass immoral laws to allow the immoral to exercise tyranny against the moral.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying any of the things you are saying that I'm saying. That's a very bad habit you have of fabricating statements and projecting them at other people claiming they are saying them when they obviously are not.
What I've been saying is that creating a new legal environment (which has not existed before Jhana in this nation) that allows immoral people to persecute moral people depriving moral people of their human right to a moral freedom of conscience and their traditional Constitutional right to freedom of religion toward morality for refusing to participate in and facilitate objective immoral activities is tyrannical, evil, and immoral and that people, like you, who support doing that are engaging in tyranny, evil, and immorality against them.
Jhana, when you stand before Jesus and have to give an account for persecuting God's people for not violating their moral conscience and God's standard of holiness which is an extension of God's own character; you'll finally understand.
Until then, you're just going to go in circles and it's starting to get boring correcting you over and over again because your view of the world is tragically flawed to both your detriment and theirs.
Cookies are not facilitating immoral behavior. Cookies are inanimate objects for people to eat Cookies are not promoting immoral behavior, cookies are inanimate objects for people to eat. Cookies have no linkable tie to the maker. Many, many people make cookies. Cookies are not copyrighted.
Immoral behaviour is only black and white to those who view it in black and white terms. Moral belief is subjective to each person. Every person has different moral beliefs. What you're basically saying is that the whole of the US or world must live by the moralities of christians like you, in the USA. And it, frankly, is disturbing that you don't see it.
Everybody who opens a business, MUST obey business law. If you are not willing to OBEY business law, then you should NOT open a business.
What you are saying is that, as the law stands, though it is good enough for almost everyone I know, that you are not satisfied with the current law in business. You want to be able to control how people use the food you sell.
'Oh no, you can't bring that meat pie near a faggy gathering, no, no, get that back here, Jeeves'.
It's preposterous. Ridiculous. Utterly tyrannic.
I pay you for the pie. And I eat the pie whenever I choose, with whomever I choose. That's free commerce.
