TOTALLY GEEKED!

Ohfour · Hooker

RE: Big Gay Hate Machine closes Christian Pizzaria

chef · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
You know Flan won't be back until someone says something she can just agree with.

Or she comes up with what she thinks is a clever come back.
Bwwaaahaaahaaaaaa.
Nailed it.

That you did.

Flan: Any particular reason why you're ignoring my question?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

chef wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
You know Flan won't be back until someone says something she can just agree with.

Or she comes up with what she thinks is a clever come back.
Bwwaaahaaahaaaaaa.
Nailed it.
That you did.
Flan: Any particular reason why you're ignoring my question?

The pattern has become so predictable.

Sad really.

oh well.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

So tired of these threads. Every time one comes out all the non Christians say, "OMG YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN YOUR RELIGION?" It's like it comes as a complete surprise that the Christians would be against homosexual behavior. Not the people but the act. And all the Christians say to the non believers, "OMG, YOU MEAN YOU DON'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN GOD?" Age old argument no one is going to win.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I have said more than once that this isn't about being a Christian or not. It isn't about being gay or not. It isn't about cake.

It's about losing a basic constitutional right that is for all religions and about losing free speach.

At this point, it is about not becoming a nation without rights.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"You are picking and choosing the verses you like. It doesn't work that way." - Lawyerlady

____________________

I realize this thread has gone several pages beyond this comment, but I don't get on over the weekends.

Please, point me to the verse that says "shun the sinner, for they are evil and their evil will be visited upon you as well" or some such other statement.

Throughout my Bible there is no such admonition to treat the sinner poorly or without respect. There are many passages about an individual not sinning themselves, but none that I know of that say anything other than some form of love others or forgive others when it comes to how to treat others. God even commands treat slaves and enemies with respect.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"That is an EXCELLENT video. I think everyone should watch it." - Lawyerlady

"They won't. Or, it will be a big shrug." - Lady Gaga Snerd

________________________

I watched it. I don't know the Koran at all, so I can't argue if their exclusion is legitimately religiously based or not, but even if it is, they still shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in a public business that's not exclusively religious in nature.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"So, flan - does your library provide pornography books? Because you shouldn't judge. You provide free reading materials to the public. If they want pornography, you should have to provide it just like all the other types of books." - Lawyerlady

__________________

You lose credibility when you make that comparison. The library likely doesn't provide pornography for anyone to read. Therefore it's not discrimination when someone comes up, asks for some, and is denied. To get back to bakeries that would be like a doughnut shop that doesn't sell wedding cakes refusing to sell a wedding cake. Something that was not the situation.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"You are picking and choosing the verses you like. It doesn't work that way." - Lawyerlady

____________________

I realize this thread has gone several pages beyond this comment, but I don't get on over the weekends.

Please, point me to the verse that says "shun the sinner, for they are evil and their evil will be visited upon you as well" or some such other statement.

Throughout my Bible there is no such admonition to treat the sinner poorly or without respect. There are many passages about an individual not sinning themselves, but none that I know of that say anything other than some form of love others or forgive others when it comes to how to treat others. God even commands treat slaves and enemies with respect.

You don't know the Bible as well as you think. From Matthew 18:

15“If your brother or sister^b sins,^c go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’^d 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

WYSIWYG · Guru

So, I can walk into a Kosher deli and require they make me non-kosher food?

And I can walk into an Indian restaurant and demand they make me steak?

And I can walk into a silk-screen shop and demand they make me shirts that say "Kill the gays"?

Or walk into a library and demand they provide me copies of playgirl magazine?

That is beyond ridiculous.

- Lawyerlady

_________________

Actually those examples are ridiculous. In the first, second and fourth examples you were asking for something that the business did not provide to anyone. In the third example you were asking for hate speech which they likely decline to all customers.

In the bakery case, they were asking a bakery that sells wedding cakes to sell them a wedding cake.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Because the Bible tells them so..." - flan327

___________________

My Bible doesn't.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I really am curious how all these bakeries are finding out people are gay. Unless you're hanging all over each other in the bakery and kissing and touching I don't see how they would even know who you were. Walk in, order your cake, and walk out. Are bakers in the business of asking who is sleeping with who these days? I highly doubt. I have never in my life seen a professional tiered wedding cake with anything WRITTEN on it. As far as wedding toppers go-buy your own. It's that simple. I had my cake topper picked out prior to ordering the cake. We had picked out a princess and a frog wearing a little crown. We ordered our cake which was decorated with fresh roses WHICH WE ALSO PURCHASED OURSELVES and that was that. There was no writing on it. It was basically a plain white frosted three tier cake with roses all over it. I don't remember who put the cake topper on but it wasn't the baker. We brought it with us to the wedding. Gay people need to quit announcing to the world and trying to force their lifestyle down other people's throats. If bakers don't know then they can't say no. Likewise when bakers are faced with the situation a quick look at the appointment book and a response of, "I'm sorry but we're booked for that weekend." would suffice.

Quite honestly, this fight has forced everyone to lose their freedoms. The more gay people announce and try to push their agenda the more people push back. The more people push the Christians the more Christians will have have to hide who they are. We are coming to a point where nobody will have any rights because everyone wants THEIR rights over everyone else's. At the present time the only way for both sides to coexist is for the gay people to not admit to being gay and the Christians to not admit to being Christians. So who has won? Really? Who has won?

WYSIWYG · Guru

"We still love him, and he knows it. We just disagree with him marrying his partner. I take marriage seriously, and do not like the mockery that's being made now-a-days..." - Ohfour

_____________________

Gay marriage is making a mockery of marriage?

I thought a greater than 50% divorce rate and marriages like Brittany Spears' 17 hour marriage are handling that quite well without gay marriage having anything to do with it.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Plenty of people make a mockery of marriage. It is not restricted to gay people. I wouldn't go to a marriage where I felt two heterosexual people were making a mockery of it either. But just because YOU, general you, steal (insert whatever word here) doesn't mean everyone else should steal (insert word here). Like LL said, some of us take our vows very very seriously. They mean a lot to us. It's not a show but a promise to our god that we live by every day.

WYSIWYG · Guru

You don't know the Bible as well as you think. From Matthew 18:

15“If your brother or sisterb sins,c go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’d 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

- huskerbb

_________________

I believe you are mistaken. Look closely into those passages you quoted. They do not suggest mistreatment of the offender nor do they suggest shunning or otherwise denying them respect.

I refer you to 1 Corinthians 10:27-33 for interaction with non-believers Pay specian note to 31-33
27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

And we all know the "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", so I believe that the Tax Collector while feared, should still be respected.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Catching up on this thread has taken all the time I had for tonight. I bid everyone a good night and I shall see what I can look into tomorrow!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
"You are picking and choosing the verses you like. It doesn't work that way." - Lawyerlady

____________________

I realize this thread has gone several pages beyond this comment, but I don't get on over the weekends.

Please, point me to the verse that says "shun the sinner, for they are evil and their evil will be visited upon you as well" or some such other statement.

Throughout my Bible there is no such admonition to treat the sinner poorly or without respect. There are many passages about an individual not sinning themselves, but none that I know of that say anything other than some form of love others or forgive others when it comes to how to treat others. God even commands treat slaves and enemies with respect.
You don't know the Bible as well as you think. From Matthew 18:
15“If your brother or sister^b sins,^c go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’^d 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

And why is simply refusing to participate in their wedding disrespectful? Did they toss them from the store? Scream obscenities at them? Refuse to sell them a birthday cake? The only disrespect being shown is to a person's religious beliefs.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"So, flan - does your library provide pornography books? Because you shouldn't judge. You provide free reading materials to the public. If they want pornography, you should have to provide it just like all the other types of books." - Lawyerlady

__________________

You lose credibility when you make that comparison. The library likely doesn't provide pornography for anyone to read. Therefore it's not discrimination when someone comes up, asks for some, and is denied. To get back to bakeries that would be like a doughnut shop that doesn't sell wedding cakes refusing to sell a wedding cake. Something that was not the situation.

A book is a book, regardless of content, but porn is to get your jollies off. A wedding cake is for a WEDDING. You are focusing on the wrong part of the comparison. It is the activity/event that is the issue - not the cake. I'm quite certain a birthday cake would be sold without issue.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

So a computer guru puts safety features on computers to make them nearly impossible to get to the files. Normally, he works for businesses trying to protect their trade secrets, etc. But he gets a call from a man that wants him to shield his computer so he can hide his computer activity from his wife. The man refuses to take the job.

Under many arguments here - the man would not be allowed to refuse because he's making a moral call. Nobody should be forced to participate in something they find abhorrent.

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
You don't know the Bible as well as you think. From Matthew 18:

15“If your brother or sisterb sins,c go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’d 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

- huskerbb

_________________

I believe you are mistaken. Look closely into those passages you quoted. They do not suggest mistreatment of the offender nor do they suggest shunning or otherwise denying them respect.

I refer you to 1 Corinthians 10:27-33 for interaction with non-believers Pay specian note to 31-33
27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

And we all know the "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", so I believe that the Tax Collector while feared, should still be respected.

No, you are the one who is mistaken. It absolutely says to "treat them like you would a pagan or a tax collector"--who were shunned members of that society.

Christ was big on treating sinners with compassion--IF they repented. The tax collector that he broke bread with REPENTED. The Harlot REPENTED.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
You don't know the Bible as well as you think. From Matthew 18:

15“If your brother or sisterb sins,c go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’d 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

- huskerbb

_________________

I believe you are mistaken. Look closely into those passages you quoted. They do not suggest mistreatment of the offender nor do they suggest shunning or otherwise denying them respect.

I refer you to 1 Corinthians 10:27-33 for interaction with non-believers Pay specian note to 31-33
27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

And we all know the "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", so I believe that the Tax Collector while feared, should still be respected.
No, you are the one who is mistaken. It absolutely says to "treat them like you would a pagan or a tax collector"--who were shunned members of that society.

Christ was big on treating sinners with compassion--IF they repented. The tax collector that he broke bread with REPENTED. The Harlot REPENTED.

Notice something else about the verse he cited? "If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice' then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience." So, if you do not KNOW of the sin, you are not held responsible - but if you are TOLD of the sin, you must refrain.

Exactly the difference between unknowingly providing service for an adulterer vs. knowingly providing it for someone who tells you they are sinning.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?

It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.

I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.

It's a business transaction. Period.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan

Yes, it's a business transaction. And if I don't sell, then I might go out of business. The market will correct itself.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan

Constitution be damned!

Tinydancer · Guru

flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan

To you it is. To a Christian baker who knows how God feels about it it's wrong.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Blankie wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
No its not at all. My BIL got married. We did not attend his wedding. We did not send a gift. We don't agree with it, therefore, we did not have any part of it...
That's sad.

I have to agree. Love is precious, and if two adults vow to love each other for the rest of their lives, that's cause for celebration.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Right of Conscience? Depends on the Cake
Posted on April 7, 2015 by Tad Cronn

Consider the following proof — as if it was needed — that “tolerance” and religious “freedom” are a one-way street.

Everyone remembers back in 2012, when Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, refused to bake a “wedding” cake for a homosexual couple. The ACLU got involved, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that Phillips had violated anti-discrimination laws. Phillips is currently appealing.

Fast forward to March 2014. A guy named Bill Jack from Castle Rock, Colorado, walks into Azucar Bakery and asks for a Bible-shaped cake with the phrase “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2,” and a picture of two men holding hands and a big red X over it. Owner Marjorie Silva refused to add the anti-homosexual messages, though she offered to bake the book-shaped cake itself.

Jack filed a discrimination complaint, and now the Colorado civil rights division has ruled that Silva did not violate the law by following her own conscience.

The first point to be made is that Silva was 100 percent within her right to do as she did and refuse to bake a cake that she found morally offensive, even though I disagree with her and the “LGBTQ” (BLT W/MSTRD) crowd that the Bible quote or even the picture with the X through it are hateful.

The second point is that Jack Phillips was also 100 percent within his rights to refuse to bake a cake that he found morally offensive.

Silva, who is neither Christian nor homosexual, says she just doesn’t tolerate “hatred.” Yet, despite coming from some sort of fuzzy secular, go-with-the-crowd philosophy, she still speaks, correctly, about her decision as being a moral issue. “I’m happy that we were not just morally right but legally right,” Silva told Yahoo News. “Hopefully this will lead to a better world where we are friendly to each other.”

So if popular opinion rooted in vague, feel-good materialism is a legitimate basis for refusing to bake a cake, how much more so Phillips’ decision? If anything, Phillips was MORE right to act as he did, because the homosexual “wedding” the cake was intended for would have required him to actively participate (albeit peripherally) in supporting a ceremony that is an open mockery of a holy Christian sacrament. In other words, Phillips was being asked to act in a way that he knew was an affront to God.

Yet the state of Colorado has clearly demonstrated its hypocrisy by giving Silva a pass while trying to bring ruin down on Phillips. So far, that hypocrisy has been distinctly anti-Christian in flavor, which makes it even more detestable. Either the state’s bakeries are all public accommodations and must fulfill all orders equally, or all bakery owners have the right to act on their own conscience. One or the other. To do otherwise is a violation of the 14th Amendment, just for starters.

Another thing that must be said is that Bill Jack is a bit of a jerk. While he was making a political point, he wasn’t behaving in the most Christian of ways by deliberately stirring up trouble, and although I don’t think his cake sounds hateful, it doesn’t exactly sound friendly either.

However, and this is a big however, he made a valid point. He walked into that bakery anticipating that he would be told no to his cake request and that subsequent legal actions would result in the state of Colorado proving its anti-Christian hypocrisy. He was correct, and now he probably has legal grounds to go to a higher court and challenge Colorado’s one-sided morality, which really amounts to establishment of a state religion.

It’s not only a valid point, it’s a necessary point.

For too many decades, we have witnessed the weakening of America from within as secular social philosophy has driven traditional morality further and further into the background.

The recent manufactured outrage over religious freedom laws is just the latest step in dismantling America’s Christian moral heritage. The final step will be when government declares traditional, Bible-based Christianity to be outlawed and the banner of official state atheism is lifted high.

It has happened elsewhere. It can happen here.

burns07 · Guru

thank you LL for an elegant synapsis of this case--have been following it myself--among your several salient points:

" now he probably has legal grounds to go to a higher court and challenge Colorado’s one-sided morality, which really amounts to establishment of a state religion. "

precisely and I sincerely hope that he does

-- Edited by burns07 on Tuesday 7th of April 2015 11:15:17 AM

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

This is my favorite part of the article (from another site):

Azucar Bakery has started selling T-shirts that say, "Because God loves everyone… let’s eat cake”; proceeds will go toward the bakery’s legal fees.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Oh good grief. Love does NOT equal condoning everything a person chooses to do or helping them do it.

Tinydancer · Guru

So you love the child molester? The murderers? Hell flan you don't even like ME so you obviously only love certain people. Imagine that...lol

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I want one of those T-shirts.

flan

WYSIWYG · Guru

Notice something else about the verse he cited? "If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice' then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience." So, if you do not KNOW of the sin, you are not held responsible - but if you are TOLD of the sin, you must refrain.

Exactly the difference between unknowingly providing service for an adulterer vs. knowingly providing it for someone who tells you they are sinning.

- Lawyerlady

___________________

Wedding cake isn't offered in sacrifice. So I believe your argument without merit since sacrifice is specifically spelled out in that passage. I would be willing to concede the point if it said "but if they do things against my laws" instead, but it doesn't.

Enjoy the meal as long as it doesn't contain any sacrificial items.

WYSIWYG · Guru

From Lawyerlady's post, a few posts back:

The first point to be made is that Silva was 100 percent within her right to do as she did and refuse to bake a cake that she found morally offensive, even though I disagree with her and the “LGBTQ” (BLT W/MSTRD) crowd that the Bible quote or even the picture with the X through it are hateful.

The second point is that Jack Phillips was also 100 percent within his rights to refuse to bake a cake that he found morally offensive

_____________________

I only wanted to comment on these two sentences because they are basically the whole point of the post.

The first point is absolutely correct. Because the bakery has a policy that they don't offer hate speech to anyone. This is not discrimination.

The second point is in error. Because that bakery does provide wedding cakes to everyone except gay people. This is discrimination.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
Notice something else about the verse he cited? "If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice' then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience." So, if you do not KNOW of the sin, you are not held responsible - but if you are TOLD of the sin, you must refrain.

Exactly the difference between unknowingly providing service for an adulterer vs. knowingly providing it for someone who tells you they are sinning.

- Lawyerlady

___________________

Wedding cake isn't offered in sacrifice. So I believe your argument without merit since sacrifice is specifically spelled out in that passage. I would be willing to concede the point if it said "but if they do things against my laws" instead, but it doesn't.

Enjoy the meal as long as it doesn't contain any sacrificial items.

You are the one that attempted to use that verse to prove your point. Eating sacrificial animals is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, the correlation. You are too hung up on the CAKE. It's not the CAKE, it's the participation.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
From Lawyerlady's post, a few posts back:

The first point to be made is that Silva was 100 percent within her right to do as she did and refuse to bake a cake that she found morally offensive, even though I disagree with her and the “LGBTQ” (BLT W/MSTRD) crowd that the Bible quote or even the picture with the X through it are hateful.

The second point is that Jack Phillips was also 100 percent within his rights to refuse to bake a cake that he found morally offensive

_____________________

I only wanted to comment on these two sentences because they are basically the whole point of the post.

The first point is absolutely correct. Because the bakery has a policy that they don't offer hate speech to anyone. This is not discrimination.

The second point is in error. Because that bakery does provide wedding cakes to everyone except gay people. This is discrimination.

Wrong again. Neither want to have anything to do with morally reprehensible behavior.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"You are the one that attempted to use that verse to prove your point. Eating sacrificial animals is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, the correlation. You are too hung up on the CAKE. It's not the CAKE, it's the participation." - Lawyerlady

_________________

I used it because it applied. Your taking "sacrifice" out of it and replacing it with some form of "Sins I have commanded you not participate in" is what's causing your misunderstanding of the passage.

The verse doesn't care what is believed by the pagans or what is going on at the meal. It limits itself and specifically says don't eat food that has been sacrificed. So it's not the participation at the meal, it actually is the food. Verse 31 even clarifies it even more with "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

We are probably never going to agree on this. I was just pointing out when I posted the verses that I posted, that my Bible doesn't support hatred or mistreatment of people that don't believe the same as I do. If you think yours does, that's between you and God.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Wrong again. Neither want to have anything to do with morally reprehensible behavior." - Lawyerlady

___________________

There's nothing morally reprehensible about a wedding. Unless you think the gay couple will seal the marriage with fornication right in front of the assembled witnesses, instead of the traditional kiss.

Even the Presbyterians will be allowing them in their sanctuaries soon (June, I believe).

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Marriage is one man and one woman. Period.

Those sanctuaries allowing this abomination to take place are defiled.

Yes, church is for sinners.

But it is not place that should encourage sin.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

In your opinion, Lily.

Period.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Not just her opinion. THat has been the definition of marriage since like the beginning to time.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

And society has had slaves since the beginning of time.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I miss Squeakers like crazy, except when threads like these happen. Then I'm glad she doesn't have to see this.

flan

burns07 · Guru

Even the Presbyterians will be allowing them in their sanctuaries soon (June, I believe).
__________________________________________________________________

interestingly, over 34,000 Presbyterian congregations across the country have disavowed that policy and are contemplating leaving their respective synods

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
In your opinion, Lily.

Period.

flan

No. Not my opinion.

Biblical fact.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Wrong again. Neither want to have anything to do with morally reprehensible behavior." - Lawyerlady

___________________

There's nothing morally reprehensible about a wedding. Unless you think the gay couple will seal the marriage with fornication right in front of the assembled witnesses, instead of the traditional kiss.

Even the Presbyterians will be allowing them in their sanctuaries soon (June, I believe).

Homosexuality is a sin. Vowing to live in sin forever together is not something that Christians should encourage or take part in.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
And society has had slaves since the beginning of time.

flan

You bring that up like it matters in this argument.

It doesn't.

If you had any true understanding of the Bible and God's rules for having servants.

Those who serve are exhalted.

But thanks for playing.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"You are the one that attempted to use that verse to prove your point. Eating sacrificial animals is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, the correlation. You are too hung up on the CAKE. It's not the CAKE, it's the participation." - Lawyerlady

_________________

I used it because it applied. Your taking "sacrifice" out of it and replacing it with some form of "Sins I have commanded you not participate in" is what's causing your misunderstanding of the passage.

The verse doesn't care what is believed by the pagans or what is going on at the meal. It limits itself and specifically says don't eat food that has been sacrificed. So it's not the participation at the meal, it actually is the food. Verse 31 even clarifies it even more with "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

We are probably never going to agree on this. I was just pointing out when I posted the verses that I posted, that my Bible doesn't support hatred or mistreatment of people that don't believe the same as I do. If you think yours does, that's between you and God.

"YOUR" Bible? What bible is that? And it's not HATE to refuse to participate in a sin. That is where you thinking is not logical.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Knowingly participating in sin is sinning.

That same Bible also says to separate ourselves from the world.

That we are a peculiar people. Not part of this world.

To be the example. Not just talk the talk, but to walk the walk.

The Bible clearly states homosexuality is an abomination.

That means participating in something that celebrates such an abomination is wrong.

That includes providing products, venues, food or anything else.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
And society has had slaves since the beginning of time.

flan
You bring that up like it matters in this argument.
It doesn't.
If you had any true understanding of the Bible and God's rules for having servants.
Those who serve are exhalted.
But thanks for playing.

My point is that society evolves. Girls are no longer married off in their teens.

As to the bolded, though, I'm genuinely curious: if a person is taken from their homeland against their will, and beaten & forced to work, then they are supposed to feel exalted?

flan