Does it work both ways?

[Willie T]

 

[FHII]

Good point although I theologically disagree with the Christian baker.

 

[Willie T]

Good point although I theologically disagree with the Christian baker.

If you were a Christian baker, would you bake a cake celebrating _____________ (Enter whatever you feel God would not like)? Or should you be taken to court for not wanting to violate what you believe in?

 

[FHII]

If you were a Christian baker, would you bake a cake celebrating _____________ (Enter whatever you feel God would not like)? Or should you be taken to court for not wanting to violate what you believe in?

Like I said, "good point".

 

[DPMartin]

If you were a Christian baker, would you bake a cake celebrating _____________ (Enter whatever you feel God would not like)? Or should you be taken to court for not wanting to violate what you believe in?

yes but the case isn't the same at all is it? the baker refuses service and he doesn't get paid, because the baker didn't come into any agreement with those he refused up front, and agreement to bake a cake for someone isn't presumed just because you bake cakes for money. (hence ethical) but a football player won't set a toe on the field unless he has a contract, right? (you know where's the money) and they can refuse to play football for any team. the football player already has agreed to certain conditions for playing pro. football and has been paid. (hence unethical) the football player has defaulted on the agreement deliberately and intentionally therefore he should be fired.

there's no delusions here, they have been doing the same thing on the field before the game ever since they were playing high school football, or even earlier for some. it just a lie.


and the NFL nor the law makers don't care about justice or what is obviously right and correct. their policy is to tolerate and appease just as Pontius Pilate did and the issue is never resolved.

take Sen McCain for example, same jerk every day, the Vet's were suffering greatly when they would seek service they earned but that didn't start these past few years, anyone that is familiar knows that except for the few vet hospitals that generals frequent, the last place anyone wants to go to is a veterans hospital and that has been true since the 70's and Mr McCain has been involved for what, 30 yr.'s now, why hasn't anything been done about it those 30 yr's, the guy's a creep of the first degree. he jumps in when its an issue of public notice and directs blame away from himself while trying to look like he cares.

same horse dump with the middle east that's been going on since what 2001, what's the matter can't knock them back to the stone age because they were already there? all those guys and all that effort to end up with what they started with. and it ain't the US soldier fault, they are the best. but hay every one is supposed to hang on McCain's opinions who is the most influential on such things.


ok I'm done ranting, but I'm telling you this because the US has been preaching tolerance and exercising appeasement is the way, of which no justice is done, and nothing gets resolved.

 

[Helen]

Yes, agree...I never heard the end of the wedding cake story.....but I know they lost their house and are now broke from the court case.

YES to your question @Willie T We should be free to say NO...but I think freedom is out of the window now..partially for the Christian.
Canada is even worse than I states I think...things are changing here very quickly.
Our PrimeMinister is so liberal...and he is of the " Lets hug a -----" ....whatever is the anti -Christian thing is.
Did we all waste the Christian freedoms that we had? No country can call themselves a Christian Country any more.

.

 

[amadeus]

No country can call themselves a Christian Country any more.
.

Amen, at least to a Christian Country so called according to a biblical definition.

The definition of "Christian" has already been changed and is continuing to undergo change. It's meaning is less and less biblical as time goes by.

Christians will be allowed probably to retain many of their rights in many places, but most real believers will not be considered Christians by the ones who make and enforce the laws.

 

[Angelina]

Indeed! they will probably be labeled as terrorists or anti establishment. Sad to say.

 

[pia]

but most real believers will not be considered Christians by the ones who make and enforce the laws.

So, not much difference to what we witness on this forum ? I personally believe it is going to get much much worse, and while Christians are NOT loving others, as Jesus asked us to, one can barely blame the world, for not wanting it !

 

[mjrhealth]

, but most real believers will not be considered Christians by the ones who make and enforce the law

Not even by other christians???

 

[bbyrd009]

If you were a Christian baker, would you bake a cake celebrating _____________ (Enter whatever you feel God would not like)? Or should you be taken to court for not wanting to violate what you believe in?

your question reveals the hypocrisy, imo; you are either a baker or you are a Christian, there is no such thing as "Christian ______," in a sense. You cannot serve two masters. You are either a Christian, a pariah outside the camp, spreading the Gospel, or you are a baker, baking things for the coin of the realm, and you have to pick one.

Thus "should you be taken to court" is pitched as a choice, when the choice was already made when you became a baker for profit; you subjected yourself to the law at that point, and you are now "under the law" whether you like that or not.

 

[Dcopymope]

your question reveals the hypocrisy, imo; you are either a baker or you are a Christian, there is no such thing as "Christian ______," in a sense. You cannot serve two masters. You are either a Christian, a pariah outside the camp, spreading the Gospel, or you are a baker, baking things for the coin of the realm, and you have to pick one.

Thus "should you be taken to court" is pitched as a choice, when the choice was already made when you became a baker for profit; you subjected yourself to the law at that point, and you are now "under the law" whether you like that or not.

I thought the constitution was the law of the land? That's what we've all been told right? It states we all have the right to freedom of speech and religion and the exercising thereof.....yet ever since, this has been used by the government as a licence into coercing people into working against their will, as is the case with the Christian baker. Tell me, what was the American revolution really for? Also, if I was the Christian baker, I would invoke the 13th amendment.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

If the state is forcing me to perform a task to produce a product under the threat of "the law", then that is involuntary servitude. If my profession isn't subsidized as a public accommodation, then the state has no right tell me what I can and cannot do with said business because my business is privately owned.

 

[amadeus]

Not even by other christians???

I guess that the answer to you question would depend on your definition of a Christian, wouldn't it? I believe I've read of more than one who have questioned your status even on this forum as a Christian...?

Quite a few years ago I belonged to a very large forum [still do although I haven't visited it in a while] and was one of it oldest member [not age from natural birth date, but age from the time I joined the forum]. They had a management change and redefined some things including their definition of a Christian. They made a new rule that declared that any member must confirm all points in their "statement of faith" to be a full member with access to all of the subforums. I wouldn't confirm because at that time I was coming on pretty strong against the trinity and a couple of other things which were in their statement.

In spite of my protests and the support of a few others, I was eventually relegated to a second class membership because according them I was not a Christian. I was only allowed to post on their unorthodox sub-forum which most members it seemed seldom even bothered to read.

That was more than 10 years ago and I believe generally the totality of what is sometimes called Christendom [all who are considered followers of Christ by anyone] is moving in the same direction as that forum. Over any what someone has defined essential beliefs some man or men have decided who was NOT a Christian.

The majority rules on whether you are a Christian or not... and that was the majority those who belonged to the allowed "Christian" group... but look out for Uncle Sam getting into the picture as it becomes more advantageous for him to do so...

One of the enforcement means already available is in the IRS tax exempt status that most Christian groups have taken advantage of... Even the group where I attend has that IRS exemption in place, but that was done long before I ever attended there that they did that. Now, with our little congregation, if the exemption were removed ,the nice but not fancy building where we meet would be lost for non-payment of taxes for I know we could not afford to pay them.

That does not really bother me, but eventually when they do formalize the legal definition of Christian for tax purposes and perhaps for full versus second class citizenship of these United States purposes, the few who are willing to stand with Jesus in spite of it the opposition may discover persecution in a way that the Native Americans, the Blacks and the Hispanics, etc. already have.

People belonging to most larger traditional churches and other churches willing to compromise for monetary reasons won't be included in the persecution as much... at least in the beginning.

I remember reading about some German Jews early on during Hitler's time who were carefully left alone because they were veterans who fought on the German side in WWI. Some of them had military commendations as heros fighting that war. When persecution of the Jews was very light, those men were left alone. That held true until Hitler and his closer subordinates realized that most Germans did not really strongly oppose mistreatment of Jews so long as they themselves were left alone.

But... LOL... of course something like that could never happen here in the "land of the free and the home of the brave". No, of course not!

 

[bbyrd009]

Tell me, what was the American revolution really for?

imo you would be better served to ask that Q of someone versed in the things of the world.

 

[bbyrd009]

Also, if I was the Christian baker, I would invoke the 13th amendment.

why not, once you have accepted that you are under the law, sure. Invoke away. No doubt they tried that too i guess.

 

[bbyrd009]

If the state is forcing me to perform a task to produce a product under the threat of "the law", then that is involuntary servitude. If my profession isn't subsidized as a public accommodation, then the state has no right tell me what I can and cannot do with said business because my business is privately owned.

and yet nonetheless some "Christian bakers" are now destitute, and no longer privately own that business, right. Funny you mentioned "law of the land" earlier, when you cannot even buy any land lol, all you can get is "real estate," completely diff thing.

You cannot serve two masters, and imo it really doesn't get any plainer than that. So, go and "work for food" or do not, and let the choice define you.

 

[FHII]

I thought the constitution was the law of the land? That's what we've all been told right. It states we all have the right to freedom of speech and religion and the exercising thereof.....yet ever since, this has been used by the government as a licence into coercing people into working against their will, as is the case with the Christian baker. Tell me, what was the American revolution really for? Also, if I was the Christian baker, I would invoke the 13th amendment.



If the state is forcing me to perform a task to produce a product under the threat of "the law", then that is involuntary servitude. If my profession isn't subsidized as a public accommodation, then the state has no right tell me what I can and cannot do with said business because my business is privately owned.

I absolutely agree.

If I am correct to understand the Christian Baker story, it goes like this:

A Christian Baker was asked to make a cake for a homosexual marriage in which the cake clearly pointed out that it was so. The baker refused based on the belief that God is against gay marriage.

So the homosexual couple got upset and contacted the media and sued the baker.

This actually has happened a few times. I don't know the outcome (except what i have read here)...

I said before I theologically disagree with the baker (as we are under grace) but can stand with him in that he ought to be allowed to refuse service based on religious purposes.

Likewise, these NFL nincompoops should be allowed to not stand during the national anthem. But I am still going to call them nincompoops and even worse for being short sighted and ignorant.

 

[bbyrd009]

he ought to be allowed to refuse service based on religious purposes.

and see that that is exactly what has happened, although the "Christian Baker" no longer gets to have his cake and eat it, too.

So then, even according to the law now, you can be a Christian, or you can be a baker, but you cannot be both, at least not if you are baking bread for dollars. You cannot serve two masters.

 

[mjrhealth]

I guess that the answer to you question would depend on your definition of a Christian, wouldn't it? I believe I've read of more than one who have questioned your status even on this forum as a Christian...?

Quite a few years ago I belonged to a very large forum [still do although I haven't visited it in a while] and was one of it oldest member [not age from natural birth date, but age from the time I joined the forum]. They had a management change and redefined some things including their definition of a Christian. They made a new rule that declared that any member must confirm all points in their "statement of faith" to be a full member with access to all of the subforums. I wouldn't confirm because at that time I was coming on pretty strong against the trinity and a couple of other things which were in their statement.

In spite of my protests and the support of a few others, I was eventually relegated to a second class membership because according them I was not a Christian. I was only allowed to post on their unorthodox sub-forum which most members it seemed seldom even bothered to read.

That was more than 10 years ago and I believe generally the totality of what is sometimes called Christendom [all who are considered followers of Christ by anyone] is moving in the same direction as that forum. Over any what someone has defined essential beliefs some man or men have decided who was NOT a Christian.

The majority rules on whether you are a Christian or not... and that was the majority those who belonged to the allowed "Christian" group... but look out for Uncle Sam getting into the picture as it becomes more advantageous for him to do so...

One of the enforcement means already available is in the IRS tax exempt status that most Christian groups have taken advantage of... Even the group where I attend has that IRS exemption in place, but that was done long before I ever attended there that they did that. Now, with our little congregation, if the exemption were removed ,the nice but not fancy building where we meet would be lost for non-payment of taxes for I know we could not afford to pay them.

That does not really bother me, but eventually when they do formalize the legal definition of Christian for tax purposes and perhaps for full versus second class citizenship of these United States purposes, the few who are willing to stand with Jesus in spite of it the opposition may discover persecution in a way that the Native Americans, the Blacks and the Hispanics, etc. already have.

People belonging to most larger traditional churches and other churches willing to compromise for monetary reasons won't be included in the persecution as much... at least in the beginning.

I remember reading about some German Jews early on during Hitler's time who were carefully left alone because they were veterans who fought on the German side in WWI. Some of them had military commendations as heros fighting that war. When persecution of the Jews was very light, those men were left alone. That held true until Hitler and his closer subordinates realized that most Germans did not really strongly oppose mistreatment of Jews so long as they themselves were left alone.

But... LOL... of course something like that could never happen here in the "land of the free and the home of the brave". No, of course not!

And here lies the problem, God cannot be a part of something that is not from or opposes Hi, so statements of faith quiet often lock Him out, yes I had a similar issue, refused to be branded by there terms of what a christian is and got banned, Jesus God and teh Holy spirit get left out of a lot of christian things.

 

[amadeus]

And here lies the problem, God cannot be a part of something that is not from or opposes Hi, so statements of faith quiet often lock Him out, yes I had a similar issue, refused to be branded by there terms of what a christian is and got banned, Jesus God and teh Holy spirit get left out of a lot of christian things.

People are people wherever they are. Long ago they tied up nearly all of the denominations so tight that unless you already agreed with them or you appeared to be a candidate for eventually agreeing with them, you would not be welcome for long. Forums have sometimes gone the same way and some people want them to... On this forum at this time, the powers the be have not elected to lock people out so quickly... but some people would vote to do so, if it were put up for a vote, I am certain.