Hope For LGBT

[pom2014]

Some of this is attributed to the fact that there is a deliberate agenda from LGBT side to push their lifestyle as acceptable to society. The topic is communicated often, and is something that will be responded to by those who do not agree.

I do not see thieves forming associations attempting to get society to approve their lifestyle. Ax murders can say I was born this way, but that does not dissolve the sin if they follow through with their desires.

Media, politics, and legislature have all supported LGBT. This is a hot topic in society today.

I hear often of this gay agenda. Where do they meet? Is there some gay convention? A world symposium of homosexuals that meet once a year to brainstorm how they will manipulate media and educators? How they have some form of consensus of how they will push their take over?

I would very much like to know where they do this. Because there are a few things, I would like to suggest.

1. Let's kill the lisping queen voice in media.
I've met very few flaming queens that had a lisp. It's annoying.

2. Lesbians dressed by L.L. Bean.
I've met few lesbians that dress in this fashion, media, if the gays are in charge of it, need to stop this.

3. If gays influence educators, could we get them to push science and math more?
Because it seems no one else is.

4. If gays have so much pull in Hollywood why no gay Disney princess? Better get to work on that.

5. If you have so much pull in governments around the world, how about upping infrastructure?
I'd like to see before I die some better roads, bridges, schools and gigabit per second net in the states.
Chop chop, let's go gays.

6. More gay world leaders.
If they are as powerful as fearful Christians say then we should have more then just a handful.

7. Gays should take over the banking system and kill the usury slave system.
It would help everyone.

8. Better school lunches.
They have pull in education why not help kids eat better?

And this last one is most important...

9. If you're going have a parade incorporate Circ du Soliel style entertainment.
At least make it better then those tired old sports, holiday or jingoist parades. And leather went out with the village people ok?

 

[River Jordan]

Some of this is attributed to the fact that there is a deliberate agenda from LGBT side to push their lifestyle as acceptable to society.

No more than any other minority group that has done the same, e.g., Orthodox Jews, interracial marriages, Mormons...at some point they had to convince society that their "ways" should be tolerated and they should be treated the same as everyone else. Gays are doing the same thing.

I do not see thieves forming associations attempting to get society to approve their lifestyle. Ax murders can say I was born this way, but that does not dissolve the sin if they follow through with their desires.

From a societal standpoint, there are enormous differences between thieves, murderers and gays. Thieves and murderers have unwilling victims, whereas homosexuality is between consenting adults.

Media, politics, and legislature have all supported LGBT. This is a hot topic in society today.

And to be honest, Christianity is not coming out of this looking very good.

Some deserve it, but most don't. I fail to see, for example, how putting a seven person family with 5 kids through bankruptcy for holding a view the parents is acceptable. However, perhaps the little "g" gods demand a necessary sacrifice or two for the greater cause?

Apparently you've misunderstood the issue. No one was fined or otherwise punished for holding a view. You, I, and everyone else can hold whatever view we want. It's what you do that counts. In that case, the baker wasn't fined because she held an anti-gay viewpoint, she was fined because she actively discriminated against a couple based on their sexual orientation. That's illegal under Oregon law. But again, the illegal act wasn't her viewpoint, it was her action.

 

[justaname]

No more than any other minority group that has done the same, e.g., Orthodox Jews, interracial marriages, Mormons...at some point they had to convince society that their "ways" should be tolerated and they should be treated the same as everyone else. Gays are doing the same thing.

This was a response to the idea that,"Yet there are more posts from Christians online about the evil of gays than any single issue about straights."

From a societal standpoint, there are enormous differences between thieves, murderers and gays. Thieves and murderers have unwilling victims, whereas homosexuality is between consenting adults.

And from a biblical standpoint all are considered sin.

And to be honest, Christianity is not coming out of this looking very good.

And that would depend on who is judging the appearance.

Apparently you've misunderstood the issue. No one was fined or otherwise punished for holding a view. You, I, and everyone else can hold whatever view we want. It's what you do that counts. In that case, the baker wasn't fined because she held an anti-gay viewpoint, she was fined because she actively discriminated against a couple based on their sexual orientation. That's illegal under Oregon law. But again, the illegal act wasn't her viewpoint, it was her action.

I hear often of this gay agenda. Where do they meet? Is there some gay convention? A world symposium of homosexuals that meet once a year to brainstorm how they will manipulate media and educators? How they have some form of consensus of how they will push their take over?

I would very much like to know where they do this. Because there are a few things, I would like to suggest.

1. Let's kill the lisping queen voice in media.
I've met very few flaming queens that had a lisp. It's annoying.

2. Lesbians dressed by L.L. Bean.
I've met few lesbians that dress in this fashion, media, if the gays are in charge of it, need to stop this.

3. If gays influence educators, could we get them to push science and math more?
Because it seems no one else is.

4. If gays have so much pull in Hollywood why no gay Disney princess? Better get to work on that.

5. If you have so much pull in governments around the world, how about upping infrastructure?
I'd like to see before I die some better roads, bridges, schools and gigabit per second net in the states.
Chop chop, let's go gays.

6. More gay world leaders.
If they are as powerful as fearful Christians say then we should have more then just a handful.

7. Gays should take over the banking system and kill the usury slave system.
It would help everyone.

8. Better school lunches.
They have pull in education why not help kids eat better?

And this last one is most important...

9. If you're going have a parade incorporate Circ du Soliel style entertainment.
At least make it better then those tired old sports, holiday or jingoist parades. And leather went out with the village people ok?

Here are a few sites...

http://www.iglta.org

http://www.glcvb.org

http://www.nlgja.org

 

[HammerStone]

Apparently you've misunderstood the issue. No one was fined or otherwise punished for holding a view. You, I, and everyone else can hold whatever view we want. It's what you do that counts. In that case, the baker wasn't fined because she held an anti-gay viewpoint, she was fined because she actively discriminated against a couple based on their sexual orientation. That's illegal under Oregon law. But again, the illegal act wasn't her viewpoint, it was her action.

While I understand the legal distinction, precisely what is the point of having a view if you cannot carry out the accompanying action my dear? Seriously, do tell me! This is all part of the narrative that you have bought full sinker that it's okay to be religious, but you just better not consistently act out in public. It may be an interpretation of the law, but it's logic is lacking at best, and completely spurious and malicious at worst. For the record, I believe the latter. Why else would you rub a family with 5 kids into the ground? Kids matter less than some feelings, of course!

For what it's worth, I would have baked the cake. However, a business that engages in an activity of a greater degree deserves distinction at some level. Hence the brouhaha about the pizza parlor who would serve whomever comes in the door but not cater a wedding - as if a pizza parlor would cater a wedding anyway.

The hysteria in this continues, but a $135k fine is clearly meant to be an example by picking on a small business. It's funny how the major banks that practiced negligence which ruined lives, homes and careers in the recent financial crisis came away with smaller proportioned fines than this little bakery because it committed the current unpardonable sin.

 

[River Jordan]

And from a biblical standpoint all are considered sin.

Yet from the attention and focus of Christians in the US, you'd think homosexuality was the only real sin worthy of standing up against.

And that would depend on who is judging the appearance.

Of course, and as we've seen from the data, the way some Christians are handling this issue is a factor in the decline of Christianity in the US.

While I understand the legal distinction, precisely what is the point of having a view if you cannot carry out the accompanying action my dear?

I may feel that it's distasteful and wrong of that man over there to wear such a ridiculous suit to a wedding. Should I go over and tell him? After all, what's the point of me having that view but not acting on it?

This is all part of the narrative that you have bought full sinker that it's okay to be religious, but you just better not consistently act out in public. It may be an interpretation of the law, but it's logic is lacking at best, and completely spurious and malicious at worst. For the record, I believe the latter. Why else would you rub a family with 5 kids into the ground? Kids matter less than some feelings, of course!

This is why Christians are coming out of this issue looking so bad. The discriminators are trying to argue that if they're not allowed to discriminate, they're the ones being discriminated against! That, and the hypocrisy...

For what it's worth, I would have baked the cake. However, a business that engages in an activity of a greater degree deserves distinction at some level. Hence the brouhaha about the pizza parlor who would serve whomever comes in the door but not cater a wedding - as if a pizza parlor would cater a wedding anyway.

And they ended up with almost a million dollars out of the deal. Some persecution, eh?

The hysteria in this continues, but a $135k fine is clearly meant to be an example by picking on a small business.

You can't just think of this in terms of cakes. If you allow one business to discriminate, you have to allow all of them to. So a bank manager could refuse to give home loans to gay couples, a taxi driver could refuse to give rides to gay couples, a doctor could refuse to treat gay couples, etc. Suddenly gays are....you know the term....second class citizens.

It's funny how the major banks that practiced negligence which ruined lives, homes and careers in the recent financial crisis came away with smaller proportioned fines than this little bakery because it committed the current unpardonable sin.

That's the fundamental hypocrisy behind this whole thing. The sin of greed, which is waaaaaaaaaay more common, is celebrated and rewarded, but for some reason the sin of homosexuality is where some Christians have decided to make their stand? :wacko: Funny how that works.

 

[HammerStone]

I may feel that it's distasteful and wrong of that man over there to wear such a ridiculous suit to a wedding. Should I go over and tell him? After all, what's the point of me having that view but not acting on it?

Now you're just playing absurdities. If your fashion tastes equate with your religious doctrines, then you have much larger issues at play.

This is why Christians are coming out of this issue looking so bad. The discriminators are trying to argue that if they're not allowed to discriminate, they're the ones being discriminated against! That, and the hypocrisy...

No, they're asking to practice what the church has maintained for some 2,000 years of its existence. A church discriminates in one sense of the word in that members of the church must generally profess some level of set religion to be a member. A business owner should be able to discriminate even if the choice puts her out of business, sorry. The consequences of the actions should be worked out in public, not compelled by a state entity after there literally is almost not precedent. This is not a naive argument, as it's currently being voiced by several of the Supreme Court Justices. (And not just the evil conservative ones.)

And they ended up with almost a million dollars out of the deal. Some persecution, eh?

So you want to raise the argument that since we raise millions to billions for starving children, problem solved? Seriously, come up with something better than that, at least.

You can't just think of this in terms of cakes. If you allow one business to discriminate, you have to allow all of them to. So a bank manager could refuse to give home loans to gay couples, a taxi driver could refuse to give rides to gay couples, a doctor could refuse to treat gay couples, etc. Suddenly gays are....you know the term....second class citizens.

No, as you seem to be ignorant about in all of these laws, the business owners are provided with the opportunity to defend themselves on the basis of their actions. In the examples cited, none of these scenarios are playing out and even if they were, they clearly would not hold in court. Baking a cake potentially with the regalia necessary for a wedding cake places the bakers in the position of designing and creating a piece of art that carries with it a vastly different connotation than providing a basic necessity. In other words, are you seriously willing to compel a Jewish artist to paint an image of Hitler at the request of a distant descendant? Should a Muslim artist be compelled to bake a cake of Mohammed? If someone is asked to design something for someone, there is a clear distinction in what the intimacy of the task at hand involves. In the case of a doctor, she would not need to know your sexual preference to render treatment, for example.

Again, even though they're portrayed as bumpkins, note how even the humble pizza parlor owners knew the distinction, because their very first statement was that they'd serve the homosexual population if they came into the store, but they would decline to cater a wedding which is a different animal. I'm not really sure this would qualify them as hate lynch mob members, but this nuance seems to be lost on the rabid ally community.

hat's the fundamental hypocrisy behind this whole thing. The sin of greed, which is waaaaaaaaaay more common, is celebrated and rewarded, but for some reason the sin of homosexuality is where some Christians have decided to make their stand? :wacko: Funny how that works.

Missing the logic here, unless you're placing yourself in quite the judgment seat. Wow, I'm pretty much speechless if that's the case! But of course, fall back on generalities all you want. It's just amusing that you prefer the empirical case except when it doesn't work, then you default blanket like everyone else. Terribly hilarious how that one works!

 

[River Jordan]

Now you're just playing absurdities. If your fashion tastes equate with your religious doctrines, then you have much larger issues at play.

What if I'm at a wedding and I see an obese man making multiple trips to the buffet? Am I obligated to take action against his sin?

No, they're asking to practice what the church has maintained for some 2,000 years of its existence. A church discriminates in one sense of the word in that members of the church must generally profess some level of set religion to be a member.

Except they're not operating a church, they're operating a business. There are different rules for each.

A business owner should be able to discriminate even if the choice puts her out of business, sorry.

And this is exactly why Christians are coming out of this looking so bad. You are actually on the side of institutionalized discrimination.

The consequences of the actions should be worked out in public, not compelled by a state entity after there literally is almost not precedent. This is not a naive argument, as it's currently being voiced by several of the Supreme Court Justices. (And not just the evil conservative ones.)

Is that how all civil rights issues should be worked out? Just let it work itself out in the public forum and keep the gov't out of it?

So you want to raise the argument that since we raise millions to billions for starving children, problem solved? Seriously, come up with something better than that, at least.

Ok....that makes absolutely no sense at all. :blink:

No, as you seem to be ignorant about in all of these laws, the business owners are provided with the opportunity to defend themselves on the basis of their actions. In the examples cited, none of these scenarios are playing out and even if they were, they clearly would not hold in court.

Again you're not making sense. The reason those scenarios aren't playing out is because (in some places) there are laws on the books explicitly preventing them from occurring. And in places where such laws don't exist, gays are indeed denied things like housing merely because they're gay. Is that the sort of society you want?

Baking a cake potentially with the regalia necessary for a wedding cake places the bakers in the position of designing and creating a piece of art that carries with it a vastly different connotation than providing a basic necessity.

In all the cases that have been covered, the couple merely requested a wedding cake the same as everyone else.

In other words, are you seriously willing to compel a Jewish artist to paint an image of Hitler at the request of a distant descendant? Should a Muslim artist be compelled to bake a cake of Mohammed? If someone is asked to design something for someone, there is a clear distinction in what the intimacy of the task at hand involves.

First, again we see why Christians are looking so bad on this issue. Here you equate gays with Hitler, where asking a Christian to bake a cake for a gay wedding is akin to asking a Jew to bake a cake with Hitler on it. That's horrible, hateful, and mostly makes you look pretty awful.

But then there's also the distinction between "bake us a cake like you make for everyone else" and "bake us a cake with a specific image/message on it". If you don't understand the difference, perhaps you need to think on it a bit more.

Again, even though they're portrayed as bumpkins, note how even the humble pizza parlor owners knew the distinction, because their very first statement was that they'd serve the homosexual population if they came into the store, but they would decline to cater a wedding which is a different animal. I'm not really sure this would qualify them as hate lynch mob members, but this nuance seems to be lost on the rabid ally community.

And sadly, the sort of discrimination they said they'd engage in is legal in Indiana. Apparently that's a good thing to you.

Missing the logic here, unless you're placing yourself in quite the judgment seat. Wow, I'm pretty much speechless if that's the case! But of course, fall back on generalities all you want. It's just amusing that you prefer the empirical case except when it doesn't work, then you default blanket like everyone else. Terribly hilarious how that one works!

Again, just think for a second. What is the justification Christian businesses are giving for refusing to serve gays? They claim it's a violation of their religious conscious to support sin in any way. But does that apply to all sin? If a very wealthy couple requested a wedding cake for a lavish wedding on their yacht, would the good Christian baker refuse to support their love of mammon? If an obese couple requested a wedding cake, would the good Christian baker refuse to bake such a fattening, sweet dessert and thereby support their gluttony?

Funny how you never hear of any cases like those. Somehow it's only homosexuality that is deserving of active discrimination.

 

[pom2014]

Jordan, I find the whole refusal of services by Christians to be ironic as that will happen to them when they don't take the mark.

Sow, reap, repeat.

 

[River Jordan]

That's certainly a thought-provoking twist that hadn't occurred to me!

 

[HammerStone]

First, again we see why Christians are looking so bad on this issue. Here you equate gays with Hitler, where asking a Christian to bake a cake for a gay wedding is akin to asking a Jew to bake a cake with Hitler on it. That's horrible, hateful, and mostly makes you look pretty awful.

I really wish you would grow up beyond this ridiculous level of argumentation. It reflects just as poorly on you, because I've already stated I'd bake the cake. However, you listen to nothing, spouting the intellectual equivalent of "na-na-na I can't hear you!" drivel in all of your arguments. It does get rather old, and I wonder why I engage sometimes, because inevitability.

I'll try and spell it out at the kindergarten level one more time. If a hypothetical descendant of Hitler (descended by DNA, so it's involuntary and genetic) walked into a Jewish bakery and wanted a cake bearing his image, would the Jewish baker (Jewish by DNA, also involuntary and genetic) be compelled by law to bake the cake? The only parallel I am drawing here, is that everything can indeed be genetic (that nuance seemed to fly right over that head full of ego you possess - maybe you've learned and know it all I don't know) and the Jewish baker still retains that right. It's not like Christians just suddenly decided to hate gay people. Rather, we have two millennia of a sexual ethic to which this only a part. You know, it's sorta just really exactly like the old fuddy-duddies who get so bent when two unmarried people procreate. There is a reason it's this way, and it's not at all about discriminating for the sake of discriminating.

If you need cliffnotes or margin notes, I'll be happy to oblige.

No point in going further here. I tried. See Kristen Powers' article in USA Today for a summary of this attitude often held by liberal Christians, because according to Riverland, we're only supposed to hold religious teaching in private, and all of us are just hate mongers looking to hate.

 

[River Jordan]

I really wish you would grow up beyond this ridiculous level of argumentation. It reflects just as poorly on you, because I've already stated I'd bake the cake. However, you listen to nothing, spouting the intellectual equivalent of "na-na-na I can't hear you!" drivel in all of your arguments. It does get rather old, and I wonder why I engage sometimes, because inevitability.

I directly addressed your argument as you presented it. In order to make your point, you analogized between a gay couple asking a Christian baker for wedding cake and a descendant of Hitler asking a Jewish baker for a cake with Hitler's image on it. Now, would you care to explain how that's not saying that the two situations are analogous?

If a hypothetical descendant of Hitler (descended by DNA, so it's involuntary and genetic) walked into a Jewish bakery and wanted a cake bearing his image, would the Jewish baker (Jewish by DNA, also involuntary and genetic) be compelled by law to bake the cake?

Of course not. As I noted, there's a difference between "bake me a cake like you do for other people" and "bake me a special cake with a specific image on it".

The only parallel I am drawing here, is that everything can indeed be genetic (that nuance seemed to fly right over that head full of ego you possess - maybe you've learned and know it all I don't know) and the Jewish baker still retains that right.

Genetic? What does that have to do with anything? Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, which is obviously non-genetic. Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.

It's not like Christians just suddenly decided to hate gay people. Rather, we have two millennia of a sexual ethic to which this only a part. You know, it's sorta just really exactly like the old fuddy-duddies who get so bent when two unmarried people procreate. There is a reason it's this way, and it's not at all about discriminating for the sake of discriminating.

The point is, if you believe being gay or getting gay-married is wrong, then don't be gay or get gay-married. You can even speak out as much as you want about it (but you may not be shielded from the consequences of your speech). But when it comes to conducting a public business, what is the basis for discriminating against gays, but not other sinners? I've yet to see a decent argument explaining why baking cakes for the greedy or gluttonous is just fine, but doing the same for gays is a violation of your religious conscious.

No point in going further here. I tried. See Kristen Powers' article in USA Today for a summary of this attitude often held by liberal Christians, because according to Riverland, we're only supposed to hold religious teaching in private, and all of us are just hate mongers looking to hate.

The fact that you have to resort to such straw man arguments and personal insults is a good indication of why your side keeps losing in court. It's all you have (well...and analogies to Nazis), and there's no sign at all of an objective, factual, rational argument for why preventing you from discriminating against gays in business is actually discrimination against you.

If you really had a decent argument, you'd have made it by now.

 

[Webers_Home]

-

I find the whole refusal of services by Christians to be ironic as etc,
etc

Your comment is equivalent to religious profiling. It doesn't take into
consideration the individual differences of opinion among Christians in
matters related to LGBT.

It's also worthy to point out that not all LGBT are militant, nor are all of
them cry babies. Some are actually pretty good at turning the other cheek
and consider it below themselves to take a private enterprise to court for
refusing to accommodate LGBT due to matters of conscience.

===========================================

 

[HammerStone]

I directly addressed your argument as you presented it. In order to make your point, you analogized between a gay couple asking a Christian baker for wedding cake and a descendant of Hitler asking a Jewish baker for a cake with Hitler's image on it. Now, would you care to explain how that's not saying that the two situations are analogous?

Well, let's see, the two situations are analogous in that two involuntary connections would require a religious person to carry out an action which they would find offensive. They are analogous in nothing beyond that, but my goal was nothing more than to simply show that consistent logic would dictate that the Jewish baker would be unable to deny the duty, because it would be discrimination. Yet, we have a case here where what is technically defined as discrimination involves a little more than the Jewish baker just not liking people. That distinction seems to be under the radar for you. I'm not sure how else to say it.

Of course not. As I noted, there's a difference between "bake me a cake like you do for other people" and "bake me a special cake with a specific image on it".

Well, since you don't seem to know better, most wedding cakes typically have some theme that unites them with the couple getting married. I've seen things like a salt and pepper shaker (signifying that opposites attract) to other clever little symbols for the bride and groom. Thus, it's not as simple as baking a generic cake, something I am sure the gay couple themselves would probably tell you, and is evident from their filing of the grievance.

Genetic? What does that have to do with anything? Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, which is obviously non-genetic. Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.

I'm willing to accept that gay people are indeed born this way. That clear?

The point is, if you believe being gay or getting gay-married is wrong, then don't be gay or get gay-married. You can even speak out as much as you want about it (but you may not be shielded from the consequences of your speech). But when it comes to conducting a public business, what is the basis for discriminating against gays, but not other sinners? I've yet to see a decent argument explaining why baking cakes for the greedy or gluttonous is just fine, but doing the same for gays is a violation of your religious conscious.

Then you clearly don't live in a small town, because there's all sorts of stories of "that guy" or "that couple" getting services denied for various reasons. I'm also unaware of anyone asking for a gluttonous-specific wedding cake.

The fact that you have to resort to such straw man arguments and personal insults is a good indication of why your side keeps losing in court. It's all you have (well...and analogies to Nazis), and there's no sign at all of an objective, factual, rational argument for why preventing you from discriminating against gays in business is actually discrimination against you.

If you really had a decent argument, you'd have made it by now.

 

[Wormwood]

Hammerstone,

I think your point is a valid one. Whether the cake has an image on it or its an ordinary cake, the issue is still the same. Should a person be forced to have their business perform an act that violates their conscience or religious convictions? Clearly, there are some tensions here. If someone claims their religious beliefs prohibit them from feeding certain races, then that certainly becomes an issue of bigotry that shouldn't be tolerated. It's a good thing the "whites only" signs are no longer permitted (although I don't think these issues were motivated by religion...in fact, I think Christianity played a key role in dissolving such prejudices). The problem is our culture has joined sexual activity with ethnicity as though they are categorically the same issue. However, this is not the same issue. 1) Christians and Jews throughout history have seen homosexuality as an abomination before God. Claiming that we all sin and need forgiveness as a means of excusing or condoning sinful behaviors is explicitly condemned in the NT. 2) There is no viable scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. Even if there were, it is still a behavior and not a physical trait. Just because someone has a predisposition toward a particular behavior does not mean it is right.

Anyway, its clear which direction our culture is pushing. Our culture has gone from being one that permits free religious conviction and expression to one that seeks freedom from religious conviction and expression. Acts that were inconceivable 50 years ago are celebrated and even demanded. All along the way there will be people claiming the name of Christ and nodding their approval. However, God's Word is clear and it will be the final standard of judgment. There wont be any philosophical games and excuses on that day.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, let's see, the two situations are analogous in that two involuntary connections would require a religious person to carry out an action which they would find offensive. They are analogous in nothing beyond that,

There are all sorts of potential religious objection examples you could have pulled from, but for some reason you went straight to analogizing between a gay couple's wedding cake and Hitler. And you can't figure out why Christians are looking so bad on this issue? Seriously?

my goal was nothing more than to simply show that consistent logic would dictate that the Jewish baker would be unable to deny the duty, because it would be discrimination.

Nope. As explained, the two situations are not the same.

Well, since you don't seem to know better, most wedding cakes typically have some theme that unites them with the couple getting married. I've seen things like a salt and pepper shaker (signifying that opposites attract) to other clever little symbols for the bride and groom. Thus, it's not as simple as baking a generic cake, something I am sure the gay couple themselves would probably tell you, and is evident from their filing of the grievance.

Show a case where a gay couple requested a specific and unusual cake, at least as specific and unusual as your preferred analogy (a Hitler cake). Otherwise, you're only speaking to imaginary events.

I'm willing to accept that gay people are indeed born this way. That clear?

Ok.

Then you clearly don't live in a small town, because there's all sorts of stories of "that guy" or "that couple" getting services denied for various reasons. I'm also unaware of anyone asking for a gluttonous-specific wedding cake.

Unless you can offer a specific example of what you're talking about, there's nothing really to address here. As far as gluttons, you don't think there's an obvious epidemic of gluttony in the west? Do you think a large wedding cake for a small wedding would contribute to that sin, especially for a couple that is obese?

I think your point is a valid one. Whether the cake has an image on it or its an ordinary cake, the issue is still the same.

No, it's not. In all the cases in the media, the gay couple merely requested ordinary wedding cakes, no different than what they would bake for anyone else. What HS described is a very unusual and specific form of speech.

Should a person be forced to have their business perform an act that violates their conscience or religious convictions? Clearly, there are some tensions here. If someone claims their religious beliefs prohibit them from feeding certain races, then that certainly becomes an issue of bigotry that shouldn't be tolerated. It's a good thing the "whites only" signs are no longer permitted (although I don't think these issues were motivated by religion...in fact, I think Christianity played a key role in dissolving such prejudices).

Actually, if you read up on the subject, southern US racists frequently cited their religion as justification for Jim Crow laws. Clearly you think that's wrong and shouldn't be permitted in our society, so why should gays be subjected to the same treatment?

The problem is our culture has joined sexual activity with ethnicity as though they are categorically the same issue.

Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. Should that be changed?

However, this is not the same issue. 1) Christians and Jews throughout history have seen homosexuality as an abomination before God. Claiming that we all sin and need forgiveness as a means of excusing or condoning sinful behaviors is explicitly condemned in the NT. 2) There is no viable scientific proof that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. Even if there were, it is still a behavior and not a physical trait. Just because someone has a predisposition toward a particular behavior does not mean it is right.

Then again, don't be gay or get gay-married. But when it comes to how the larger society functions and business practices there are different standards.

Anyway, its clear which direction our culture is pushing. Our culture has gone from being one that permits free religious conviction and expression to one that seeks freedom from religious conviction and expression. Acts that were inconceivable 50 years ago are celebrated and even demanded. All along the way there will be people claiming the name of Christ and nodding their approval. However, God's Word is clear and it will be the final standard of judgment. There wont be any philosophical games and excuses on that day.

Everyone is still free to express their religious beliefs and have their religious convictions.

 

[Angelina]

I think a good idea would be that the Christian Cake store should hire a non-Christian baker as well...Then when a gay couple wants them to bake a cake for their wedding ~ well, they can! ^_^ No laws being breached and the baker can't be sued for not accommodating their request...JMHO

 

[River Jordan]

I think a good idea would be that the Christian Cake store should hire a non-Christian baker as well...Then when a gay couple wants them to bake a cake for their wedding ~ well, they can! ^_^ No laws being breached and the baker can't be sued for not accommodating their request...JMHO

That is extremely reasonable. Well done!

 

[StanJ]

I think a good idea would be that the Christian Cake store should hire a non-Christian baker as well...Then when a gay couple wants them to bake a cake for their wedding ~ well, they can! ^_^ No laws being breached and the baker can't be sued for not accommodating their request...JMHO

Such a wise woman!

 

[Wormwood]

I think a good idea would be that the Christian Cake store should hire a non-Christian baker as well...Then when a gay couple wants them to bake a cake for their wedding ~ well, they can! ^_^ No laws being breached and the baker can't be sued for not accommodating their request...JMHO

Perhaps, but perhaps the little mom & pop bakeries cannot afford to hire additional help, specifically non-Christian help for the purpose of such random events. Then they would be sued for specifically seeking a "non-Christian" to work for them and omitting Christians from applying. Its a no-win situation for mom & pop and their little business.

Again, I think the error here is assuming that one's sexual behavior is the same as a physical trait. It simply is not. Based on the argumentation above, pastors will soon be forced to perform gay marriages. When gay marriage is universally accepted by law (which will come soon), pastors will no longer have the "right" to not perform this act. According to the above arguments, it would be the same as refusing to marry a couple of another race. Never mind the fact that this behavior is specifically condemned multiple times in Scripture and has been viewed as an abomination among Christians and Jews throughout their entire known history. But hey, we wouldn't want to offend the American "business" laws (last I checked, American "business" laws were subject to individual liberty, and that liberty includes the freedom to not participate in acts that are explicitly listed in the Bible as immoral and offensive to God). So morality and freedom don't apply when it comes to "business?" Typical secularism posing itself as "non-religious" to force people to abandon conscience and do things they feel is immoral. This "non-religious" worldview sure seems to force people out of their religious convictions...

 

[HammerStone]

There are all sorts of potential religious objection examples you could have pulled from, but for some reason you went straight to analogizing between a gay couple's wedding cake and Hitler. And you can't figure out why Christians are looking so bad on this issue? Seriously?

Perhaps I'm looking for the most heinous thing your line of logic would compel? I mean that's pretty typical argument technique. It's called reductio ad absurdum. I'm pretty certain the technique has been employed once or twice before in history and has some precedent in debate. That said, you're the one making the jump on what I said, which shows you're not really here to debate, you're here to shut down with silly assertions to create your necessary boogeymen.

Show a case where a gay couple requested a specific and unusual cake, at least as specific and unusual as your preferred analogy (a Hitler cake). Otherwise, you're only speaking to imaginary events.

We did. It's this cake...

Unless you can offer a specific example of what you're talking about, there's nothing really to address here. As far as gluttons, you don't think there's an obvious epidemic of gluttony in the west? Do you think a large wedding cake for a small wedding would contribute to that sin, especially for a couple that is obese?

Apples to oranges.