Hope For LGBT

[pom2014]

Why hire a non Christian baker when you can just bake the cake like Jesus would have because it's just a bloody cake.

Do the Christian bakers not bake for adulterers? How about illegal remarriage? How about fornicators? Blasphemers?

If they are not withholding from all sinners they are hypocrites.

Better yet send the gays to me. I'll bake it. One day I hope that I'm by the road dying and some gay people rescue me, because I don't want these levitical Jews posing as Christians to touch me.

 

[River Jordan]

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...

I put these sorts of predictions in the same category as "gay marriage will destroy western civilization".....paranoid hyperbole.

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.

Like I said, if you want to equate a gay couple's wedding cake with a Hitler cake, go ahead. But don't be baffled at why society comes away with a bad impression of you and Christianity.

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.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm debating your arguments as you've presented them.

We did. It's this cake...

What cake?

Apples to oranges.

Not at all. Both gluttony and homosexuality are sins, and according to the reasoning of these Christian business owners it is a violation of their religious beliefs for them to support sin. Yet the only sin we ever hear Christian businesses taking a stand on is gay marriage. Greed and gluttony? No problem. A gay couple? Well that's worth ruining my family over!

 

[LightMessenger]

That is extremely reasonable. Well done!

I concur with that idea of Angelina's and your approval of it, River. That would appear to solve the problem!

 

[River Jordan]

If they are not withholding from all sinners they are hypocrites.

 

[Wormwood]

pom2014,

Your argument is ridiculous.

Hey, while you're baking cakes for gay weddings, why don't you open a gun shop to sell weapons to those looking to commit crimes? After all, Jesus loved criminals too. How dare those Pharisaical legalists prohibit selling guns to criminals! Just who do they think they are? And if you reject the idea of selling weapons to felons or the mentally ill, then you are nothing but a wicked, legalistic bigot. Is that what you are saying? Im just trying to figure out where we draw these lines between those who act like Jesus and the Pharisees.

I guess ministers should all be performing gay marriages too. After all, everyone who gets married is a "sinner." If we are going to refuse one sinner, I guess we have to refuse them all and stop performing marriages altogether, right? I suppose all doctors should be performing abortions? I mean, as you said, if we are going to not "treat" one sinner, we have to reject them all. How dare a doctor refuse to perform an abortion since he is more than willing to provide medical treatment for a glutton! This tired argument of "we are all sinners" is completely missing the point. Its not a matter of whether or not the person is a sinner, as you well know.

“If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” (1 John 1:6, ESV)

 

[River Jordan]

So according to some Christians, a gay couple wanting a cake is analogous to a Hitler lover, a murder, and the criminally insane.

Gee....can't imagine why Christianity is taking such a public beating over this issue.

 

[Wormwood]

I think your problem is with the Bible, not Christians. No one should have to facilitate something that is explicitly condemned in the Bible, whether in a church building or their place of business. That is what "freedom" is supposed to mean.

 

[River Jordan]

I think your problem is with the Bible, not Christians.

Nope, it's the hypocrisy of some Christians that I have a problem with.

No one should have to facilitate something that is explicitly condemned in the Bible, whether in a church building or their place of business. That is what "freedom" is supposed to mean.

Christian business owners do all the time, every day. Let's take it up a notch and focus not just on what scripture says, but what Jesus said. Jesus didn't say a single thing about homosexuality, but he did say a few things about the love of money. Yet not once have we seen a case where a Christian business refuses to serve a very wealthy person or cater an extravagant event. And it's not like we live in a time when very greedy people are rare either. Yet from the rhetoric from some Christians, if you didn't know any better you'd swear Jesus spoke mostly against homosexuality and never uttered a word against the love of mammon.

Like I said....serve the greedy and gluttonous? No problem! Serve a gay couple? That's a violation of my religious freedom!!!11!!

Very hypocritical.

 

[Wormwood]

Well considering I believe the Bible to be "God-breathed," and that Jesus is the incarnate God, I disagree with you that Jesus did not speak about homosexuality. Jesus did not condemn people for being wealthy. He rebuked people for the "love of money." A person can have a lot of money and not love it. In fact, if you are writing on a computer, you are in the top 5-10% of the wealthy in the world. Fortunately, we are not judged solely on our possessions, or both of us would likely be in trouble.

It's one thing to say "No" to someone announcing they want to do something you believe to be wrong and have you participate in it (such as extorting money from the poor), and another thing to infer that someone is greedy because they drive a nice car. I think Jesus would have us take a stand on the first and not engage in the second, myself.

 

[River Jordan]

Well considering I believe the Bible to be "God-breathed," and that Jesus is the incarnate God, I disagree with you that Jesus did not speak about homosexuality.

Therefore everything in the Bible is "what Jesus said"? When Moses spoke, that was actually Jesus?

Jesus did not condemn people for being wealthy. He rebuked people for the "love of money." A person can have a lot of money and not love it. In fact, if you are writing on a computer, you are in the top 5-10% of the wealthy in the world. Fortunately, we are not judged solely on our possessions, or both of us would likely be in trouble.

We are specifically told that we cannot serve both God and money, to be content with what we have, that money is the root of many evils, not to love the things of this world, God has chosen the poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom, not to store up treasures on earth, it's very difficult to be wealthy and enter the Kingdom of God, etc..

Yet not once have we ever seen a Christian business owner refuse service to a lover of money. Not once.

It's one thing to say "No" to someone announcing they want to do something you believe to be wrong and have you participate in it (such as extorting money from the poor), and another thing to infer that someone is greedy because they drive a nice car. I think Jesus would have us take a stand on the first and not engage in the second, myself.

You don't think there are ridiculously extravagant weddings? You don't think any Christian has ever been asked to cater, or provide flowers and/or cakes for such a wedding? Sheesh....

10 Situations Where Christian Bakers Should Refuse To Bake Wedding Cakes

:lol:

 

[HammerStone]

Therefore everything in the Bible is "what Jesus said"? When Moses spoke, that was actually Jesus?

Actually, we have a little better insight on this. Scot McKnight, himself no raving conservative, did an excellent blog post on the very subject of Jesus speaking to homosexuality. He cited William R. Loader who is fairly widely considered one of the foremost experts on the subject. What makes it all the more interesting, is that he's progressive on the issue yet believes the Bible is likely against gay marriage. Thus, there is a logical case to be made that Jesus did speak to this, and his audience would have made the connection to Leviticus 18. He clearly states that this is not a certainty, but remains likely.

Taken in corroboration of the historical position of the church, then this makes sense and is consistent.

Yet not once have we ever seen a Christian business owner refuse service to a lover of money. Not once.

You have no proof of this, number one because there would be no media broadcast of this event. Number two, the lover of money would have no means of grievance. I'll give you credit though, always referring to those blanket statements that no one can prove or disprove is effective!

So according to some Christians, a gay couple wanting a cake is analogous to a Hitler lover, a murder, and the criminally insane.

Enough repetition and it comes true in your own mind, perhaps?

 

[River Jordan]

Actually, we have a little better insight on this. Scot McKnight, himself no raving conservative, did an excellent blog post on the very subject of Jesus speaking to homosexuality. He cited William R. Loader who is fairly widely considered one of the foremost experts on the subject. What makes it all the more interesting, is that he's progressive on the issue yet believes the Bible is likely against gay marriage. Thus, there is a logical case to be made that Jesus did speak to this, and his audience would have made the connection to Leviticus 18. He clearly states that this is not a certainty, but remains likely.

Taken in corroboration of the historical position of the church, then this makes sense and is consistent.

First, IMO those are pretty weak arguments. But regardless, I'm not arguing that homosexuality isn't a sin. The question is, why is it the only sin worthy of ruining one's business and family over?

You have no proof of this, number one because there would be no media broadcast of this event. Number two, the lover of money would have no means of grievance. I'll give you credit though, always referring to those blanket statements that no one can prove or disprove is effective!

Pick any other sin you like and show examples of Christian business owners refusing service over it.

Enough repetition and it comes true in your own mind, perhaps?

Um....you guys are the ones analogizing between Hitler lovers, murderers, the criminally insane, and gays. If you don't like the impression it gives of you, maybe you should pick a less hateful analogy? <_<

 

[aspen]

Homosexuals have the same hope as the rest of us; that they will be one day transformed by God into true lovers, with the ability to be vulnerable enough to give and receive love perfectly. Unfortunately, just like the rest of us, homosexuals are settling for legal recognition. Not saying that legal rights are unimportant, but receiving legal recognition from the world is not going to provide anyone sanctification. It reminds me of the scarecrow, tinman, and lion trying to get wisdom, emotional maturity and courage from the government of oz - all you end up with is a piece of paper.

Unfortunately, they have been rejected by God's people for so long, government recognition seems valuable - shame on us.

 

[River Jordan]

Here's a very good illustration of the different legal principals between "bake me a wedding cake" and "bake me a Hitler cake".

Court Upholds Right of Christian Company Not to Print T-Shirts With ‘Gay Pride’ Messages

LEXINGTON, Ky. – In the first decision of its kind upholding the rights of a Christian business, an appeals court has ruled that a Christian t-shirt company did not violate the law when it declined to print t-shirts for a local “gay pride” event.

As previously reported, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington (GLSO) had wanted the company Hand On Originals–a company that identifies as “Christian outfitters” on the home page of its website–to print t-shirts for the 2012 Lexington Gay Pride Festival. When manager Blaine Adamson declined the order due to the company’s biblical convictions, GLSO filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Human Rights Commission...

...On Monday, the circuit court reversed Munson’s ruling, noting that the company regularly does business with homosexuals, and so the decision not to print the shirts was not based on any person’s sexuality, but rather the message that the company would be forced to convey...

...The court noted that from 2010-2012 Hands on Originals declined 13 orders from various groups because of the message that was to be printed.

“Those print orders that were refused by HOO included shirts promoting a strip club, pens promoting a sexually explicit video and shirts containing a violence-related message,” it explained. “There is further evidence in the Commission record that it is standard practice within the promotional printing industry to decline to print materials containing messages that the owners do not want to support.”

I agree with this ruling. It's one thing to request a generic product no different than anyone else's, but it's something entirely different to request a product with specific speech on it.

 

[Wormwood]

Unfortunately, they have been rejected by God's people for so long, government recognition seems valuable - shame on us.

With all due respect, I don't feel any shame for accepting the Bible as God's Word and its teaching on this area as a reflection of God's heart. If the teaching of the Bible on this issue really is God's view, then to accept, normalize and legitimize behaviors that lead people into darkness and away from his truth, grace and eternal life, should be the actions that should leave us ashamed.

As a side note, I read this on the issue with the owner of the bakery and his conversation with the gay couple:

The controversy started in 2012 when a gay couple asked Phillips to make their wedding cake. Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.

Furthermore, it's important to note that gay marriage is illegal in Colorado!

 

[justaname]

The interesting case is undercover journalists went to Muslim bakeries to have them make a "gay wedding cake". The muslim baker denied to make the cake, yet the gay rights activists were silent.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/

 

[StanJ]

The interesting case is undercover journalists went to Muslim bakeries to have them make a "gay wedding cake". The muslim baker denied to make the cake, yet the gay rights activists were silent.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/

This does not surprise me at all and being gay in a Muslim country controlled by Sharia law is a death sentence yet here they know they can equivocate until the cows come home and pick up a few stragglers.

 

[River Jordan]

The interesting case is undercover journalists went to Muslim bakeries to have them make a "gay wedding cake". The muslim baker denied to make the cake, yet the gay rights activists were silent.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/

Same mistake, over and over and over....he didn't ask for an ordinary wedding cake, he asked for a cake with specific writing on it. That's legally different.

 

[justaname]

Same mistake, over and over and over....he didn't ask for an ordinary wedding cake, he asked for a cake with specific writing on it. That's legally different.

I may have missed something. I do not know of bakers that deny ordinary cakes to anyone.

 

[River Jordan]

That's what happened in the cases in Oregon and Washington State that have been in the media. The gay couples merely requested a standard wedding cake with no writing on it (most wedding cakes don't have writing) and the Christian bakers refused.