Hope For LGBT

[pom2014]

I don't care if the cake said I love toast, so long as it wasn't slanderous or making an illegal statement, unless in parody (steal this cake would be funny); there is no biblical reason to deny baking a cake solely based on being gay.

If that were the case every single gay person on the planet would be dead because God would make it impossible for them to eat.

But ask yourself does God do that?

If your answer is no he does not, then ask yourself next is God in you?

If you said no he doesn't withhold food from gays and you said yes God is in me, why in creation aren't you in line step with God?

 

[Wormwood]

pom2014,

Again, you are using straw man arguments. No one is saying not to feed or clothe a gay person. We are questioning whether or not a baker has to make a "wedding cake" specifically for a gay wedding. As I pointed out, the baker said he would make the couple anything they wanted except for a "wedding cake" because he did not feel he could use his talents for such an event that was contrary to his faith. In my mind, its no different than selling ammo. Sure, sell ammo to anyone. However, if the person informs you that they plan on using the ammunition for something that is both illegal in that state (gay marriage is illegal in Colorado) and contrary to the clear moral teaching of the Bible (such as a robbery), I do not blame the merchant for denying the customer. Try to follow the discussion here a bit.

 

[LightMessenger]

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


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.

You are so right on that, River! But each time those on the other side speak, the Anti-Love side, they speak only with bigotry on their mind not love as Jesus would have them do. They have just proven, however, that they are as far away from Jesus in thought, word, and deed as Pluto is from the Sun. Their preference is to bear down hard on others they dislike while excusing their own sins and thinking they are doing fine by committing them since they never come down hard on themselves have you noticed? After all, that is the apparent message they are sending out otherwise they would FIRST be looking at their own sins and no doubt with so many of them they would not have any time left to look at anyone else and their sins.

And another thing. Their hypocrisy completely excuses so-called "Christian" women who commit Abortions and who Divorce, never once raising a stink about that. So you are quite correct in labeling them hypocrites which they are, unequivocally.

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." -- MATTHEW 7:5 KJV​

pom2014,

Again, you are using straw man arguments. No one is saying not to feed or clothe a gay person. We are questioning whether or not a baker has to make a "wedding cake" specifically for a gay wedding. As I pointed out, the baker said he would make the couple anything they wanted except for a "wedding cake" because he did not feel he could use his talents for such an event that was contrary to his faith. In my mind, its no different than selling ammo. Sure, sell ammo to anyone. However, if the person informs you that they plan on using the ammunition for something that is both illegal in that state (gay marriage is illegal in Colorado) and contrary to the clear moral teaching of the Bible (such as a robbery), I do not blame the merchant for denying the customer. Try to follow the discussion here a bit.

Wormwood, Quite obviously if the baker refused to bake a cake for the Gay couple they should likewise be cognizant of the fact that they are first and foremost a business, not a church. Therefore, the answer quite obviously is to have other bakers there who do not feel as they do who WILL bake the cake for Gay couples. That would solve the problem without they personally becoming involved and embroiled in the matter. That would keep everyone happy and they would not have to lose any business due to boycotts, lawsuits, etc. and would not be seen as being so intolerant. Hire neutral bakers and when a Gay couple walks in and asks for a Gay wedding cake have that neutral baker bake it for them. That's all there is to it. Let's avoid all of this other drama already.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Seeing as how it isn't the purpose of the OP to condemn LGBT, but to direct
them to safety; I'm going to take a moment to reiterate a couple of things
for the benefit of any who might be visiting today.
_____________________________

Eternal life is often mistaken for immortality. The two are not one and the
same. Immortality defines the nature of a superhuman body impervious to
death and putrefaction; and seeing as how Christ's believing followers die
every day around clock, then it's obvious that they don't have immortality
yet; and according to Rom 8:23-25 and 1Cor 15:35-58 his believing
followers won't have immortality till some time in the future.

Eternal life, on the other hand, is neither physical nor visible: it defines the
nature of God-- the divine being who never sins, who cannot sin, and who
cannot be tempted to sin. The possibility of obtaining God's sinless
perfection is directly associated with Christ's crucifixion as per John 3:14-16.
Note that I didn't say attain, I said obtain; there's a difference.

Also, LGBT are not the worst of sinners. Many others are billed right along
with them at Rom 1:26-32 and 1Cor 6:9-10.

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

 

[justaname]

As a business owner myself in the service business, I have serviced homosexual clients without any concern. I will say my business is in the construction field, so maybe some might view it differently. Yet I do not see anything wrong with baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. Honestly even if it had words on it, but that is just my take. As Paul says, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" I am confident Paul made sails that pagans used.

Now if something grotesque or obscene is requested I can see a reason to deny service, as I would in my line of business also. Here personal integrity is called to be compromised. And if a pastor or priest is requested to preform a wedding service, I believe that to be a completely different matter. Here the priest or pastor should be able to decline.

 

[StanJ]

As a business owner myself in the service business, I have serviced homosexual clients without any concern. I will say my business is in the construction field, so maybe some might view it differently. Yet I do not see anything wrong with baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. Honestly even if it had words on it, but that is just my take. As Paul says, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" I am confident Paul made sails that pagans used.

Now if something grotesque or obscene is requested I can see a reason to deny service, as I would in my line of business also. Here personal integrity is called to be compromised. And if a pastor or priest is requested to preform a wedding service, I believe that to be a completely different matter. Here the priest or pastor should be able to decline.

Of course you're exactly right, but many have voiced that opinion here and the same few deny it's truth and relevance.

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood, Quite obviously if the baker refused to bake a cake for the Gay couple they should likewise be cognizant of the fact that they are first and foremost a business, not a church. Therefore, the answer quite obviously is to have other bakers there who do not feel as they do who WILL bake the cake for Gay couples. That would solve the problem without they personally becoming involved and embroiled in the matter. That would keep everyone happy and they would not have to lose any business due to boycotts, lawsuits, etc. and would not be seen as being so intolerant. Hire neutral bakers and when a Gay couple walks in and asks for a Gay wedding cake have that neutral baker bake it for them. That's all there is to it. Let's avoid all of this other drama already.

Messenger,

Only in a secular culture would one distinquish their Christian lives inside the church from their conduct outside the church. The baker was not "judging" the gay couple. He was refusing to bake a "wedding cake" for a gay wedding. It would be no different from a Christian photographer refusing to do a photo shoot of pornographic or indecent subject matters. The baker never said they couldn't have a gay wedding. He just said he wouldn't participate in it. Why is it that this is so hard to comprehend? Someone is a Pharisee for not wanting to participate in something they think is wrong? I guess, according to your statements, Christians should not say anything about sin and participate in it willingly lest they come across as hypocritical. Grace as a means to sin....I think Paul said such views would lead to condemnation.

Your solution is ridiculous. So they have to hire "non-Christian" help just for these kinds of occasions? It's a family owned business, and I doubt they have the extra cash to hire a non-Christian just for the off chance someone would want them to bake a gay couple's wedding cake. Also, it would be discriminatory to put out an ad for a specifically non-Christian baker in order to fill such a position. Maybe if you would offer them 30,000 a year, they would be happy to do so...but otherwise, Im sure they would rather not spend such money for the occasional gay couple and their wedding cake....especially since gay weddings are illegal in Colorado. John the Baptist must have been a horrible person in your mind to condemn Herod the Great for his sexual immorality publicly. I think not.

As a business owner myself in the service business, I have serviced homosexual clients without any concern. I will say my business is in the construction field, so maybe some might view it differently. Yet I do not see anything wrong with baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. Honestly even if it had words on it, but that is just my take. As Paul says, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" I am confident Paul made sails that pagans used.

justaname,

If you were a photographer, would you do a photo shoot for Playboy magazine? I mean, Hugh Hephner is just looking for a photographer and wants to hire you. Its just a business proposal and they are just pictures. Its not like you are posing nude. Who are you to judge Hugh and his models?

Again, the baker is not judging anyone. He is just choosing not to have his business participate in both an illegal and immoral activity. He never told the gay couple they were going to hell. He never said he wouldn't bake for them because they were gay. There is nothing here remotely discriminatory or judgmental in this story. He didnt want to participate in an immoral act, and I think he was right for not violating his faith and his conscience. After all, anything done without faith is "sin." The man chose not to sin by violating his faith and said he would bake anything else they wanted.

 

[justaname]

Wormwood,

I see this more as I am a photographer and I did a shoot for an ad. Then Hugh used this ad in his magazine. No I don't have a problem.

Again the baker is not performing the wedding, nor is he/she condoning homosexual activity. The baker is simply doing their job.

Should Walmart be able to deny the sale of socks used in gay weddings? Should the reception hall be able to put a sign outside stating "No Gay Weddings"? Should the jeweler deny rings used for gay weddings?

The idea the baker would bake any other cake is hypocritical. To the baker, a wedding cake is just another cake.

What if a gay man wants to buy a wedding cake for his straight sister's wedding?

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Rom 1:18-32 is a very popular weapon in common use for bashing LGBT.
But the problem with that is: the passage doesn't single anyone out. It is, in
fact, an indictment against the entire human race. The pronouns "them" and
"they" and "themselves" and "their" used throughout refers to the race as a
corporate body; sort of like Nike or General Motors.

So if we're going to use that passage to bash LGBT, then in fairness, we
should be using it to bash all the rest of the sinners billed in there too; and it
is quite an extensive billing-- extensive enough that I'm pretty sure
everyone can find themselves bashed in there somewhere.

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

 

[LightMessenger]

Wormwood,

I see this more as I am a photographer and I did a shoot for an ad. Then Hugh used this ad in his magazine. No I don't have a problem.

Again the baker is not performing the wedding, nor is he/she condoning homosexual activity. The baker is simply doing their job.

Should Walmart be able to deny the sale of socks used in gay weddings? Should the reception hall be able to put a sign outside stating "No Gay Weddings"? Should the jeweler deny rings used for gay weddings?

The idea the baker would bake any other cake is hypocritical. To the baker, a wedding cake is just another cake.

What if a gay man wants to buy a wedding cake for his straight sister's wedding?

You are exactly right in what you are saying! KUDOS to you! However, bigotry and prejudice is what many are using under the guise of "Religious freedom" which is very wrong to do. That's the bottom line. God wants people to love others not to discriminate against them as He is against that. Thank you, JAN, for your helpful posting and let's hope all will integrate that with their way of thinking as should be.

View attachment 240​

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

I see this more as I am a photographer and I did a shoot for an ad. Then Hugh used this ad in his magazine. No I don't have a problem.

Again the baker is not performing the wedding, nor is he/she condoning homosexual activity. The baker is simply doing their job.

Should Walmart be able to deny the sale of socks used in gay weddings? Should the reception hall be able to put a sign outside stating "No Gay Weddings"? Should the jeweler deny rings used for gay weddings?

The idea the baker would bake any other cake is hypocritical. To the baker, a wedding cake is just another cake.

What if a gay man wants to buy a wedding cake for his straight sister's wedding?

Again, I think you are missing my point. You took a photo for an ad that was used in an inappropriate magazine. That is different than you taking the inappropriate photos. So let me ask you, would you take photos of naked people for Playboy magazine? If not, why not? You aren't posing naked. You are simply doing your job, clicking a camera button.

The difference is that someone is asking you to use your talents specifically for a sinful act. In this way, you are becoming a partaker in that act.

The baker in this instance was not asked to bake a simple cake. He was not asked to bake a wedding cake. He was specifically asked to bake a wedding cake for this gay couple's wedding. I'm sure if the gentleman had just come in and said, "I would like a wedding cake" there would have been no issue. Just like Wal Mart sells products and has no knowledge of whether or not those products will be used for good or evil. They don't know, and clearly its not their business to know.

The fact that the gay couple came in together and specifically asked for a wedding cake for their gay wedding is the issue. Thus, the baker had been informed that he was being asked to use his talent for something he felt was sinful. At this point, the baker could not, in good conscience, go through with the act. I really see this as no different from someone asking you to specifically lend your talents for work in a pornographic magazine. Its one thing for you to do work and unknowingly have your work end up in a pornographic magazine. Its another for someone to have you do your work specifically for the pornographic magazine. In the same way, if you sell knives, and the customer informs you that he is going to use the knife to kill someone, you should have the right to deny the customer service. IF the customer does not say their intent for the knife, then the business owner should never deny a customer based on color, background, nationality, etc. But if they specifically say they are going to use it for something indecent or unlawful, I think any business owner should have the right to deny service at that point.

So let me ask you directly, If someone asks you to take pictures that you feel are sinful or will knowingly be used for something inappropriate, should you, as a business owner, have the right to deny them their request? I think you should. If you say "No" then I think you are really opening Pandora's box and freedom is all but lost. I mean, at what point does the buisness owner become a slave to the customer? As a business owner, you have to do whatever a person wants no matter how vile or inappropriate? Do you really believe that telling Hugh Hephner that you wont take photos of naked women for him is an act of "judgment' on him or is hypocritical since you have sinned? I find such arguments absolutely ludicrous. A person should not be forced to do something they believe is evil. As the Apostles said, "Judge for yourselves whether we should listen to man rather than God." Again, there is a difference between denying a person service because they are gay and using your talents or business to support an act that is unlawful and/or sinful (in this case it was both). The baker was not "discriminating" or "bigotry" the gay couple as he said he would bake for them. He just didn't want to be a participant in the gay wedding that they informed him of.

Messenger,

You are guilty of the very hate you are claiming to denounce. You're are judging and condemning a man for acting according to his conscience and faith in Christ. You should be ashamed of yourself. God is his judge, not you. Who put you in a place to pronounce such sentences on this man who is trying to honor God with his life and business? No one should be forced to act in a way that they feel is dishonoring to God. Even if the baker is wrong, he will answer to God and we should all be grateful for people who actually live out their faith, even if we happen to think they are misguided at times. Do you not know that Jephthah was commended for his faith? The fact that you are more apt to defend and celebrate this gay couple rather than a man who is trying to do the right thing before God is quite telling.

 

[justaname]

Wormwood,

Your analogy fails. In a previous post I stated, "Now if something grotesque or obscene is requested I can see a reason to deny service, as I would in my line of business also." In this quote I can even add sinful, yet I see nothing sinful in baking or eating a cake. The baker is not partaking in any type of sinful act that compromises his/her integrity by baking a cake. The wedding is not about the cake and the eating of the cake is not sinful in any way (except maybe in the case of gluttony). Which makes me wonder if the same baker would not sell a cake to an obese person who said they were going to eat the whole thing.

A photographer taking pornographic photos, for the use of pornography is a completely different condition or situation.

Again what you state is hypocritical, similar to the don't ask don't tell policy in the armed service. You are saying it is ok as long as I can turn a blind eye to the situation. I do comprehend the situation if the service or product provided is used for the purpose of the sinful act itself, but in this case it is not. Gun dealers should deny the sale of guns to customers who express their desire to commit crimes with the gun, yet what sin or crime will you commit by eating a cake?

 

[pom2014]

The problem becomes if we project our own version of morals on people we are not loving them as we would love ourselves.

Unless you are willing to love suffering from the oppression of prejudice, you should not do that to others.

So I ask all of you, would you LOVE and feel love to be refused service because of who you are?

If you say no think about why you should wish it on another.

If you say yes then you're either a liar or mentally ill. Or both.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
If somebody's conduct is indicted anywhere in the list of behaviors that Paul
posted in Rom 1:18-32, then the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against the somebody just as much as against LGBT because the wrath is
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness; not just some ungodliness and
unrighteousness. In point of fact, the pronoun "they" in the complaint below
accuses a whole lots more people than just LGBT.

†. Rom 1:28-32 . . Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to
retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do
what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of
wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.

. . .They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of
doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless,
heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those
who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very
things but also approve of those who practice them.

Paul rested his case with these closing remarks:

†. Rom 2:1-4 . . You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on
someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are
condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is
based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet
do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

In other words: when a portion of Rom 1:18-32 is used to condemn LGBT,
any portion at all; the user condemns himself because "every kind" of
wickedness is depraved; not just certain kinds of wickedness.

It's interesting how human nature tends to grade evil on a curve; for
example: note that deceit is listed in Rom 1:28-32. Well; let me ask
everybody something. Are you 100% honest with your friends, relatives, and
associates? I'm guessing that you aren't. There are times when you dare not
reveal what you're really thinking. Well; according to the indictment, your
dishonesty is just as depraved as the conduct of LGBT.

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

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

Your analogy fails. In a previous post I stated, "Now if something grotesque or obscene is requested I can see a reason to deny service, as I would in my line of business also." In this quote I can even add sinful, yet I see nothing sinful in baking or eating a cake. The baker is not partaking in any type of sinful act that compromises his/her integrity by baking a cake. The wedding is not about the cake and the eating of the cake is not sinful in any way (except maybe in the case of gluttony). Which makes me wonder if the same baker would not sell a cake to an obese person who said they were going to eat the whole thing.

A photographer taking pornographic photos, for the use of pornography is a completely different condition or situation.

Again what you state is hypocritical, similar to the don't ask don't tell policy in the armed service. You are saying it is ok as long as I can turn a blind eye to the situation. I do comprehend the situation if the service or product provided is used for the purpose of the sinful act itself, but in this case it is not. Gun dealers should deny the sale of guns to customers who express their desire to commit crimes with the gun, yet what sin or crime will you commit by eating a cake?

I don't know how the analogy fails. Should a recording artist be forced to record a record for a Satanic band? Where do we draw the lines? If the baker thinks baking a gay wedding cake is "grotesque or obscene" then who are you or I to tell them its not? Maybe the person who wants pictures of naked women from your photography shop thinks there is nothing "grotesque or obscene?" Should a court have the right to decide for you what your conscience will allow? You cant form laws based on personal judgment calls. Either someone has the freedom to not violate their faith or they do not.

I'm not saying its okay as long as I can turn a blind eye. I am saying the business man or woman has the right to refuse service if they are directly informed that their services are being used in an unlawful way or a way that would violate their conscience. Should a wedding planner have the right to refuse to plan the gay couple's wedding? What sin is committed by planning a wedding? Should a recorder have the right to not record a Satanic group's music? What sin is committed by recording the music? Again, I think you are playing fast and loose with the rationale here and using your personal judgment calls as a means to dictate what is right or wrong. We should be looking at the legal principles that provide people with the freedom to not violate their own conscience rather than simply not violating your personal standards. The baker should have the right to not violate his conscience, whether or not it violates yours.

 

[River Jordan]

Again, many here seem to think of this only in terms of wedding cakes, but the same argument can be made by a Christian banker, landlord, doctor, etc. If you allow Christian bakers to say "I won't make cakes for gay weddings because it violates my religious conscience", then you also have to allow Christian bankers to say "I won't give home loans to gay couples", Christian doctors to say "I won't treat gays", Christian landlords to say "I won't rent to gays", and so on.

Is that really what we want the face of our faith to be?

 

[Webers_Home]

-

Is that really what we want the face of our faith to be?

I can't speak for the face of "our" faith but I can speak for the face of mine.
I want it to be hope for LGBT as per the divine nature about which Peter
wrote.

"He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that
by them you might become partakers of the divine nature." (2Pet 1:4)

The divine nature is the nature of God: who does not sin, cannot sin, nor be
tempted to sin. In other words; my faith offers LGBT the inherent character,
and the basic constitution, of God; viz: His sinless perfection.

If some of you people don't stop fixating on politics and start taking an
interest in obtaining the divine nature while there's time to do so, you are
going to end up hearing Christ say something like this:

"I assure you, LGBT will get into the Kingdom of God before you do."

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

 

[Wormwood]

River, you clearly aren't following the discussion. No one is saying that.

 

[Doug_E_Fresh]

You're wasting your time and stressing out for no gain. Let it go.

 

[LightMessenger]

Wormwood,

Your analogy fails. In a previous post I stated, "Now if something grotesque or obscene is requested I can see a reason to deny service, as I would in my line of business also." In this quote I can even add sinful, yet I see nothing sinful in baking or eating a cake. The baker is not partaking in any type of sinful act that compromises his/her integrity by baking a cake. The wedding is not about the cake and the eating of the cake is not sinful in any way (except maybe in the case of gluttony). Which makes me wonder if the same baker would not sell a cake to an obese person who said they were going to eat the whole thing.

A photographer taking pornographic photos, for the use of pornography is a completely different condition or situation.

Again what you state is hypocritical, similar to the don't ask don't tell policy in the armed service. You are saying it is ok as long as I can turn a blind eye to the situation. I do comprehend the situation if the service or product provided is used for the purpose of the sinful act itself, but in this case it is not. Gun dealers should deny the sale of guns to customers who express their desire to commit crimes with the gun, yet what sin or crime will you commit by eating a cake?

Justaname, if only Wormwood and others had your degree of comprehension to be able to discern between hate plus bigotry and love plus compassion it would be wonderful. He is quick to denounce others with what he perceives they are saying which is, at least in my case, all in keeping with Jesus' word to Love One Another Unconditionally. He still has not got it that if there is any judging to be done it is not to be done by him or others but by God and God alone. One day he will hopefully get it.

Again, many here seem to think of this only in terms of wedding cakes, but the same argument can be made by a Christian banker, landlord, doctor, etc. If you allow Christian bakers to say "I won't make cakes for gay weddings because it violates my religious conscience", then you also have to allow Christian bankers to say "I won't give home loans to gay couples", Christian doctors to say "I won't treat gays", Christian landlords to say "I won't rent to gays", and so on.

Is that really what we want the face of our faith to be?

River, apparently it is to the radical right-wingers.They have an obvious agenda comprised of hate and condemnation for those they do not care to understand. That is very bad. They are no longer capable of hearing Jesus when He tells them to LOVE UNCONDITIONALLY. They can't or they won't. And of course they would love for those aforementioned groups you listed to be able to discriminate against Gay and Lesbian couples who patronize them, especially when they come in as a married couple. Absolutely! They can say that they don't but they do and what they have written here for this length of time well proves that and that is why it is so sad because it makes Jesus sad to see that so-called "Christians" can have so much prejudice, antipathy, and intolerance in their heart that their world revolves completely and solely on discriminating against their fellow men and women whom they see as being different from them. That unfortunately is only serving to drive the multitudes of people AWAY from the church.

View attachment 244​