Hope For LGBT

[justaname]

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.

Firstly I am giving my opinion in a forum, as a Christian, on a specific topic. We are not formulating laws here. I stand where I stand, I do not see any violation of conscience by baking a cake for a wedding, gay or not.

Next we already have laws in place that mandate what your conscience will allow. Like it or not, discrimination is not tolerated. Some would choose not to service people of color. Others would choose not to service people of differing religions. In the laws of the united states it is not illegal to be gay. (At least not at the federal level, I am uncertain of all the states) Lets look to the legal principles...

 

[StanJ]

Firstly I am giving my opinion in a forum, as a Christian, on a specific topic. We are not formulating laws here. I stand where I stand, I do not see any violation of conscience by baking a cake for a wedding, gay or not.

Next we already have laws in place that mandate what your conscience will allow. Like it or not, discrimination is not tolerated. Some would choose not to service people of color. Others would choose not to service people of differing religions. In the laws of the united states it is not illegal to be gay. (At least not at the federal level, I am uncertain of all the states) Lets look to the legal principles...

Agreed, "Whatever is NOT of faith, IS sin."

 

[Wormwood]

Firstly I am giving my opinion in a forum, as a Christian, on a specific topic. We are not formulating laws here. I stand where I stand, I do not see any violation of conscience by baking a cake for a wedding, gay or not.

Next we already have laws in place that mandate what your conscience will allow. Like it or not, discrimination is not tolerated. Some would choose not to service people of color. Others would choose not to service people of differing religions. In the laws of the united states it is not illegal to be gay. (At least not at the federal level, I am uncertain of all the states) Lets look to the legal principles...

I understand you do not see this as a violation of your conscience. But what if it violates the conscience of another?

This is not an issue of discrimination as I see it. Again, the baker was willing to bake for the gay couple. He didn't refuse them because they were gay. He was choosing not to provide a cake for an event he felt was wicked. If the baker was refusing to bake because someone was gay or a Muslim, I would agree with you. However, this is simply not the case. He was not discriminating against the individual because of their sexual activities, he was choosing not to participate in an event that celebrated their sexual activities.

I see this as a completely different issue. Its the difference between you taking a family portrait that includes a Playboy model and you taking pictures for Playboy magazine. The first is discriminating against someone because of their profession, and the second is you participating in an act you believe is sinful.

So, from a legal standpoint, (I know we don't have power to make laws, but we are attempting to discuss this from a legislative point of view) I don't think its right to say, "Well, you must bake cakes for gay weddings, but you don't have to plan and participate in a gay wedding (in the case of a wedding planner)." Or "A baker has to use his skills to aid a gay couple in their wedding, but a photographer does not have to use his skills to take nude photos for a magazine." This just seems ridiculously subjective based on what the personal conscience of the person making the rules will allow. It seems like a shady way to make laws.

I would contend that legally a business should not be allowed to discriminate in serving someone based their sexuality, profession, race, religion, etc. However, a business should have the freedom not to participate in acts or events that go against their religious convictions. The clear line of demarcation to me is the difference between the service of a person vs. the service of an event or act that one considers sinful. No one should force anyone else to participate in something they feel is wicked, whether they are a business or not. This is a violation of a person's freedom in my estimation.

I feel we should be applauding this baker for standing on his convictions and striving to honor God with his business rather than seeking to appease people. Since when is "love" defined as standing idly by as people engage in acts that will bring God's wrath and judgment on their lives? Yes, we are all sinners, but there is a difference in recognizing we all are in equal need of grace... and ignoring or even aiding in the sinful acts of others.

“Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:32, ESV)

Christians, let us not be counted among those who are giving approval to such practices for the sake of appearing "loving!"

 

[justaname]

So then should reception halls be able to post signs no gay weddings? Can a Muslim baker deny baking a cake for Christian weddings because Christians are infidels and their union not under Islam is wicked? Can a business owner who has religious convictions that all white people are devils, decide not to service whites because all of their activities are wicked?

So then also to be consistent the baker should quit baking birthday cakes. They are simply prideful events, filled with liars, celebrating the creation rather than the Creator.

I think the validity of the inconsistent Christian view is the intent of the OP. Why is it so many Christians want to take such a hard line against this particular sin? Answer, because they are not personally guilty of it. It is recognizable in others, and without compassion they can easily condemn it.

 

[Wormwood]

justaname,

In my estimation, the first should be "yes" and the second two should be "no." The first represents a business participating in an act that the owner feels to be sinful. The second two are discriminatory based on religion or color. If a gay man wants to have a banquet at a reception hall, they should be allowed to since I think it should be unlawful to discriminate against a person based on their skin color, religion or background. However, hosting a gay wedding is different because it represents an act that some view to be sinful. Participating in an act and discriminating against someone's color or religion are two very different things in my book. A Christian should not be allowed to reject Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc. from having a wedding in their reception hall.

A doctor must care for and treat a Muslim, gay man, lesbian, Christian, etc. However, a doctor should not be forced to perform an abortion simply because he is qualified to do so. This is the difference between discriminating against a person or religion vs being forced to do an act that one feels is evil. The reason this is important is because, by your rationale, a doctor who can perform an abortion must do so. After all, he is a for profit business and should have no right to turn down a customer simply because he disagrees with their action...correct? If not, where are you drawing the line?

I think your birthday cake analogy is a bit ridiculous. We are talking about an act that pretty much every religion in the world from their inception has viewed as an abomination to God. Although, you should know that the baker in this story has stopped making wedding cakes altogether because they have so much new business baking for other events (he has become quite popular due to his convictions). So, I suppose a baker, if they wanted, would not have to bake birthday cakes...as this baker does not bake wedding cakes any longer. I think its totally within a person's legal right to not bake something. If a baker doesn't want to bake cupcakes, so be it. It's his business. He may lose a lot of customers...but who has the right to tell you have to do graduation photos if you decide your photography business will only do wedding photos? That's different than saying, "I will not bake a cupcake for you because you have been to prison."

First, the difference with this sin is that our culture is normalizing it. Its the same reason so many Christians are outraged against abortion. It would be one thing if people illegally performed abortions in back alleys. Its another thing when there is a movement to legalize and normalize the killing of the unborn as simply a "choice." If people were trying to legalize polygamy, I am sure we would see the same reaction from Christians. It is one thing to say we all sin and therefore we should not rub someone's noses in their failures and quite another to demand my sin be accepted, celebrated, normalized and displayed to the culture as acceptable. We are already seeing homosexual relationships displayed on national TV in movies and sitcoms. Soon, every school will be teaching children about homosexuality as normal and is to be taught about in sex-ed classes and explored amongst peers. Listen, God loves homosexuals just like he loves gluttons, liars, thieves, adulterers, etc. However, there is a difference in sinning and needing grace and saying, "this is no sin and you must accept it and teach your children that it is acceptable behavior or be condemned as a bigot." Our culture is asking us to do the latter and I am thankful that there are Christians out there that recognize the struggle we all have as sinners, but will not allow that struggle to be an excuse to defend and participate in something that will bring God's wrath on the world.

How can we be salt in light if we lose our light and saltiness on the pressing moral issues of our day? John the Baptist spoke out about Herod's sin and it cost him his head. Why is it we are so eager to be accepted by our culture and afraid to say something is wrong and not participate in it? As Chuck Colson put it, "Many people live today because they find nothing worth dying for." I would hope that would not be true of us as Christians. The first century Christians died rather than proclaim Caesar as "Lord" and they are held up as heroes of the faith. If they would die for something as small as a little confession, why are we afraid to be disliked by not approving or participating in evil?

 

[justaname]

I am sorry, but you are continually mixing the lines here between a legal and a moral issue. You are the one deciding and judging what is "wicked and evil" behavior. Also what is already "normalized" in birthdays is ok with you where what is not "gay weddings" you distinguish against. This is hypocritical.

From a legal standpoint all the cases are discrimination. Again you analogy with the doctor fails. The doctor is commiting the act, or what he might deem as sin. The baker is baking a cake that will be eaten. No sin involved there. At other weddings people drink to the point of being drunk, another sinful act. Yet because the baker approves of who is getting married the conscience is clear.

I have no problem of disapproving gay marriages, yet the baker is not participating in the wedding at all. Technically it is the reception. The baker not baking the cake is stating the disapproval of who is getting married. It is the same as disapproving interracial marriages from a legal standpoint.

Finally the baker deciding to not bake wedding cakes is a business decision and should not be forced to bake them. Yet if a baker does bake wedding cakes the baker should sell them to whosoever desires to buy them without discrimination.

 

[River Jordan]

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

You may not be saying it directly, but it's pretty obvious that if you make it legal for Christian bakers to refuse service to gay couples you also have to allow other religious business owners to refuse service on the same grounds.

This is not an issue of discrimination as I see it. Again, the baker was willing to bake for the gay couple. He didn't refuse them because they were gay. He was choosing not to provide a cake for an event he felt was wicked.

This is why the pro-discrimination side (yours) keeps losing in court. That's such a ridiculous argument, few people take it seriously. Of course the reason for not baking them a cake is because they're gay. Two couples walk in to the bakery and request wedding cake #4 from the catalog. The baker sells to the first (an opposite sex couple) and refuses to sell to the second (a same sex couple). The only difference? The sexual orientation of the second couple.

 

[Wormwood]

You may not be saying it directly, but it's pretty obvious that if you make it legal for Christian bakers to refuse service to gay couples you also have to allow other religious business owners to refuse service on the same grounds.

That has not been my argument. I have explicitly said that someone should not be denied service due to race, religion or background. That is not the issue with the baker.

Of course the reason for not baking them a cake is because they're gay.

That's simply not true. The baker offered to bake them anything other than a wedding cake. He did not want to participate in an event he felt was wrong, but he was willing to bake something for the couple. The issue was not their sexuality, but the event they wanted him to participate in that he felt was wrong (and is illegal in the state of Colorado).

You know, the majority supported Hitler in Germany. I'd be cautious in using the courts and mob consensus for determining right from wrong. If the Bible teaches us anything, its that the majority are often in error.

 

[LightMessenger]

So then should reception halls be able to post signs no gay weddings? Can a Muslim baker deny baking a cake for Christian weddings because Christians are infidels and their union not under Islam is wicked? Can a business owner who has religious convictions that all white people are devils, decide not to service whites because all of their activities are wicked?

So then also to be consistent the baker should quit baking birthday cakes. They are simply prideful events, filled with liars, celebrating the creation rather than the Creator.

I think the validity of the inconsistent Christian view is the intent of the OP. Why is it so many Christians want to take such a hard line against this particular sin? Answer, because they are not personally guilty of it. It is recognizable in others, and without compassion they can easily condemn it.

View attachment 245​

 

[River Jordan]

That has not been my argument. I have explicitly said that someone should not be denied service due to race, religion or background. That is not the issue with the baker.

The issue with the Christian baker is that he is refusing service to a couple because of their sexual orientation. If you allow that, you have to grant the same allowance for other businesses and religious beliefs.

That's simply not true. The baker offered to bake them anything other than a wedding cake. He did not want to participate in an event he felt was wrong, but he was willing to bake something for the couple. The issue was not their sexuality, but the event they wanted him to participate in that he felt was wrong (and is illegal in the state of Colorado).

That's a failed legal argument. As I noted, two couples walk in to the bakery and request wedding cake #4 from the catalog. The baker sells to the first (an opposite sex couple) and refuses to sell to the second (a same sex couple). The only difference? The sexual orientation of the second couple. If the second couple were an opposite sex couple, he would sell them the cake.

You know, the majority supported Hitler in Germany. I'd be cautious in using the courts and mob consensus for determining right from wrong. If the Bible teaches us anything, its that the majority are often in error.

Hitler again? What is it with some of you where everything seems to remind you of Hitler and Nazis? :wacko:

 

[LightMessenger]

That has not been my argument. I have explicitly said that someone should not be denied service due to race, religion or background. That is not the issue with the baker.


That's simply not true. The baker offered to bake them anything other than a wedding cake. He did not want to participate in an event he felt was wrong, but he was willing to bake something for the couple. The issue was not their sexuality, but the event they wanted him to participate in that he felt was wrong (and is illegal in the state of Colorado).

You know, the majority supported Hitler in Germany. I'd be cautious in using the courts and mob consensus for determining right from wrong. If the Bible teaches us anything, its that the majority are often in error.

Oh, let's protect all who fall under the three groups you listed, of course, but let's discriminate against people with a same-sex attraction because they are an easy target to hate and prey upon since those who are doing it are without sins of their own.

What Would Jesus Say!​

As to the premise that the baker and others can discriminate against those of a Homosexual orientation, that obviously means, as justaname has been saying, that they can also then use that same premise as a license to discriminate against virtually any other group they don't like. They may not come right out and say it but if they don't like blacks they can find a way to discriminate against them due to how they're dressed or something else. The same for any other group. So, this basically sums it up to be an egregious License To Discriminate under the guise of using "Religious freedom". Why circumvent the point? It's so plain and simple. Succinct and to the point. It's Simply Freedom To Discriminate, anyway you look at it.

View attachment 246​

The issue with the Christian baker is that he is refusing service to a couple because of their sexual orientation. If you allow that, you have to grant the same allowance for other businesses and religious beliefs.


That's a failed legal argument. As I noted, two couples walk in to the bakery and request wedding cake #4 from the catalog. The baker sells to the first (an opposite sex couple) and refuses to sell to the second (a same sex couple). The only difference? The sexual orientation of the second couple. If the second couple were an opposite sex couple, he would sell them the cake.


Hitler again? What is it with some of you where everything seems to remind you of Hitler and Nazis? :wacko:

Well doesn't that tell you something, River?! It speaks volumes as to where they're coming from, exemplified by their thought posture.

View attachment 247​

 

[Wormwood]

The issue with the Christian baker is that he is refusing service to a couple because of their sexual orientation. If you allow that, you have to grant the same allowance for other businesses and religious beliefs.

Ill try this again... No, he's not. He offered to bake for the couple.

The only difference? The sexual orientation of the second couple.

No, the differences are 1) the act of the gay couple getting married is illegal in Colorado and 2) they are asking the baker to lend his services to a specific act that violates his conscience.

I'll try this yet again.... it wasn't the orientation of the couple. It was the event they wanted him to participate in with his business. If it was a gay man's birthday party, it wouldn't have been an issue for the baker. The article is pretty clear on this regardless of how you try to spin it.

Hitler again? What is it with some of you where everything seems to remind you of Hitler and Nazis? :wacko:

I try to find something we can both agree on as morally wrong. This is incredibly difficult since your views on the Bible's moral teaching are quite different than mine. I figure we can both agree on genocide and mass murder. Sorry if my comments bore you. You don't have to engage in the discussion if its so tiresome.

because they are an easy target to hate and prey upon since those who are doing it are without sins of their own.

the ol' "you sin too so let's legalize my sin" argument? Two wrongs don't make a right. Two wrongs definitely shouldn't make one wrong the law of the land.

But according to you, "Two wrongs make my wrong both legal and obligatory for you to embrace as good and you must participate in my wrong...or I'll sue you." Im sure that's what Jesus would say.

So, this basically sums it up to be an egregious License To Discriminate under the guise of using "Religious freedom".

Uh huh. So by your rationale, a minister must perform a gay marriage or they are discriminating. Yes or no?

BTW, if you look at Luke 6:42, it does say, "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” But according to you, we should be in the business of both ignoring and planting specks in people's eyes. Is homosexuality a sin or not LightMessenger? Is it a speck to be removed or is it an act to be embraced?

 

[River Jordan]

Ill try this again... No, he's not. He offered to bake for the couple.

That may be what you're sticking to, but it's a failed argument.

No, the differences are 1) the act of the gay couple getting married is illegal in Colorado

Doesn't matter. The wedding was in Massachusetts where same sex marriages are legal. What's relevant here is it is illegal in Colorado to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

and 2) they are asking the baker to lend his services to a specific act that violates his conscience.

Why? Because they're a gay couple. That's illegal. And again, if you allow Christian bakers to deny services based on violation of religious conscience, you have to allow other businesses and religions to do the same, e.g., bankers refusing home loans, landlords refusing housing, Muslims refusing Jews, etc.

I'll try this yet again.... it wasn't the orientation of the couple. It was the event they wanted him to participate in with his business.

You can try all you like, but it's a failed argument. From the link I provided...

"Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”"

He had no trouble making cakes for opposite sex events, but wouldn't do so for same sex events. The difference? The sexual orientation of the couple. That's illegal, which is why the courts ruled against him.

I try to find something we can both agree on as morally wrong. This is incredibly difficult since your views on the Bible's moral teaching are quite different than mine. I figure we can both agree on genocide and mass murder. Sorry if my comments bore you. You don't have to engage in the discussion if its so tiresome.

We've been over that too, and we most certainly don't agree on the immorality of genocide and mass murder. IIRC, you defended those things in the OT.

 

[Wormwood]

That may be what you're sticking to, but it's a failed argument.

That's what they said.

What's relevant here is it is illegal in Colorado to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Yes you keep saying that. but I told you he was willing to bake for them. Clearly it was the event, not their sexual orientation that was the issue. smh

Why? Because they're a gay couple. That's illegal. And again, if you allow Christian bakers to deny services based on violation of religious conscience, you have to allow other businesses and religions to do the same, e.g., bankers refusing home loans, landlords refusing housing, Muslims refusing Jews, etc.

Again, you're either unable to track the discussion or your are intentionally avoiding the points I am making. I have no interest in playing connect the dots here.

According to the article I read, the baker's stance was:

But the cake shop owner went on to say that it's nothing personal: “If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever. It's just the wedding cake – not the people, not their lifestyle.”

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=15480&MediaType=1&Category=26

Yes he had a problem with participating in an event the Bible calls a sin, just as a Christian photographer would not want to participate in taking pictures for Playboy. According to you, they are discriminating against the Playboy models due to their background and profession. Cant you see how insane this is? You really want to mandate Christians assist in the planning, photography, decorating and serving of an event they feel is evil? You still haven't answered my questions. Should a doctor, who is able, be forced to perform abortions? Is a minister discriminating and a bigot if they wont do a gay marriage? I need you to answer these questions to understand exactly what you are trying to argue here.

We've been over that too, and we most certainly don't agree on the immorality of genocide and mass murder. IIRC, you defended those things in the OT.

Really, are you going to go there? Lets keep it on topic and quit trying to derail things with these rabbit trails. We both agree the holocaust was wrong, so that is why I am using the illustration. Good enough?

 

[River Jordan]

That's what they said.

What's your point?

Yes you keep saying that. but I told you he was willing to bake for them. Clearly it was the event, not their sexual orientation that was the issue.

And the court rejected that argument for obvious reasons. "The event" wasn't the issue, since he had no problem baking cakes for similar opposite sex events. The only reason he wouldn't do so for this event is because it was for a same sex couple. His stance wasn't "I won't bake cakes for wedding celebrations", his stance was "I won't bake cakes for gay wedding celebrations".

He even admitted he turned away other gay couples "as a matter of policy".

Again, you're either unable to track the discussion or your are intentionally avoiding the points I am making. I have no interest in playing connect the dots here.

You're making failed, illogical arguments but refusing to acknowledge the problems. I understand where you're coming from, but you're just not thinking this through enough.

According to the article I read, the baker's stance was:

And the court rejected that argument as did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (unanimously). Here's the language from the ruling...

Respondents, however, argue that the refusal does not violate § 24-34-601(2) because it was due to their objection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation. Respondents deny that they hold any animus toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same-sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’ argument as a distinction without a difference.

The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation...

...In this case, Respondents’ objection to same-sex marriage is inextricably tied to the sexual orientation of the parties involved, and therefore disfavor of the parties’ sexual orientation may be presumed.

Yes he had a problem with participating in an event the Bible calls a sin, just as a Christian photographer would not want to participate in taking pictures for Playboy. According to you, they are discriminating against the Playboy models due to their background and profession.

Yet again, it's only this particular sin that causes conservative Christian business owners to refuse service.

Cant you see how insane this is? You really want to mandate Christians assist in the planning, photography, decorating and serving of an event they feel is evil?

If we allow that, by what reasoning can't we also allow Christian bankers to deny home loans to married gay couples? Or are you in favor or forcing Christian bankers to endorse, and make money off of, something they feel is evil?

Should a doctor, who is able, be forced to perform abortions?

Depends on the circumstances.

Is a minister discriminating and a bigot if they wont do a gay marriage?

There's a huge legal difference between public businesses and private churches. Come on...think a bit.

Really, are you going to go there?

*sigh* You brought up genocide and mass murder.

 

[justaname]

Lets stick to the subject matter of the OP.

 

[Wormwood]

There's a huge legal difference between public businesses and private churches. Come on...think a bit.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[River Jordan]

In order to answer the question ("Is a minister discriminating and a bigot if they wont do a gay marriage?"), we need to keep it in context.

Is he discriminating? Legally, no. Churches are private and not subject to public accommodation laws. Practically, yes. He is "discriminating" but only in the same sense as when a Jewish Rabbi says he won't perform a marriage ceremony for a Muslim couple.

Is he a bigot? I don't think so. I think the term "bigot" is a bit strong in that instance.

Now are you going to answer the questions I asked you?

 

[LightMessenger]

Ill try this again... No, he's not. He offered to bake for the couple.


No, the differences are 1) the act of the gay couple getting married is illegal in Colorado and 2) they are asking the baker to lend his services to a specific act that violates his conscience.

I'll try this yet again.... it wasn't the orientation of the couple. It was the event they wanted him to participate in with his business. If it was a gay man's birthday party, it wouldn't have been an issue for the baker. The article is pretty clear on this regardless of how you try to spin it.


I try to find something we can both agree on as morally wrong. This is incredibly difficult since your views on the Bible's moral teaching are quite different than mine. I figure we can both agree on genocide and mass murder. Sorry if my comments bore you. You don't have to engage in the discussion if its so tiresome.


the ol' "you sin too so let's legalize my sin" argument? Two wrongs don't make a right. Two wrongs definitely shouldn't make one wrong the law of the land.

But according to you, "Two wrongs make my wrong both legal and obligatory for you to embrace as good and you must participate in my wrong...or I'll sue you." Im sure that's what Jesus would say.


Uh huh. So by your rationale, a minister must perform a gay marriage or they are discriminating. Yes or no?

BTW, if you look at Luke 6:42, it does say, "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” But according to you, we should be in the business of both ignoring and planting specks in people's eyes. Is homosexuality a sin or not LightMessenger? Is it a speck to be removed or is it an act to be embraced?

============================================
You are extrapolating and trying to make it sound as if it was I who is saying ".... you sin too so let's legalize my sin...." I did not say that. You did. You are only using that poor thought out excuse as a poor defense to try to save your argument but it will not work.

As for ministers, no one is saying that they are being forced to perform gay marriage. If they wish to they can and if they don't they don't have to. It's as simple as that. The only thing there that many are saying and something they are very much opposed to is if a church receives money from the Federal Government then that church should be regulated by the government. And that is only right, fair, and just and I am in full agreement with that.

As for your come-back on Luke 6:42, again, you are making things up that I did not say in order to try to save your argument on this. There is no ".... planting specks in people's eyes." That is something that people guilty of that have already well planted there for themselves for all to see and become aware of.

As to your question on whether Homosexuality is a sin and one to remove that particular 'speck'. I have to overwhelmingly and unequivocally tell you that It Is Not A Sin and should be embraced by normal thinking people who have no prejudice, intolerance, bigoted thoughts, and who do not discriminate. Why? Because Jesus Christ said not one word against homosexuals and homosexuality. That is good enough for me and so many others! That is why I, for one, can never and will never buy into the stories of prejudice and bigotry where people like to use inappropriate Scripture to make homosexuality appear to be a bad thing. It is not. If indeed it was such a grave "sin", Jesus would have clearly and definitively spoken against it and so would God His Father. He would have made it His Eleventh Commandment to prohibit homosexuality, only He didn't because He obviously knew there was absolutely nothing wrong with it and that it was a normal, acceptable sexual orientation as medicine and science has found to be the case and has also known for decades. Again, the scare-tactic Scriptures used by bigots to try to condemn Gays and Lesbians are all speaking to other things and not against homosexuals or homosexuality and ALL Must Know and Understand That. One day you will learn the truth in this that God does not and cannot discriminate against a person who was born with their sexual orientation being homosexual which He gave to them in the first place. It is the sin of Promiscuity, for BOTH Homosexual and Heterosexual orientations, that He is against as is evidenced by Mary Magdalene, the woman in the Bible who had seven demons that Jesus freed her from. He told her to "go and sin no more" with regard to her promiscuity. Not that she was a Lesbian or Gay and had to refrain from being that as that is not sinful in and of itself but promiscuity is.

View attachment 254​

 

[StanJ]

As to your question on whether Homosexuality is a sin and one to remove that particular 'speck'. I have to overwhelmingly and unequivocally tell you that It Is Not A Sin and should be embraced by normal thinking people who have no prejudice, intolerance, bigoted thoughts, and who do not discriminate.

You have already been refuted many times in this regard LM, and yet you ignore it and continue to push a worldly agenda that is NOT Christ like nor is to be accepted in the BOC.
Homosexuality is indeed sin and those that practise it cannot be accepted in the BOC unless they repent of that lifestyle.

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.