LOT’S ATTACKERS AND THE SPIRIT BEHIND THE LGBT ACTIVISTS

beaverpond said:

Here is the thing...straight baker refuses to bake cake for gay wedding (or some other wedding function) and gets fined, gets sued, and in some cases loses business license with the state.

Gay baker refuses to do wedding cake (or some other wedding function) for straight couple...crickets. No fine, no law suit, no potential loss of business license with the state.

Eleven states, including states like AZ, TX, and one of Dakotas has created a law that essentially says if a business does not want to assist in the preparations of a wedding for a couple, that is the business owner's choice based on religious preference that they do not have to do it. Some that are chained or franchised owned are allowing the manager's to decide what they would like to do based on their religious preference. This was the result of all the lawsuits filling up the court system of this one would not do this for my wedding or that for my wedding. Or they made my day horrible for this reason or that reason because they believe differently than I do...I want to sue them for millions and in some cases they get some of it or all of it, then it is compounded by the state with a fine by the outcome of the case, then it is made worse if the state decides to take the business license away temporarily or permanently.

Essentially what these eleven states have done is to help clear up the court docket in the future for those thinking about such action and also help lighten up the load of paperwork at the state level. Several other states are considering similar legislation.

Click to expand...

That makes a whole lot of sense!
,

ay baker refuses to do wedding cake (or some other wedding function) for straight couple...crickets. No fine, no law suit, no potential loss of business license with the state.

Click to expand...

When has that ever happened?

Last year here in our own state a gay baker refused to do a cake for a straight couple and there were no repercussions for refusal to do the cake. At first the baker agreed and backed out with less than week to go before the wedding leaving the unhappy to find somebody to help them. A pastry chef from a local restaurant felt bad for them and stepped forward and used the tools of his trade to create something they would never forget, yet something very special and unique. While not quite what they wanted, they appreciated his efforts in trying to help them out.

The gay baker wanted to put his own touches on their wedding cake that no straight couple would ever appreciate. When they tried to explain why that was not what they ordered and not what they wanted and not what they agreed to and not what they were willing to pay for, the gay baker cancelled the order leaving the couple with no where to turn.

When turning to an attorney after their wedding day, he said there was nothing they could do because of how our state laws were written because everything was written to benefit the LGBT community. They petitioned the state time and time again for their right for civil union, then it was protected rights, then it was shared medical rights, it goes on and on and on until they got the right to get married and that failed five times before passing. This has gone on for the last 20 years. They have gained more and more ground in our state taking it to the level that the LGBT community is protected but none of the other groups (Christian, Muslim, Jews, ect...) are protected from such legal action. It has turned into a do as I say, not as I do type of culture in our state and that is why we too are also looking at changing the laws in our state so that it is fair across the board for all groups of businesses to decide who they want to serve based on religious preference with no repercussions for saying we don't feel comfortable with what you are asking us to do because it goes against our religious beliefs.

beaverpond said:

Last year here in our own state a gay baker refused to do a cake for a straight couple and there were no repercussions for refusal to do the cake. At first the baker agreed and backed out with less than week to go before the wedding leaving the unhappy to find somebody to help them. A pastry chef from a local restaurant felt bad for them and stepped forward and used the tools of his trade to create something they would never forget, yet something very special and unique. While not quite what they wanted, they appreciated his efforts in trying to help them out.

The gay baker wanted to put his own touches on their wedding cake that no straight couple would ever appreciate. When they tried to explain why that was not what they ordered and not what they wanted and not what they agreed to and not what they were willing to pay for, the gay baker cancelled the order leaving the couple with no where to turn.

When turning to an attorney after their wedding day, he said there was nothing they could do because of how our state laws were written because everything was written to benefit the LGBT community. They petitioned the state time and time again for their right for civil union, then it was protected rights, then it was shared medical rights, it goes on and on and on until they got the right to get married and that failed five times before passing. This has gone on for the last 20 years. They have gained more and more ground in our state taking it to the level that the LGBT community is protected but none of the other groups (Christian, Muslim, Jews, ect...) are protected from such legal action. It has turned into a do as I say, not as I do type of culture in our state and that is why we too are also looking at changing the laws in our state so that it is fair across the board for all groups of businesses to decide who they want to serve based on religious preference with no repercussions for saying we don't feel comfortable with what you are asking us to do because it goes against our religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

Call me cynical, bit I suspect there's more to the story. Have a link?

Nothing wrong with being cynical ... there was only one source willing to run the story or as they call it...an exclusive with the couple, but because it happened so long ago they have since deleted it as after so many days they start deleting news stories to clear space on the server for the current and more recent news stories...eventually those too get deleted. Usually stories get deleted after about 90 days with this particular news service. Also they have been sold three times in the past two years which also does not help matters.

beaverpond said:

Nothing wrong with being cynical ... there was only one source willing to run the story or as they call it...an exclusive with the couple, but because it happened so long ago they have since deleted it as after so many days they start deleting news stories to clear space on the server for the current and more recent news stories...eventually those too get deleted. Usually stories get deleted after about 90 days with this particular news service. Also they have been sold three times in the past two years which also does not help matters.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but without a link, I'm just going to have to pass this one off as hearsay.

Out of interest, "The gay baker wanted to put his own touches on their wedding cake that no straight couple would ever appreciate", what sort of touches? Do you recall?

The baker wanted to put the gay rainbow colors on one side of the cake...he then suggested that they could have it face the wall so it could not be seen when the cake was actually going to be part of the center piece of the room and there would be no wall near it.

In my opinion, it is not a bakers job to change the order of a customer...if a customer wants a cake to look a certain way, then it should be their way as they are paying for it, not that of what the baker wants as it is not their special day

ken777 said:

I am sure I am a bigot (iyho) ... along with everyone who believes in the sanctity of marriage and religious freedom.

.

Click to expand...

The thing about religious freedom is that it carries the caveat that one accepts that others are free from the strictures of one's own religion.

One has the right not to in any way approve of gay marriage, but not the right to stop people gay being married if they wish.

For example, I disapprove of hunting for sport: but I would not refuse to offer treatment to hunter.

All the best.

beaverpond said:

The baker wanted to put the gay rainbow colors on one side of the cake...he then suggested that they could have it face the wall so it could not be seen when the cake was actually going to be part of the center piece of the room and there would be no wall near it.

In my opinion, it is not a bakers job to change the order of a customer...if a customer wants a cake to look a certain way, then it should be their way as they are paying for it, not that of what the baker wants as it is not their special day

Click to expand...

I don't know of any professional in a service industry who would put a rainbow on a product after someone explicitly asked them not to. But, like I say, without a link to assess the story for myself, we're kinda in "mad aunt's emails about FEMA death camps" territory here. No offence. If the story as you say is accurate, then sure, it's problematic. But if it were accurate, I kinda doubt that the various anti- organisations wouldn't be all over it like flies on the proverbial, you know?

Cuddles 222 said:
...We can only conclude that the Sodom/Gomorrah story was created to describe how God feels about sinful cities.

DWJL511 said:

Sodom and Gomorrah are a created story? You serious?

Click to expand...

Yes. I am serious. We can follow how this was created because of what Lot's 2 daughters was supposed to have said; 'And the firstborn said unto the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come into us after the manner of all the earth:" We know what is said to have happened next. If they believed that the earth had been destroyed, we wonder where they obtained all their food and rations to last for generations. Actually, this story was told and later written, to contrast the difference between the country folk vs the city folk. The country people depended heavily on hospitality between tribes in order to survive. The city people cared nothing for this virtue, but instead saw 'easy pickings' when these simple minded country folk came into their towns.

Therefore, we have been using this story as a weapon against those we thought practiced what these city folk practiced. For years and years, and didn't even occur.

The sin of Sodom was inhospitality to traveling strangers. The Bible flat out tells you that. It is a huge divine commandment in Judaism. Homosexuality was not the sin of Sodom. Lesbians are never condemned in the Old Testament and they make up half of homosexuals. There is absolutely nothing in that story that indicates the men are gay and the attempted rape of angels has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Right wingers have butchered that story beyond recognition to fuel their anti-gay agenda.

DWJL511 said:

Which comes back to my original post. It's not so simple. There's an agenda. And it's largely targeted at Christians.

Click to expand...

That's because Christians are involved in the majority of anti-gay behavior and attitudes in this country. They're certainly not going to target Jews in mass when they make up 1% of the population (well that and Jews overwhelming support LGBTs).

IMO!
We gave up the right to regulate marriage when we incorporated marriage into government. Its a governments job to regulate ALL the people. So gay marriage certificates and benefits don't bother me at all. SSM in the church bugs me. As far as individuals not supporting gay marriage through their business goes. I'm a bit on the fence. If i was a cake maker, I would sell a cake. If I was a tailor I would fix the clothes. If I was a photographer, or a wedding planner. I would probably declined the job, just because I would not be able to do my best work, actively participating in the ceremony. It would be a disservice to the couple. The same way I decline work if I don't think i'm capable of completing the task. I would worry about my ability to read the couple, and interpret that into their day. The motivation to please and participate would not be there, and thus I am not the right person for the job.

IMO there is a big difference between making a wedding cake, selling a dress, making flower arrangements; and coordinating the event, photographing the event, or hosting the event. Active live participation would make me very uncomfortable. Selling a product would not.

It's helpful to remember a couple things:

Genesis is one of the five books of the Torah, or "Law of Moses" if you prefer. As such it serves a function similar to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy--namely it functions to instruct and to teach. It therefore follows that a major question we ought to be asking of the text is "What is this trying to teach?" Indeed we can then notice where the story of Sodom is within the text and the proximity of the story with another story: That is to say, it immediately follows the story of another set of heavenly visitors, specifically the visitors who came to Abraham.

So what do we see in the story of Abraham's hospitality? How does Abraham and the Hebrews treat the visitors? Abraham welcomes them, accepts them, and provides a luxurious feast for them. Ah, so then what do we see with the next story of heavenly visitors? They go to Sodom to speak with Lot and how do the Sodomites (the people of Sodom) treat them?

That's the lesson of these stories. The teaching here is about hospitality, which was commanded of God's people. To the right and just treatment of strangers, foreigners, and resident aliens was an absolute imperative of what it meant to be the covenant people of God; the role of hospitality was essential to their identity as a people and is a fundamental component of not only ancient near eastern culture but middle eastern culture still. If a stranger comes to you hungry, you give them food to eat, if they are thirsty, you give them drink, if they need a place to sleep and a roof over their head for the night you invite them in and they are your honored guest. So the lesson being taught in the story of Abraham's hospitality is how a people chosen by God are to live--they are to be a hospitable people. Sodom, on the other hand, is the antithesis, they are shown as mistreating the stranger, violating the visitor.

The mob's attempt to gang rape the heavenly visitors is a symptom of the much deeper problem going on in Sodom--a fundamental rejection of human dignity and worth; it is an extreme antithesis to Abraham's generosity and hospitality. That is critical to the story as a teaching lesson.

The sin of Sodom, as we learn in the Bible itself, is their injustice and mistreatment against the lowly--so, writes Ezekiel, God destroyed them.

Understand what the text is really saying, not what is most convenient to believe today. Regard the text critically and honestly.

-CryptoLutheran

I sit here and have been watching and reading the many comments about Sodom and Gomorrah. This brings to mind about the stranger who wonders through our area who is homeless looking for a place to stay and has done this for years. He has made his way up and down the Eastern Seaboard of the United States for decades living off the charity of others and doing nothing for others.

He has gotten really good at expecting others to take him to his next destination. Expecting people to provide him with a roof over his head. Expecting people to provide him with money just because he needs it. What has he given in return, his presence and nothing more. He refuses to find work. He refuses to help himself. He refuses to do anything for himself. He expects everything to be done for him by others. He also expects people to provide him with food whenever he needs it at no cost to him. He has even gone as far as telling people what he wants for food. I remember one time hearing he wanted a thick steak with potatoes and some fancy dessert. Come on now, this guy is making demands to eat better than most of the working middle class let alone the working poor.

This guy has been in and out of so many churches and shelters that he can quote several passages from the Bible. Does he believe what he is reciting, only God knows his heart on that one. There is a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge. I firmly believe that if he believed what he was reciting from the Bible, then he would not be living this life...but that is my opinion, only God knows for sure and some day this guy will have to face the Judgment Seat of Christ.

I know this is off subject for what is being discussed, but where does hospitality end when people like this abuse what is being offered to so many who are in desperate need. I have to be honest, I have a real problem providing a service to the LGBT community for some of the stunts they have pulled on some of the businesses I have frequented in the past that no longer exist. They could have taken their business to a place they knew they would be accepted at, but purposely chose a Christian run business where they knew they could create a problem. An example, the Inn where my wife and I stayed for our honeymoon so many years ago is no longer in business because an employee at the Inn gave the impression that the owner would not allow the Gay couple to stay there or perform their ceremony there. The Inn was fined, shut down, and now can only do catered functions and nothing more. Then to make matters worse, the Inn was also sued by the gay couple. So yes, my hospitality has run out for this community and I am not afraid to admit it. Only God can change my heart I also know I have to open minded and I am not feeling all that open at the moment. Yes, I know my Pastor will eventually read this.

Marius27 said:

The sin of Sodom was inhospitality to traveling strangers. The Bible flat out tells you that. It is a huge divine commandment in Judaism. Homosexuality was not the sin of Sodom. Lesbians are never condemned in the Old Testament and they make up half of homosexuals. There is absolutely nothing in that story that indicates the men are gay and the attempted rape of angels has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Right wingers have butchered that story beyond recognition to fuel their anti-gay agenda.

Click to expand...

Jude disagrees with you:
Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

When you read OT references to Sodom, you need to remember that the sins mentioned are the sins that prophet is accusing his audience of. He is not giving an exhaustive list of Sodom's sins, nor is he explaining why Sodom was destroyed, which Jude does.

.

ken777 said:

Jude disagrees with you:
Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

When you read OT references to Sodom, you need to remember that the sins mentioned are the sins that prophet is accusing his audience of. He is not giving an exhaustive list of Sodom's sins, nor is he explaining why Sodom was destroyed, which Jude does.

.

Click to expand...

In response to what I put in bold: Yes, actually, Ezekiel does explain why Sodom was destroyed. It really couldn't be any more straightforward:

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it." - Ezekiel 16:50

What Jude doesn't do is explain why God destroyed Sodom, Ezekiel does. Jude says they were destroyed, and that they serve an example of future judgment, not why they were destroyed--Ezekiel explains why they were destroyed, and it was because of their wretched mistreatment of the poor and the needy.

Any other view is not being honest with Scripture, it is a dishonest exegesis intended to fuel particular views about a particular group of people rather than having an honest exegesis that condemns what God consistently condemns in Scripture--the mistreatment of the poor, the needy, the hungry, the widow, the orphan, and the immigrant.

If you want to preach an honest sermon using Sodom and Gomorrah, then preach a sermon against apathy and affluence, preach a sermon against the grave injustices against the marginalized and the mistreated in our society.

If you use Scripture to preach a hate-filled sermon against your neighbor, especially your neighbor that is mistreated and marginalized, then you're doing it completely wrong. And our Lord has some pretty strong words about such things in Matthew ch. 25.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

In response to what I put in bold: Yes, actually, Ezekiel does explain why Sodom was destroyed. It really couldn't be any more straightforward:

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it." - Ezekiel 16:50

What Jude doesn't do is explain why God destroyed Sodom, Ezekiel does. Jude says they were destroyed, and that they serve an example of future judgment, not why they were destroyed--Ezekiel explains why they were destroyed, and it was because of their wretched mistreatment of the poor and the needy.

Any other view is not being honest with Scripture, it is a dishonest exegesis intended to fuel particular views about a particular group of people rather than having an honest exegesis that condemns what God consistently condemns in Scripture--the mistreatment of the poor, the needy, the hungry, the widow, the orphan, and the immigrant.

If you want to preach an honest sermon using Sodom and Gomorrah, then preach a sermon against apathy and affluence, preach a sermon against the grave injustices against the marginalized and the mistreated in our society.

If you use Scripture to preach a hate-filled sermon against your neighbor, especially your neighbor that is mistreated and marginalized, then you're doing it completely wrong. And our Lord has some pretty strong words about such things in Matthew ch. 25.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Your argument is not with me, it is with Jude.

.

ken777 said:

Your argument is not with me, it is with Jude.

.

Click to expand...

Jude wasn't the one who posted here on CF.
tulc(thought that should be pointed out)