Photography (Weddings) Business and Homosexual Agenda

[Go Braves]

So the Christian thing to do is to LIE so that you don't have to do business with a non-Christian?

That's exactly the question I had when reading that post.

 

[SBC]

It's not so cut and dried. What is the reasoning for homosexuals, to announce their sexual activity preference to, a restaurant, a teacher, a school, a Church, an ambulance driver, a bakery?

Do you announce what your sexual activity preference to everyone you want to do business with?

Don't you get, it is not about others BEING Christian, but rather about one being forced to go AGAINST ones own CORE Christian beliefs, and others ANNOUNCING their sexual activity preference to shop keepers, when it has absolutely nothing to do with doing business with them.....except to hopefully tangle them into a law suit.

And...what shall be the charge? Discrimination?
And...what about reverse discrimination charges for forcing the shop owner to go against their religion?

Any prudent person wanting a Wedding Cake, would go to a bakery and order a Wedding Cake....period. For what purpose does a baker NEED TO KNOW, what people do in their bed?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SilverBear]

In America, the magic number is about 1 million and 100.

how sad that you are willing to put a number to hatred.

Now, the homosexuals (and others) have sought to seize the power inherent in the system set up to destroy and erase the white anti-black racists to use it for their own purposes, but it isn't going to work. The country does not have nearly as much committed to the gay issue as the black-white issue. We don't have a million dead and 100 years of brutal resistance. We a few people who kept what they did secret, and a population that has become more tolerant, but is now being pushed and talked at AS THOUGH were were white racists, using the laws that were enacted against white racists who killed a million people.

The law protects everybody

So far, that strategy has been successful, but only at the judicial level, really. The states that voted on gay marriage, voted it down.

Like Maine and Maryland and Washington?

That aside civil rights are legal issue, not a popularity contest

It was the Supreme Court who reversed that. The courts have been activist.

Damn that pesky constitution

Are we going to revoke tolerance for gays? No. But the Supreme Court will probably rule that a Christian baker does NOT have to put his artistic talents into preparing a wedding cake for gays, and with that decision will come the turning of the tide. Tolerance will be maintained, but the aggressive advance of those who would suppress everybody else's liberty in service to their deviancy will be halted and thrown back, and more decisions like that will follow.

So denying a person's right to be treated fairly and equally is "tolerance"?

Where we will end up is that gays will preserve "marriage" rights, and general tolerance will be maintained. Gays will be able to get "general commercial rights' - gas stations won't be able to refuse service. But gays and transexuals, etc., will not be able to force people to provide individualized services pertaining to their homosexuality, such as baking a wedding cake or taking photographs.

maybe if they are lucky they will get their own drinking fountains too.

The power inherent in the laws to prevent the oppression of blacks will not be fully applied to the case of gays, because gays have not been oppressed in the ways and for the reasons blacks have.

the law prevents oppression of all people, even people you don't like.

You're not going to like that, so you're going to yell your head off at me for saying this. I would suggest you watch what happens, because you'll be yelling at the populace in general, and the Supreme Court, and everybody else soon enough. You'll see. The gays overplayed their hand with the wedding cake and the transexuals-are-whatever-gender-they-choose-and-you-have-to-speak-as-they-demand trend. It won't hold in this society. It's too offensive to too many people, and gays ain't blacks.

discrimination is discrimination no matter who it's directed at.

 

[SilverBear]

Half of black men have been in prison.

 

[SilverBear]

It's not so cut and dried. What is the reasoning for homosexuals, to announce their sexual activity preference to, a restaurant, a teacher, a school, a Church, an ambulance driver, a bakery?

what reasoning do heterosexuals have to announce their sexual activity preference to, a restaurant, a teacher, a school, a Church, an ambulance driver, a bakery?

Do you announce what your sexual activity preference to everyone you want to do business with?

if you try to purchase a wedding cake for you and your opposite-gendered fiancee then that is exactly what you are doing.

 

[blackribbon]

Any prudent person wanting a Wedding Cake, would go to a bakery and order a Wedding Cake....period. For what purpose does a baker NEED TO KNOW, what people do in their bed?

God Bless,
SBC

Well, they kind of announce it when they request a man-man or woman-woman cake topper....

The one that made it to the Supreme Court was concerning a custom designed wedding cake but I don't know what they specifically wanted.

I guess, the compromise is to make a policy to not use cake toppers....many wedding cakes don't use them anymore anyway.

If it is a small community, then the baker and photographer and rest of the community are probably already aware. However, providing service for these is not "condoning" anything. It is simply providing a service. The only one who condones it is the official that actually officiates over the ceremony.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

BTW, I mostly agree with you. But I don't think that the gay movement is going to arrive at the same absolute victory that the blacks did, for the simple reason that there is not the collective memory of a million dead, of armies on the march, and there are not two political parties that formed themselves into their configurations to fight that war.

You may be right, but fighting a war over it shouldn't have to be a requirement for people to get equal rights. I hope we can agree on that.

People DO think that gays are sexual deviants. They are just willing to TOLERATE them. SOME people, a minority of them, think that there is no difference between gays and heterosexuals, that homosexuality is not squidgy or deviant. But that's really a pretty small portion of the population. People's minds are not changing in THAT regard. They are willing to be open and tolerant.

That's the difference. Whites and blacks marry now, because they've admitted each other is human.

For one, equating homosexuality and transgender is incorrect - they're not really related. I would say that at this point, we've likely reached a point where the majority don't see homosexuality as deviant. Most people are heterosexual, or at least skew towards that end of the spectrum, and therefore find the idea of homosexual sex "unattractive" from a personal standpoint, but have no problem with homosexuals themselves - they see them as human, as you put it. Transgenderism has not reached that point yet though - it'll probably take at least another generation before people get used to the idea.

But the transexual movement demands that we say boys and girls are the same thing, with interchangeable parts. Society is never going to believe that madness, and never going to accept it, not ever, even if we become pleasant and tolerant to people with sexual deviancy, we always see the deviancy and we never think it's not deviant. We work at being tolerant and socially pleasant. We don't think that boys and girls are interchangeable.

That's not really what transgenderism is. Transgenderism is the idea that gender is determined mentally/chemically and may not match your physical sex. While there are a few people out there who are gender-fluid and don't necessarily identify as the same gender consistently, the vast majority identify as either male or female. For some though, their physical sex does not match their identified gender, and thus we have "transgender." That's not saying that male and female are "interchangeable" - just that there are more factors that determine it besides physical sex.

 

[Vicomte13]

That's not really what transgenderism is. Transgenderism is the idea that gender is determined mentally/chemically and may not match your physical sex. While there are a few people out there who are gender-fluid and don't necessarily identify as the same gender consistently, the vast majority identify as either male or female. For some though, their physical sex does not match their identified gender, and thus we have "transgender." That's not saying that male and female are "interchangeable" - just that there are more factors that determine it besides physical sex.

That's the argument. Most of mankind rejects it. It is a struggle over language, over who has the power to define words. People are willing to tolerate. They are not willing to be told what they can and cannot say. Impositions of that sort can be made on minorities. They cannot be made on vast supermajorities. What you end up with is a backlash. The election of Trump, for example, is a case of backlash.

Unfortunately, it is the nature of man to not stop at reasonable limits, to run past them, and then to get the backlash. Where things settle out are the truce lines where bruising battles were fought.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Most of mankind rejects it.

And most of mankind has rejected just about every unfamiliar idea that it is presented with at first. That's not a valid argument.

 

[Vicomte13]

And most of mankind has rejected just about every unfamiliar idea that it is presented with at first. That's not a valid argument.

It's an argument from power, and power is the determiner of the outcome of all arguments, ultimately.

There have not been very many arguments such as the transgender argument before. Over the course of history, the people have been able to decide things only for the past couple of centuries here, less elsewhere. We've had one big movement in that time that has changed things: black rights. Recognition of gays is a new thing, whose parameters are not spelled out yet.

 

[SBC]

what reasoning do heterosexuals have to announce their sexual activity preference to, a restaurant, a teacher, a school, a Church, an ambulance driver, a bakery?

if you try to purchase a wedding cake for you and your opposite-gendered fiancee then that is exactly what you are doing.

All I would be doing is purchasing is a cake. For who is irrelevant.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

Well, they kind of announce it when they request a man-man or woman-woman cake topper....

The one that made it to the Supreme Court was concerning a custom designed wedding cake but I don't know what they specifically wanted.

I guess, the compromise is to make a policy to not use cake toppers....many wedding cakes don't use them anymore anyway.

If it is a small community, then the baker and photographer and rest of the community are probably already aware. However, providing service for these is not "condoning" anything. It is simply providing a service. The only one who condones it is the official that actually officiates over the ceremony.

.

Everyone knowingly involved condones it, which is why a homosexual announces their intent to a baker when they could purchase a cake put their own topper on and be on their way.

Homosexuals don't want themselves personally accepted they want everyone to condone and accept their chosen sexuality and quite simply not everyone does or will.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SilverBear]

.

Everyone knowingly involved condones it, which is why a homosexual announces their intent to a baker when they could purchase a cake put their own topper on and be on their way.

just like heterosexual announces their intent.

Homosexuals don't want themselves personally accepted they want everyone to condone and accept their chosen sexuality and quite simply not everyone does or will.

God Bless,
SBC

first: You obviously don't really know any gays or lesbians, if you did you wouldn't be spouting off nonsense like this.

Second: I do know many homosexuals and none of them give two cents about you or anyone else condoning or accepting. What they want to to be treated just like everyone else and not have fear having their families attacked by fundamentalists.

Third: Homosexuals don't choose their sexuality any more than you chose yours. WHat they do choose is to be brave enough to live honestly and to stand up to people who choose to hate them.

 

[SBC]

just like heterosexual announces their intent.


first: You obviously don't really know any gays or lesbians, if you did you wouldn't be spouting off nonsense like this.

Second: I do know many homosexuals and none of them give two cents about you or anyone else condoning or accepting. What they want to to be treated just like everyone else and not have fear having their families attacked by fundamentalists.

Third: Homosexuals don't choose their sexuality any more than you chose yours. WHat they do choose is to be brave enough to live honestly and to stand up to people who choose to hate them.

First - thanks for sharing your false testimony.
It's good to know how you operate!

Second, I could care less who you know.

Third, I believe God forms a humans body with the gender He decides. And it is humans who choose who they will lie with and call themselves.

Fourth. It is a very small minded human that reduces disagreement to being hate!

It is big of you to set the record on bravery, honesty and hate, and who that applies to.

I do not agree with you. And you do not agree with me. So what?

Brave, hateful to say so? Nope just honest.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

You may be right, but fighting a war over it shouldn't have to be a requirement for people to get equal rights.

What War?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SilverBear]

First - thanks for sharing your false testimony.
It's good to know how you operate!

can you please point out where I lied?

Second, I could care less who you know.

fair enough
but I think this qualifies as an admission on your part that you don't know the people you are talking about

Third, I believe God forms a humans body with the gender He decides. And it is humans who choose who they will lie with and call themselves.

first: gender and orientation are two entirely separate things, please learn the difference.

Second: Homosexuals don't choose their orientation any more than you chose your orientation.

Fourth. It is a very small minded human that reduces disagreement to being hate!

you aren't disagreeing you are announcing the thoughts and motivations of an entire minority...a minority that you don't actually know any member of.

If your rhetoric was directed at you and your family what would you call it?

It is big of you to set the record on bravery, honesty and hate, and who that applies to.

Living openly is brave. I've witnessed gays and members of their families assaulted and threatened. It is hate, not disagreement.

I do not agree with you. And you do not agree with me. So what?

Brave, hateful to say so? Nope just honest.

God Bless,
SBC

I am looking forward to you being brave and honest enough to point out where I lied

 

[blackribbon]

.

Everyone knowingly involved condones it, which is why a homosexual announces their intent to a baker when they could purchase a cake put their own topper on and be on their way.

Homosexuals don't want themselves personally accepted they want everyone to condone and accept their chosen sexuality and quite simply not everyone does or will.

God Bless,
SBC

You don't just plop a cake topper on top of a wedding cake. It is part of the design and it gets frosted on.

So I am condoning homosexual behavior when I care for homosexual patients in the hospital as a nurse? Even the Christian hospitals accept patients of all belief systems. I think you are actually showing God's love when you serve the unbelieving with unconditional love. Not making a cake isn't going to stop the wedding....

Matthew 22:36-40](NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

This does not say only love your Christian neighbors as yourself.

 

[Archivist]

And, as I have said before, a wedding cake is not served as part of the wedding ceremony. Providing a cake that is served at a reception in no way condones gay marriage.

Does changing oil in a limo that is used to transport a same sex wedding party from the church to the reception condone gay marriage? What about catering the dinner? Where do we draw the line?

 

[LinkH]

However, the issue with the blacks is simply different, and that pendulum will not swing back, because it was broken off. Gays don't have the numbers, or the support, or the history of horror at the hands of Americans that blacks do. The only other people who have a valid claim to some sort of special law set because of the past are the Amerindians, and they do have various treaty rights, etc.

These are good points. The main reason I have wondered if doing away with laws that require businesses to serve every race, creed, color, etc. is because of the philosophical shift away from individual freedom it led to. Racism is a nasty thing. But at least for now, I think you are right that the pendulum was pretty much broken off when it comes to racism. If it were legal not to serve minorities, I believe if a restaurant in the deep south refused to serve blacks, whites and blacks together would vote with their feetj and the place wouldn't be able to break even. That's the situation we are in.

Would it really be wrong if a Vietnamese restaurant were allowed to have an official policy only to hire ethnic Vietnamese, especially for the cooking? What about an African furniture store that hired only people of African heritage? I think our social climate would allow for these things if there weren't laws. Jews only hiring Jews in the kosher butcher shop should be considered protected under the constitution since that deals with religion. I'm not sure if this has come up in the courts

The logic of the gay movement irresistibly presses onward to pedophilia, and that is where it - unlike the black civil rights movement - touches the third rail and ends up being rolled back.

It certainly does. Homosexuals have an attraction for the opposite sex. Their movement has labeled this an 'orientation'. Pedophiles have a strong attraction for children. Logically, it's the same thing, an 'orientation.' Of course, the LGBT folks have gotten special protection not to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation. Someone could not hire me because they don't like my nose or my weight (if it is not from a medical condition) or because I express an opinion they don't like. But people who desire to perform sinful sexual acts get special protection against discrimination over that. Why shouldn't this logically extend to pedophiles. The EEOC has extended a precedent set by a Pricewaterhouse case in the late 1980's to include LGBT issues.

If they are logically consistent, then the EEOC would have to back pedophiles who are refused work at a school because of their pedophilia orientation or zoophiles who are refused work at a ranch over their zoophile orientation, or necrophiliacs at the mortuary.

Some people think this is ridiculous. It goes against contempory mores and values too much. But so did the LGBT thing even 20 years ago when the US still had people with a slightly less degenerated sense of sexual morality. Yet the morality slid. The narrative got twisted. Those who oppose sinning against God in these areas are considered immoral.

Part of the shift in American culture came in the sexual revolution, with 'free sex' among young college students, legalizing killing babies in the womb to cover up from the free sex, massive acceptance of no-fault divorce and remarriage with churches being silent, winking at it, or accepting it. Now, even some people who profess to be Christians are in favor of arsenokoites as clergymen, so called 'gay-marriage.' If the slide into the immoral abbys has gone this far, who is to say the narrative won't shift to say that sex with kids doesn't really hurt them? They just need to get some academics on their side to generate agenda-driven studies and some media to spin the research a certain way? I hope it doesn't go that far.

We're really not going to be, as a society, bullied into calling men "she" because they demand it. We'll vote in a long line of Trumps and tear the law apart and remake it if that is where it keeps on being pushed.

I hope they aren't all Trumps, but I do hope there is a backlash against the perversion. Trump doesn't seem that adamant on this particular issue.

 

[LinkH]

And, as I have said before, a wedding cake is not served as part of the wedding ceremony. Providing a cake that is served at a reception in no way condones gay marriage.

Does changing oil in a limo that is used to transport a same sex wedding party from the church to the reception condone gay marriage? What about catering the dinner? Where do we draw the line?

If someone else believes differently, he is entitled to a clean conscience on the issue. All believers in Christ should respect that, even if the person in question is persecuted for his faith.