PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,779
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
In what way?That's the fault of the Constitution, not the courts.
Upvote
0
In what way?That's the fault of the Constitution, not the courts.
You whole argument is fallacious, from reducing (per usual) the creation of a special cake specifically for the known express purpose of celebrating that which is unlawful to merely being a witness to it (the crime), to equating taking part in something that might be wrong, but would require an investigation to find out to knowingly facilitating the commiting of a crime.Twaddle.
Do you check that every bride is a virgin and every groom a gentleman before you accept a wedding invitation? Do you make sure that the money used to pay for the wedding has been honourably earned, and proper tax paid on everything? Do you insist on only sitting next to Christians at the wedding and in the reception?
If not, why not? You might as well be taking part in religious idolatry if you don't ensure the complete purity of the whole event.
Here is what the people are a wedding are for; they are there to witness the wedding. That is it. No moral approval or disapproval. No moral statement of any kind. They are just there so that if they are ever asked, 'Were you at this wedding?' they can say, 'Yes, I was.' They don't even have to declare it was a valid wedding; only that it happened and they saw it.
That is it. Nothing more.
Meaning yourself.You are just peddling flim-flam and groundless assertions..
Really? Meaning the Lord condemned your judging since He charged those with guilt by association, and for fornication, and defined marriage as specifically btwn man and women, and only condemned hypocritical judging. Trying to link taking Biblical stands for morality, as the Lord did, with those of un-selfconscious self-righteous elitism is an old demonic liberal tactic, which they themselves are guilty of.Your self-righteous standards of purity are the sort of stuff Christians aren't supposed to deal in. They resonate with the type of religion Jesus condemned.
Wrong again, for quoted material is as as good as the references, which are valid here.Sourcing from Conservapedia is hardly evidence of intellectual rigor or integrity. That's like going to Stormfront to learn about the Holocaust
In what way?
Great news for religious freedom.
Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn’t Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple
Meaning yourself.
Really? Meaning the Lord condemned your judging since He charged those with guilt by association, and for fornication, and defined marriage as specifically btwn man and women, and only condemned hypocritical judging. Trying to link taking Biblical stands for morality, as the Lord did, with those of un-selfconscious self-righteous elitism is an old demonic liberal tactic, which they themselves are guilty of.
Wrong again, for quoted material is as as good as the references, which are valid here.
Wrong again, for quoted material is as as good as the references, which are valid here.
a) It is - despite recent changes in Australian law - still not legal for me to conduct gay marriages, because my church does not authorise me to. This is not without problems for some people, but it is a situation I can live with. I do not support gay marriage per se, but I support the right for gay people to have their marriage recognised by a secular state. (That is, I don't believe that my beliefs should be imposed on others).
b) The couple wanted a cake for a party to take place sometime after their wedding. That's not illegal, and I'm having difficulty deciding that even God is against parties for sinners. So, no, the baker would not be an accessory, and claiming a conscience issue is - imv - displaced.
There's nothing unlawful about eating cake, which is the purpose of buying a cake. It's not intrinsically part of the wedding, especially when it's supplied for a party some time later.
I see nothing wrong with celebrating a divorce with cake especially if one is finally free from being tortured from physical. mental and emotional abuse. sure I agree that god hates divorce, yet jesus gives a few reasons for it to be allowed-right paidiski?
i can see this opening up a whole can of worms
ppl can say its against their religion bc they belong to the cult of gym, and therefore cannot serve fat people.
where will this end?
What I said, to which you replied, was:Has this happened? I don't see any Salafist gas station owners on the SCOTUS docket....
When a couple marries in a civil ceremony and comes to church for a blessing they are in effect doing exactly the same as a couple marrying in church; they marry one another, the church blesses the union.
Given all of this, quite why the church still has problems marrying gay people is beyond me. It doesn't marry anyone.
Hmm. Did I say it was ok?...So can you explain (in a way that makes sense) why in your opinion why it's OK to post a sign advertising a business choice to not serve women but you blanch at the idea of a business posting a sign advertising its choice to not serve blacks?
Which is not unlimited, and depends upon interpretation with other rights being considered, otherwise any immoral persons (felons) can vote, the boy scouts must allow homosexual leaders, and organizations must allow any type of group in its events, artists must create whatever is asked for them, for whatever purpose...The 14th Amendment (which has long been a pebble in the Right's shoe for several reasons) guarantees all people equal protection under the law... it makes no exceptions for moral/immoral behavior...
I have a question for you.
Should a painter or sculptor that creates art depicting a man and woman in an intimate embrace be forced to create art depicting same sex couples in an intimate embrace?
Pretty sure it was because despite the claims of cakes sending obvious, clear, unmistakable messages about the beliefs of the baker, they somehow missed the message that one of the cakes in your link is for a gay wedding. Weird how this alleged straightforward endorsement of immorality by a baker escaped someone who was specifically telling us how important it was. Almost as if the reality of the situation doesn't line up with the propaganda coming from people who want to give businesses a blank check to refuse service to certain groups.
Which is not unlimited, and depends upon interpretation with other rights being considered, otherwise any immoral persons (felons) can vote, the boy scouts must allow homosexual leaders, and organizations must allow any type of group in its events, artists must create whatever is asked for them, for whatever purpose...
Typical of liberalism ,you example the very thing you charge. You flail away at self-righteous judging, while you judge as one superior, and make some vague references to Christ as conddeming what you condemn, which can only be some decontextualized and misrepresented material.It is precisely because I take a stand for real biblical morality, the kind that Jesus would approve of, that I object to your unholy war against gays.
Decontextualized and misrepresented material is as good as worthless. Conservative hacks so typical of the far right are masters of using empty rhetoric and sophistry as a way to place a fig leaf over the vacuity of their ideas..
Rather, Most educated people recognize that in the context we are dealing with here, of being an accomplice to a crime, association with it, is a valid legal concept, as was shown.BTW, i am unaware of any Christian ethical notion of "guilt by association". Most educated people recognize that is an absurdity. If I know somebody who happens to turn out to be a murderer, I am not guilty of their crime just because I know them.
This issue here is the latter, as explained.As usual, you fail to distinguish between acceptance and affirmation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting gay people for who they are. That is not the same as affirming their behavior.
Wrong again. Judging what a person does, by refusing to be associated with it due to sincere convictions and conscience, is Biblical and does not mean this is that of self-righteous hypocritical judging. You may feel demeaned because I will not be part of your homosexual celebration, and judge me for it, but it does not mean you are right.Being a Christian doesn't require us to go around being the judge of every perceived sinner. But you somehow take upon yourself the duty to not only judge gay people, but anybody who simply believes it is right and proper to recognize their dignity as being the same as any other human being.
I wonder if that means: You dont have to fuel up a wedding car; you dont have to supply electricity to the wedding venue; you dont have to sell the wedding dress; as a post office you can refuse to post or deliver wedding invitations; can turn off the water to the wedding venue; refuse to sell the flowers etc etc - I guess you can go elsewhere in a lot of cases.
Not when the couple say it is specifically for the celebration of their (unlawful) "marriage"