Sarah Sanders and Family Denied Service at Virginia Restaurant

[SilverBear]

I wouldn't exactly say that the culinary arts are immoral. You know that's not what I meant. What's immoral are the events in question, and your insistence that, in order to "be nice", people must be forced by the government to participate in the events they find morally troubling.

like seating an objectionable politician in one's restaurant?

 

[SilverBear]

I haven't heard of anyone kicking out a gay person from restaurant. People not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is different from asking someone to leave a restaurant based on her political affiliation.

no it's exactly the same. The owner of the restaurant declined to serve Ms. Sanders based on behavior the owner found morally reprehensible and that providing services to this person would have compromised the owners sincerely held religious beliefs.

 

[SilverBear]

A wedding is considered a religious ceremony. Sitting down and having a meal is not.

the baker refused provide serviced for a reception not a wedding. and all a reception is just sitting down and having a meal.

 

[HereIStand]

no it's exactly the same. The owner of the restaurant declined to serve Ms. Sanders based on behavior the owner found morally reprehensible and that providing services to this person would have compromised the owners sincerely held religious beliefs.

There is a difference. Immigration policy isn't a religious ceremony.

 

[HereIStand]

the baker refused provide serviced for a reception not a wedding. and all a reception is just sitting down and having a meal.

A reception is part of a wedding, which is a religious ceremony.

 

[SilverBear]

There is a difference. Immigration policy isn't a religious ceremony.

the only difference I'm seeing is your view that discrimination is OK as long as it's against people you don't happen to like.

 

[SilverBear]

A reception is part of a wedding, which is a religious ceremony.

you are talking about a wedding that took place weeks earlier in a different state, in a civil court room officiated by a judge.

 

[miamited]

You couldn't be more wrong... there is coming a moral awakening and a push for supposed religious values much to the detriment of many.... myself included.

Hi ECR,

Well, I'm fairly confident that such a position isn't going to come from President Trump's time in the big chair. I can't think of many who have held that office in my life time that portray a totally un-Jesus like nature. Denigrating, name calling and mocking people. Lying about pretty much everything. I'm just flabbergasted with awe that people find, just because President Trump is so strongly against immigration and the current healthcare, that the evangelicals seem to think that he shows such christian values.

When I see this, I just can't help but recall Jesus' words to his disciples about the many christians who he says will be calling out to him on the day of his Father's judgment that they lived a life like he wanted them to, but apparently Jesus doesn't know them. Makes one wonder if this isn't just another of the 'signs of the times'.

I'm curious though in the way that you put your comment: there is coming a moral awakening and a push for 'supposed' religious values...

Could you explain exactly what you're referencing there?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Hank77]

There may be some small grain of truth to that, but the actual history of our country wouldn't support it. There have been times that our various party elected officials have worked well together to keep our nation up and running without all the 'us vs. them' mentality. That's how we're supposed to work.

I would say that Bill Clinton worked very well with a Republican Congress.

 

[miamited]

Well, maybe don't include "God bless" or "In Christ" in your post if you're going to call someone a sock puppet. It's an awkward combination.

Hi HIS,

For the record, I didn't call the poster a sock puppet. What I said was:

Gosh, if I didn't know better I'd think you were sock puppet account...

I obviously know better because I phrased it as 'if I didn't know better'. You, for some reason, have latched on to the words 'sock puppet', and for whatever reason, decided that using such a phrase is not in keeping with christian values. But I did not call the poster a sock puppet. I said that 'if I didn't know better' I'd think her account was a sock puppet account for President Trump. You find that offensive and I'm afraid that it will just have to be so, but I did want to clear the air for everyone reading that I never said the poster was a sock puppet.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

I would say that Bill Clinton worked very well with a Republican Congress.

Hi hank,

I think that up until the big divide over the ACA that President Obama also worked well with both parties. But even after the fall out created by the ACA vote, President Obama never made any outward effort to shut out the republicans from debate and decisions on legislative work. This complete shut out of the other party in the work of the legislature is a new signature of President Trump. But I do say that it began to turn that way after the ACA vote. From what I remember of President Obama's term is that after the ACA vote, the republicans themselves began to close ranks and shut themselves out of legislative work and it became very acrimonious between the parties. But, none of that was ever encouraged or supported by President Obama.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Hank77]

that is pretty much what i was asking you. Do you think that denying service to individuals based on morally offensive behavior is wrong?

A baker will sell birthday cakes, cookies, ready made cakes to the people who have behaviors that are offensive to him, but not create a special cake for an event he doesn't agree with, says to me that he isn't discriminating against the people or their offensive behavior.

How does that compare with refusing to serve Sanders? What/who was the owner discriminating against?

 

[iluvatar5150]

You couldn't be more wrong... there is coming a moral awakening and a push for supposed religious values much to the detriment of many.... myself included.

The moral awakening is already here; its thrust is treating all people fairly, and it’s happening everywhere but the far right.

Even the SBC is starting to reevaluate things.

 

[miamited]

The moral awakening is already here; its thrust is treating all people fairly, and it’s happening everywhere but the far right.

Even the SBC is starting to reevaluate things.

Hi iluvatar,

So, you don't believe that everyone should be treated fairly? Let's be very careful with our words in this discussion. You're using the word 'fairly'. I think the Scriptures teach that everyone should be treated fairly and in many cases treated even better than what is perceived as 'fair'. Jesus said that we should turn the other cheek if our oppressor strikes us. Is that fair?

But please understand, 'fair' does not mean that we are all equal in our relationship with God. Fair means that we treat others in a way that is right. A way that is fair. 'Fair' doesn't mean that a christian has to say that same sex relationships are right, but it does mean that they should be fair in how they interact with them. You can't hogtie a homosexual just because he's a homosexual. That wouldn't be fair.

As God was raising up His nation Israel, He allowed them to do some things that don't seem fair to us. But I think we need to be mindful of God's purposes in raising up the nation of Israel. It was to bring the account and the reality of salvation to us. However, Jesus explained to us a new covenant that was in his blood. Jesus' teaching was that now, everyone should do their best to live with one another and that especially those who were following after him, should be quick to forgive the slights and sins of others.

Peter asked of the Lord how many times he should forgive his brother who sins against him. Do you remember Jesus' reply to him? We know that when Peter asked that question he wasn't using the term 'brother' as we do today among fellow believers. At that time there was no 'christian' fellowship. Peter was using the term 'brother' to reference just other people.

So, when I hear people say that the God of the old covenant is different than the God of the new, I don't think that they are understanding the purpose of God in calling up Abram and establishing through him a line of descendants that were to become God's people upon the earth...until Jesus came.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[iluvatar5150]

Hi iluvatar,

So, you don't believe that everyone should be treated fairly?

On the contrary, I do believe everyone should be treated fairly. And I see this movement towards respect, dignity, fairness, protection, equal access, etc for all coming primarily from the left (though the center is mostly coming along, too). At least as long as I've been alive, it's been the right who's balked at these sentiments.

 

[miamited]

On the contrary, I do believe everyone should be treated fairly. And I see this movement towards respect, dignity, fairness, protection, equal access, etc for all coming primarily from the left (though the center is mostly coming along, too). At least as long as I've been alive, it's been the right who's balked at these sentiments.

Hi iluvatar,

Ok, then I misunderstood the intent of your post. I believe that the 'left', although I've never understood what we are right or left of, is more compassionate in working to provide from those who have, a small piece to those who have not.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Hank77]

OK then. Have our conservative friends decided whether they would like the broad right to deny services for religious reasons?

Do you expect us to guess what you mean by the 'broad' right? Can you be more specific?

 

[Hank77]

Since conseratives tend to be the ones citing the Constitution and its importance all the time, support for Stop and Frisk shouldn't be mainstream. It's a violation of personal rights and could easily be exploited by the "bad cops"

I agree.

 

[Hank77]

“Feed”? Don’t make it sound like this was some charity operation where she was left to starve.



No, it was because of who she works for and what she does in her job every day. Do you really not understand the difference?

It's because she Agrees with who she works for.

 

[variant]

Do you expect us to guess what you mean by the 'broad' right? Can you be more specific?

A broad right would be to deny services whenever you like on religious grounds.

Carte blanch if you will.

 

[Hank77]

The baker refused service because of the sexual orientation

He did not refuse to create a cake for them because of their sexual orientation. There is proof that he has gay customers that he has created birthday cakes, etc. for. His attorney pointed out that he received emails from gay customers that were supporting him.