Canadian SC: Christian law school can't forbid students from gay sex

[JackRT]

Jesus didn't have to condemn homosexuality. He was sent to the Israelites, and homosexuality was already understood to be clearly proscribed and the behavior condemned in the law. Paul, on the other hand, was sent to gentiles, many of whom were practicing such things in the many temples of pagan gods. He needed to be more specific about these practices.

I agree. In many cases what the Bible is condemning is not homosexuality itself but male and female temple prostitution.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Note: It was also important enough to God that if you wore clothing of mixed fabrics, there were consequences...?

Indeed, relative to the seriousness of it and the degree of accountability and context (not wearing team colors can be a serious violation in a certain context), as we see in rules and law today and thus Capital sins of the OT were not for mixing fabrics or eating eels (and prohibition of mixed fabric clothing referred to dissimilar kinds, as " linen and woollen" like as plowing with an ox and an donkey together.- Deuteronomy 22:10,11 - and applies to union of good and evil).

For Israelites, being cut off was the penalty for violation of some some sins (like eating blood) dealing with typological ceremonial/ritual holiness codes, but the sins that are clearly capital ones for all people are basic universal moral laws such as seen in Leviticus 18, and just what constitutes the marital union and family is most foundational.

And contextually it was for these moral defilements that God judged the pagans for (and which were fruits of idolatry), not ritual uncleanness or not keeping the Sabbath, etc.

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:..For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled. (Leviticus 18:24. 27)

Also, my research from years ago showed examination of the use of tô‛êbah in the original language text reveals that it is not used in Leviticus for dietary violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to such things as abominable for Israel, and in contrast, tô‛êbah is the word most often used for abomination in reference to grave moral sins, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. Collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. (Lv. 18:27,29) As idolatry is the mother of all sins, tô‛êbah is often used for such. (Dt. 32:16)

The word, which, when used, always denotes ceremonial abominations is sheqets (Lev. 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), and then shâqats, from which it is derived, which itself is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations, (Lev. 11:11,13,43; 20:25) and a "cursed thing in Dt. 7:26, and an abhorred cry in Prv. 22:24.

See Homosexual relations and the Bible Homosexual relations versus the Bible

Moreover, as explained before , under the promised New Covenant, the distinction btwn types of law is made clearer, with the literal observance of typological laws being abrogated, but not the intent of them (avoiding swine represented sin), while moral laws are reiterated and magnified.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Sure they are...they might not be endorsing it, but they're certainly taking lackadaisical position when it comes to protesting against certain ones when it comes to "I, as a business owner, don't want to do that because it promotes a lifestyle choice that's against what my book teaches".

Anytime I've seen those objections, it's always centered around one "sin", that being their objection to homosexuality.

I've never seen a store owner refuse to sell a lighter to smokers.
I've never heard of a baker refusing to sell pastries to gluttons (even though I'm positive that's an encounter they've had much more often then two dudes asking for a wedding cake...I've been in bakeries, I've seen what much of the clientele looks like)

When business owners want to "object" to things, it always seem to be the thing that meets two convenient criteria for them
A) It's a sin that they, personally, find it easy to abstain from
B) It's a sin that impacts a small enough portion of the population, that it won't particularly hurt their numbers at the end of the year.

If those same bakers took as staunch of a position on the doctrine relating to gluttony, and "harming the temple" and, in turn, refused to sell sweets to anyone over 250 pounds...let's see what their books would look like at the end of the fiscal year.

This is complete nonsense. The reason this sin is an issue is because this particular sin - unlike gluttony or smoking - is receiving legal protection, and forcing others to act against their own consciences in compliance. One can do whatever he wants. One cannot force others to approve of it, and support it, contrary to his own faith. That's what is happening.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I agree. In many cases what the Bible is condemning is not homosexuality itself but male and female temple prostitution.

That's completely false and a view widely promoted by the revisionists. Of course temple prostitution is wrong for God's people - that was clear in the Law. It's certainly still true under the New Testament.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is complete nonsense. The reason this sin is an issue is because this particular sin - unlike gluttony or smoking - is receiving legal protection

No, it's receiving legal equality measures...something the other two sins already have.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I agree. In many cases what the Bible is condemning is not homosexuality itself but male and female temple prostitution.

First, as was said, That specious polemic "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality" is like arguing that since the Lord Himself while on earth said nothing explicitly about rape pedophilia, cannibalism, etc., then it means He "says absolutely nothing about" them, and which attests to either blindness, ignorance or a fallacious idea of how a subject can be addressed.

When the Lord broadly condemns "fornications" (plural) and defines marriage as specifically being btwn male and female (Matthew 15:16; 19:4-6) - thus leaving all other sexual relationships except male and female in marriage to be fornication - then yes, He has addressed them.

In addition, while there are a few references to temple prostitution, at the least sodomy is not excluded, (Dt. 23:17 1Ki_14:24, 1Ki_15:12, 1Ki_22:46; 2Ki_23:7) God only condemned homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with, and nowhere sanctioned the same.

 

[JackRT]

Perhaps the most thorough examination of the issue of homosexuality in the Bible is
Homosexuality and the Bible by the late Rev. Dr.Walter Wink, Former Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological Seminary, New York City.

http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf

 

[hedrick]

Biblical proscriptions against homosexual activity remain and are reasserted in the New Testament. If God wished to correct some misunderstanding in the Law that this activity actually was good and right, then we would have been told in His Word.

I wasn't arguing the merits of opposition to homosexuality. That's not permitted in this group. I was making a legal analysis. If the US and Canada are going to have religions and philosophies coexist, we need to find a way to avoid tripping over each other. Can a couple call a cab to take them from a wedding to the airport, or do they have to worry about whether the cabbie considers the wedding moral? That way lies madness.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Perhaps the most thorough examination of the issue of homosexuality in the Bible is
Homosexuality and the Bible by the late Rev. Dr.Walter Wink, Former Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological Seminary, New York City.
http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf

You mean one of the most thoroughly specious works of sophistry:
HOMOSEXUALITY and the BIBLE (Walter Wink refuted)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Those guys wanted a custom artistic creation

As pointed out earlier in the thread in the Supreme Court ruling, they never even made it to discussing what the cake looked like. It's unclear whether the customization was anything more than "alternating chocolate and angelfood layers covered in white icing."

But they chose to harass this guy because of his Christian faith

No, their planner recommended the shop.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can a couple call a cab to take them from a wedding to the airport, or do they have to worry about ...

In related news, Muslim cabbies in Minnesota were refusing passengers who had alcohol with them. The cabbies were getting suspended and they sued on the basis of their religious rights. They lost their court case and also lost on appeal.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

Canada’s top court has ruled in favour of denying accreditation to a Christian law school that banned students from having gay sex.

Friday’s ruling against Trinity Western University in British Columbia (BC) was closely watched by both religious freedom and gay rights advocates.

The university made students promise not to have extra-marital or gay sex.

The Supreme Court found that protecting LGBT students from discrimination trumped religious freedom.

The school banned students from any sex outside of marriage. The school does not recognize civil unions of same sex individuals.

Religious institutions were told their beliefs would be respected. This is one of many early salvos. Their is no goal or agenda, but society is moving toward a scary irrational place. If I hold up three fingers and I asked you how many, the answer is whatever the most offended militant people tell you I am holding up.

 

[JackRT]

The school banned students from any sex outside of marriage. The school does not recognize civil unions of same sex individuals.

Religious institutions were told their beliefs would be respected. This is one of many early salvos. Their is no goal or agenda, but society is moving toward a scary irrational place. If I hold up three fingers and I asked you how many, the answer is whatever the most offended militant people tell you I am holding up.

If the school had simply stated "This is a Christian institution and we expect our student body to adhere to Christian standards of morality" there would be no problem. Aside from that, it is a rule that is only enforceable after the fact in that no rule has ever completely suppressed the sex drive. "Civil unions" were mentioned but in Canada same sex marriage is recognized as a marriage and some Christian denominations perform them.

In Canada at least society is moving in the right direction.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I agree. In many cases what the Bible is condemning is not homosexuality itself but male and female temple prostitution.

Can you please point out some of the many scriptures that covers those cases?

 

[JackRT]

Read "Homosexuality and the Bible" by Walter Wink

http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf

 

[Kenny'sID]

Read "Homosexuality and the Bible" by Walter Wink

http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf

Are you speaking to me, if so...why? You made the claim, that's why I asked you and not some website that didn't come here claiming anything.

It was a simple question that required a simple answer, simple that is if your claim is correct.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

As pointed out earlier in the thread in the Supreme Court ruling, they never even made it to discussing what the cake looked like. It's unclear whether the customization was anything more than "alternating chocolate and angelfood layers covered in white icing."

A wedding cake is a very expensive creation (average price being over $500.00) which usually must be ordered well in advance, and with a substantial down payment, and in this case what it expressly was to signify was an illicit wedding.

Regardless of the design, by agreeing to to create this special work for its known, expressed purpose the baker would be complicit in celebrating that which was illicit, just as one will for refusing to create a special work for the purpose of celebrating a wedding btwn a human and an animal, when and if that becomes legal. But legalizing such does make the business guilty in the eyes of the law, though in such a case the state is guilty in the eyes of God.

Relevant questions re. Masterpiece:

• Was Masterpiece refusing to contract to create a special work a cake anyone else could buy? No (the baker would not consent to create a work for any purpose).

• Was Masterpiece singling out homosexuals in denying to contract for a cake celebrating homosexual marriage? No (straight couples would also be refused such/"discriminated" against, like as for Halloween and divorce celebrations).
• Was Masterpiece acting consistent with his convictions here? Yes.
• Was the refusal by Masterpiece to recognize "gay marriage" also that of the state constitution at the time? Yes.
• Did the state recognize out-of-state civil unions or same-sex marriages performed outside of Colorado at that time? No.
  
• Would Masterpiece be conveying recognition of "gay marriage" by contracting to provide this special and expensive cake? Yes.
• Was the state effectively requiring Masterpiece not to have or act upon compelling convictions in this regard by punishing the owners for not recognizing what the state itself historically did not? Yes.
• Would the state punish a black or Jewish baker for refusing to create a special work for a KKK celebration, though the latter has the right to freedom of speech? Unlikely.
• Would the state punish a Muslim baker for refusing to create a special cake for the celebration of the anniversary of the modern state of Israel? Unlikely.
  
• Is the Masterpiece case analogous to a baker refusing to create a special cake for the wedding of a mixed-race couple on moral grounds? Yes, but not when the state itself did not recognize such a union as valid, though in contrast to same-sex weddings which have zero Scriptural support, mixed-race marital unions do.
  
• Should Masterpiece have been (severely) punished for refusing to be complicit in the celebration of a wedding which was both contrary to the law of God as well as the highest law of the state at the time? No. But since CO nuked its constitutional definition of marriage being btwn a man and a women (before gender itself became fluid) then it would be liable to punishment then.
  
• Can the state punish business and people for refusing to be complicit in acts which are contrary to what they believe, and the Founders evidenced they believed?
  
• Is the real problem that of the courts autocratically redefining marriage clearly contrary to Scripture and what the Founders manifestly believed (in contrast to slavery, to which some expressed rejection of)? Yes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A wedding cake is a very expensive creation (average price being over $500.00) which usually must be ordered well in advance, and with a substantial down payment

Truly fascinating.

and in this case what it expressly was to signify was an illicit wedding.

The wedding had already happened in the past, and there was nothing illicit about it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Truly fascinating.
The wedding had already happened in the past, and there was nothing illicit about it.

You mean there nothing licit about it according to Scripture or the state law, the latter of which defined marriage as btwn a man and a women, and did not recognize out of state homosexual marriages.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You mean there nothing licit about it according to Scripture or the state law

No, when talking about the licitness of it, the only laws that are relevant are those where it occurred. It was entirely licit.