Excluding Farmer's Market Vendor for Refusing to Host Same-Sex Weddings

[KCfromNC]

And you are still spreading misinformation. And that's being generous to you. When you said "hey people stop making cakes for gay people". You are spreading disinformation at best or now it's bordering on flat out lying about our position.

Can you explain how asking for a Bible verse specifically addressing the claim that one's religion doesn't allow them to make cakes for gay people is lying? I mean, it was an exact parallel to the goalpost moving your post was doing asking for specific Bible verses justifying previous religious-based discrimination.

Or, you know, come clean and admit this post is taking what I said out of context in an attempt to dodge addressing what it actually said.

 

[KCfromNC]

And even if the cheater was black he couldn't sue for discrimination because the refusal OBVIOUSLY had nothing to do with his race. It had to do with what he was celebrating, the event.

Which makes this example have nothing to do with gay weddings, which are entirely defined by the gender of the two people inovlved.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, because there is nothing sinful about race.

I'm afraid this is one of those posts which says the quiet part out loud. This whole thing isn't about religious "freedom" for everyone, it's about giving special legal privileges to those who believe the same things as the people advocating for it.

It is pretty apparent through a number of posts here that's the goal. Look at all the hoops put up to jump through to prove that one's religious belief is legitimate. For example, by coming from a specific religious text interpreted in a certain way. And, to much surprise, those very specific hoops are also the ones that apply to religion of the people wanting these exceptions made for their religious beliefs.

One wonders what's going to happen when a different religious belief with totally different traditions comes along and uses those to determine that they can no longer serve Catholics, for example. The "but but but that's different" is going to be quite telling.

 

[KCfromNC]

When did gender enter into this. A gay men couple are still men.

This post asks what gender has to do with this discrimination and then goes on to talk specifically about the genders of the people being discriminated against. Was the first sentence supposed to be rhetorical?

 

[KCfromNC]

Nope you still haven't proven what Christians believe.

What's your explanation for the the SBC document I linked? Is the assertion that they went out of their way to put together an official document which both made up something that literally no one believed, created a fake reason for them believing it, and then explained why they disagreed with this made up thing that no one actually believed?

Come on, at least try to come up with something reasonable.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It’s not identical at all. Comparing race to gay marriage is not the same. You can’t choose your race.

Again, we're comparing two marriages. Both are choices.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No it's not. One is sin and the other is not.

That's what people said about interracial marriage in 1967 as well. This shows that the church's opinion on what is and isn't sin is mutable, so a dogmatic argument of "It's sinful!" is meaningless.

 

[rjs330]

“We do not do cakes for gay weddings” would work fine. Sort of like how the “No blacks allowed” signs worked well.

I could live with that. At least it's clear.

 

[Hank77]

So the baker gets to choose his customers (events), but the customers cannot accurately choose bakers, because bakers don’t wish to offend, (except when they don’t care if they offend)?

Is this close?

I think the information as I wrote would be self-explanatory. Why should gay events be singled out? Why do you want them singled out?
My example says to the straight mom, we won't make a cake for your gay son's wedding/marriage celebration even if you order it and pay for it. Neither will we make you a cake for your Halloween party.

 

[Hank77]

Which makes this example have nothing to do with gay weddings, which are entirely defined by the gender of the two people inovlved.

 

[RileyG]

I'm afraid this is one of those posts which says the quiet part out loud. This whole thing isn't about religious "freedom" for everyone, it's about giving special legal privileges to those who believe the same things as the people advocating for it.

It is pretty apparent through a number of posts here that's the goal. Look at all the hoops put up to jump through to prove that one's religious belief is legitimate. For example, by coming from a specific religious text interpreted in a certain way. And, to much surprise, those very specific hoops are also the ones that apply to religion of the people wanting these exceptions made for their religious beliefs.

One wonders what's going to happen when a different religious belief with totally different traditions comes along and uses those to determine that they can no longer serve Catholics, for example. The "but but but that's different" is going to be quite telling.

This has nothing to do with special privileges. It's the difference between right and wrong. Forcing someone to do something they feel is morally wrong is never ok. This isn't about religion or lack of. It's about freedom to choose who you associate with.

 

[RileyG]

Again, we're comparing two marriages. Both are choices.

Gay Marriage was not even thought of until rather recently. Most democrats didn't even support it. It's all relatively new. Marriage was always about a union between a man and a woman. Period.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Gay Marriage was not even thought of until rather recently. Most democrats didn't even support it. It's all relatively new.

The same was true of interracial marriage in 1967.

Marriage was always about a union between a man and a woman. Period.

Before 1967, marriage was about a union between a man and a woman of the same color. Period. I also direct you back to post #132.

 

[rjs330]

That's what people said about interracial marriage in 1967 as well. This shows that the church's opinion on what is and isn't sin is mutable, so a dogmatic argument of "It's sinful!" is meaningless.

No it's not THE church. It was some churches and whether something is sinful is not mutable. The whole Ham thing certainly was not church wide. And when you actually read the scriptures it's not hard in the least to see. I posted the scriptures already. It says NOTHING ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE MARRYING WHITE PEOPLE. Whereas scripture cannot be misinterpreted where homosexual relationships are concerned.

So just because some Christians somewhere say something doesn't mean THE church says it.

If I said adultery is sin, is that meaningless? What about lying?

 

[rjs330]

The same was true of interracial marriage in 1967.

Before 1967, marriage was about a union between a man and a woman of the same color. Period. I also direct you back to post #132.

So what? Scripture doesn't say anything about interracial marriage being sim. It does say homosexual relationships are. Not sure why you aren't understanding that.

This is why God has given them up to the vileness of their hearts’ lusts, to the shameful misuse of each other’s bodies. They have exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, by worshipping and serving created things, rather than the Creator — praised be he for ever. Amen. This is why God has given them up to degrading passions; so that their women exchange natural sexual relations for unnatural; and likewise the men, giving up natural relations with the opposite sex, burn with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with other men and receiving in their own persons the penalty appropriate to their perversion.

- - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

Rom.1.24,Rom.1.25,Rom.1.26,Rom.1.27&version=CJB

Is that clear enough in condemning homosexuality?

Now let's compare that to scriptures that SOME used prior to 1967 (over 50 years ago) for interracial marriage.

When Noach awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. He said, “Cursed be Kena‘an; he will be a servant of servants to his brothers.” Then he said, “Blessed be , the God of Shem; Kena‘an will be their servant. May God enlarge Yefet; he will live in the tents of Shem, but Kena‘an will be their servant.”
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 9:24, Genesis 9:25, Genesis 9:26, Genesis 9:27 - Complete Jewish Bible

Now where is race mentioned at all in this scripture?

This is a matter of what the Bible says and not what some might have thought a long time ago. If you cannot see the difference I'm afraid I can't help you to.

The question is, does the Bible say gay sex is sin or does it not. Which is it? Yes or no. It's that simple. Can you answer that question?

 

[rjs330]

Just like many Christians today say that churches are using false doctrine to justify discrimination based on gender. Thanks for another example of the parallels between the two situations.
What would be interesting would be if posts could identify any relevant differences. You know, instead of posts ranting about how people are dishonest for pointing them out.

Gender isn't the issue. Why do bring gender into it? Same sex sexual relationships is the sin. Two men are men. Two women are women. Homosexual sex is the sin.

You are now lying about this. Deliberately misrepresenting what people say. Bearing false witness. You said "Christians can't bake cakes for certain minority groups."
Please quote a single one of us saying that. I bet you can't. Since you can't you are bearing false witness.

Let me ask you a couple question that should clarify this. Does the Bible say homosexual sex is wrong or not?

Where does the Bible say interracial marriage is wrong?

See post 795 if you need to.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The question is, does the Bible say gay sex is sin or does it not. Which is it? Yes or no. It's that simple. Can you answer that question?

I don't think that it necessarily does. See this (very long, but well-informed and detailed) analysis of the verses you just cited for an alternative view: Unnatural Acts in Romans 1 — Gay Marriage and the Bible

Or here: Paul As An Ally – Why His Letter To The Romans Is About More Than Sexuality - Drew Downs

I'm not stating that these interpretations are definitely correct, but they are potentially valid readings of the same text, and there's no particular reason why the interpretation you favor should hold precedent. If anything, I would argue that these more tolerant readings are more consistent with broader Christian philosophy, and indeed, with Paul's message as a whole.

 

[RileyG]

The same was true of interracial marriage in 1967.

Before 1967, marriage was about a union between a man and a woman of the same color. Period. I also direct you back to post #132.

No. Marriage is about a union between a man and a woman. Period. Their color does not matter. Gay "marriage" was not even thought of until rather recently. It's all a new invention to appease the masses.

 

[RileyG]

I don't think that it necessarily does. See this (very long, but well-informed and detailed) analysis of the verses you just cited for an alternative view: Unnatural Acts in Romans 1 — Gay Marriage and the Bible

Or here: Paul As An Ally – Why His Letter To The Romans Is About More Than Sexuality - Drew Downs

I'm not stating that these interpretations are definitely correct, but they are potentially valid readings of the same text, and there's no particular reason why the interpretation you favor should hold precedent. If anything, I would argue that these more tolerant readings are more consistent with broader Christian philosophy, and indeed, with Paul's message as a whole.

Discussing the meaning of those texts are not allowed BTW. They cause too much flaming and controversy.

 

[RileyG]

The last two sentences contradict the assertion in the first sentence.

Par for the course with right wing talking points, of course, but still worthwhile to point out.

No. Again, the event, not the person, is being told "no." There is no contradiction.