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

[RileyG]

But what one would consider sin would be different from person to person even Christian to Christian. Why can’t the baker just be up front and honest about their beliefs?

They often are.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No. Marriage is about a union between a man and a woman. Period. Their color does not matter.

You can say that all you want - it doesn't change the fact that color did matter prior to 1967 (and still does for some people today). Your own personal beliefs are irrelevant.

Gay "marriage" was not even thought of until rather recently. It's all a new invention to appease the masses.

Again, see post #132. Not new.

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

Tell that to @rjs330 - he's the one who brought it up.

 

[RileyG]

You can say that all you want - it doesn't change the fact that color did matter prior to 1967 (and still does for some people today). Your own personal beliefs are irrelevant.

Again, see post #132. Not new.

Tell that to @rjs330 - he's the one who brought it up.

Race and same-sex marriage are NOT related. IMO it's extremely offensive to compare the two.

Gay marriage wasn't even thought of until the beginning of this century. It's entirely new.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Race and same-sex marriage are NOT related. IMO it's extremely offensive to compare the two.

Gay marriage wasn't even thought of until the beginning of this century. It's entirely new.

Endlessly repeating the same disproven points won't magically make them true.

 

[RileyG]

As a Christian I have a right to speak out against same-sex marriage and refuse to support it in my business. Period. Endlessly repeating your argument won't make anything more true, anyway.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As a Christian I have a right to speak out against same-sex marriage and refuse to support it in my business. Period.

That depends on where you do business. I believe at least 20 states currently cover the LGBT community with their public accommodation laws.

Endlessly repeating your argument won't make anything more true, anyway.

Touché. But I'll note that I've provided evidence for my claims, while you have not. Nor have you bothered to discuss the evidence that I've provided. Make of that what you will.

 

[RileyG]

That depends on where you do business. I believe at least 20 states currently cover the LGBT community with their public accommodation laws.

Touché. But I'll note that I've provided evidence for my claims, while you have not. Nor have you bothered to discuss the evidence that I've provided. Make of that what you will.

It's wrong to force someone to do something against their conscience. That is where I stand, and I have nothing else to say on that particular topic. The LGBT "community" can force themselves to force others to accommodate their lifestyle, but it doesn't make it right. That's totally wrong. IMHO

God bless you

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It's wrong to force someone to do something against their conscience. That is where I stand, and I have nothing else to say on that particular topic.

That's fair, but should that be universal? What if my conscience compels me to be racist? Or to kill? Clearly there have to be limits, and my personal belief is that your freedom to follow your conscience ends when it requires you to harm others (which would include denying them rights that they are legally afforded, such as marriage).

 

[Pommer]

No. Marriage is about a union between a man and a woman. Period. Their color does not matter.

See, but it did matter in 1967, that’s what you’re being told.

Gay "marriage" was not even thought of until rather recently. It's all a new invention to appease the masses.

It appeases the 4-8% who had been locked out of the institution (of marriage). Now they can have fuller lives than in times past.
Some people don’t like that, and that’s fine, you’re totally within your rights to hold views that are at odds with these 4-8% and the 58-74% who support them.

If it feels like “persecution” though, it’s not, not really, it’s just an unpopular viewpoint at this moment in time.

 

[rjs330]

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.

First of all apparently there are rules against discussing those passages. The first link is so far off I would have to spend time on it. I read it and I was like what on earth,? Who is this person who wrote this? They obviously were making a very concerned effort to make the scriptures say something it doesn't. It's pretty blatant. A ton words don't make for a well informed interpretation. That much was clear from the article. Dazzle you with a lot of important sounding information so you don't look to closely at it. I saw right through it.

And your second one also really evaded the topic very well. Romans 1 does not only speak to homosexual sex that's true. But it DOES speak to it. And that's the crux of this discussion. It is VERY clear that homosexual sex is a sin. Period. One of many sins, but it is a sin. Paul says it. This guy isn't the first nor will he be the last to think homosexual sex is just fine.

Who's the they get asks? Then goes on to say it's not homosexuals. Yet Paul specifically mentions it. Along with many other things the unbeliever does because they worship the created, themselves, over the creator.

That about all I can say without violating rules. Bottom line. Don't try and make scripture fit what you believe. Make your beliefs fit what Scripture says.

 

[KCfromNC]

Which part didn't you understand?

 

[KCfromNC]

This has nothing to do with special privileges

Really? Because your post sure seemed to want to give these special law-breaking privileges only to groups you personally agreed with.

. It's the difference between right and wrong. Forcing someone to do something they feel is morally wrong is never ok.

So it's OK for people to refuse service to Catholics or black simply because those people feel they should be able to?

What other laws can people break simply because they feel like it?

This isn't about religion or lack of. It's about freedom to choose who you associate with.

That decision was made when the business owner freely chose to open a business to the public.

 

[KCfromNC]

No it's not THE church. It was some churches

The exact situation today, where there is disagreement among Christians over how to treat gay people getting married.

Thanks for another example of how closely this current attempt to cover for discrimination using religion parallels past attempts.

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.

That's your opinion. Others felt differently.

Repeatedly in this thread we've been told that making people follow laws against their feelings is always wrong. And yet when the rubber hits the road, we see objections when that approach is seen to justify all sorts of things which are obviously wrong.

Whereas scripture cannot be misinterpreted where homosexual relationships are concerned.

Weird how up in arms posts were that the exact scripture used to oppose interracial marriage wasn't posted, and yet here all we have is assertions that there is scripture saying Christians are obligated not to sell cakes for gay weddings rather than chapter and verse. I'm starting to wonder if that's because, like the case of the former, the latter is just a question of interpretation rather than something clearly spelled out.

 

[KCfromNC]

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."

Nice attempt at righteous indignation rather than addressing my point.

Just one question - can you link to whatever it is you think you're quoting here? It would be really disappointing if it were intentionally pulling something like this out of context :

And the quote you gave is exactly what I've been telling you. He didn't provide anything from any verses in the bible saying blacks shouldn't marry whites.

Just like no one today is quoting Bible verses saying that Christians can't bake cakes for certain minority groups. But in both cases assorted Christian groups are claiming those beliefs are justified by their interpretation of the Bible. History doesn't necessarily repeat, but it seem to rhyme.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

This keeps being repeated, and yet so far no one has been able to produce any example of an event showing up at a bakery and being denied service. But there are a number of documented cases of acutal people being denied service based on their minority status.

So I'm not sure why anyone would believe something made up over something which is actually happening.

 

[rjs330]

The exact situation today, where there is disagreement among Christians over how to treat gay people getting married.

Thanks for another example of how closely this current attempt to cover for discrimination using religion parallels past attempts.

Except that scripture never said interracial marriage was sinful. It does say homosexual sex is. So the parallels don't apply.

That's your opinion. Others felt differently.

Repeatedly in this thread we've been told that making people follow laws against their feelings is always wrong. And yet when the rubber hits the road, we see objections when that approach is seen to justify all sorts of things which are obviously wrong.

Nope, it's not my opinion. It's what the scriptures say.

The Constitution has given the right to practice your religion. Freedom of religion was one of the first rights given in the Bill of Rights. Forcing people to go against their religion is removing those rights. The government is not allowed to to do that.

Weird how up in arms posts were that the exact scripture used to oppose interracial marriage wasn't posted, and yet here all we have is assertions that there is scripture saying Christians are obligated not to sell cakes for gay weddings rather than chapter and verse. I'm starting to wonder if that's because, like the case of the former, the latter is just a question of interpretation rather than something clearly spelled out.

See post 279. It has all the scriptures.

Forcing people to bake cakes celebrating ANY sinful acts is obviously wrong to do. Forcing someone to create a contract that they don't want to create and use their talents for something they don't want to use their talents for is authoritarianism. Forcing someone to violate their religion by government edict is against the constitution.

 

[rjs330]

But there are a number of documented cases of acutal people being denied service based on their minority status.

Except the actual people we're hosting an actual event that the baker didn't want to participate in. He didn't want to create a contract with them for the event they were holding. The actual people could have purchased a cake off the shelf. So once again it was the event and a contracted service that's the issue.

 

[rjs330]

Just like no one today is quoting Bible verses saying that Christians can't bake cakes for certain minority groups.

Hers a quote of you bearing false witness again. No one has claimed you can't bake cakes for a minority group. If that were true, no LGBT people could by any cake from the baker. That's a deliberate falsehood and a deliberate misrepresentation. Seriously dude you are just either trolling or gaslighting. Take your pick.

Hers what the scriptures say about this.

try to determine what will please the Lord. Have nothing to do with the deeds produced by darkness, but instead expose them, for it is shameful even to speak of the things these people do in secret. But everything exposed to the light is revealed clearly for what it is, since anything revealed is a light. This is why it says,“Get up, sleeper! Arise from the dead,and the Messiah will shine on you!” Therefore, pay careful attention to how you conduct your life — live wisely, not unwisely. Use your time well, for these are evil days. So don’t be foolish, but try to understand what the will of the Lord is.
Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 5:10, Ephesians 5:11, Ephesians 5:12, Ephesians 5:13, Ephesians 5:14, Ephesians 5:15, Ephesians 5:16, Ephesians 5:17 - Complete Jewish Bible

See that? Have nothing to do with the deeds produced by darkness, rather expose them. And as I posted Romans 1 to show that ONE of the deeds of darkness is homosexual sex the baker is trying to have nothing to do with them. A gay wedding is a celebration of the deed of darkness. And he shouldn't be forced by government to make a contract and use his talents to participate in a celebration of those deeds.

 

[Pommer]

The exact situation today, where there is disagreement among Christians over how to treat gay people getting married.

Back-in-the-day the conversation would go like this:

I have nothing against homosexuals, but they tend to be promiscuous

Well, they kind of forced into that because we don’t let them get married

Two men cannot be married!

That’s only by convention; if they were allowed to be married, then they wouldn’t be promiscuous

But if we allowed the to be married then how could we still maintain that their lifestyle is evil?

I thought you said you had a problem with their promiscuousness?

They’re homosexuals, that’s all I need to know, I don’t wanna think about this anymore!

 

[RileyG]

This keeps being repeated, and yet so far no one has been able to produce any example of an event showing up at a bakery and being denied service. But there are a number of documented cases of acutal people being denied service based on their minority status.

So I'm not sure why anyone would believe something made up over something which is actually happening.

The wedding service is being denied.