What's a good response to the equating of catering same sex weddings with Jim Crow laws?

redleghunter said:

We are then mixing oranges to pears. Race or skin color was never a sin. However, homosexuality is stated as sexual immorality.

Click to expand...

I think the discussion isn't immune to hermeneutical considerations. Especially when we are talking about the ethics of how we treat same-sex couples wanting a wedding cake, it is valid to compare it to interracial marriages. Because in the past people have used the Bible to deny service to both married gays and also married interracial couples.

redleghunter said:

Not if they actually read Philemon.

Philemon 1: NASB

10I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, 11who formerly was useless to you, but now is useful both to you and to me. 12I have sent him back to you in person, that is, sending my very heart, 13whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; 14but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will. 15For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, 16no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

17If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me.18But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; 19I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well). 20Yes, brother, let me benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.

Click to expand...

Here, Paul may not be saying that his master, Onesimus, must free him in a legal sense, but that he wishes for Onesimus to regard him as spiritually his brother in Christ and not punish him harshly. Both interpretations seem plausible.

At any rate, I hardly see this epistle as persuasively definitive in itself, that the Bible is "anti-slavery", without examining the text on a deeper level. And a similar examination might also reveal different insights towards modern day questions of homosexuality. Which is why I don't think it works well in your argument.

Would people be so up in arms about a baker refusing to bake a cake for a Pedophile?....What about a convicted Rapist?....

ubicaritas said:

I think the discussion isn't immune to hermeneutical considerations. Especially when we are talking about the ethics of how we treat same-sex couples wanting a wedding cake, it is valid to compare it to interracial marriages. Because in the past people have used the Bible to deny service to both married gays and also married interracial couples.

Click to expand...

How much more clear do I need to get? The reasons given for preventing interracial marriages has no Biblical support. We have ample evidence the NT church had mixed marriages of Jews and Gentiles (Timothy's parents). It was not a concern for the church as most were Brown or Black skinned in that era.

It's a classic example of trying to compare eisegesis with proper exegesis.

No one can find an example of the NT church teachings to keep races separate. In fact the opposite is clearly taught.

ubicaritas said:

Here, Paul may not be saying that his master, Onesimus, must free him in a legal sense, but that he wishes for Onesimus to regard him as spiritually his brother in Christ and not punish him harshly. Both interpretations seem plausible.

Click to expand...

Please keep reading. Paul is in fact in verses 18-19 strongly telling Philemon to emancipate Onesimus.

redleghunter said:

Please keep reading. Paul is in fact in verses 18-19 strongly telling Philemon to emancipate Onesimus.

Click to expand...

OK, but I could still see how the pro-slavery crowd could come up with easy rationalizations for that.

Slavery ultimately ended in North America because, among other reasons, people looked at the overall arc of the Biblical narrative articulated within the Christian tradition, especially the emphasis on human dignity, and concluded slavery in their context was wrong and inhuman. That's the same sort of logic that forces many of us who are "pro-gay" to come to that very conclusion, even if it may not appear traditional to some.

At any rate, I don't see baking a cake for gay men for a wedding is a sin. It's merely providing a service, the idea its participation is sin rests on shaky moral theology that would render many other respectable activities problematic. No pastor in my denomination would teach that, not even our non-affirming minority.

ubicaritas said:

OK, but I could still see how the pro-slavery crowd could come up with easy rationalizations for that.

Slavery ultimately ended in North America because, among other reasons, people looked at the overall arc of the Biblical narrative articulated within the Christian tradition, especially the emphasis on human dignity, and concluded slavery in their context was wrong and inhuman. That's the same sort of logic that forces many of us who are "pro-gay" to come to that very conclusion, even if they are not traditional.

Click to expand...

.
You keep evading the issue of Homosexuality is a sin, the color of a persons skin never was.

ubicaritas said:

OK, but I could still see how the pro-slavery crowd could come up with easy rationalizations for that.

Click to expand...

Eisegesis even today comes in dozens for pennies.
For example, we have liberal theologians stating Paul was no better than a mafia Capo shaking down the Corinthians for tribute money to the mob boss James in Jerusalem. Then James refused to accept dirty Gentile money so told Paul to launder the money at the temple. When he goes James puts out a "hit" on Paul which is foiled by Paul's Roman goons.

One could actually inaccurately tell such a story from the Acts of the Apostles if they interpreted from a lens of "Good Fellas." Pure eisegesis.

ubicaritas said:

Slavery ultimately ended in North America because, among other reasons, people looked at the overall arc of the Biblical narrative articulated within the Christian tradition, especially the emphasis on human dignity, and concluded slavery in their context was wrong and inhuman.

Click to expand...

They actually read the Bible and properly applied exegesis. I agree.

ubicaritas said:

That's the same sort of logic that forces many of us who are "pro-gay" to come to that very conclusion, even if it may not a

Click to expand...

But the logic fails as we are now in clear territory where supporting a homosexual union is supporting unrighteousness.

redleghunter said:

How?

Click to expand...

On the one hand you have a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to a couple based on his religious beliefs. and on the other hand you have a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to a couple based on his religious beliefs.

Where is skin color or race listed as a sin in Holy Scriptures?

Click to expand...

Those who believe it can find any number of verses to support their views.

redleghunter said:

We are then mixing oranges to pears. Race or skin color was never a sin. However, homosexuality is stated as sexual immorality.

So the cake analogy fails here.

Click to expand...

Racists don't hate African American's because of their skin color. Rather it is when black people "get uppity" or "forget their place" and defy the will of God and act as social equals to whites that racists have the problem with blacks.

It doesn't matter how you interpret the bible or what you believe it says about immorality. There are many who believe that your position on homosexuality is just as wrong. The point is that people use religion to justify racial discrimination and people use religion to justify anti-gay discrimination.

JIMINZ said:

Would people be so up in arms about a baker refusing to bake a cake for a Pedophile?....What about a convicted Rapist?....

Click to expand...

Racists do have a long history of falsely associating race with rape

redleghunter said:

How much more clear do I need to get? The reasons given for preventing interracial marriages has no Biblical support.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion, there are many who disagree.

SilverBear said:

Racists don't hate African American's because of their skin color. Rather it is when black people "get uppity" or "forget their place" and defy the will of God and act as social equals to whites that racists have the problem with blacks.

It doesn't matter how you interpret the bible or what you believe it says about immorality. There are many who believe that your position on homosexuality is just as wrong. The point is that people use religion to justify racial discrimination and people use religion to justify anti-gay discrimination.

Click to expand...

A bakery in Belfast, Ireland refused to bake a cake with a slogan for a gay couple and saw their profits rise: https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/gay-cake-row-bakerys-profits-up-200k-35687592.html

Congress voted down a bill that would have prevented people on the U.S. terrorist watch list from buying guns. They were of the opinion such a law would discriminate. In reality gun merchants were more interested in money than public safety.

The supermarkets sold cakes, no questions asked.

dqhall said:

A bakery in Belfast, Ireland refused to bake a cake with a slogan for a gay couple and saw their profits rise: https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/gay-cake-row-bakerys-profits-up-200k-35687592.html

Congress voted down a bill that would have prevented people on the U.S. terrorist watch list from buying guns. They were of the opinion such a law would discriminate. In reality gun merchants were more interested in money than public safety.

The supermarkets sold cakes, no questions asked.

Click to expand...

The truth about the terrorist watch list is that there have been people by the same name being detained when they were not that person. A US General was detained from flying because the 'No Fly' is from the same database. We flew with a young man that we had known almost all of his life. He was detained and searched because he has the same name as someone on the list. My daughter who was standing next to him was asked if they were flying together, they detained and searched her, too. Her name was not on the list. This had happened to him before. He had gone through the process, paper work, to get his name removed. Of coarse that didn't happen so every time he flies he goes through the same thing.
The terrorist watch list is not accurate.

SilverBear said:

The point is that people use religion to justify racial discrimination and people use religion to justify anti-gay discrimination.

Click to expand...

You are still not seeing the Biblical distinctions.

SilverBear said:

That is your opinion, there are many who disagree.

Click to expand...

Present the case in which Biblical exegesis supports Christians from denying interracial marriages.

redleghunter said:

Where is skin color or race listed as a sin in Holy Scriptures?

Click to expand...

SilverBear said:

Those who believe it can find any number of verses to support their views.

Click to expand...

Could you provide some examples of such verses? Thanks.

dqhall said:

A bakery in Belfast, Ireland refused to bake a cake with a slogan for a gay couple and saw their profits rise: https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/gay-cake-row-bakerys-profits-up-200k-35687592.html

Congress voted down a bill that would have prevented people on the U.S. terrorist watch list from buying guns. They were of the opinion such a law would discriminate. In reality gun merchants were more interested in money than public safety.

The supermarkets sold cakes, no questions asked.

Click to expand...

wow this has nothing at all to do with what I posted

redleghunter said:

You are still not seeing the Biblical distinctions.

Click to expand...

the distinctions don't change reality

redleghunter said:

Present the case in which Biblical exegesis supports Christians from denying interracial marriages.

Click to expand...

There were plenty used to justify laws against interracial marriage. I get that you don't agree with them but that doesn't make them disappear.