Political support of LGBTQ+ despite not-so-positive religious views. (Open to discussion.)

Hank77 said:

In order to make baked goods and charge for that service one must have a business license. Once they have a business license they are subject to the public accommodation laws. I don't see how they can get around this.

A mohel does not need a business license in order to perform circumcisions.

Click to expand...

something wrong with the picture where u need a licence to bake a cake, but not to make sure u only snip unneeded skin when performing a bris.

however, most mohel/ets u can find online seem to be doctors... so it likely would be discrimination if a mohel/et refused to circumcise for religious reasons

Wrangler said:

me Bible? Leviticus 20:13 says gays should be put to death but Deuteronomy 22:28–29 says rapist have to pay 50 pieces of silver. Doesn't that tell you which sin is worse?

Deuteronomy 22:28–29, “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting test case for fundamentalism. Note that before this passage in Deut, raping a woman who is engaged is a capital crime. Both that distinction and the wording of this passage suggest that the main offense is against the man: the husband if she's engaged or the father if not. I doubt that most current Christians would accept that perspective. We would consider it a violation of the woman. That violation is the same whether she's engaged or not. I think Christians generally are pretty selective about taking ethical guidance from the OT. I believe that's in accordance with Jesus' practice.

hu1tz said:

something wrong with the picture where u need a licence to bake a cake, but not to make sure u only snip unneeded skin when performing a bris.

however, most mohel/ets u can find online seem to be doctors... so it likely would be discrimination if a mohel/et refused to circumcise for religious reasons

Click to expand...

Circumcision is quite common among Christians. But for them it's typically done in a medical setting. I assume doctors wouldn't discriminate there. I'd consider a bris to be a Jewish ritual. I could certainly accept discrimination for that.

Wrangler said:

By contrast, if everyone woke up tomorrow and decided to only act homosexually, the species would become extinct.

Click to expand...

However about 3% of people are homosexual. Perhaps this is part of God's plan. Christians have never thought that it was mandatory for all people to marry. Celibacy was considered to be a calling, and celibates were considered to have special gifts for the community. Obviously we'd be in just as much trouble if everyone became celibate. Do you consider celibacy worthy of death?

Wrangler said:

So, morality is ruled by majority now? God and the Bible are not definitive and authoritative?

What is absurd is supposing action that does not lead to extinction is worse than action that DOES lead to extinction. Suppose women woke up tomorrow and decided not to consent to sex ever again. Rape would keep the species alive. By contrast, if everyone woke up tomorrow and decided to only act homosexually, the species would become extinct.

Click to expand...

I don't recognize that sort of argument as a legitimate way to justify ethics. I recognize actual, concrete human persons as having value, not concepts such as "species".

Same Bible? Leviticus 20:13 says gays should be put to death but Deuteronomy 22:28–29 says rapist have to pay 50 pieces of silver. Doesn't that tell you which sin is worse?

Deuteronomy 22:28–29, “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with that approach to understanding the Bible.

hedrick said:

Circumcision is quite common among Christians. But for them it's typically done in a medical setting. I assume doctors wouldn't discriminate there. I'd consider a bris to be a Jewish ritual. I could certainly accept discrimination for that.

Click to expand...

so how is a doctor discriminating on the grounds of a bris being a jewish ritual different to a christian baker discriminating against a sodomite couple on the grounds of a marriage being a christian ritual?

hedrick said:

This is an interesting test case for fundamentalism. Note that before this passage in Deut, raping a woman who is engaged is a capital crime. Both that distinction and the wording of this passage suggest that the main offense is against the man: the husband if she's engaged or the father if not. I doubt that most current Christians would accept that perspective. We would consider it a violation of the woman. That violation is the same whether she's engaged or not. I think Christians generally are pretty selective about taking ethical guidance from the OT. I believe that's in accordance with Jesus' practice.

Click to expand...

i suspect the reason for this is that the crime is not rape, but consentual sexual relations. so the girl has agreed to sex, but the father hasn't given her away. i think in other passages where the girl screams (for real rape), the rapist is to be put to death.

hu1tz said:

i suspect the reason for this is that the crime is not rape, but consentual sexual relations. so the girl has agreed to sex, but the father hasn't given her away. i think in other passages where the girl screams (for real rape), the rapist is to be put to death.

Click to expand...

The screaming is in the context of the discussion of rape of an engaged person. It consistently refers to her explicitly as engaged. The section about the woman who is not engaged would appear to be rape as well. It says "seizes her", and it speaks of violating her. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that the difference between the two sections is precisely whether the woman is married or not. Read the whole passage, starting in Deut 22:23.

hu1tz said:

so how is a doctor discriminating on the grounds of a bris being a jewish ritual different to a christian baker discriminating against a **** couple on the grounds of a marriage being a christian ritual?

Click to expand...

The baker wasn't asked to participate in the ceremony.

.

hedrick said:

The screaming is in the context of the discussion of rape of an engaged person. It consistently refers to her explicitly as engaged. The section about the woman who is not engaged would appear to be rape as well. It says "seizes her", and it speaks of violating her. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that the difference between the two sections is precisely whether the woman is married or not. Read the whole passage, starting in Deut 22:23.

Click to expand...

interesting. i guess this was an incentive for a woman to get married, rather than stay single and risk becoming the wife of an unloving man

hedrick said:

The baker wasn't asked to participate in the ceremony.

Click to expand...

is not the baking of the cake any less participation in the marriage ceremony than the curing of the foreskin in a bris?

hu1tz said:

is not the baking of the cake any less participation in the marriage ceremony than the curing of the foreskin in a bris?

Click to expand...

The difference is that the mohel only does a bris for a select group of clients, not as a public accommodation.

A baker who from the start only baked cakes for Christians, only advertised to Christians within Christian circles, only baked "Christian" cakes would be free to do so.

hu1tz said:

interesting. i guess this was an incentive for a woman to get married, rather than stay single and risk becoming the wife of an unloving man

is not the baking of the cake any less participation in the marriage ceremony than the curing of the foreskin in a bris?

Click to expand...

A wedding cake is not understood to be an essential part of a religious rite in any Christian church that I know of.

RDKirk said:

There is no such thing anywhere in scripture as a Christian having a legal right to do anything. Period. It was expected and predicted that world governments would find reasons to persecute Christians no matter what.

Christians in the West have had a smooth ride so far, but Jesus never promised any of us a rose garden--He promised the opposite.

So get over yourself. You have no legal "rights" as a Christian, except whatever the king deigns to allow.

Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that there are some Christians living in America who are under the impression that they are entitled to use their biblical beliefs as a moral and legal right to discriminate against LGBT American citizens and deny these citizens rights and equality. It seems that these Christians either mistakenly forget or conveniently forget that this country was founded on freedom, liberty and justice for all and not just for the kind of people some Christians approve of. I don't know of any stipulations to the American ideals of freedom, liberty and justice if there are some Christians who don't approve of LGBT and its lifestyle because these particular sexual orientations aren't biblically approved.

FaithLife1 said:

God wouldn't want us to support sin.

Click to expand...

With that particular thought in mind, should adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, idolaters and every other sinner living in America be denied civil rights and equality solely based upon their sins? If that's the case, then every single sinful person living in America should kiss any chance of equality and their Constitutional rights as American citizens good-bye. Why are LGBT Americans being singled out when there are so many straight Americans guilty of sexual sins and all other manner of sins themselves?

The life of a LGBT person is no less valuable than the life of a straight person. A LGBT person doesn't deserve to be ostracized from their family and live in shame and disgrace because some Christians or other religious people disapprove of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals and other LGBT people are human beings and they shouldn't have to fear for their life, especially here in the United States.

Shiloh Raven said:

With that particular thought in mind, should adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, idolaters and every other sinner living in America be denied civil rights and equality solely based upon their sins? If that's the case, then every single sinful person living in America should kiss any chance of equality and their Constitutional rights as American citizens good-bye. Why are LGBT Americans being singled out when there are so many straight Americans guilty of sexual sins and all other manner of sins themselves?

The life of a LGBT person is no less valuable than the life of a straight person. A LGBT person doesn't deserve to be ostracized from their family and live in shame and disgrace because some Christians or other religious people disapprove of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals and other LGBT people are human beings and they shouldn't have to fear for their life, especially here in the United States.

Click to expand...

All of those things you listed are sins too and they have limited rights under the law. But God can forgive anybody if they repent and I believe in a very forgiving God, but God and the bible in no way supports a homosexual lifestyle.

The bible is very clear about homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (MEV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

God considers homosexuality as sexual immorality.

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 (MEV)

"Escape from sexual immorality. Every sin that a man commits is outside the body. But he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. What? Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God, and that you are not your own? You were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s."

hedrick said:

However about 3% of people are homosexual.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the underlying immoral act. We do not excuse a doctor for murdering only 3% of his patients on account of him saving 97%.

The test of everyone doing it resulting in extinction is the test, not what % of people commit murder or suicide, have abortion, or act homosexually.

Shiloh Raven said:

It's unfortunate that there are some Christians living in America who are under the impression that they are entitled to use their biblical beliefs as a moral and legal right to discriminate against LGBT American citizens and deny these citizens rights and equality.

Click to expand...

That's indoctrination talking. We all have equal rights. Equality is not a right but a socialist perversion.

Discriminating or discerning people's action that are morally wrong is the proper domain of ethics.

ChristIsSovereign said:

In my opinion, I believe that the Church should oppose the LGBTQ+ in a religious sense while campaigning for their rights in a political one...

Click to expand...

I noticed you omitted the "P" - for pedophile - from that acronym.

Any other sins you care to campaign on the behalf of?


This short video is about as clear an explanation as I've heard on the issue as well as how we got where we are today.

thecolorsblend said:

The level of hatred a lot of the LGBT community has for Christians should not be underestimated.

Click to expand...

The hatred those people have for the children of God hasn't changed from the crowd outside Lot's house.

hedrick said:

However about 3% of people are homosexual. Perhaps this is part of God's plan. Christians have never thought that it was mandatory for all people to marry. Celibacy was considered to be a calling, and celibates were considered to have special gifts for the community. Obviously we'd be in just as much trouble if everyone became celibate. Do you consider celibacy worthy of death?

Click to expand...

Early Christians were not "pro-family", they were ascetical and apocalyptic.