• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Photography (Weddings) Business and Homosexual Agenda

Discussion in 'Current News & Events' started by Monksailor, Nov 14, 2017.

  1. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,373
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    It also has three interlocked economic commandments:
    (1) If you have have the means, you must lend to any poor Hebrew who asks. (Note that this means that you cannot take that excess money and invest it in something profit-producing for you, or reinvest the profit, if a poor co-religionist asks to borrow first.

    (2) You cannot charge any interest on the loan.

    (3) Anything he can't pay back in six years is forgiven en in the seventh year.

    Oh, and two more related ones:

    (A) He has a piece of land as a birthright, for free, which he will eventually inherit.

    (B) That land can never be taken - not for debt, not for taxes, not as punishment for crime - not for any reason under the sun. Nor can he voluntarily sell it. He can rent it out, but it automatically returns to him or his heirs in the 50th year.

    Those are commandments that are aimed right at the very core of the economic things that Jesus spoke of. As such, they are not "ritual" commandments - they are MORAL commandments.

    Those Christians who (wrongly) think that Christians are under the Mosaic law's moral commandments, are under those laws, and systematically break them all.

    I bring this up for three reasons:
    (1) To remind Christians that the Mosaic Law is inapplicable to us. We're not under that Covenant.
    (2) To admonish those Christians who disagree with me and who say we ARE under the Mosaic law except for the ritual law, that then they must follow these commandments, and
    (3) To suggest to everybody that, even though the Mosaic Law isn't LAW to us, that the same God Jesus told us to worshiped gave these laws, and they reflect the way he thinks, so we would do well to take heed that he placed his concern on the lot of the poor, not on the liberty of the rich to make more.
     
  2. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    815
    +326
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    and there are many who hold the view that racial equality is a crime. Fortunately, laws in the U.S. are based on the constitution, not some viewpoint
     
  3. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,587
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    She is not a baker. She is a photographer.
     
  4. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,587
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    I love our constitution and our republic form of government and I am not against our secular government giving legal rights to same-sex couples.

    However, in some cases, I am against businesses being forced to provide certain services, based on freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
     
  5. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,373
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    The people who hold to that view didn't get it out of the Bible, certainly. The Bible actually tells us that we're all first cousins, through Noah and his wife, and through Adam and Eve.
     
  6. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    815
    +326
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    so business with "whites only" signs are ok?
     
  7. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    815
    +326
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    you may want to check your history because there are generations of individuals who hold that the concept of racial inequality is entirely biblical
     
  8. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,373
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    The Bible is history - and it says flatly that we all descend from Adam and Eve, and from Noah and his wife. Which means as a matter of definition that we are all cousins, however many times removed.

    There are generations of individuals who hold that the concept of racial inequality is entirely biblical, and they have always been full of crap and making up religion to suit their inner evil. Nothing more than that, and without a fig leaf of excuse. Their arguments from the Bible are tissue paper and spit - ignorant as dirt.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2017
  9. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,587
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    ,What Vicomte13 said.
     
  10. TerryWoodenpic

    TerryWoodenpic Member

    209
    +95
    United Kingdom
    Anglican
    Widowed
    I am some what surprised that this is still an issue.
    As a photographer for all my working life, I have never asked a client their religion or personal beliefs.
    As a Christian I know that we are all sinners.
    Does this mean I should do no business with sinners? clearly not. as that would mean no business at all
    Jesus him self was criticized for sitting down to eat with sinners.

    Laws in the UK would not allow you to discriminate in this or any other way.

    I have photographed weddings in registry offices of people of whom I had no Idea what their religion was. And I welcomed the fact that they were getting married at all. However I have never been asked to shoot a religious wedding in other than a church, no would I know the protocols for doing so for other faiths.
    I suspect the same will be true for most gay and trans, weddings, as they are more likely to choose photographers from their own communities.
    However, were I asked, I would have no hesitation in doing so as a professional photographer.

    The Anglican Church is now somewhat ambivalent about gay marriage, though it does not yet approve of Gay marriage in church, but will almost certainly do so when the matter next comes before the General synod.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  11. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Evangelical Catholic Supporter

    +4,134
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    That's why we don't generally consider somebody who photographs an atrocity to be a criminal. We are more likely to view him as brave for exposing the truth.

    There's a basic confusion of the duties pertaining to various vocations going on here. A photographer is not a pastor or a confessor. A baker is not a minister of religion. When a baker tries to become a pastor or a photographer becomes your spiritual father, that leads to anarchy and incivility.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  12. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    815
    +326
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    Many would say exactly the same thing about using the bible to justify prejudice and discrimination against gays and lesbians.
     
  13. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    815
    +326
    Non-Denom
    Widowed

    Not an answer to my question.

    Again:
    you said: "I am against businesses being forced to provide certain services, based on freedom of religion and freedom of speech."

    my question remains would you be accepting of business that refuse to serve blacks because of the owners deeply held religious beliefs?
     
  14. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,373
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I will speak for him: No - it is unacceptable to refuse to serve blacks because of the owner's deeply held religious beliefs. Those religious beliefs are evil, and outside of the pale of what is permissibly tolerated in the United States - and properly so.
     
  15. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,373
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    They would, yes, but when they say that, they are equating the fact of being human - descended from Adam and Eve, and Noah and Na'amah regardless of skin color - with being possessed of sexual sin.

    Nowhere in the Bible does God call it a sin to be human. He creates each of us.

    But God does very explicitly say that masturbation is an uncleanness, and fornication, adultery, sodomy, and general "pornea" are deadly sins. He gives all human beings a sex drive that CAN do all of those things, and declares a criminal anybody who does any of these things.

    The racist says that to be born with brown, or black, or red, or yellow - or if he's a black racist, with white (or rather, pink) - skin is sinful. He is wrong, on the very language of the Bible: we are all literally cousins, and the state of being born and created by God is not a sin. God never says that it is. So racism is not only not in the Bible, it is contrary to the Bible.

    However, every human being is born with a sex drive, and God says that every single person who misuses that sex drive according to a list of things - essentially anything other than its intended purpose of binding spouses together and incidentally creating children in the process - is a great sinner worthy of hell.

    So, the people who say that gays and lesbians are sinners are correct: if the gays or lesbians are acting on their homosexual desires, including sitting around fantasizing about them, they are felons against God's law. Of course, heterosexual masturbators, fornicators and adulterers, and watchers of porn, are no different. No different AT ALL. A heterosexual wanker is not a lesser sinner than a homosexual sodomite - the Bible makes that abundantly clear. So yes, the people who distinguish between sexual sins, and pretend that two boys having sex with each other is WORSE than a male and a female fornicating are either ignoramuses who have not read what God said, OR they are stupid semi-literates who have read it and don't understand what they are reading. Either way, their foolishness lies in believing that God has condemned what OTHER PEOPLE DO wortse than he has condemned them individually for what THEY do. That's the error. Gays and Lesbians ARE in fact, terrible sinners. So are people who look at porn and masturbate. And so am I for having had "knowledge" of various girlfriends over the years before marriage. We are all the same level of sinner: dead, doomed and bundled up like tares for the fire at final judgment UNLESS we are forgiven.

    So you have half a point: people who SINGLE OUT the gays for reproach for sexual sins are indeed hypocrites. However, homosexual lusts and actions ARE sinful, but being black or red or yellow or pink IS NOT SINFUL.

    So, racists are liars and, if they have read the Bible and really seen that in there, half-literate fools.
    Those who say that gays and lesbians are sinners are not liars - but they're hypocrites if they distinguish the homosexuals from their masturbating, fornicating, porn-watching, adulterous selves. And half-literate fools if they really see in the Bible a way to sinngle out the gays from the heterosexual sinners. God promises they'll all fry, unless forgiven.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  16. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +2,404
    Presbyterian
    Single
    US law can't judge whether someone's beliefs are evil. It needs to have a specific purpose. In this case it's based on an understanding that all people have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    In my opinion, if a few oddballs didn't want to serve blacks, it might not have been worth a law. But there were communities where blacks couldn't get service from enough establishments that it was affecting their lives. At one point Jews had similar issues. Some communities believe that the same is true of gays.

    In general I think there's an expectation that public businesses will treat all customers and potential customers equally. I support that. I would advise people not to go into a business where they would feel they had to discriminate against any class of people.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  17. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,373
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Intellectually I agree with you. But it goes further with me - I have a particular animus against racists because they are evil, evil in thought, and evil in deed, and they weaken my country. Racists cost us nearly a million lives in the Civil War. They are the source of our great national birth defect.

    It's easier to dismiss and forgive a 17th Century slaver than a 21st Century racist. In the 17th Century even the slavers were subjects (not citizens) of some king, and some lord, and some local noble commander. EVERYBODY was in literal dominated, potentially violent subjection to the people above them. Children could be - and were - very routinely beaten by their parents - they were the SUBJECTS of their parents. Wives were routinely beaten by their husbands, and the civil laws enforced the husband's MASTERY over his children. And the Crown and its officials routinely whipped "free" men for failure to show respect.

    In the 17th Century, in the white world, there were essentially 13 free men: the King of England, the King of France, the King of Spain, the King of Portugal, the Holy Roman Emperor, the King of Sweden, the King of Denmark, the Tsar of Russia, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Naples, the Sultan of the Ottomans, the Stadthouder of Holland and the Pope. Every other white human alive was a subject of one of those men. There were no citizens, and nobody was a "free" man. Men and women were also in subjection to other men and women below the King, but the grandest lords were the subjects of the King and they had no enforceable rights. Black slaves were at the second to the bottom rung (the very bottom rung was prisoners, who were not simply chained, but tormented for the purpose of tormenting them and the amusement of their jailers).

    When EVERYBODY is, in fact if not in name, a slave of somebody else and there are only 13 truly free human beings in the entire white world, the particular aspect of white on black slavery - the special evil of it - largely dissolves into the general evil of society. When everybody is in essence a slave, and some people (not black slaves) are being cut open or burnt alive in the public square, one really cannot consider black slavery to truly be any different from the general human condition of their "masters", for their masters themselves had masters.

    In the 21st Century, however, it is quite different. Those social conditions have been swept away for everybody by centuries of violent history, as the white world freed itself from its royal and noble masters, and set limits on the controls human beings can impose on others. Parents can no longer whip their children at will, and husbands have no right to beat their wives at all. Chattel slavery of any skin color is illegal.

    Importantly, the 19th Century abolitionist movements were all Christian movements, very rightly rooted in Jesus' laws: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an outright ban of slavery and beatings, full stop. It is not turnable. The 17th Century structure of government was spitting in the eyes of Jesus every day that it existed. In the 21st Century it no longer exists.

    But people who cling to racism are still spitting right in the eyes of Jesus. They deserve to have done unto them what they would do unto the blacks. Of course, individual people are not entitled to punch racists in the face, but in our republics we CAN set rules that allow the police to do it, if the racists get out of line and get ugly. So we have.

    When the racists come out, and the police beat them with batons and tear gas them and pepper spray them in the face, that's justice. That's re-establishing the right order of things. Their ideas are wrong, they are evil, their evil beliefs cost us a million lives in the Civil War. We live in democratic republics, we CAN pass laws that force these people to be silent on pain of legal torment, we DO pass such laws, and we ENFORCE them.

    Essentially, our laws allow us to torture open racists with loss of money, property, power and rights.
    And that's a good thing.

    We will certainly continue to do so. Those jerks caused us to kill a million of our own. They lost the right to be respected, and they lost the right to speak those ideas without consequences of pain. They still have the right to speak - and they do - and we have the right to collectively gang up on them with our laws, and physically and economically and in every other way beat them into submission, so they have to hide what they are and shut their mouths.

    And we DO that, as a society. And that is good. Racists in the 21st Century have lost the right to openly speak BECAUSE OF all of the death and horror that those evil morons have inflicted in past centuries. We are done with them. They do not have the right to speak. We have passed laws to take that right away from them for all practical purposes. And we will enforce those laws.

    If people want to say we are wrong, who cares? Side with the racists and lose. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

    Tolerance for murderous philosophy has diminished to the vanishing point. No, Nazis and racists, and violent Communists, and Muslim jihadists who want to cut our heads off DON'T have a point. No, they don't have the right to meet in private and plot new mayhem. Yes, we, collectively, can look back at all of the death that these creeps have inflicted and say: no more. You will not meet. You will not speak. You will not kill any more. And if you try, we will take all of your money and kick you down into the gutter where you belong. Those ideas don't belong here. They are the same level of evil as child pornography.

    If they don't like that? Then they should emigrate, because they are not needed, or wanted here. Be stubborn, we will be more than happy to beat them into silence, because they deserve it. They've already killed enough. It is time for them to be silent - or to be silenced, by force. That is the legal regime of our day, and it is right and just.

    Some ideas do not have the right to live any more. Racism is one of them.
     
  18. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +2,404
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I agree with that. But there's a danger to associating bad ideas and behavior with bad men. It makes it less likely that you'll notice bad ideas and behavior when it occurs with people like you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  19. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,587
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    If they can support within their religion that inter-racial marriage is a sin, then yes for certain businesses. I cannot think of one other than the photographer though.

    EDIT: My own personal belief is that all people are the same. Races have developed by the inter-marriage of the generations before, so races really don't exist.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  20. Vicomte13

    Vicomte13 Well-Known Member

    +1,373
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Unacceptable.

    The Aztecs can support within their religion that human sacrifice is necessary to appease the gods.
    I don't care. Our civil society has laws, and those laws are more important than the Aztecs false religion.

    There are limits to freedom of religion. Things that destroy people and destroy our society are outside of those limits, and practices of those religions are illegal and forcibly prevented.

    France is a free country. They have freedom of religion. Scientology is outlawed, because France has decided, as a matter of law, that Scientology is a money-making enterprise, not a real religion at all. Fraudulent pyramid schemes do not have the right to exist in France. And the French government is the final authority on what is a religion and what is a fraudulent pyramid scheme. The operators of the pyramid scheme do not get to place their fraud above the law by self-declaration that it's a religion. The republic gets to decide what the word "religion" means. A handful of fraudsters do not get to hide behind the word.

    In a similar vein, racist Christianity is not Christianity. It is not valid. It is not supportable. When it was tolerated, it led to a Civil War that killed almost a million of our people, and then to a period of crushing segregation that is the reason we have economically segregated crime-ridden inner cities we have today.

    We chose to let evil piggish people to foist their political opinions as religion, and use it to crush others of our people, exclude them from the marketplace, put them in poverty - and we all still have to bear the poverty and crime that inevitably resulted.

    So no, racist religion is not religion. It is a political movement. The government of the United States and our people, having paid to end that sort of crap with a million lives and ten trillion dollars of tax dollars, have the sovereign and absolute right to declare that racist exclusion IS NOT RELIGION, and THEREFORE is not protected by the Second Amendment, and cannot, for example, be exempt from taxation.

    You set up a racist Church, and everything that goes into the collection plate is taxable income to a money-making enterprise. It is not a religion, it's a political association hellbent on evil, like the Nazi Party or the KKK.

    If the racists hadn't killed a million people and cost us trillions, then they might be protected by the Constitution. But they did, and therefore racism is not a religion, the racists don't have legal protection, and they do not have the right - at all - to determine what race they will serve in their businesses. They will serve all races, or they will be be crushed out of business by the authorities. You do not have the right to earn money in the United States if you exclude people based on race. If you are a church, you don't count as a religion and cannot collect money tax exempt if you exclude people based on race, and you will pay property tax on your little hovel where you have your services.

    You are not a religion. The First Amendment does not apply to you. You do not have the freedom to do that here. You never will. And nobody is going to give you the benefit of the doubt - too many of our people have been died, and that idiocy has cost us too much money and too much misery. The case is closed and there is nothing to debate. Three centuries of imbeciles is enough. No more tolerance. You will abandon that false tenet of your false religion, or we will beat you into poverty, socially exclude you, and take what you have.

    Racists: we fought a war with you over this. You lost. If you persist, and call it religion, you're nothing but an evil, arrogant traitor, and you probably deserve to be hanged for it.
     
Loading...