Poll Results: Americans Admit More Discomfort With LGBT

[KCfromNC]

Point proven about the uniqueness of a wedding cake.

Every cake is unique. So?

 

[Hank77]

only to get zero answers from the people who are positive that the baker is sending a clear message by selling one.

Should an artist be forced to create art that he/she doesn't want to?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

True, the political/religious differences are unavoidable -- and yet they too, fall in love and get married.

But the diverse ideologies remain incompatible. Some things must, while others are made to be complementary and compatible.

Right -- because you're talking about sex, whereas I'm talking about love and marriage.

Which in the Bible go together.

"Gays cause AIDS, therefore they don't deserve to be married..." is that what we're trotting out here?

Primarily in the West. But i think this became a point related to equating racial unions to homosexual ones, as regard to the moral validity of the latter.

Never claimed to be... and yet, my weddings are 100% legitimate under US law.
How about yours?

And so was the baker not recognizing homosexual marriage.

Still doesn't change the fact that our president doesn't have an inspiring track record with either marriage or monogamy... one kind of explains the other, actually.

What this or past presidents did will not justify your statement that "monogamy isn't exactly the norm among heterosexuals."

And Obgergfell was decided in 2015... and remains in some jeopardy, given the current political climate.

Also irrelevant to the case, unless one can be punished for what the highest law later will say.

I agree -- but that's irrelevant. If the baker's religious belief was that interracial unions are sinful, the fact that that belief is not supported by Scripture (yours, mine, or anyone else's) means absolutely nothing insofar as the First Amendment of the Constitution is concerned. Either his belief is to be protected, or it is not...

Indeed.

....unless you want the courts decideing what is a legitimate Christian belief and what is not? I suspect you don't want to go down that route.

Actually, since moral laws flow from beliefs, then the courts effectively decide which beliefs are valid, varying from country to country. When Christianity was the general "civil" religion, then laws and the judges indirectly reflected their beliefs in moral matters, including in both slavery and abolition.

For as Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) found:
The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...
n the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth...

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live... Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest. (Democracy in America, [New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)

This is actually the baker's best bet -- he could have claimed that he didn't want to be an accomplice in what was (at the time) an unlawful ceremony, lest he be arrested as an accomplice to a crime.
An absurd defense, of course -- but there's no "absurdity" exemption to the First Amendment

No, that is not the defense, but it is a support, for the state is essentially arguing that it can severely punish a man for not effectually recognizing what its own constitution did not recognize. The issue is if freedom of speech can allow dissent in a case when the state requires recognition, but the fact that here the baker was acting consistent with the highest state law at the time weighs against the punishment by the state.

I can assure you the mechanics of it are quite the same, regardless of the marital status of the people involved. Again, the Internet can provide far more confirmation of this than even the most... inquisitive... mind would want to peruse.

I do not want or need to do the latter to know that the mechanics are basically the same as placing the gas pump n the exhaust pipe of a car, and about ordered and safety as well.

And as I said, this is the best thing the baker has to a legal defense -- he wanted no part of the act because it was (at the time) illegal.

Some of your atheists comrades dismiss that, yet while that indicts the state on its own terms, the supreme law for the baker is the word of God, and thus the larger issue. The punishment for the baker should be thrown out on the basis of the baker acting consistent with the state constitution, while the issue of whether dissent can be allowed even after the constitution was changed if another issue.

Of course, he's pretty much up a creek now that it's perfectly legal, but that'll be an issue for the next customer unfortunate enough to darken his doorstep.

Not so, for he ceased making wedding cakes, leaving it out to some homosexual looking to make headline and money to come up with another way to claim violation and emotional abuse.

Ah, yes -- my bad. I was getting the years mixed up regarding the cases.

You are not alone!

As I said, the baker did have a legal (albeit somewhat silly) argument regarding not wanting to be an accomplice to an illegal activity... which he no longer has.

<p>Nor did he make that argument, or claim it now. Due to his supreme argument, he would have done the same two years later, if he sold wedding cakes. </p>

Including their belief that negroes were 3/5 of a human being? Their belief that only white, landowning males should have a voice in government?

If sexual unions among blacks were responsible for over 70-80% of new HIV cases over the course of decades, and could not be tamed, whitey might have an argument.

The most important (one might argue the only important) quality of our founding fathers was their humilty -- the recognized that they were going to make mistakes, and left it in the hands of future generations to correct them.
That, more than anything else, is a testament to the secular nature of our government -- people who believe they're guided by God rarely show such humilty.

Actually that is a false dilemma, for you have humble Founders who did look to, pray for, and express thanks to God for His guidance and help. And to forbid public officials from doing so in non-sectarian ways would be rejected.

And I am quite curious as to what the outcome of this one is going to be -- as well as the precedent it will set.
Hopefully, it won't canonize Jim Crow.

I think curious is an understatement, and I think we have fairly exhausted this subject, and should wait (and pray) for SCOTUS to render its decision. It literally takes me hours to write. Thanks for providing material for research, reason and refinement.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But the diverse ideologies remain incompatible. Some things must, while others are made to be complementary and compatible.

And yet a Communist or buddhist has just as much right to get married in this country as anyone else... at least for now.

Which in the Bible go together.

A commentary on how out of touch with reality the Bible has become.

Primarily in the West. But i think this became a point related to equating racial unions to homosexual ones, as regard to the moral validity of the latter.

Which remains a matter of opinion.

And so was the baker not recognizing homosexual marriage.

Which, once upon a time, he had a legal leg to stand on... alas, that ship sailed in 2015, but his case is still solid.

What this or past presidents did will not justify your statement that "monogamy isn't exactly the norm among heterosexuals."

Monogamy is a cultural enforcement -- and not a particularly successful one.

Seems tome that something which must be enforced isn't "the norm."

Indeed.

And herein lies the problem -- do you agree, therefore, that a "religious" belief not supported by the Bible (or even flatly contradicted by it) is still worthy of First Amendment protection?

Actually, since moral laws flow from beliefs, then the courts effectively decide which beliefs are valid, varying from country to country. When Christianity was the general "civil" religion, then laws and the judges indirectly reflected their beliefs in moral matters, including in both slavery and abolition.

And you have no problem here and now with judges legislating beliefs into law? You realize that we do have Muslim judges in this country, right?

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]For as Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) found: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...
n the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth...
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live... Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest. (Democracy in America, [New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)[/FONT]

You want to play the quote game? please tell me you want to play the quote game...

I do not want or need to do the latter to know that the mechanics are basically the same as placing the gas pump n the exhaust pipe of a car, and about ordered and safety as well.

And yet, not every "pump" is intended to fill the tank... this is true regardless of the sexes of the people involved.

Some of your atheists comrades dismiss that, yet while that indicts the state on its own terms, the supreme law for the baker is the word of God, and thus the larger issue. The punishment for the baker should be thrown out on the basis of the baker acting consistent with the state constitution, while the issue of whether dissent can be allowed even after the constitution was changed if another issue.

Which would mean that the baker should be acquitted solely for the reason that he was in compliance with state law.

Of course, the laws have since changed... which brings us to the next customer.

Not so, for he ceased making wedding cakes, leaving it out to some homosexual looking to make headline and money to come up with another way to claim violation and emotional abuse.

Well, there you have it -- he took himself out of the wedding cake business. I commend him on his choice; he gets to maintain his conscience without running afoul of the law.

If sexual unions among blacks were responsible for over 70-80% of new HIV cases over the course of decades, and could not be tamed, whitey might have an argument.

Gays cause AIDS, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to get married?

Why stop there? If they "could not be tamed," why not just lock them all up?

Actually that is a false dilemma, for you have humble Founders who did look to, pray for, and express thanks to God for His guidance and help. And to forbid public officials from doing so in non-sectarian ways would be rejected.

Far be it for me or anyone else to deny a public official their lip service. Verily, they have their reward.

Now I think we have fairly exhaustive this subject, and should wait (and pray) for SCOTUS to render its decision. It literal takes me hours to write. Thanks for providing material for research reason and refinement.

Personally, I think SCOTUS is going to side with the baker, but leave the door open by using the legality argument -- the baker was under no obligation to participate in an activity which was not legally recognized at the time, meaning the state had no authority to punish him for refusing to do so.

Nobody is going to be particularly thrilled with that outcome, but in the end, everyone will get something they want.... at least, IMHO, it'd be the most prudent decision.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Remember that we're talking about behavior that used
to be a criminal act in the USA, and it's still illegal in some
countries.

Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy...

Lots of things used to be illegal for dumb reasons.

If we based our current moral compass on what used to be illegal, the following things would still be illegal:
Interracial marriage
Women being allowed to speak in public forums
Black people being able to use a "white toilet"
etc...

It is harmful to the individuals involved and
detrimental to the country.

No it's not...

It is one of the signs that a
country's morals have decayed and it will soon fall.

You say it, but you provide no proof.

People seem to wish for a theocracy, yet, completely ignore the fact that every time it has been tried in the past, it's failed miserably.

There is no redeeming factor to homosexuality.

There doesn't have to be...it just needs not not violate the rights of others. (which it doesn't)

There's no particular redeeming factor to picking red car instead of a blue, preferring pizza over burgers, liking jazz instead of country, etc...


Many fundamentalists (especially southern conservative fundamentalists) seem to have this notion that they have an inherent right not to be offended. Someone else doing something you don't approve of isn't a violation of your rights.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy...

Lots of things used to be illegal for dumb reasons.

If we based our current moral compass on what used to be illegal, the following things would still be illegal:
Interracial marriage
Women being allowed to speak in public forums
Black people being able to use a "white toilet"
etc...

Perhaps if pat34lee clarified that he was, in fact, in favor of these things... let's not assume his argument is entirely fallacious.

 

[redleghunter]

I think it's pretty self-explanatory -- a believer who commits a morally reprehensible act based on the belief that God wants it done is not absolved of responsibility.

Again we are responsible for our own actions and deeds.

Someone playing God included.

 

[redleghunter]

Wow how evasive.

It just seems you look for a persecution lining in every action.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It just seems you look for a persecution lining in every action.

Are you saying the Cathars weren't persecuted by the Catholics?

 

[Aldebaran]

and you still try to pretend it is a preference.

That's because it IS a peference. Gay men prefer to have sex with other men. I myself am a straight man. I would prefer to have sex with a woman.

 

[Aldebaran]

And the question that you haven't responded to: Should I?

Considering the original question:

You find no difference between a same sex couple and a heterosexual interracial couple?

I'd say if you want to live in reality, you probably should. If you choose not to, I can't help you. Neither can the person who asked you the question.

 

[SilverBear]

No, you specified a gay wedding cake. Since there is
no such thing as a gay wedding, and it was illegal at
the time of this incident, that makes it fictional.

just like Richard and Mildred Loving's wedding

 

[SilverBear]

Where is the temple, the judges and the King that
God mandated? You can't carry out the rule of the
government without the government.

You should study a little before throwing out something
that ill-informed. Makes you look bad.

So no one has to follow this OT law?

 

[SilverBear]

Do not misquote me. I am not saying it's about "conduct". I'm saying it's about an event, a celebration, which violates religious/moral conscience, and which a man's speech is being pressed into service to contribute to said event. It's not about "conduct" at all.

and that is the position the courts, even the Supreme Court has rejected for decades

 

[SilverBear]

That is absurd.

1. Unless you know the end from the beginning, and how one cause effects another and will turn out, and are able to achieve your end, then you simply are in no position to judge one who does.

2. The conditions of the time, in which the priority was that of steady food, clothing and shelter, and usually no formal schooling was available, most traveled little, and an agrarian-based economy was crucial and labor intensive, actually made slavery a option many choose, or choose for their offspring.

3. For the above reasons and more, slavery was an established integral institution in the ANE in which Israel was part of, and where hardly in a position to create and competitively adapt with a rather fundamentally new system.

4. Biblical slavery did not sanction abuse the typical self-righteous characterization ascribes to it, or worse that what a military recruit used to endure, but provides freedom for permanent injury and forbids the return of an escaped slave.

5. In the New Testament, in which the church was a minority in slave states, and most of its members were likely slaves, even threatening is forbidden, and obtaining freedom is advised, and the return of an escaped converted slave was conditional upon him no longer being a slave, but as Paul himself.

6. The focus of the church was on personally overcoming afflictions etc. in whatever position the believers were in, and not on social revolution, but is the outworking the Christian ethos of love would have worked - had not the church become Romanized - to create a society in which slavery would be viewed as something to be abandoned. Which is finally did, effecting both Enlightenment thinker as well as primary evangelicals.

7. The victim-entitlement mentality that we see today with 78% of black children born out of wedlock, without the lock, and resultant problems and attitude, is also a form of slavery and a poor alternative to it (not that it is an either/or situation).

And dare i asked where you see murder and rape sanctioned? Taking widowed women in war as wives, thus providing them with husband and family with the victors? Taking second wives (they were)? Women sold becoming wives, who were giving freedom if the husband did not treat her equally in care?

And just how is requiring a covenanted (after He had abundantly manifested His power and grace) people to worship and serve the Lord above all being "worried about himself first.???" You think God needs something? You think man will not worship and serve something, either the finite and failing created or the infinite Omnipotent Omniscient Creator who will never fail to do His part? You do not think it would be right and best for worship and serve His creator if that creator was you?

And how is sparing not His own (by nature) Son, to serve others day and night, and then after doing everything Right, take responsibility for all we did Wrong, and pay the price for forgiveness of all who will repent and believe with life-transforming faith, that of "the Christian deity worried about himself first"? You think man causes Him more grief or joy?

Revisionist history and the glorification of slavery. You sure are one piece of work

 

[MoonlessNight]

If someone asked me if there was anything worthwhile on Christian Forums I'd link them to this thread.

Actually, I wonder if people doing that sort of thing is why the number of active members is down, and there are fewer and fewer new members.

 

[SilverBear]

Really? I though atheists with their omniscience condemned God for not dealing effectively with the evil in the world, but when He wipes out terminally wicked peoples, and replaces them with a people of superior morality, and takes the innocent to Himself, thus sparing them from ending up just as their fathers, then they still condemn Him.

And as said, unless you know the end from the beginning, and how one cause effects another and will turn out, and are able to achieve your end, then you simply are in no position to judge one who does.

the willingness to commit mass murder and genocide are time tested hallmarks of people with superior morality

 

[SilverBear]

I am sure. Give me your full list.

laughable

you already have a list

 

[SilverBear]

If treating a people differently because of what their racial group is prone to then the US engages in racism.

This is clear as mud.

Do you think it is wrong to use a virus to justify discrimination?
Or is it OK to use a virus to justify discrimination but only for the people you have chosen to hate?

and before you protest...if you are using a virus to justify discrimination you are demonstrating that hate is your personal motivation.

 

[SilverBear]

No: as usual i had done research, which you could have easily done, such as shows,
In U.S., 10.2% of LGBT Adults Now Married to Same-Sex Spouse

Which is an 80% increase over two years ago.

what was the point you were making again?