Poll Results: Americans Admit More Discomfort With LGBT

[TLK Valentine]

Why were the Canaanite nations destroyed?

Real estate.

 

[redleghunter]

From a legal standpoint: so what?

From a religious conviction standpoint based on free exercise thereof.

I quoted Jesus given I'm sure this was covered in your ministry training Rev. Valentine.

 

[TLK Valentine]

From a religious conviction standpoint based on free exercise thereof.



I quoted Jesus given I'm sure this was covered in your ministry training Rev. Valentine.

Again, from a legal standpoint: So what? The First Amendment protects more than just religious convictions...

 

[redleghunter]

So why should we accept your moral compass as "true north"?

Don't accept mine. Start with Jesus. That's a very good one. Actually the only absolute compass. He is the Alpha and Omega. The first born from the dead.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Don't accept mine. Start with Jesus. That's a very good one. Actually the only absolute compass. He is the Alpha and Omega. The first born from the dead.

Would he have sold the couple a cake?

Well, given his chosen (earthly) profession, would he have built the hall the wedding would be performed in?

 

[redleghunter]

Real estate.

No Reverend it was Judgment. YHWH made that clear.

“It is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you…” (Deut. 9:5)

“Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.” (Lev. 18:24-25)

“When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations…because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.” (Deut. 18:9, 12)

 

[redleghunter]

Would he have sold the couple a cake?

Well, given his chosen (earthly) profession, would he have built the hall the wedding would be performed in?

Good questions so let's add the historical context to your inquiry Reverend.
We can use John 8:1-12

Jesus protected the adulterous woman from being stoned and then ended by saying 'go and sin no more.'

I would expect He would do the same for all sinners in the same situation in historic context.

 

[redleghunter]

Again, from a legal standpoint: So what? The First Amendment protects more than just religious convictions...

Of course and for Christians given the summary of the Law of Love we should expect to treat others as we want to be treated. Yet there is the First command before this to Love God with all we have. Which means obey Him.

In this case it would have been nice if the gay couple recognized Jack Phillips free exercise of religion and perhaps go to another shop. I mean it's just cake. Right?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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

Indeed, and the homosexuals in CO did not, and the baker is punished for acting in accordance with it, because the state will punish you for not helping someone to commit what the person believes is a crime, and will not allow any exemption in a case of a special contracted non-essential work which could easily been obtained somewhere else.

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

The sex goes together with marriage actually shows reality.

Which remains a matter of opinion.

Indeed, but not helping a person commit that which is unlawful is not unjust discrimination.

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.

CO changed in 2014, but regardless, once again, JP is essentially being tried for not recognizing what the highest state law did not recognize, and instead had defined it according to the belief of the baker, and the clear majority of the voters.

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

Regardless, even if you are going to go by God's law but the law of the land, then in some states you can be charged with adultery, as well as it being ground for divorce. Not that should be necessary to keep you from committing it.

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

Not necessarily. I do not think most people (perhaps not atheists) do not commit adulterty because of the law against it.

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?

That depends upon things like the nature of it and the impact of exemption, which the court looked at in granting conscientious exemptions.

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?

That is the nature of democracy. In a constitutional republic, they should go by the constitution in accordance with the beliefs of its writers, but in a democracy the interpreters of it are indirectly elected by the people, and which reflects what they most strongly value.

Thus we have the case at hand. And I do not think it unlikely that unless SCOTUS clearly rules otherwise, states could decide even paint and music artists must create special works for homosexuality and or its events (even if they can refuse Republicans),

And given out of control politically incorrectness seen in colleges ("secular seminaries, which to a significant degree indicate how the future leaders from them would do things), with their imaginative microaggressions, broad brushed "racism," and censoring of "cultural appropriation," then in time (if not taken over by another country) we could see the state charge all businesses who contribute to traditional marriage organization as being guilty of a hate crime. After that they will start to work to remove children from merely politically incorrect homes.

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

Calm down now. I know you have the Treaty of Tripoli handy and a relative few other like quotes but the quote was showing the (Christian) religious nature of the country back then.

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

It remains that the nozzle of the gas pump (called so because it pumps gas) is not designed to go in the exhaust pipe, and for good reason.

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

Which is true, but that was not the bakers primary reason and thus the argument goes beyond what the state law said. But the state should be reproved for its legal duplicitousness.

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

Thus the case goes beyond...

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.

Which means those with strong moral convictions who will not salute the flag of Sodom must be very careful what business they get into, more so in some states than others.

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

Again, primarily, and which partly attests to it being contrary to nature and the God of it, whose law is the reason.

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

Or treat them as an state atheism likely would Christians if a consensual activity such as taking part in the Lord's supper resulted in over 80% of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older? After almost 40 years and over 600,000 deatha mainly caused by it?

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

Some of your comrades think differently.

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.

In this we can pretty much agree. But again, i think some progress has been made. but that exchange on this issue has run its course, with too much repetition.

 

[Skreeper]

I hear people think so, but it isn't marriage, no
matter who calls it that.

the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship

I don't see how that does not fit or apply to gay marriage.

 

[Skreeper]

It remains that the nozzle of the gas pump (called so because it pumps gas) is not designed to go in the

I see. Your problem is not with homosexuality, it's with a certain practice that is not exclusive to gay people.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread will remain closed, ​

due to ongoing discomfort with flaming and goading.​

MOD HAT OFF​