Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[Katzndogz]

No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners. It is really none of their business.

They should judge whether their own conduct is a sin and whether accepting the normalcy of homosexuality is the sin they are committing. If a gay couple got married it is none of my concern whether or not that is a sin. If I went to the wedding that would be my sin.

 

[Kondor3]

In Christianity, the New Testament is considered to override the Old, but the Old is still operative, to cover moral questions not superseded by New teaching.

Jesus of Nazareth was silent on the subject of homosexuality (insofar as I can recall); consequently, the teachings of the Old are applicable, in view of the silence from the New.

Or so it seems to me, in contemplating the way in which the two narratives are historically perceived to complement each other.

You've clearly never been to Church or read the Bible.

Depends on the Church, old boy... it depends on the Church...

Oh, and, yes, I've read the Bible...

And many of the Judaic commentaries, as well as a few of the Christian ones...

And came to understand them, as best I could, in college, while taking a few Theology courses to round-out my GDR's...

I did well in those courses and my professors thought I had some native talent for that so-called discipline, but, in truth, it wasn't something that I wanted to pursue any further...

And I read the Q'uran cover-to-cover after 9-11, and many of its shorter commentaries, as well...

It's just been a long time since I've dealt with that stuff (order of precedence of teachings, basis for philosophical positions on homosexuality, etc.) in any significant depth...

 

[Kondor3]

No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners. It is really none of their business.

They should judge whether their own conduct is a sin and whether accepting the normalcy of homosexuality is the sin they are committing. If a gay couple got married it is none of my concern whether or not that is a sin. If I went to the wedding that would be my sin.

Personally, I happen to think that there's more right than wrong with such thinking; after all, did not The Founder (Jesus of Nazareth) serve-up a 'judge not, lest ye be judged' maxim or two? Did he not serve-up a 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' maxim or two? And I ask myself, how can a Christian ignore such maxims, which go to the core of that Belief System?

Then again, I understand the arguments in favor of allowing Christians to judge, as well, who will argue that Jesus gave copious examples of man judging man's sinful behaviors and that Jesus did not intend for his teachings to be used as a cover for moral relativism nor aberration.

It's a dilemma, alright, and folks who practice that Belief System come to the best conclusions that their own intellects and hearts and spirit permit them to reach.

That's one of the reasons why I don't condemn any of the three types of Believers in this context (those tolerant of homosexuality, those who condemn but do not actively oppose, and those who both condemn and oppose).

 

[paperview]

Spreading hate?
How were they spreading hate?
Refusing to sell something to someone is not spreading anything.
...

The couple had previously ordered a cake from them, (though not a wedding cake) -- they were what every business owner wants: repeat customers.

When they ordered what they wanted to be a cake for a same-sex wedding, the owner called them "abominations" and told them their "money was not equal."

The owner doesn't deny he called them abominations.

Because: Jesus!

Lie.

I'll give you this. You do work hard to live up to your name.

 

[Kondor3]

"These issues are not insurmountable. The baker could have baked a lovely cake, gone to the wedding to put the tiers together and very loudly and publicly prayed for forgiveness. Don't refuse or do a deliberately bad job. Just reduce the couple to tears and ruin the entire wedding, legally."

That was wicked, evil, and funny-as-hell... well done! ...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Having children out of wedlock is a sin, and human cloning is immoral. Tattoos are clearly forbidden. Yet they are happy to support all of those things, just not the gays.

Do we know that the Christian Bakery Owners support such things?

And even if they did...

So, they cherry-picked the Bible for the parts that THEY want to believe-in or to consider operative as God's Law or Moral Law...

Big deal...

Some parts of ancient sacred texts are still relevant today...

Some parts are not...

Most folks hold that the ancient prohibitions against homosexuality still hold true...

Some folks do not...

And our secular government has - very recently- begun issuing rulings and laws and regulations as if those ancient prohibitions against homosexuality do not still hold true...

To the displeasure of much of the population - in contravention to the Consent of the Governed...

A thoroughly Conservative President and Congress, and a sizable Conservative contingent within the Supreme Court, may end-up reversing some of that recent social engineering...

Just as we now see Roe v Wade being slowly eroded in State after State after State, so many years after it first became operative...

Time will tell...

Meanwhile...

You really can't fault normal, decent people for shunning fudge-packers and carpet-to-carpet munchers, and being grossed-out by them, and wanting nothing to do with them...

Their faith tells them that such folks are deviants and unclean and an abomination in the eyes of God and Nature and Man...

And a lot of good folks who do NOT have such strong beliefs, also perceive Gays in that manner...

Generally speaking, Hate is an evil and unworthy thing, but there is ONE kind of Hate (or, at least, revulsion) which most of us are taught from childhood to be acceptable... ONE kind of Hate that is supposed to be OK...

The Hatred of Evil...

And, if homosexuality is tagged as Evil, or if its perception as an Evil Thing is valid, well...

The hating of EVIL things is considered a GOOD thing, right?

Sigh...

The People will sort this out in their own good time...

What a very long post to say "O HAI! I'm a bigot too!"

When you call someone racist for disagreeing with the president, is that not bigoted? When you tear down a woman for not being liberal or pro choice, is that not being bigoted? Think about it, who are the real bigots here? When you berate a man of faith for standing up for his values, is that not being bigoted? When a liberal calls anyone from the south a racist redneck, is that not being bigoted?

Clean up around your front door first.

 

[Zona]

We pause this thread for a moment to bring you some sweetcakes.

Well, as a retired navy guy I have to say........thats so freaking hot!

Now back to these 'religious' bakers who live by the Bible. Do they refuse service to people who have had a divorced people who have tattoo'.s, or people who eat sea food etc etc. Did you know its a sin for a woman to speak in church or wear gold there as well. No cake for them?

Selective belief makes you a hypocrite in my book.

 

[Zona]

No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners. It is really none of their business.

They should judge whether their own conduct is a sin and whether accepting the normalcy of homosexuality is the sin they are committing. If a gay couple got married it is none of my concern whether or not that is a sin. If I went to the wedding that would be my sin.

I agree. Wait, what? Who hacked this account..

 

[mudwhistle]

You know, I'm getting kind of sick of gay people. I've never had any real issue with gay people, have had friends who were gay, etc. But the more I hear about them, the more I don't want to hear about them.

Just STFU gay people. I don't care about your aberration.

P.S. To whom it may concern: Look up the word "aberration" before getting on my case. Because if you don't think two men wanting to fondle each other isn't a departure from what is normal or typical, well I don't know what is. Doesn't make it wrong (I have to say that). Just makes it a departure from the norm. As in "abnormal."

Oh, and for those of you who have been trying to peg me as a "liberal" lately...how liberal was this comment?

Well, liberals support gayness, as long as they're Democrats. Any time a Republican is shown to be Gay they're on them like stink on shit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners. It is really none of their business.

They should judge whether their own conduct is a sin and whether accepting the normalcy of homosexuality is the sin they are committing. If a gay couple got married it is none of my concern whether or not that is a sin. If I went to the wedding that would be my sin.

I agree. Wait, what? Who hacked this account..

Wow, Zona, you are dense.

 

[Days]

yep, you were.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In Christianity, the New Testament is considered to override the Old, but the Old is still operative, to cover moral questions not superseded by New teaching.

Jesus of Nazareth was silent on the subject of homosexuality (insofar as I can recall); consequently, the teachings of the Old are applicable, in view of the silence from the New.

Or so it seems to me, in contemplating the way in which the two narratives are historically perceived to complement each other.

You've clearly never been to Church or read the Bible.

Depends on the Church, old boy... it depends on the Church...

Oh, and, yes, I've read the Bible...

And many of the Judaic commentaries, as well as a few of the Christian ones...

And came to understand them, as best I could, in college, while taking a few Theology courses to round-out my GDR's...

I did well in those courses and my professors thought I had some native talent for that so-called discipline, but, in truth, it wasn't something that I wanted to pursue any further...

And I read the Q'uran cover-to-cover after 9-11, and many of its shorter commentaries, as well...

It's just been a long time since I've dealt with that stuff (order of precedence of teachings, basis for philosophical positions on homosexuality, etc.) in any significant depth...

I don't know where you went to college, or who your professors were, but you should get your money back. The New Testament does not override the Old Testament anymore than the Mosaic covenant overrides the Abrahamic covenant.

 

[Hoffstra]

I don't know where you went to college, or who your professors were, but you should get your money back. The New Testament does not override the Old Testament anymore than the Mosaic covenant overrides the Abrahamic covenant.

MANY Christians believe that the New Covenant totally overrides the Old Covenant and deems the Old Covenant to be completely & totally null and voided.

I don't fully agree with this, but what is clear is that the laws and regulations didn't apply to Gentiles back then and certainly don't apply now that the New Covenant has been ordained.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners. It is really none of their business.

They should judge whether their own conduct is a sin and whether accepting the normalcy of homosexuality is the sin they are committing. If a gay couple got married it is none of my concern whether or not that is a sin. If I went to the wedding that would be my sin.

Personally, I happen to think that there's more right than wrong with such thinking; after all, did not The Founder (Jesus of Nazareth) serve-up a 'judge not, lest ye be judged' maxim or two? Did he not serve-up a 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' maxim or two? And I ask myself, how can a Christian ignore such maxims, which go to the core of that Belief System?

Then again, I understand the arguments in favor of allowing Christians to judge, as well, who will argue that Jesus gave copious examples of man judging man's sinful behaviors and that Jesus did not intend for his teachings to be used as a cover for moral relativism nor aberration.

It's a dilemma, alright, and folks who practice that Belief System come to the best conclusions that their own intellects and hearts and spirit permit them to reach.

That's one of the reasons why I don't condemn any of the three types of Believers in this context (those tolerant of homosexuality, those who condemn but do not actively oppose, and those who both condemn and oppose).

Sigh.

That was not a maxim, nor was it directed at his followers. One would think that someone who took classes about the Bible would know the simplest truths.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The couple had previously ordered a cake from them, (though not a wedding cake) -- they were what every business owner wants: repeat customers.

When they ordered what they wanted to be a cake for a same-sex wedding, the owner called them "abominations" and told them their "money was not equal."

The owner doesn't deny he called them abominations.

Because: Jesus!

Lie.

I'll give you this. You do work hard to live up to your name.

You don't even know what my name means.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Well, when I read the Bible, I just read the words that Jesus said (okay, I can hear it coming already...the words he "allegedly" said).

If you're going to live your life by the Bible, I don't see how you can go wrong by just doing exactly as Jesus said to do. Which seemed to be mostly about loving and not judging. Right?

 

[Hoffstra]

Well, when I read the Bible, I just read the words that Jesus said (okay, I can hear it coming already...the words he "allegedly" said).

If you're going to live your life by the Bible, I don't see how you can go wrong by just doing exactly as Jesus said to do. Which seemed to be mostly about loving and not judging. Right?

Its very sad how Christians who want to judge and point fingers, prefer to ignore Jesus' words and be more like Paul, who loved to judge and point fingers.

Hell, Paul even said that women shouldn't speak in Church, can NEVER hold a position of authority over men, and must never braid their hair.

yeah, Jesus went ----------------->this way...... while Mr. Paul went <------------- that way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know where you went to college, or who your professors were, but you should get your money back. The New Testament does not override the Old Testament anymore than the Mosaic covenant overrides the Abrahamic covenant.

MANY Christians believe that the New Covenant totally overrides the Old Covenant and deems the Old Covenant to be completely & totally null and voided.

I don't fully agree with this, but what is clear is that the laws and regulations didn't apply to Gentiles back then and certainly don't apply now that the New Covenant has been ordained.

Many non Christians believe that Columbus proved the Earth is round, what's your point?

 

[Hoffstra]

Many non Christians believe that Columbus proved the Earth is round, what's your point?

that's a pretty horrible and offensive analogy.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I don't know where you went to college, or who your professors were, but you should get your money back. The New Testament does not override the Old Testament anymore than the Mosaic covenant overrides the Abrahamic covenant."

Many scholars and their students hold differently. My money at the time was well-spent.

We are not just talking about Covenants.

We are also talking about canon law, old and new, and order of precedence, and the validity of the Old in areas of law in which the New is silent.

There are a variety of Old laws which Gentiles, for example, are not obliged to subscribe to; laws with respect to diet and circumcision and several other thematic areas.

But there are a variety of Old laws which Gentiles, for example, are obliged to subscribe to; macro level law; various Commandments, prohibitions, encouragements, morality lessons, and ethical constraints.

Much of this was solidified and clarified by apostolic and Church Fathers commentaries during the early centuries that The Faith was extant, and much more solidified and codified over the course of time through ecumenical collaborations and conclaves and findings and pronouncements.

The two Testaments complement each other and The Old is used just as often as the New - more, perhaps - when reaching back for the basis for canon law or a moral point - repeatedly, every day of the week, all around the world.

And, when the New collides with the Old, the New is given precedence as being the operative or controlling authority.

You, for one, do not perceive that the Old Testament is still operative, in thematic areas in which Jesus of Nazareth and his First Followers remain silent.

Others perceive otherwise.

I really don't feel like getting into a pissing contest over religion this evening.

Either way, it's not the end of the world, eh?