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

[Quantum Windbag]

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

that's a pretty horrible and offensive analogy.

Why? Because the public school system in the US actively teaches that nonsense as historical fact? If it offends you, tell them to stop.

 

[Hoffstra]

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

We are not just talking about Covenants.

We are 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 such as various Commandments, and prohibitions, and encouragements, and morality lessons, and ethical constraints.

I want to see proof of this.

I want to see RCC or other denominational official declarations that certain codes & regulations in the OT are valid and applicable upon all Gentiles.

otherwise you're just talking out of your ass to defend bigotry against Gays.

 

[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.

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).

It is the only way the Bible can be correctly interpreted. It took me years and many conversations with different theologians to figure it out. Jesus admonishes Christians not to judge the sin of others more than anything else. When he saved Mary Magdalene he didn't tell her to run out and tell all the other whores they were sinners.

If the baker was a Christian she had an obligation not to sin by participating in a same sex wedding. Not to judge the couple, but not to bring that measure of sin into her own heart.

 

[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..

Wow, Zona, you are dense.

But but but, we got along so well...now all you do is ignore me. Simply because I called you out.

Pic or GTFO...remember?

 

[Kondor3]

"...I want to see proof of this. I want to see RCC or other denominational official declarations that certain codes & regulations in the OT are valid and applicable upon all Gentiles..."

You can WANT all you like, mine good colleague, but I don't feel like playing any longer on this one, tonight.

You can begin your quest for more knowledge on the subject with a simple-simon Layman's Question to your local pastor:

"Pastor, am I obliged to abide by the Ten Commandments?"

That should get you started on the path to Enlightenment on this subject.

"...otherwise you're just talking out of your ass to defend bigotry against Gays."

No.

All that means is that you remain unsatisfied as to the religous basis for such perceptions on the part of so many.

It has nothing to do with bigotry.

It has to do with good and decent folks shunning Abomination and Perversity and Uncleanness.

 

[Zona]

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?

But But But, LEVITICUS!!!

 

[Hoffstra]

"...I want to see proof of this. I want to see RCC or other denominational official declarations that certain codes & regulations in the OT are valid and applicable upon all Gentiles..."

You can WANT all you like, mine good colleague, but I don't feel like playing any longer on this one, tonight.

You can begin your quest for more knowledge on the subject with a simple-simon Layman's Question to your local pastor:

"Pastor, am I obliged to abide by the Ten Commandments?"

That should get you started on the path to Enlightenment on this subject.

"...otherwise you're just talking out of your ass to defend bigotry against Gays."

No.

All that means is that you remain unsatisfied as to the religous basis for such perceptions on the part of so many.

It has nothing to do with bigotry.

It has to do with good and decent folks shunning Abomination and Perversity and Uncleanness.

your claim, your burden of proof.

 

[Kondor3]

"...It is the only way the Bible can be correctly interpreted..."

Incorrect, or so I believe. That is the way which YOU have found to seem correct, but that perception does not hold true for a great many others, of course.

"...Jesus admonishes Christians not to judge the sin of others more than anything else. When he saved Mary Magdalene he didn't tell her to run out and tell all the other whores they were sinners..."

Correct.

But he followed-up his forgiveness with the admonition...

"Now, go thou and sin no more."

Thereby labeling prostitution as a sin, and admonishing her not to fall into that particular sin again.

Jesus of Nazareth, too, was capable of drawing lines in the sand against evil, and frequently did.

And, in thematic areas in which he and his disciples were silent, it's natural to fall back upon the law from which his own ministry sprang...

Doesn't mean that approach is right, of course, but it's damned logical, and it's a fairly commonplace perspective, despite the protestations of some here...

 

[BDBoop]

​

 

[Hoffstra]

"...It is the only way the Bible can be correctly interpreted..."

Incorrect, or so I believe. That is the way which YOU have found to seem correct, but that perception does not hold true for a great many others, of course.

"...Jesus admonishes Christians not to judge the sin of others more than anything else. When he saved Mary Magdalene he didn't tell her to run out and tell all the other whores they were sinners..."

Correct.

But he followed-up his forgiveness with the admonition...

"Now, go thou and sin no more."...

and yet we know that all humans were considered born into this world with the burden of sin, and no man could attain a state of sinlessness.

 

[Kondor3]

"...your claim, your burden of proof."

Go ask your pastor that question I just served-up.

That will be your proof.

 

[Hoffstra]

Many scholars and their students hold differently....

name them.

...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....

prove it with evidence.

 

[Kondor3]

"...and yet we know that all humans were considered born into this world with the burden of sin, and no man could attain a state of sinlessness."

Misdemeanor versus Felony sin?

Venial versus Mortal sin?

One-time shots versus repeat-offenders?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Many people hold a lot of ideas that are wrong, I am not responsible for their idiocy.

We are not just talking about Covenants.

We are 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.

No, you are talking about that, I am pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about.

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 such as various Commandments, and prohibitions, and encouragements, and morality lessons, and ethical constraints.

Not true.

You seem to think that ceremonial and moral law were meant to apply to different people in different ways. It doesn't work that way.

I really don't want to get into a theological discussion on this board, but you seriously are misinformed about how this works. Christians are held to the same standards as the Levites, not the standards of the Gentiles. The major difference is that we no longer have to bring a sacrifice to God for our sins, because Jesus took care of that for us.

Paul explained all of this in Romans.

Much of this was solidified and clarified by apostolic and Church Fathers commentaries during the eary 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.

No, all of that was distorted and added to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles to justify incorporating pagan religions into the teachings of the Catholic church.

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.

The only people that think the New collides with the Old are people who don't understand them.

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.

I have a question for you, what the fuck makes you think I don't know that? Is it your arrogance that makes you think that your studying it in school trumps my actual degree in theology?

FYI, the Old Testament applies across the board. even to circumcision. Like I said earlier, Paul made that perfectly clear.

Others perceive otherwise.

Other than what you think I think?

Tell me it ain't so.

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

Either way, you still need to get a refund.

 

[Kondor3]

"...prove it with evidence."

No. Go ask your pastor the Ten Commandments question. That should serve to reinforce the point.

 

[Esmeralda]

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

A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.

Some of those threats were shocking. One emailer wished for the couple’s children to fall ill. Another expressed hope that Mr. Klein should be shot and even raped, The Blaze reported.

And yet another wrote: “Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot.”
The couple said on top of that, their vendors were “badgered and harassed” into stopping all associations with the bakery.

The Kleins say they’re now closing up their doors and moving their operations to their home. Their business, they say, has suffered a serious revenue hit from the unexpected activism and backlash.

Looks like they need a Chik-Fil-A-type support system.

I understand OP what you mean by how they were treated, and it makes me feel the same way. It is one thing to protest what seems to be a bias and prejudice by a business; it's another to threaten and harrass the people out of business, to threaten their children, etc.

If people are going to do that kind of thing, it just weakens their case for equal and fair treatment.

I do think in our country, and as far as the capitalism ethic goes, if you are going to be in business, your business has to be open to everyone. This is the proverbial slippery slope. If these people refuse to bake a cake for someone because they disagree with their lifestyle, all over the country people can bar customers from their businesses because they don't like the way they live or dress or their religion or whatever. There has to be one standard and one law for everyone. If you want to be in business, you have to make your business open to everyone.

 

[Hoffstra]

"...prove it with evidence."

No. Go ask your pastor the Ten Commandments question. That should serve to reinforce the point.

no?

no, you're not going to back up your claims with evidence?

that's a shame, my friend.

 

[Kondor3]

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

Many people hold a lot of ideas that are wrong, I am not responsible for their idiocy.

Because someone holds an idea that conflicts with your own, is not prima facie evidence that they are an idiot.

We are not just talking about Covenants.

We are 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.

No, you are talking about that, I am pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about.

You are TRYING to point that out, but you are not succeeding.

"...Not true. You seem to think that ceremonial and moral law were meant to apply to different people in different ways. It doesn't work that way..."

I really and truly don't know what you are trying to say here. I understand the words and phrases but I am uncertain exactly what you are trying to do with them here.

Perhaps it's a deficiency on my part.

"...I really don't want to get into a theological discussion on this board, but you seriously are misinformed about how this works. Christians are held to the same standards as the Levites, not the standards of the Gentiles. The major difference is that we no longer have to bring a sacrifice to God for our sins, because Jesus took care of that for us. Paul explained all of this in Romans..."

Christians are, indeed, held to the same standards as the Jews of old; with the exception of dietary laws and circumcision and some other exceptions noted by the Church Fathers. There is no disagreement between us on this point. And, like you, I have no desire nor energy to hijack a Straights-and-Gays Rights thread to dwell overly-long upon religion and perspectives and the nuances of canon law.

"...No, all of that was distorted and added to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles to justify incorporating pagan religions into the teachings of the Catholic church..."

Again, agreed. There is no difference between us on this score.

"...The only people that think the New collides with the Old are people who don't understand them..."

Incorrect. The doctrine of Salvation Through Faith is just one of several radical departures from the doctrines extant in the Old; on both the canonical and philosophical levels.

"...I have a question for you, what the fuck makes you think I don't know that? Is it your arrogance that makes you think that your studying it in school trumps my actual degree in theology?"

First of all, throttle back your hostility. I would not take that tone with you, regardless of whether or not I agree with you.

Second, what-in-the-world makes you think that I had any clue, in advance of this exchange, that you held a degree in theology?

Arrogance? Hardly. I am simply a Layman that has done more studying and reading and contemplation on theocratic history, dogma, and the principles of precedence and supercession than your average poster. I claim no particular superiority of knowledge nor perspective.

Also, for someone who supposedly holds a degree in theology, you are far more hostile towards your colleagues, when it suits your purposes, than a Man of the Cloth is stereotypically perceived to be capable of acting, at the drop of a hat; consequently, my guess is, that if you DO hold a degree in theology, that you are not an active and practicing Cleric; merely someone who took a piece of paper in that field, and decided to do something else as a career.

My own handful of coursework included such titles as: "History of Christianity", "Judeo-Christianity as the Basis for Western Society", "The Impact of Christianity Upon Politics", and "Religious Dogma in the Modern Age" - along with a couple of intro-level courses to Eastern Religions, to round-out the collection - not quite enough for a Minor, but damned close.

And, my own professors were a mixture of Religious Scholars and Political Scholars, including one memorable class co-hosted by one of each. The politically-focused or society-focused coursework was designed to illustrate, among other things, the practical effects of both dogma and repeated interpretations and loss of original content and meanings upon modern thinking and law and society at large.

I will happily concede to you a superior knowledge of dogma.

I reserve for myself the right to decide who is closer to being right about practical application and commonplace perceptions related to such application.

"...FYI, the Old Testament applies across the board. even to circumcision. Like I said earlier, Paul made that perfectly clear..."

I learned a different outcome, re: the circumcision thing; in that Paul (from what I remember) had fought with the Council of Jerusalem to be able to hold that such practices were preventing the early Church from gaining new converts, and that he was ultimately successful in getting them to relent about such matters, when it came to the Gentiles.

But, it's been a while, and I could very well be wrong about that.

"...Either way, you still need to get a refund."

I'm content, and that's all that counts, in the final analysis.

Your degree in theology was probably undertaken in a strictly theological setting (mindset) and focused primarily upon dogma and the ways in which is is applied to doctrine and faith.

My lesser studies in that same vein were tempered with a very large dose of secularism and political science and focused more upon multiple interpretations and the ways in which those manifest in society and how they influence our laws and events.

Both approaches to Religious Studies are valid, depending on what you hope to achieve.

My school did the job that I asked them to do... they did their part... they can keep the money.

And, we've (unintentionally) hijacked this thread long enough... if we need to continue this (another day), we can meet up in the Religion forum.

Or not.

Hope that helps.

 

[Kondor3]

"...prove it with evidence."

No. Go ask your pastor the Ten Commandments question. That should serve to reinforce the point.

no?

no, you're not going to back up your claims with evidence?

that's a shame, my friend.

Tell you what...

I'll go dig up a couple of related examples of precedence or supercession, if you go to your Pastor, ask the Ten Commandments question, and he comes back and tells you that you are NOT obliged to abide by them, because the New Testament supersedes the Old, okay?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because someone holds an idea that conflicts with your own, is not prima facie evidence that they are an idiot.

Anyone that thinks Columbus proved the Earth is round is an idiot.