Christian bakers: Wouldnt ANY wedding violate the deadly sin of gluttony?

[Delta4Embassy]

I find it fascinating that Christian bakers would say that catering a gay wedding would violate their rights because their religion doesn't support it.

Lets think about that for a moment. A Christian baker catering weddings. With huge cakes, lots and lots of food, usually an open bar, sweets, excess food and drink.

Wouldn't all that violate the Christian belief that gluttony, one of the 7 deadly sins, is wrong???

Defined: Gluttony, derived from the Latin gluttire meaning to gulp down or swallow, means over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or wealth items to the point of extravagance or waste. In some Christian denominations, it is considered one of the seven deadly sins—a misplaced desire of food or its withholding from the needy.

So, unless that Christian baker is baking a tiny, minimalist sized cake, and then spreading all the excess cake around to the needy, and demanding the excess food and drink be made available to the needy.......wouldn't they be violating the belief of their religion, since gluttony which occurs at EVERY wedding is occurring in the baker's presence?


Hmmm. This should be interesting.

In point of fact, the so-called '7 Deadly Sins' aren't found in Scripture. They were penned by some mad monk and based on ancient Greek values/sins.

To your larger point though, many sins exist. In Judaism there are approximately 613 commandments (depending on whose source you use, but 613 is the typical number.) Not all of them are dont's, some are 'positive commandments' indicating what we should do. Like keep the Sabbath day sacred (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown, days beginning and ending in Judaism with the sun rising and setting.)

Objecting to providing services to someone suspected of sinning isn't explicitly condoned or commanded in Scripture. And for every accusation of sin, a trial to determine guilt or innocence is also commanded so you could reasonably argue that no one's guilty of a sin if they haven't had a religious trial determine it. Thus excluding services to alledged sinners is forbidden (innocent until proven guilty in a court of law in modern secular law is derived by Jewish Judicial procedure.)

And if you're going to exclude homosexuals or gluttons, what about adulterers and Sabbath-breakers? Both are capital sin-crimes. Even more heinous in theocratic law than murderers.

 

[Seawytch]

Exactly.

Except the law precludes that, you know that right? The Civil Rights Act, you've heard of that? You do have to serve Mormons, Jews, Muslims, blacks, the handicapped, etc. In some states and localities you even have to serve "the gheys".

And yet there was no big push to get rid of public accommodation laws in decades...until they did start applying to the gheys.

I know what the law says.

I know what people do.

Not the same thing. Sorry. You'll never legislate bigotry (like yours) out of existence.

What bigotry of mine are you referring to?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

They don't want to serve Mormons, they don't have to serve Mormons.

They don't want to serve blacks, they don't have to serve blacks.

They don't want to serve Jews, they don't have to serve Jews.

Exactly.

Except the law precludes that, you know that right? The Civil Rights Act, you've heard of that? You do have to serve Mormons, Jews, Muslims, blacks, the handicapped, etc. In some states and localities you even have to serve "the gheys".

And yet there was no big push to get rid of public accommodation laws in decades...until they did start applying to the gheys.

Hear O' America, this is the LAW! (hehe)

Types of Discrimination

'Protected Classes' illegal to discriminate against.

* Age
* Disability
* Equal Pay/Compensation
* Genetic Information
* Harassment
* National Origin
* Pregnancy
* Race/Color
* Religion
* Retaliation
* Sex [including orientation]
* Sexual Harassment

"Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims."

 

[Listening]

Exactly.

Except the law precludes that, you know that right? The Civil Rights Act, you've heard of that? You do have to serve Mormons, Jews, Muslims, blacks, the handicapped, etc. In some states and localities you even have to serve "the gheys".

And yet there was no big push to get rid of public accommodation laws in decades...until they did start applying to the gheys.

Hear O' America, this is the LAW! (hehe)

Types of Discrimination

'Protected Classes' illegal to discriminate against.

* Age
* Disability
* Equal Pay/Compensation
* Genetic Information
* Harassment
* National Origin
* Pregnancy
* Race/Color
* Religion
* Retaliation
* Sex [including orientation]
* Sexual Harassment

"Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims."

I see age discrimination every day. I see race discrimination every day.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Report it. Not reporting crime is a crime.

 

[American4Americ]

This is a bit far fetched. The Bible lists the 10 commandments, not those 7 deadly sins. Those 7 deadly sins originated with the monk Evagrius Ponticus in the 4th Century, and have no specific mention in Biblical canon. The seven deadly sins we take after are listed in Proverbs, bucs. These are the seven things God hates and see as an abomination:

1. A proud look
2. A lying tongue
3. Hands that shed innocent blood
4. A heart that devises wicked plots
5. Feet that are swift to run into mischief
6. A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
7. Him that soweth discord among brethren

Likewise, another longer list, given this time by the Epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 5:19-21), includes more of the traditional seven sins: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like". Paul goes on to say that those of us who practice these sins will not inherit the kingdom of God, HOWEVER, we can seek forgiveness of these sins to avoid paying the price.

You mischaracterize Christianity, bucs and I resent that deeply.

Well, there is also a lot of stuff in the Bible that we no longer believe is right.

But, as for your list, includes "drunkenness". So, should a Christian baker refuse to cater any wedding where alcoholic beverage will be served????

As for the first list, wouldn't the wedding dress and tux be a "proud look", or the excess taken in the decoration of God's house for this ceremony?

I find it funny how selective Christians are about what they feel violates their religious freedom...while being fine participating in things that obviously violate Christian beliefs.

I simply don't care what you Christian Buddhists believe "isn't right" about the Bible. Drunkenness is drunkenness, and not gluttony. Two different things, and an attempt to make hollow correlations between the two.

I find it funny, that you have to taint the Christian faith with a cult's beliefs to make it more palatable for you. Disgusting.

Everything that isn't your faith is a cult?

 

[Silhouette]

Hey Nutzo, NAMBLA, pedophiles and rapists are not protected categories.

You idiots have the stupidest analogies.

Neither is gayness!

But NAMBLA is a recognized organization and they meet openly, have a website and lobby government. But what is the difference when you believe a business owner doesn't have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Actually, if you are arguing that the members of the church of LGBT are protected, you're arguing that their messiah, Harvey Milk, a pedophile/gay is also protected. Milk believed in sodomizing minor teen runaway boys on drugs, one after the other.

Christians not only have a right to fend off this cult, they have a dire obligation as it turns out:

Gluttony is an individual sin. No matter how grave it is nowhere near as grave as promoting a homosexual cultural takeover of a society. God's Plan describes a matrix in which people are tested male-female sexual relationships. To blend God's Plan is to destroy the framework itself. This is worse than an individual sin of gluttony. An individual can be retrieved. A destroyed matrix cannot be retrieved. If you destroy the entire classroom's framework, no one can be retrieved because the idea of the behavior as a sin has been eradicated. Sin is literally replaced as a virtue when homosexuality demands "normal" status.

Therein lies the difference and the description of the depth of the warnings and punishments reserved for those who enable a homosexual cultural takeover such as the one held out in Jude 1 and Romans 1. Sodom.

 

[Nutz]

I think you are too tired and unable to answer my questions, but I'll ask these anyway.

If the SCOTUS, which you seem to approve of, says that gays are now a protected minority, is that the end of the debate for you? Does it have the same standing as the court saying you have freedom of religion but that doesn't mean you can sex with a child even if your faith approves of such a thing?

See if you can nail those two without telling me I hate God.

No. No. I do find it interesting that you equate violating a child with the homosexual lifestyle. Both are a assault on the moral fiber of this nation and cause great harm to society as a whole. You cant have sex with a child because it is illegal and violent.

I equate no such thing. We are discussing faith and some religion is perfectly fine with adults having sex with children, but you are saying that's not okay even though religion is protected, but in this case it isn't protected, like the Mormons having more than one wife which we don't allow.

Regardless of that, if the SCOTUS says that gays are protected minority that's not valid in your opinion even though the SCOTUS saying you can't yell fire in a crowded theater is?

So, really, the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says, meaning if they say gays are a protected minority. even though it's a choice like religion is a choice, then that's what it is but you still won't agree with it because you said "no and no".

So, if that's true, then no matter what the court says, unless you agree with it, it's wrong? And even though you agree religion is a choice, and think homosexuality is a choice, and that they are both minorities, only religion can have protection but even it is limited by the law so really, what the First Amendment says, isn't true? That "no laws" part, that's not actually true because that's not what really matters, what matters is what the court said, but you won't agree if it says gays should be protected? Did I miss anything?

Again, you make no sense in your effort to demonize religion while bending over to the demands of the gay left's choice to live a lifestyle that is detrimental to the US. You missed a lot.

Gayness is a choice, it is not a religion. Or are you now trying to say homosexuality is a religion?

 

[boilermaker55]

Just typical of someone that has a menu type attitude towards their religious convictions.
Hell if it displeases me or causes me any discomfort in any way I choose not to follow that preaching
Shallow faith Americans Christians.


The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12)

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to Him, 2and He began to teach them, saying:

3Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness,

for they will be filled.

7Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.

8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.

10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

This is a bit far fetched. The Bible lists the 10 commandments, not those 7 deadly sins. Those 7 deadly sins originated with the monk Evagrius Ponticus in the 4th Century, and have no specific mention in Biblical canon. The seven deadly sins we take after are listed in Proverbs, bucs. These are the seven things God hates and see as an abomination:

1. A proud look
2. A lying tongue
3. Hands that shed innocent blood
4. A heart that devises wicked plots
5. Feet that are swift to run into mischief
6. A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
7. Him that soweth discord among brethren

Likewise, another longer list, given this time by the Epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 5:19-21), includes more of the traditional seven sins: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like". Paul goes on to say that those of us who practice these sins will not inherit the kingdom of God, HOWEVER, we can seek forgiveness of these sins to avoid paying the price.

You mischaracterize Christianity, bucs and I resent that deeply.

 

[Silhouette]

Just typical of someone that has a menu type attitude towards their religious convictions.

It's clear you have zero understanding of the two types of mortal sins. One is that of the individual where that individual is cast to the pit of fire while others shrink in horror at his bad deeds. The other is one of a culture, where all the members complicit in its malignancy are cast together in the pit of fire. The individual mortal sin serves as an example to others. The cultural mortal sin is one where if not checked in a horrific manner like wiping Sodom off the map and starting over, the example of "what's bad" vs "what's virtuous" is completely lost when a sin replaces virtue as "normal".

It's quite clear, in Jude 1 and Romans 1, christians are warned under threat of eternal damnation that if they allow a homosexual culture to spread out of control [and I would say that point is precisely when they claim marriage for themselves], they are all as one unit going to hell together, en masse.

Screwing with the matrix is a sin so much more vast than an individual crime, so very different of a sin in fact that it is hard to put into words.

 

[boilermaker55]

If you know your bible and quotations as much you profess then you should realize there are so many more statements about compassion towards others than eternal damnation.
One of those is asking forgiveness.
Take a closer look and see it all not the parts you choose to live by.

Just typical of someone that has a menu type attitude towards their religious convictions.

It's clear you have zero understanding of the two types of mortal sins. One is that of the individual where that individual is cast to the pit of fire while others shrink in horror at his bad deeds. The other is one of a culture, where all the members complicit in its malignancy are cast together in the pit of fire. The individual mortal sin serves as an example to others. The cultural mortal sin is one where if not checked in a horrific manner like wiping Sodom off the map and starting over, the example of "what's bad" vs "what's virtuous" is completely lost when a sin replaces virtue as "normal".

It's quite clear, in Jude 1 and Romans 1, christians are warned under threat of eternal damnation that if they allow a homosexual culture to spread out of control [and I would say that point is precisely when they claim marriage for themselves], they are all as one unit going to hell together, en masse.

Screwing with the matrix is a sin so much more vast than an individual crime, so very different of a sin in fact that it is hard to put into words.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No. No. I do find it interesting that you equate violating a child with the homosexual lifestyle. Both are a assault on the moral fiber of this nation and cause great harm to society as a whole. You cant have sex with a child because it is illegal and violent.

I equate no such thing. We are discussing faith and some religion is perfectly fine with adults having sex with children, but you are saying that's not okay even though religion is protected, but in this case it isn't protected, like the Mormons having more than one wife which we don't allow.

Regardless of that, if the SCOTUS says that gays are protected minority that's not valid in your opinion even though the SCOTUS saying you can't yell fire in a crowded theater is?

So, really, the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says, meaning if they say gays are a protected minority. even though it's a choice like religion is a choice, then that's what it is but you still won't agree with it because you said "no and no".

So, if that's true, then no matter what the court says, unless you agree with it, it's wrong? And even though you agree religion is a choice, and think homosexuality is a choice, and that they are both minorities, only religion can have protection but even it is limited by the law so really, what the First Amendment says, isn't true? That "no laws" part, that's not actually true because that's not what really matters, what matters is what the court said, but you won't agree if it says gays should be protected? Did I miss anything?

Again, you make no sense in your effort to demonize religion while bending over to the demands of the gay left's choice to live a lifestyle that is detrimental to the US. You missed a lot.

Gayness is a choice, it is not a religion. Or are you now trying to say homosexuality is a religion?

I'm trying to say what is true, that homosexuals are a minority and in this country we protect minorities from the whims of the majority. We also limit what you can and can't do with regards to Free Speech and Religion. That would be a good place to end I think.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, there is also a lot of stuff in the Bible that we no longer believe is right.

But, as for your list, includes "drunkenness". So, should a Christian baker refuse to cater any wedding where alcoholic beverage will be served????

As for the first list, wouldn't the wedding dress and tux be a "proud look", or the excess taken in the decoration of God's house for this ceremony?

I find it funny how selective Christians are about what they feel violates their religious freedom...while being fine participating in things that obviously violate Christian beliefs.

I simply don't care what you Christian Buddhists believe "isn't right" about the Bible. Drunkenness is drunkenness, and not gluttony. Two different things, and an attempt to make hollow correlations between the two.

I find it funny, that you have to taint the Christian faith with a cult's beliefs to make it more palatable for you. Disgusting.

Everything that isn't your faith is a cult?

All faiths are cults. The big ones tend to have an easier go.

 

[bodecea]

This is a bit far fetched. The Bible lists the 10 commandments, not those 7 deadly sins. Those 7 deadly sins originated with the monk Evagrius Ponticus in the 4th Century, and have no specific mention in Biblical canon. The seven deadly sins we take after are listed in Proverbs, bucs. These are the seven things God hates and see as an abomination:

1. A proud look
2. A lying tongue
3. Hands that shed innocent blood
4. A heart that devises wicked plots
5. Feet that are swift to run into mischief
6. A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
7. Him that soweth discord among brethren

Likewise, another longer list, given this time by the Epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 5:19-21), includes more of the traditional seven sins: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, "and such like". Paul goes on to say that those of us who practice these sins will not inherit the kingdom of God, HOWEVER, we can seek forgiveness of these sins to avoid paying the price.

You mischaracterize Christianity, bucs and I resent that deeply.

Well, there is also a lot of stuff in the Bible that we no longer believe is right.

But, as for your list, includes "drunkenness". So, should a Christian baker refuse to cater any wedding where alcoholic beverage will be served????

As for the first list, wouldn't the wedding dress and tux be a "proud look", or the excess taken in the decoration of God's house for this ceremony?

I find it funny how selective Christians are about what they feel violates their religious freedom...while being fine participating in things that obviously violate Christian beliefs.

I simply don't care what you Christian Buddhists believe "isn't right" about the Bible. Drunkenness is drunkenness, and not gluttony. Two different things, and an attempt to make hollow correlations between the two.

I find it funny, that you have to taint the Christian faith with a cult's beliefs to make it more palatable for you. Disgusting.

Did you just call Buddhism a "cult"?

 

[Silhouette]

If you know your bible and quotations as much you profess then you should realize there are so many more statements about compassion towards others than eternal damnation.
One of those is asking forgiveness.
Take a closer look and see it all not the parts you choose to live by.

Just typical of someone that has a menu type attitude towards their religious convictions.

It's clear you have zero understanding of the two types of mortal sins. One is that of the individual where that individual is cast to the pit of fire while others shrink in horror at his bad deeds. The other is one of a culture, where all the members complicit in its malignancy are cast together in the pit of fire. The individual mortal sin serves as an example to others. The cultural mortal sin is one where if not checked in a horrific manner like wiping Sodom off the map and starting over, the example of "what's bad" vs "what's virtuous" is completely lost when a sin replaces virtue as "normal".

It's quite clear, in Jude 1 and Romans 1, christians are warned under threat of eternal damnation that if they allow a homosexual culture to spread out of control [and I would say that point is precisely when they claim marriage for themselves], they are all as one unit going to hell together, en masse.

Screwing with the matrix is a sin so much more vast than an individual crime, so very different of a sin in fact that it is hard to put into words.

Luckily the decision of which mortal sin bears more gravity in the eyes of God is not up to you or me, simple humans. It is however spelled out quite clearly in Jude 1 and Romans 1 and makes perfectly logical sense when you back up and look at it from outer space.

Read what I said again in the quotes above. Then let it sink in for a little while. Make sense to you now how destroying the matrix of God's classroom is worse than failing one of his important tests?

 

[boilermaker55]

And again you are going on only 2 parts of the bible and living accordingly.
If you read other portions of the bible and weigh all the compassion related parts to those
with hatred, you might find a different conclusion.

If you know your bible and quotations as much you profess then you should realize there are so many more statements about compassion towards others than eternal damnation.
One of those is asking forgiveness.
Take a closer look and see it all not the parts you choose to live by.

It's clear you have zero understanding of the two types of mortal sins. One is that of the individual where that individual is cast to the pit of fire while others shrink in horror at his bad deeds. The other is one of a culture, where all the members complicit in its malignancy are cast together in the pit of fire. The individual mortal sin serves as an example to others. The cultural mortal sin is one where if not checked in a horrific manner like wiping Sodom off the map and starting over, the example of "what's bad" vs "what's virtuous" is completely lost when a sin replaces virtue as "normal".

It's quite clear, in Jude 1 and Romans 1, christians are warned under threat of eternal damnation that if they allow a homosexual culture to spread out of control [and I would say that point is precisely when they claim marriage for themselves], they are all as one unit going to hell together, en masse.

Screwing with the matrix is a sin so much more vast than an individual crime, so very different of a sin in fact that it is hard to put into words.

Luckily the decision of which mortal sin bears more gravity in the eyes of God is not up to you or me, simple humans. It is however spelled out quite clearly in Jude 1 and Romans 1 and makes perfectly logical sense when you back up and look at it from outer space.

Read what I said again in the quotes above. Then let it sink in for a little while. Make sense to you now how destroying the matrix of God's classroom is worse than failing one of his important tests?

 

[Silhouette]

And again you are going on only 2 parts of the bible and living accordingly.
If you read other portions of the bible and weigh all the compassion related parts to those
with hatred, you might find a different conclusion.

Where are you getting "hatred" from when people obey the warnings and commands in Jude 1 and Romans 1?

To earnestly contend to preserve God's classroom as it was meant to be by that Diety male-female sexual relationships is not equal to "hatred". Your very very tired, weak and overused hyperbole of "haters" "homophobes" and "bigots" for each and every single word spoken that isn't in complete blind reverence of the dogma of the church of LGBT has run its course. Never Cry Wolf.

You know what I'm saying is true. If ANYONE dares to disagree with the complete reverence of deviant sexual behaviors in LGBT on any point large or small, they are INSTANTLY branded a "hater", "homophobe", "bigot" etc. That is the hallmark of a cult's intolerance BTW.

Christians are urged to adamantly, but with compassion, completely resist the overtaking of their classroom, their culture, their Sodom city by the homosexual cult. Like an adult who loves a child but who sounds a loud and firm "NO!" when that child has gotten out of control.. That is an example of resistance being an act of compassion and care. It has nothing whatsoever to do with hatred.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm trying to say what is true, that homosexuals are a minority and in this country we protect minorities from the whims of the majority. We also limit what you can and can't do with regards to Free Speech and Religion. That would be a good place to end I think.

Behaviors don't qualify as a minority unless they are federally recognized religions. Since LGBT is factually a new religion, have you filled out all the paperwork for federal recognition? No? Then you're not a minority any more than Satanists. If a christian doesn't want to make a cake in the effigy of Lucifer, they will not be required to. All the lesser cults are just behaviors trying to be seen as a true religion.

Got sad news for you too PaintMyHouse. Windsor/DOMA last year Found that even when bringing up Loving v Virginia in the dicta of the Opinion, gay marriage at the time of them releasing their Decision, was Found by Them to be "only allowed" "in some states". They went on to aver in the Opinion that under the context of gay marriage, it is the realm and "unquestioned authority" of the several states to determine if it is legal there or not. And they went further. They said also that this finding was retroactive to the start of our country and that the choice was to be one of a broad consensus [and therefore not binding just by judicial fiat]. ie: if a judge, legislature or other tyrannical minority try to defeat a legitimate consensus on gay marriage, the broader the consensus is, that decision will dominate a minority decision.

So, as oral arguments begin this March, very soon in fact, and the losing side appeals the 10th's decision, you will see a revisiting of Windsor/DOMA. It isn't likely they are going to overturn that core finding of state sovereignty on the question of gay marriage within one year's time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

 

[Silhouette]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

So you admit LGBT is a religion. Good. We're getting somewhere with your self-examination finally.. See? Isn't it liberating "coming out" of the cult closet?