Jude 1 of The Bible's NT vs Gays: A Tutorial On Baking Cakes & Adoption

[Silhouette]

Bake the fucking cake. You aren't a church. Thanks so much.

Does the 1st Amendment guarantee rights to a pile of bricks with wooden pews and an altar? Or does it guarantee rights to individual Christians? You already know the answer to this so it's a rhetorical question.

His right to be a Christian is completely unaffected. It's a business not a church. If he doesn't like our rules he can go do something else.

But his rules are dominant to "yours". The US Constitution has the final word. And this will be scathingly clear to you very soon. There is no language whatsoever in the US Constitution which protects a minority deviant sex behavior subculture to use duress to force Christians to abdicate their faith in order to enable what is effectively a cult, to use the vehicle of marriage to spread throughout normal culture..

If there were these protections for deviant lifestyle practitioners, polygamists could also already marry and adopt kids. But they can't; which is a conflict and violation of the 14th Amendment. Long story short, Scalia was right: Obergefell is a legal quagmire and a rat's nest of false premises and conflicting laws. I think he actually called it "judicial voodoo" or words to that effect.

It was an illegal decision, arrived at with no less than two of the Justices coming out publicly beforehand to say how they would cast (which is also disallowed). It was actually an empirical decree instead of a court opinion. It was an attempt by the Judicial Branch, specifically 5 liberal-pandering Justices, to write new language into the US Constitution without permission of the governed, and to force massive social change (a contract that banishes children involved from either a mother or father for life) on 300 million by a power-grab. It must be revisited or the foundation of American law is in trouble. I still believe it's what killed Scalia just a few short months after it was announced....with his scathing dissent on record. He of all people knew the depth of the dark implications such an act had on the foundation of our democracy.

 

[Columbo]

Bake the fucking cake. You aren't a church. Thanks so much.

Does the 1st Amendment guarantee rights to a pile of bricks with wooden pews and an altar? Or does it guarantee rights to individual Christians? You already know the answer to this so it's a rhetorical question.

His right to be a Christian is completely unaffected. It's a business not a church. If he doesn't like our rules he can go do something else.

But his rules are dominant to "yours". The US Constitution has the final word. And this will be scathingly clear to you very soon. There is no language whatsoever in the US Constitution which protects a minority deviant sex behavior subculture. If there was, polygamists could also already marry and adopt kids. But they can't; which would be a conflict and violation of the 14th Amendment. Long story short, Scalia was right: Obergefell is a legal quagmire and a rat's nest of false premises and conflicting laws. I think he actually called it "judicial voodoo" or words to that effect.

Public Accommodation laws are constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and against people discriminating against homosexuals in said things.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Bake the fucking cake. You aren't a church. Thanks so much.

Faith extends beyond a church and the Constit

Bake the fucking cake. You aren't a church. Thanks so much.

Does the 1st Amendment guarantee rights to a pile of bricks with wooden pews and an altar? Or does it guarantee rights to individual Christians? You already know the answer to this so it's a rhetorical question.

His right to be a Christian is completely unaffected. It's a business not a church. If he doesn't like our rules he can go do something else.

Lol at "our rules. That's a typical leftist jackass statement

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Bake the fucking cake. You aren't a church. Thanks so much.

Does the 1st Amendment guarantee rights to a pile of bricks with wooden pews and an altar? Or does it guarantee rights to individual Christians? You already know the answer to this so it's a rhetorical question.

His right to be a Christian is completely unaffected. It's a business not a church. If he doesn't like our rules he can go do something else.

But his rules are dominant to "yours". The US Constitution has the final word. And this will be scathingly clear to you very soon. There is no language whatsoever in the US Constitution which protects a minority deviant sex behavior subculture. If there was, polygamists could also already marry and adopt kids. But they can't; which would be a conflict and violation of the 14th Amendment. Long story short, Scalia was right: Obergefell is a legal quagmire and a rat's nest of false premises and conflicting laws. I think he actually called it "judicial voodoo" or words to that effect.

Public Accommodation laws are constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and against people discriminating against homosexuals in said things.

If that were the case the Colorado baker wouldn't be in front of SCOTUS now

 

[Peach]

What passage concerns gay humans? This is my second request.

Jude 1 "going after strange flesh (see Romans 1 for more intricate details which talk of men laying with men and women laying with women)"...and the sodomites who were destroyed by God.

Check out Romans 1. It'll help you out.

Yes, men who were to be with women chose men, and a litany of other sins. Why pick out just gay relations?

 

[Silhouette]

Public Accommodation laws are constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and against people discriminating against homosexuals in said things.

The US Supreme Court has most definitely not already ruled on this. You mean the Colorado supreme court? Thought I wouldn't catch that did you?

 

[Columbo]

Bake the fucking cake. You aren't a church. Thanks so much.

Does the 1st Amendment guarantee rights to a pile of bricks with wooden pews and an altar? Or does it guarantee rights to individual Christians? You already know the answer to this so it's a rhetorical question.

His right to be a Christian is completely unaffected. It's a business not a church. If he doesn't like our rules he can go do something else.

But his rules are dominant to "yours". The US Constitution has the final word. And this will be scathingly clear to you very soon. There is no language whatsoever in the US Constitution which protects a minority deviant sex behavior subculture. If there was, polygamists could also already marry and adopt kids. But they can't; which would be a conflict and violation of the 14th Amendment. Long story short, Scalia was right: Obergefell is a legal quagmire and a rat's nest of false premises and conflicting laws. I think he actually called it "judicial voodoo" or words to that effect.

Public Accommodation laws are constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and against people discriminating against homosexuals in said things.

If that were the case the Colorado baker wouldn't be in front of SCOTUS now

This is just another test of the same kinds of laws. Their decision should be 11 words long, Bake the stupid cake, it's what you do for a living.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Bake the fucking cake. You aren't a church. Thanks so much.

Does the 1st Amendment guarantee rights to a pile of bricks with wooden pews and an altar? Or does it guarantee rights to individual Christians? You already know the answer to this so it's a rhetorical question.

His right to be a Christian is completely unaffected. It's a business not a church. If he doesn't like our rules he can go do something else.

But his rules are dominant to "yours". The US Constitution has the final word. And this will be scathingly clear to you very soon. There is no language whatsoever in the US Constitution which protects a minority deviant sex behavior subculture. If there was, polygamists could also already marry and adopt kids. But they can't; which would be a conflict and violation of the 14th Amendment. Long story short, Scalia was right: Obergefell is a legal quagmire and a rat's nest of false premises and conflicting laws. I think he actually called it "judicial voodoo" or words to that effect.

Public Accommodation laws are constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and against people discriminating against homosexuals in said things.

If that were the case the Colorado baker wouldn't be in front of SCOTUS now

This is just another test of the same kinds of laws. Their decision should be 11 words long, Bake the stupid cake, it's what you do for a living.

Translation: I want it my way and I want it now!!!

 

[Columbo]

Public Accommodation laws are constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and against people discriminating against homosexuals in said things.

The US Supreme Court has most definitely not already ruled on this. You mean the Colorado supreme court? Thought I wouldn't catch that did you?

They've been ruling on these laws since Heart of Atlanta versus US. And your side always loses. P.A. laws are constitutional.

 

[Columbo]

Does the 1st Amendment guarantee rights to a pile of bricks with wooden pews and an altar? Or does it guarantee rights to individual Christians? You already know the answer to this so it's a rhetorical question.

His right to be a Christian is completely unaffected. It's a business not a church. If he doesn't like our rules he can go do something else.

But his rules are dominant to "yours". The US Constitution has the final word. And this will be scathingly clear to you very soon. There is no language whatsoever in the US Constitution which protects a minority deviant sex behavior subculture. If there was, polygamists could also already marry and adopt kids. But they can't; which would be a conflict and violation of the 14th Amendment. Long story short, Scalia was right: Obergefell is a legal quagmire and a rat's nest of false premises and conflicting laws. I think he actually called it "judicial voodoo" or words to that effect.

Public Accommodation laws are constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and against people discriminating against homosexuals in said things.

If that were the case the Colorado baker wouldn't be in front of SCOTUS now

This is just another test of the same kinds of laws. Their decision should be 11 words long, Bake the stupid cake, it's what you do for a living.

Translation: I want it my way and I want it now!!!

Translation: This is capitalism. If you're buying we're selling.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Public Accommodation laws are constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and against people discriminating against homosexuals in said things.

The US Supreme Court has most definitely not already ruled on this. You mean the Colorado supreme court? Thought I wouldn't catch that did you?

They've been ruling on these laws since Heart of Atlanta versus US. And your side always loses. P.A. laws are constitutional.

It's unconstitutional to deprive religious freedom.

 

[Silhouette]

They've been ruling on these laws since Heart of Atlanta versus US. And your side always loses. P.A. laws are constitutional.

Hobby Lobby. I'll say no more.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

But his rules are dominant to "yours". The US Constitution has the final word. And this will be scathingly clear to you very soon. There is no language whatsoever in the US Constitution which protects a minority deviant sex behavior subculture. If there was, polygamists could also already marry and adopt kids. But they can't; which would be a conflict and violation of the 14th Amendment. Long story short, Scalia was right: Obergefell is a legal quagmire and a rat's nest of false premises and conflicting laws. I think he actually called it "judicial voodoo" or words to that effect.

Public Accommodation laws are constitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and against people discriminating against homosexuals in said things.

If that were the case the Colorado baker wouldn't be in front of SCOTUS now

This is just another test of the same kinds of laws. Their decision should be 11 words long, Bake the stupid cake, it's what you do for a living.

Translation: I want it my way and I want it now!!!

Translation: This is capitalism. If you're buying we're selling.

Capitalism isn't the heart of the matter. Stop going off on tangents. Focus on the topic

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Perhaps the Christian backer should put signs up stating that customers don’t tell the purpose of their purchases.......it’s none of the baker’s business anyway.

Well, a "wedding cake" kinda explains the purpose.

 

[Columbo]

Capitalism isn't the heart of the matter.

Yes, it is actually. Had he acted like a capitalist this wouldn't have been a case but he wanted to play little Jesus on high making moral judgments. That's none of his fucking business during business hours, he makes cakes for cash not God.

 

[jillian]

Bible Gateway passage: Jude - King James Version

Jude 1

1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

********

In short, it is a mortal sin for a Christian to enable the spread of homosexuality within a culture. But it is not a sin to reach out to the homosexual individual "making a difference".

Baking:

Scenario 1: A gay couple walks into a bakery and wants a cake "for a party". The Christian baker says "would you like chocolate or vanilla icing? The Christian serves all individual sinners. This would apply to scones, cookies, mints, bread, muffins and the like.

Scenario 2: A gay couple walks into a bakery and wants a cake (or scones, cookies, mints, bread, muffins and the like) for their "wedding". The Christian baker says "no, I would face eternal damnation".

The problem for the Christian in #2 is that s/he would be enabling the spread of homosexuality as a CULTURE throughout the mainstream via the vehicle of marriage (or adoption or education...any social vehicle like that which spreads ideas "as good").

Adoption:

Whereas the cake scenario is in the religious arena, adoption is in both the religious and the legal arena. Not only would a Christian person be forbidden from letting an orphan child into such abomination to be instructed and raised up in the sinning culture, but any person, Christian or not, must not allow a child to be let into a contract which banishes said child for life from either a mother or father. For further information, read here: The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer

why should anyone who isn't a christian give a flying about what your New Testament says?

 

[Columbo]

Perhaps the Christian backer should put signs up stating that customers don’t tell the purpose of their purchases.......it’s none of the baker’s business anyway.

Well, a "wedding cake" kinda explains the purpose.

It could have been for two dogs, even two gay dogs. It's none of his business what the cake was for.

 

[Columbo]

Bible Gateway passage: Jude - King James Version

Jude 1

1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

********

In short, it is a mortal sin for a Christian to enable the spread of homosexuality within a culture. But it is not a sin to reach out to the homosexual individual "making a difference".

Baking:

Scenario 1: A gay couple walks into a bakery and wants a cake "for a party". The Christian baker says "would you like chocolate or vanilla icing? The Christian serves all individual sinners. This would apply to scones, cookies, mints, bread, muffins and the like.

Scenario 2: A gay couple walks into a bakery and wants a cake (or scones, cookies, mints, bread, muffins and the like) for their "wedding". The Christian baker says "no, I would face eternal damnation".

The problem for the Christian in #2 is that s/he would be enabling the spread of homosexuality as a CULTURE throughout the mainstream via the vehicle of marriage (or adoption or education...any social vehicle like that which spreads ideas "as good").

Adoption:

Whereas the cake scenario is in the religious arena, adoption is in both the religious and the legal arena. Not only would a Christian person be forbidden from letting an orphan child into such abomination to be instructed and raised up in the sinning culture, but any person, Christian or not, must not allow a child to be let into a contract which banishes said child for life from either a mother or father. For further information, read here: The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer

why should anyone who isn't a christian give a flying about what your New Testament says?

They shouldn't care but it's a curious POS and has a good line here or there.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Capitalism isn't the heart of the matter.

Yes, it is actually. Had he acted like a capitalist this wouldn't have been a case but he wanted to play little Jesus on high making moral judgments. That's none of his fucking business during business hours, he makes cakes for cash not God.

No it's not. You can try but you'll be laughed at...You are anyway though

 

[badger2]

Depriving religious freedom is not the same thing as being deprived of the freedom from religion's pathologies.