Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[mdk]

Another year has gone and not a single church has been forced to marry anyone against their wishes. Maybe the fear-mongering will work better next year but I highly doubt it.

Many years went by without gays forcing christian bakers and photographers into court...before they actually became emboldened enough to do so recently.

I wonder how long it will be if SCOTUS overturns Windsor 2013 and forces gay marraige upon the unwilling states, before the lawsuits against churches will start "after so many years of not"...?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce from what's happening today into what will happen tomorrow of a same or similar nature from the same unstoppable cult..

Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. The state ordered them to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws. That decision was hailed by many social conservatives as a slap against creeping Sharia. However when a Christian baker decides to violate PA laws and then uses the same logic it is hailed as a fight for religious liberties. Rank hypocrisy.

I am opposed to PA laws because a business owner should not have to do business with anyone. They should let it be known what people they refuse to serve and let the free market decide.

PA laws have been in place for many years and there hasn't been a single church forced to marry anyone. And yes, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you are nothing more an overly dramatic alarmist with an axe to grind.

 

[Silhouette]

Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. The state ordered them to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.

So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings. You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques? No?

Drunks, dogs etc. if I believe I'm correct are venial sins. The muslim isn't participating in "promoting dog attendance of muslims" or "promoting the imbibing of alcohol by muslims" so the proximate harm has not been caused to their faith. Requiring christians to participate in a ceremony that violates the core of their faith and forces their participation would be the equivalent of making the muslim cabbies to drink the alcohol with their passenger.

So those laws are not the same as requiring a muslim to drink (requiring a christian to participate a gay marriage in any way, shape or form).

I'd love to see two gay people sue an islamic baker and force them to participate in a gay wedding...

Besides, Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus's teachings says that promoting a gay cultural takeover (marriage as the core of any culture) means eternity in the pit of fire with no exceptions. That's what's called a mortal sin. Not a venial one prescribing 50 lashes or what have you. That's the soul's eternal damnation. You cannot require a religious person to do such a thing.

 

[mdk]

Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. The state ordered them to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.

So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings. You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques? No?

Drunks, dogs etc. if I believe I'm correct are venial sins. The muslim isn't participating in "promoting dog attendance of muslims" or "promoting the imbibing of alcohol by muslims" so the proximate harm has not been caused to their faith. Requiring christians to participate in a ceremony that violates the core of their faith and forces their participation would be the equivalent of making the muslim cabbies to drink the alcohol with their passenger.

So those laws are not the same as requiring a muslim to drink (requiring a christian to participate a gay marriage in any way, shape or form).

I'd love to see two gay people sue an islamic baker and force them to participate in a gay wedding...

Besides, Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus's teachings says that promoting a gay cultural takeover (marriage as the core of any culture) means eternity in the pit of fire with no exceptions. That's what's called a mortal sin. Not a venial one prescribing 50 lashes or what have you. That's the soul's eternal damnation. You cannot require a religious person to do such a thing.

Too funny, I in now way affirmed your absurd position. Gays have been getting married for years now in some states and not yet a single house of worship has been forced to marry ANY couple. No place of worship should be forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise against their wishes. Good thing it is not happening anywhere here in this nation.

Of course you don't see the cases as similar. It doesn't for your anti-gay narrative. The cabbies were forced to promote a lifestyle that ran contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs by carting around those carrying booze or drunks. The were told by the state they were violating PA laws.

A Muslim baker that refused to serve gays would be in violation of the law if they state where the operate prohibits public businesses from discriminating against gays. The same baker would be in violation if he refused to serve an infidel. The states where these cases reside have laws that protect gays from being discriminated against.

 

[Silhouette]

Too funny, I in now way affirmed your absurd position. Gays have been getting married for years now in some states and not yet a single house of worship has been forced to marry ANY couple. No place of worship should be forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise against their wishes. Good thing it is not happening anywhere here in this nation.

Of course you don't see the cases as similar. It doesn't for your anti-gay narrative. The cabbies were forced to promote a lifestyle that ran contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs by carting around those carrying booze or drunks. The were told by the state they were violating PA laws.

They were not being asked to participate in the drinking with their patrons. With marriage that's what would be asked of them: participation.

 

[Syriusly]

When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.

And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.

That is really creepy.

You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you? That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex. The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men. .

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you.

 

[Syriusly]

Too funny, I in now way affirmed your absurd position. Gays have been getting married for years now in some states and not yet a single house of worship has been forced to marry ANY couple. No place of worship should be forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise against their wishes. Good thing it is not happening anywhere here in this nation.

Of course you don't see the cases as similar. It doesn't for your anti-gay narrative. The cabbies were forced to promote a lifestyle that ran contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs by carting around those carrying booze or drunks. The were told by the state they were violating PA laws.

They were not being asked to participate in the drinking with their patrons. With marriage that's what would be asked of them: participation.

Actually his point is spot on.

You just can't see it.

 

[Syriusly]

Muslim cabbies in Minnesota claimed accepting fares from people carrying booze, drunks, or dogs would violate their religious beliefs. The state ordered them to do so regardless because they were violation of the state's PA laws.

So you have without realizing it, just affirmed what I just said...that your cult is gearing up to sue churches to force them to perform gay weddings. You will no doubt also be gearing up to sue islamics to perform gay weddings in mosques? No?.

Homosexuals are not like your cult of homophobes.

Nobody is proposing to sue churches- and any idiot who does will be laughed out of court- whether he sues to make a church marry an African American, a Jew or a homosexual.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.

And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.

That is really creepy.

You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you? That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex. The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men. .

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you.

Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?

It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.

 

[Syriusly]

[
I wonder how long it will be if SCOTUS overturns Windsor 2013 and forces gay marraige upon the unwilling states, before the lawsuits against churches will start "after so many years of not"...?..

If Scotus 'overturned' Windsor (which technically is not possible) then the only result would be that the Federal Government would no longer recognized gay marriages.

The only ones suggesting lawsuits against churches are angry homophobes trying to scare the gullible.

 

[Syriusly]

When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.

And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.

That is really creepy.

You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you? That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex. The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men. .

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you.

Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?

It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.

And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.

That is really creepy.

You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you? That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex. The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men. .

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you.

Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?

It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you

You missed the point. Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue. Homo marriage by itself is wrong.

 

[toxicmedia]

When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.

And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.

That is really creepy.

You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you? That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex. The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men. .

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you.

Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?

It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you

You missed the point. Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue. Homo marriage by itself is wrong.

That's refreshing, a man who is honest about where he is at.

Which I respect a whole lot more than someone who says they don't dissapprove of being gay, and don't care if gays live together, and then roll into this facade about "protection of an institution", and it's a tax issue...blah buh blah buh blah.

Thank you

 

[mdk]

When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.

And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.

That is really creepy.

You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you? That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex. The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men. .

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you.

Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?

It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you

You missed the point. Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue. Homo marriage by itself is wrong.

You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.

 

[Skylar]

What about if the gay couple wants "just married" or two figurines of the same gender on the cake? What about caterers who would have to attend the gay reception? And photographers?

What about it? Again, there's no biblical prohibitions to squirting frosting on a cake in the shape of any word. And as long as the figurine isn't a golden calf, I think you're good biblically.

Christians get treated like everyone else. They are subject to the same laws and standards of business conduct as anyone else. If you want to do business in many states, you need to treat your customers fairly and equally. If you can't do this, you'll be subject to the same penalties as someone who insisted they 'don't serve blacks here'.

Nope, none of those people can be made to promote gay lifestyle marriage that violates the core of their faith. Once they are aware of what's going on, they have every right to refuse. Like I said, they're not selling turnips. It's marriage. And that changes everything from a faith based point of view.

Doing business with someone isn't promoting them. Its promoting the good or service you sell. The very basis of your argument is a pointless fallacy.

 

[Skylar]

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex.

What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.

You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.

 

[Skylar]

When my wife and I ordered our wedding cake- I really hope the baker wasn't thinking about our sex life.

And if you worked in a bakery- I really, really hope, you wouldn't spend your time fantasizing about the sex life of every couple that comes in an orders a wedding cake.

That is really creepy.

You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you? That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex. The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men. .

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you.

Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?

It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you

You missed the point. Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue. Homo marriage by itself is wrong.

But why would you consider 'homo marriage' to be wrong? See, this is where your argument always breaks. As you have no rational nor logical reason for your condemnation that means anything to one who doesn't already believe exactly as you do.

And of course, the courts don't care about your religious beliefs when deciding if gay marriage should be recognized.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you? That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex. The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men. .

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you.

Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?

It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you

You missed the point. Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue. Homo marriage by itself is wrong.

But why would you consider 'homo marriage' to be wrong? See, this is where your argument always breaks. As you have no rational nor logical reason for your condemnation that means anything to one who doesn't already believe exactly as you do.

And of course, the courts don't care about your religious beliefs when deciding if gay marriage should be recognized.

The courts are legislating from the bench and that's the issue. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows them to give the federal government jurisdiction over marriage. None. And here's a fact about democracy that I know ires the godless Left. People can vote and pass laws for whatever reason they want, including religion.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex.

What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.

You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.

Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business? Why? Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats. It's in every sector of society, even in football. You people are not that important.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You do have a gift for derailing a point, don't you? That is the art form of the hired LGBT blogger...

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex. The christian baker could be thinking with disapproval and shock at how the children will not have a father in the case of lesbians or a mother in the case of gay men. .

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you.

Trying to make children a qualifier for objections to gay "marriage"?

It's wrong just by itself. Sucking innocent children into your crazy world only ensures eternal condemnation.

What children?

Once again- our wedding cake didn't say a word about children on it.

Nor has any baker who has objected to baking cakes for gay couples mentioned children as the reason.

Just you

You missed the point. Children being victimized by homo marriage is a separate issue. Homo marriage by itself is wrong.

You have every right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Despite your objections and hand-wringing gays will continue to marry.

Not necessarily. You may fantasize that the debate has been settled, but legally speaking, it hasn't.

 

[toxicmedia]

Two women marrying means deviants. It doesn't have to involve sex.

What they do in their bedroom is none of your business. You're making their sex life your issue unnecessarily. There's no biblical requirement that you involve yourself in other people's sex life. Nor any commandment that you don't sell homosexuals cake.

You've imagined all of it. You just don't like gays. And you don't have to like them. You do have to treat them fairly and equally if you're doing business with the public.

Actually, what faggots do in their bedroom IS everyone else's business? Why? Because they've shoved their lifestyle down everyone's throats. It's in every sector of society, even in football. You people are not that important.

Wow, I take back any respect I might have had for anything you might say