Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else...

I'd argue that a secular law cannot force a religious person to practice another religion; which is what the LGBT cult is. When one lifestyle/religion's core values violate those of another, one cannot dominate and force that other to abdicate its cores. That's why it is extremely important for the US Supreme Court to correctly identify what it is dealing with first in LGBT (a lifestyle and not a race), how people behave in that lifestyle and that a lifestyle is not dominant to a religon.

You could not require a Muslim baker to depict the face of Muhammed, for example.

You could not require a gay baker to write the passage of Jude 1 on a cake; that would violate his dogma & faith...

..and so on...

Well you would argue all sorts of crazy crap. Which makes it pretty obvious that you are wrong.

Public Accommodation laws treat all customers equally- everyone- Christians- Jews- Muslims- that are covered by the law cannot be excluded simply because the person running the business doesn't approve of their religion or national origin or race or sexual preference.

A devote Muslim baker would have a policy of not putting any images of living things on cakes- but if the Muslim baker offered to decorate cakes with other images- and a Christian ordered a cake with a cross on it- yeah- the Muslim baker would be obligated to make the cake. The Muslim baker could prevent that by not allowing any special order decorations- if that was his concern.

And I doubt any 'gay baker' would have any problem with putting a quote from Jude 1 on a cake but even if he did- if that baker offered for sale custom cake wording, he would be violating the law if he refused to put verses from the Bible on the cake even if they personally offended him.

 

[Syriusly]

To expect a same-sex couple not make their situation "known" when ordering their wedding cake is not asking for discretion, it's expecting them to hide themselves.

And it's not "support," it's a business transaction. "Support" is donating a fraction of your profits, or agreeing to let them advertise in your space, or hosting events for them. Just doing the service you sell on your sign and accepting money for it isn't supporting anything.

So what has legal dominance according to the Constitution? Gays demanding a Christian abdicate the mandates in Jude 1, effectively rendering themself a non-Christian? Or a Christian's right to free exercise of their religion at all times of the day and night?

I support your right- and the baker's right to challenge the law in court- just as I support the right of gay couples to challenge the state ban's on same gender marriage in court.

Your entire post is nutty- but sure, a Christian could make an actual rational argument as to why their rights would be violated- they would probably lose- but that is what courts are for.

 

[Skylar]

And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else...

I'd argue that a secular law cannot force a religious person to practice another religion; which is what the LGBT cult is

And I'd argue that your claim is both irrational and silly. As your designation of LGBT folks as a 'cult' is just an arbitrary label that is void of any credible use of the term's actual meaning. Nor is making a cake making anyone practice a 'religion'. Worse, under your meaningless redefinition of 'cult', it could be applied to anyone doing anything, at any time. Rendering your entire argument both logical and rational gibberish.....as the arbitrary application of the term would absolve you of the obligation to follow any secular law using your standards.

Worse, your claims fails on all the same points above: your personal religious beliefs don't make you immune to secular law. Religion does not trump secular law. If this were the case, then Sharia would trump any civil law we created, and we'd have no civil jurisdiction over Muslims. Thankfully, this isn't the case. And civil law trumps religious doctrine.

When one lifestyle/religion's core values violate those of another, one cannot dominate and force that other to abdicate its cores.

Cake is not, nor ever has been the 'core' of the Christian faith. Selling cake doesn't damn you to hell. It doesn't make you 'not a Christian'. It doesn't make you practice another's faith. Each of your assertions is more wildly overstated than the last. And each less connected to reality, law and any semblance of reason.

You are not 'dominated' by gays. You are simply required to meet minimum standards of conduct when conducting business with the public; treating everyone fairly and equally. Which is both reasonable and entirely possible.[/quote]

 

[Syriusly]

And your exercise of religion doesn't trump civil law. Religion can't be targeted with a particular law. But the religious can be subject to the same laws as everyone else...

I'd argue that a secular law cannot force a religious person to practice another religion; which is what the LGBT cult is

And I'd argue that your claim is both irrational and silly. As your designation of LGBT folks as a 'cult' is just an arbitrary label that is void of any credible use of the term's actual meaning. Nor is making a cake making anyone practice a 'religion'. Worse, under your meaningless redefinition of 'cult', it could be applied to anyone doing anything, at any time. Rendering your entire argument both logical and rational gibberish.....as the arbitrary application of the term would absolve you of the obligation to follow any secular law using your standards.

Worse, your claims fails on all the same points above: your personal religious beliefs don't make you immune to secular law. Religion does not trump secular law. If this were the case, then Sharia would trump any civil law we created, and we'd have no civil jurisdiction over Muslims. Thankfully, this isn't the case. And civil law trumps religious doctrine.

When one lifestyle/religion's core values violate those of another, one cannot dominate and force that other to abdicate its cores.

Cake is not, nor ever has been the 'core' of the Christian faith. Selling cake doesn't damn you to hell. It doesn't make you 'not a Christian'. It doesn't make you practice another's faith. Each of your assertions is more wildly overstated than the last. And each less connected to reality, law and any semblance of reason.

You are not 'dominated' by gays. You are simply required to meet minimum standards of conduct when conducting business with the public; treating everyone fairly and equally. Which is both reasonable and entirely possible.

[/QUOTE]

If this was a case about a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake because the couple getting married consisted of a black man and a white woman- citing the bakers own closely held religious beliefs- none of these people would be making an argument.

Silhouette wouldn't because she doesn't give a damn about anything except excluding gays.
Beagle wouldn't because he rationalizes that its okay to deny service for biblical reasons to gays but not okay to deny service for biblical reasons because of race.
Really only Stevie boy would be up for making the biblical argument that Christians shouldn't sell cakes to gays, Jews or blacks....

 

[Silhouette]

So Christians shouldn't be selling shell fish?

Really?

Christians don't follow the Old Testament. They use it as a "where we came from" reference only. They follow the New Testament. Jews are all about the old food customs, stoning and all that stuff. Don't you remember Jesus's famous saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

You really ought to brush up on your religions before you dive headfirst into a debate about one of them...

Many "thou shalt nots" come from the New Testament with the promise of a sound rebuking, not eternal soul death. Jude 1 differs from those in promising eternal soul death for any Christian failing to be proactive in turning back homosexual cultural inroads into the normal culture. Apparently cultures (classrooms) being completely usurped by the dark one with the aide of Christians really pisses off the Big Guy to where even pacifist Jesus warned his servant Jude that failing to preserve normal cultures even he can't save you from the punishment for that mortal sin..

 

[Syriusly]

So Christians shouldn't be selling shell fish?

Really?

Christians don't follow the Old Testament. They use it as a "where we came from" reference only. They follow the New Testament. Jews are all about the old food customs, stoning and all that stuff. Don't you remember Jesus's famous saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

You really ought to brush up on your religions before you dive headfirst into a debate about one of them...

LOL....oh I know that Christians both cite the Old Testament when they want to condemn Homosexuals and then ignore it when it comes to food prohibitions.

I was specifically replying to Beagle's post about a Christian not selling a dog to a customer to eat because it has 'paws'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, by admission, is no Christian, and the commentary above demonstrates the discriminating reader needs to look for commentary on Christianity and Christians.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, by admission, is no Christian, and the commentary above demonstrates the discriminating reader needs to look for commentary on Christianity and Christians.

I was raised christian, became confirmed after passing a Bible study exam. So I know a little bit about what I'm talking about. I just am not one now...per se..

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of which makes your an appropriate, knowing mouthpiece for Christianity and its doctrines.

Look at the twisting you have done with Windsor to have it say what it does not.

 

[Paperman299]

So Christians shouldn't be selling shell fish?

Really?

Christians don't follow the Old Testament. They use it as a "where we came from" reference only. They follow the New Testament. Jews are all about the old food customs, stoning and all that stuff. Don't you remember Jesus's famous saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

You really ought to brush up on your religions before you dive headfirst into a debate about one of them...

Many "thou shalt nots" come from the New Testament with the promise of a sound rebuking, not eternal soul death. Jude 1 differs from those in promising eternal soul death for any Christian failing to be proactive in turning back homosexual cultural inroads into the normal culture. Apparently cultures (classrooms) being completely usurped by the dark one with the aide of Christians really pisses off the Big Guy to where even pacifist Jesus warned his servant Jude that failing to preserve normal cultures even he can't save you from the punishment for that mortal sin..

Empirically wrong on three counts.

First, Christians absolutely believe in the Old Testament, even if they take a salad bar approach to its rules. Or did the Ten Commandments come from the Sermon on the Mount?

Secondly, there's considerable disagreement among scholars on whether Jesus really said that bit about the stone. Besides contradicting his "I have not come to destroy the law" bit in Mathew, and being written in a different style, the whole story is missing from the earlier manuscripts.

Thirdly, Jude 1 makes no mention of homosexuality whatsoever. The only Biblical prostrations against homosexuality are in the OT.

So not only are you wrong about what Christians should be able to do in a lawful society, you're wrong about what they themselves believe in the first place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is because Sil is confused by Sil's own belief.

 

[Skylar]

Empirically wrong on three counts.

First, Christians absolutely believe in the Old Testament, even if they take a salad bar approach to its rules. Or did the Ten Commandments come from the Sermon on the Mount?

Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.

The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.

Most modern day Christians don't kill either.

Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.

 

[Paperman299]

Empirically wrong on three counts.

First, Christians absolutely believe in the Old Testament, even if they take a salad bar approach to its rules. Or did the Ten Commandments come from the Sermon on the Mount?

Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.

The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.

Most modern day Christians don't kill either.

Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.

Did you take my reasonable post and credit it to Sil?

...How dare you, sir.

 

[Skylar]

Empirically wrong on three counts.

First, Christians absolutely believe in the Old Testament, even if they take a salad bar approach to its rules. Or did the Ten Commandments come from the Sermon on the Mount?

Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.

The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.

Most modern day Christians don't kill either.

Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.

Did you take my reasonable post and credit it to Sil?

...How dare you, sir.

The edit button! Where's the edit button?!

 

[Paperman299]

Empirically wrong on three counts.

First, Christians absolutely believe in the Old Testament, even if they take a salad bar approach to its rules. Or did the Ten Commandments come from the Sermon on the Mount?

Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.

The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.

Most modern day Christians don't kill either.

Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.

Did you take my reasonable post and credit it to Sil?

...How dare you, sir.

The edit button! Where's the edit button?!

LOL

 

[Silhouette]

Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.

The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.

Most modern day Christians don't kill either.

Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.

Then they too will burn in the fires of Hell for eternity. Leviticus is the Old Testament. Jesus came to redact that. Jude 1 is of the New Testament and says that christians should extend compassion to individual homosexuals but by no means whatsoever should a Chirstian sit idlly by or worse yet abet while homosexuals (plural, as a movement or group) move to overtake the basic structure of a culture.

Guess what is at the base of all cultures? That's right, marriage.

 

[Paperman299]

Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.

The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.

Most modern day Christians don't kill either.

Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.

Then they too will burn in the fires of Hell for eternity. Leviticus is the Old Testament. Jesus came to redact that. Jude 1 is of the New Testament and says that christians should extend compassion to individual homosexuals but by no means whatsoever should a Chirstian sit idlly by or worse yet abet while homosexuals (plural, as a movement or group) move to overtake the basic structure of a culture.

Guess what is at the base of all cultures? That's right, marriage.

So you're saying a religious group can believe they're being totally righteous, and still completely fuck it up? Wow. I wonder if that applies in any way to our situation today.

 

[Syriusly]

Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.

The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.

Most modern day Christians don't kill either.

Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.

Then they too will burn in the fires of Hell for eternity. .

If you are not a Christian any longer-why do you believe anyone will burn in hell?

 

[Syriusly]

Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.

The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.

Most modern day Christians don't kill either.

Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.

Then they too will burn in the fires of Hell for eternity. Leviticus is the Old Testament. Jesus came to redact that. Jude 1 is of the New Testament and says that christians should extend compassion to individual homosexuals but by no means whatsoever should a Chirstian sit idlly by or worse yet abet while homosexuals (plural, as a movement or group) move to overtake the basic structure of a culture..

Like so many things- Sil lies about Jude 1- not one reference to homosexuality in Jude 1

 

[Paperman299]

Yup. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays, citing the Bible.

The Founders killed only gays, with Pennsylvania actually citing portions of Leviticus word for word as its law.

Most modern day Christians don't kill either.

Its clearly the "Whopper" approach to theology. Christians will eventually get more used to gays and interpret around that to. The 'Extra Pickles' interpretation of their faith.

Then they too will burn in the fires of Hell for eternity. Leviticus is the Old Testament. Jesus came to redact that. Jude 1 is of the New Testament and says that christians should extend compassion to individual homosexuals but by no means whatsoever should a Chirstian sit idlly by or worse yet abet while homosexuals (plural, as a movement or group) move to overtake the basic structure of a culture.

Guess what is at the base of all cultures? That's right, marriage.

Btw, repeating your theological claims doesn't make them true. Jesus redacting nothing, or are the Ten Commandments null and void now? Matthew 5:17-18:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…

And for the second time, Jude 1 mentions nothing about homosexuality. Nothing. The only mention about homosexuality is in Leviticus, in the Old Testament, which you claim has been redacted.

And even if there was a Jude 1:26 saying "And if your neighbor says he will marry a man, sayeth unto him 'no brah' and giveth him no cake," it would still be irrelevant. Just because your religion says to do something, that doesn't mean society will allow it.

Take note from the Puritans and the Founders, and check yourself before you wreck yourself.