Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[JFish123]

Victimhood is one thing if it were here or there. But all the time? Everywhere in the country? Please...

The only people being sued left and right in America today, in schools, businesses, etc... Are not atheists, not muslims, but Christians. Open season. Look no further then American Atheists or the Freedom from Religion Foundation, who spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to threaten and sue people and businesses just because there honoring there faith. I mean what's next...

It's not that far off. These people hate religion so much that the mere thought of it cause them to get physically I'll, which ironically was in a complaint they filed against the 2 cross beams at the World Trade Center because they looked like a cross. I mean come on man, lol.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[beagle9]

View attachment 39530
If a Christian is forced to do that by the government then I guess all of these is ok too right?
View attachment 39531
View attachment 39532
The hypocrisy of some people against Christians is astounding
View attachment 39533


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whole lot of Christian victimhood on display.

Why is it so much more difficult for Christian business owners to follow the law than everyone else?

The law needs revised then, because your perverting it along with your ilk whose number's are few in comparison to all who oppose you.

 

[beagle9]

Victimhood is one thing if it were here or there. But all the time? Everywhere in the country? Please...
View attachment 39554
The only people being sued left and right in America today, in schools, businesses, etc... Are not atheists, not muslims, but Christians. Open season. Look no further then American Atheists or the Freedom from Religion Foundation, who spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to threaten and sue people and businesses just because there honoring there faith. I mean what's next...
View attachment 39556
It's not that far off. These people hate religion so much that the mere thought of it cause them to get physically I'll, which ironically was in a complaint they filed against the 2 cross beams at the World Trade Center because they looked like a cross. I mean come on man, lol.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great stuff here, especially the great commentary on that video.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.

Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.

Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.

All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.

Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.

But, that's your problem, not ours.

Have a nice day
USA

'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?

Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...

They baby Jesus grew up.

And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.

Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.

Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.

You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.

You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!

 

[Syriusly]

View attachment 39530
If a Christian is forced to do that by the government then I guess all of these is ok too right?
View attachment 39531
View attachment 39532
The hypocrisy of some people against Christians is astounding
View attachment 39533


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whole lot of Christian victimhood on display.

Why is it so much more difficult for Christian business owners to follow the law than everyone else?

The law needs revised then, because your perverting it along with your ilk whose number's are few in comparison to all who oppose you.

Of course you think the law needs to be revised because it protects homosexuals from discrimination in the same way it protects Christians from discrimination.

Because you believe homosexuals should be discriminated against.

 

[Syriusly]

 

[JFish123]

Big government always wants to force things on people. And the video is funny. And no, it nor do I think gay people or the gay movement are nazis it hitlers that's just silly. But Big Government forcing people to do things against their conscience is. I would never force a gay baker to do ANY cake they don't want if it's against theirs. Don't want to do a biblical cake? Ok, I'll go and spend my money elsewhere no prob. I'll think your wrong but won't force stuff on you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[beagle9]

View attachment 39530
If a Christian is forced to do that by the government then I guess all of these is ok too right?
View attachment 39531
View attachment 39532
The hypocrisy of some people against Christians is astounding
View attachment 39533


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whole lot of Christian victimhood on display.

Why is it so much more difficult for Christian business owners to follow the law than everyone else?

The law needs revised then, because your perverting it along with your ilk whose number's are few in comparison to all who oppose you.

Of course you think the law needs to be revised because it protects homosexuals from discrimination in the same way it protects Christians from discrimination.

Because you believe homosexuals should be discriminated against.

Nope, it's because you think the laws mean that homosexuals can force Christians into supporting their sinfulness, and you think that it should also force the Christians to participate in the homosexual world in which the homosexuals are trying hard to force them now into partaking in that world with them.. They want the Christians to promote them or be shut down and/or run out of town on a rail like the days of the Nazi's. What are you all going to do next, put the rainbow colors on the windows of those businesses that won't partake in the homosexuals worldly activities, and this as a marking of some kind otherwise in hopes to drive people away from those businesses ? What you all going to attempt to do next, maybe try and place a rainbow colored star on the shirts of heterosexuals who won't go along, and this in hopes to ostracize them, and/or to condemn those that just won't cave ?

 

[Syriusly]

View attachment 39530
If a Christian is forced to do that by the government then I guess all of these is ok too right?
View attachment 39531
View attachment 39532
The hypocrisy of some people against Christians is astounding
View attachment 39533


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whole lot of Christian victimhood on display.

Why is it so much more difficult for Christian business owners to follow the law than everyone else?

The law needs revised then, because your perverting it along with your ilk whose number's are few in comparison to all who oppose you.

Of course you think the law needs to be revised because it protects homosexuals from discrimination in the same way it protects Christians from discrimination.

Because you believe homosexuals should be discriminated against.

Nope, it's because you think the laws mean that homosexuals can force Christians into supporting their sinfulness,?

'force Christians as in......requiring Christians to follow the same laws as everyone else.......

 

[Silhouette]

'force Christians as in......requiring Christians to follow the same laws as everyone else.......

Yes, they follow the 1st Amendment just fine. That's the law. And it's dominant BTW to any little po-dunk "law" in your small town that the lavender mafia has rammed through in violation of THE Law.

 

[Skylar]

I'm guessing that the difference is that the BIble doesn't say any of that and you're pulling it sidways out of your ass. You do realize that we can actually read Jude 1 and quite easily see that you're making this up as you go along.

Right?

And yet while I've quoted Jude 1 verbatim from the Bible on numerous occasions, in its entirety, you have not.

You've never quoted Jude 1 saying what you claimed it did. It never so much as mentions gay marriage, cake, selling things to gays, culture, or any of what you've said.

You've quite literally hallucinated all of it. Your hallucinations are irrelevant to our laws

And should be.

 

[Skylar]

'force Christians as in......requiring Christians to follow the same laws as everyone else.......

Yes, they follow the 1st Amendment just fine. That's the law. And it's dominant BTW to any little po-dunk "law" in your small town that the lavender mafia has rammed through in violation of THE Law.

Your religion is your business. If your faith makes it impossible for you to do a particular job, get another job. But demanding society to change to match your religious beliefs would be as foolish as Steve Young having demanded that the Superbowl be on Saturday since it was against his religion to work on Sunday.

That's Steve's business. Not ours.

 

[mdk]

It doesn't seem any churches were forced to marry any gays over the weekend. All this hysterics...for nothing.

 

[Seawytch]

I agree, Christians should only work for Christians, Muslims for Muslims, Jews for Jews, and homosexuals for homosexuals.

Let a business proclaim what denomination of people they wish to serve, and only those types are able to be served at that business. No non Christian should be allowed to go to a Christian run food pantry(uh, oh, you are gonna starve), and non Christians should not be allowed in a Christian run halfway house, or a Christian run mission. They should reserve those beds for only down on their luck Christians.

Since crab fishermen are predominately Christian, then only Christians should be able to buy crab legs, and any other seafood that is caught in that area. Let the heathen catch their own fish. Since most cattle farmers are Christian, no non Christian shall be able to buy beef. Except from those who proclaim to be non Christian, and no Christian shall be able to buy beef from them.

All Christian truck drivers may only haul to Christian run businesses, and deliver their load. No non Christian business can do any business, in any way with a Christian.

Now, if all this actually took affect, who is going to be paying more for meat, and their products? Well, there are a lot more of us, than there are of you, and I am pretty sure, any business wanting to stay in business, will proclaim to be a Christian business, so you are going to starve. But, you can always go to a Christian run food pantry, oh, no you cant.

But, that's your problem, not ours.

Have a nice day
USA

'Cause that's what Christ would do, right?

Ya'll make the baby Jesus cry...

They baby Jesus grew up.

And Christ does not want us serving homosexual weddings. Try again.

Really? In what passage or verse did Jesus say that? Have you actually read what Jesus said? If so, I can't see how you can imagine the man who turned water into wine would refuse to serve anyone.

Do you know what is a New Testament sin? Debating religion on a message board. Have fun in hell with the gays and adulterers.

You thinking, you know what Jesus said, is funny.

You thinking you are God, and getting to judge anyone, is hilarious!

You don't see any irony in your post at all?

I'm pointing out what actually IS in the bible. New Testament and everything. Debating is a sin in the bible. Nothing in there about baking, sinner.

 

[Skylar]

See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.

And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.

My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.

Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.

On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone. As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.

Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.

 

[Seawytch]

See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.

And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.

My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.

Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.

On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone. As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.

Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.

I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.

 

[Skylar]

See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.

And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.

My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.

Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.

On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone. As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.

Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.

I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.

Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.

And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.

On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.

I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.

 

[Seawytch]

See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.

And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.

My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.

Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.

On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone. As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.

Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.

I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.

Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.

And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.

On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.

I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.

I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?

 

[Skylar]

See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.

And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.

My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.

Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.

On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone. As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.

Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.

I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.

Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.

And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.

On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.

I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.

I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?

Because they aren't necessarily anti-gay bigots. The bigots can go fuck themselves on this issue. Those who genuinely don't want to offend god are more worthy of consideration.

I think its a mistake to not recognize that we're talking about at least two groups here: bigots using religion as a mask to treat gays like shit.....and genuinely and devoutly faithful who don't want to offend God.

 

[Seawytch]

See, on this specific issue I'm inclined to give folks a pass. I've had some long, detailed conversations on the issue with very principled Christian friends of mine. 'New Testament' Christians as I like to call them, whose focus is on loving God and loving their neighbor.

And I'm inclined to accept that their aversion to selling wedding goods for a gay wedding isn't motivated by homophobia or any animus toward gays. But by a genuine, abiding belief that selling these goods would constitute an offense to God. I've got no real problem with small scale, principled positions based on genuine faith. Especially when the practical effects are negligible.

My issue is with religion being used as a screen for homophobia. Sil for example isn't Christian. He just can't stand gays. And uses religion as justification for treating them like shit. And that concerns me. As given an open door where religion can be used to punish gays, people like Sil would take the loaf you offer and demand 10 more. As we've seen with Judge Bazile and his use of God to justify interracial marriage bans.

Sigh....but alas, that may be a tad too close to a slippery slope fallacy. True it has vast historical precedent. But it was during an era when religion held much more more secular power than it does now. So the effects may be much less pronounced today. Its hard to say.

On the issue that is, I'm inclined to accept genuine faith and religious belief as a basis for not providing wedding specific goods, and those alone. As the practical effect is so minor, amounting to a few dozen instances in the entire country. While orders and orders and orders of magnitude more folks will eagerly market to gays.

Those who have principled, heart felt moral positions on the matter are worth allowing folks like Keyes and Sil using their the smoke screen of faith to justify hate.

I've yet to see one of these "principled" Christians deny service to ANY other sinners.

Sigh.....don't get me wrong, Sea. I loath discrimination against gays for being gay. Its ugly, petting shit with a brutal pedigree. But I'm not an ideologue. I'm not going to stick with a position I think deserves compromise in order to stay ideologically consistent.

And in this specific instance, I think its possible for principled people to have an aversion to the issue that isn't based on animus to gays. But instead, fear of offending God. And even that alone isn't enough for me to be swayed on the issue. The kicker for me the tiny practical effect. I weight the imposition on gays denied service perhaps a few dozen times in the country vs. the imposition on the religious beliefs of principled individuals trying to devoutly follow what they believe is right.

On the balance, I'm inclined to side with the imposition against genuine religious belief. As there are *so* many folks in the wedding industry that are competing for gay clients. So the practical imposition of one or two that won't is minimal. And likely wouldn't effect the outcome of any wedding.

I think there is room enough for both. I like the approach that Utah is taking for example. And I appreciate the thought and desire for genuine compromise that the Mormons have taken on the issue. This may be an instance where its better to give a little rather than hold the line on strict ideological grounds.

I don't see allowing certain anti gay bigots a special exemption from following laws as a compromise. Where were these compromises for the racist bigots?

Because they aren't necessarily anti-gay bigots. The bigots can go fuck themselves on this issue. Those who genuinely don't want to offend god are more worthy of consideration.

Okay, where were the exemptions for those with "deeply held religious beliefs" against desegregation and interracial marriage? They didn't get a carve out.