What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[Newby]

Vendors providing services are not participants. Jesus dealt with sinners every day. Some of Jesus' best friends were sinners. Jesus saved sinners. So, yes I believe that Jesus would not have the problem so called Christians have with homosexuals.

Let me ask you a question. What's the difference between bigoted vendors refusing services to a homosexual and Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?

Phelps doesn't bake worth a crap......

Vendors providing services are not participants. Jesus dealt with sinners every day. Some of Jesus' best friends were sinners. Jesus saved sinners. So, yes I believe that Jesus would not have the problem so called Christians have with homosexuals.

Let me ask you a question. What's the difference between bigoted vendors refusing services to a homosexual and Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?

What I bolded is your opinion, someone else may feel as though they are a participant and may not want to take part in it in any way at all, and that should be their choice. You never answered my question, is a gay marriage sinful according to what Jesus taught? If Jesus thought homosexual behavior was sinful, He would forgive them, i.e. 'save' them and tell them to turn away from their sin, not embrace it. If you're a christian, you should understand that concept. So for people who believe homosexual behavior is a sin, they're not going to be in favor of promoting it or encouraging it. So, is homosexual behavior a sin in your opinion or not?

Your question is already grounded in your own bigotry by you using the term 'bigot' in your question. The party in question only refused the service of a gay wedding cake, not service in general from what I understand. They should be able to refuse a cake to celebrate a divorce if they believe that is a sin and don't want to participate in any way in the celebration. Your problem is that you can only look at this issue thru one lense, and it has clouded your judgment. You apply the label of bigotry towards anyone standing on what they see as their religious principles instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt that the only issue they have is not wanting to take what they see as a path away from God. Did it ever occur to you that they truly care about their faith and following what they see as God's will for their lives instead of it being about hate of other people? Take your blinders off.

The vendors are to provide services, not judgments. Could Woolworth's be Scripturally justified when they refused service to African Americans? Can Fred Phelps be doctrinally justified when he protests funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fags"? Are wedding vendors required to approve of each and every couple they serve? Is it ethically right to deny services normally provided to heterosexual couples, no matter how much a vendor might personally disapprove of their marriage, and still deny THE EXACT SAME SERVICES to homosexual couples? Is it right to justify that disapproval through the same Scriptural rationalization as Fred Phelps does? Would you see the actions of Phelps as Christian virtues? What is the difference between the judgments Phelps makes and his rationalization as the judgments and rationalizations of vendors refusing gays?

Why are you so obsessed with Phelps when 99.99% of the human population disagree with him and his tactics? No, I don't see Phelps's actions as christian virtues, Phelps targets people that have absolutely nothing to do with what he's supposedly protesting, and is only doing so for attention and to make money via lawsuits. Now, can we move beyond Phelps who has no bearing on this topic. There is no parallel between what Phelps does and choosing not to participate in something or offer your services for something you view as sinful. Now are you going to answer my question. Would Jesus consider homosexual sex and relationships as sinful? Yes or no?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Moving the goal posts? I never said anything about attendance at the wedding.

I have never moved the goal posts, asshole. Read through this thread and you will see that my position has always been about forcing people to attend weddings. If you address me you are addressing the premise that people are being forced to attend a wedding.

Everyone else in this thread, ie you, keep moving the goal posts because they know that I am right, and, being unable to refute my argument, resort to lies in order to justify their position. Funny how you keep up the lies, isn't it?

We on this thread are considering the vendors supplying services for the wedding. In your world, does the baker show up at the church or bring a gift to the reception? Because in the wide world out here where people both think and act with fairness, the baker drops off the cake and goes to the next delivery.

No, we on this thread are considering the implications of the secular world and how Christians should deal with conflicts with their beliefs. That is the reason Marc started this thread in the Religion and Philosophy section. He thought he had all the answers, and I proved him wrong, which is why he is no longer in this thread.

Stop trying to make this about something it isin't, it just makes you look stupid. Did my use of an actual Scripture that is directly applicable to the issues here totally escape your notice?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is the difference between the judgments Phelps makes and his rationalization as the judgments and rationalizations of vendors refusing gays?

nobody is asking Phelps to do something he doesn't want to do......

What's the difference between Woolworth's in the south of 1960 and vendors refusing service to homosexuals? What's the difference between a Mom and Pop grocer in Alabama 1961 refusing service and citing scripture as an excuse?

The Woolworth's was obeying the fucking law.

Next question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

After you do that you can choose to either come back to this thread and admit you were wrong, or never come back and to pretend that you have a right to force your interpretation on other people.

actually, there is a third, more likely option.....he could just pretend he never saw your post, then come back and argue with other people without batting an eye.....

True, but I won't let him get away with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's pretty funny coming from someone who lied about me on this very thread -- then didn't have the nads to own up to the fact she got me mixed up with someone else.

That is really funny considering he did admit he was wrong.

"She"...

Sorry, it is hard to remember all the genders on this board, even for me.

 

[Nosmo King]

Phelps doesn't bake worth a crap......

What I bolded is your opinion, someone else may feel as though they are a participant and may not want to take part in it in any way at all, and that should be their choice. You never answered my question, is a gay marriage sinful according to what Jesus taught? If Jesus thought homosexual behavior was sinful, He would forgive them, i.e. 'save' them and tell them to turn away from their sin, not embrace it. If you're a christian, you should understand that concept. So for people who believe homosexual behavior is a sin, they're not going to be in favor of promoting it or encouraging it. So, is homosexual behavior a sin in your opinion or not?

Your question is already grounded in your own bigotry by you using the term 'bigot' in your question. The party in question only refused the service of a gay wedding cake, not service in general from what I understand. They should be able to refuse a cake to celebrate a divorce if they believe that is a sin and don't want to participate in any way in the celebration. Your problem is that you can only look at this issue thru one lense, and it has clouded your judgment. You apply the label of bigotry towards anyone standing on what they see as their religious principles instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt that the only issue they have is not wanting to take what they see as a path away from God. Did it ever occur to you that they truly care about their faith and following what they see as God's will for their lives instead of it being about hate of other people? Take your blinders off.

The vendors are to provide services, not judgments. Could Woolworth's be Scripturally justified when they refused service to African Americans? Can Fred Phelps be doctrinally justified when he protests funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fags"? Are wedding vendors required to approve of each and every couple they serve? Is it ethically right to deny services normally provided to heterosexual couples, no matter how much a vendor might personally disapprove of their marriage, and still deny THE EXACT SAME SERVICES to homosexual couples? Is it right to justify that disapproval through the same Scriptural rationalization as Fred Phelps does? Would you see the actions of Phelps as Christian virtues? What is the difference between the judgments Phelps makes and his rationalization as the judgments and rationalizations of vendors refusing gays?

Why are you so obsessed with Phelps when 99.99% of the human population disagree with him and his tactics? No, I don't see Phelps's actions as christian virtues, Phelps targets people that have absolutely nothing to do with what he's supposedly protesting, and is only doing so for attention and to make money via lawsuits. Now, can we move beyond Phelps who has no bearing on this topic. There is no parallel between what Phelps does and choosing not to participate in something or offer your services for something you view as sinful. Now are you going to answer my question. Would Jesus consider homosexual sex and relationships as sinful? Yes or no?

Phelps uses Scripture to justify his hate. Just as the vendors who are refusing service to homosexual couples. The thread asks What's Christian about denying services. The same rationale used by Phelps is used by those brick headed vendors.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A couple of points you either over looked or failed to recognize:

1) I am a Christian

2) Jesus preached that we should not judge others, that we should do unto others as we would have others do unto us and , those without sin should cast the first stone.

Those are the basic tenets of the faith. The so-called Christians who are seeking legal cover to foment division, hatred, fear and suspicion of others are blatantly ignoring those basic tenets.

And that's why I posted: So if you consider yourself a Christian, why did you judge me as ? I suppose that's the action of a so-called Christian in the new age of Christianity. What a pity. Christians used to be nice, respectful people. Now they are more like the Taliban than Christians.

If you are actually a Christian I suggest you go read 1 Corinthians 8 and then explain to me how you have the authority to force other Christians to do something they see as a sin. After you do that you can choose to either come back to this thread and admit you were wrong, or never come back and to pretend that you have a right to force your interpretation on other people.

In other words, I am not the one judging people, you are. I am actually applying the principles of the Bible consistently, allowing both non Christians, and Christians, to live thier lives as they choose.

1 Corinthians 8

King James Version (KJV)


8 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

Luke Chapter 6 verse 31.

I supplied a Scripture that specifically deals with how you, as a Christian, should deal with how another Christian deals with the secular world and perceived sin, and you think you cab beat me up by proof texting? Because, if I apply your Scripture to 1 Cor 8 I would end up concluding that you, by not allowing weaker Christians to not attend a gay wedding, are forcing Jesus to sin.

Want to know the difference between you and me here? I studied theology in an environment that forced me to realize that I don't have all the answers. I also know that I can be wrong, which is why I tend to avoid arguing about the minutiae of Scriptures.

This is not a minutiae though, it is one that can actually cause real harm. Even if it really isn't a sin to attend a gay wedding, just like it wasn't a sin for Paul to eat meat sacrificed to idols, you are sinning by demanding that other Christians accept your opinion over their interpretation of right and wrong.

That makes you a Pharisee, would you like a scripture that shows what Jesus thinks about Pharisees? I can assure you, it isn't all rainbows and roses.

 

[PostmodernProph]

The vendors are to provide services, not judgments. Could Woolworth's be Scripturally justified when they refused service to African Americans? Can Fred Phelps be doctrinally justified when he protests funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fags"? Are wedding vendors required to approve of each and every couple they serve? Is it ethically right to deny services normally provided to heterosexual couples, no matter how much a vendor might personally disapprove of their marriage, and still deny THE EXACT SAME SERVICES to homosexual couples? Is it right to justify that disapproval through the same Scriptural rationalization as Fred Phelps does? Would you see the actions of Phelps as Christian virtues? What is the difference between the judgments Phelps makes and his rationalization as the judgments and rationalizations of vendors refusing gays?

Why are you so obsessed with Phelps when 99.99% of the human population disagree with him and his tactics? No, I don't see Phelps's actions as christian virtues, Phelps targets people that have absolutely nothing to do with what he's supposedly protesting, and is only doing so for attention and to make money via lawsuits. Now, can we move beyond Phelps who has no bearing on this topic. There is no parallel between what Phelps does and choosing not to participate in something or offer your services for something you view as sinful. Now are you going to answer my question. Would Jesus consider homosexual sex and relationships as sinful? Yes or no?

Phelps uses Scripture to justify his hate. Just as the vendors who are refusing service to homosexual couples. The thread asks What's Christian about denying services. The same rationale used by Phelps is used by those brick headed vendors.

if you want a parallel, what if a gay couple asked Phelps to officiate at their wedding.....(wouldn't THAT be a fun day).....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Moving the goal posts? I never said anything about attendance at the wedding. We on this thread are considering the vendors supplying services for the wedding. In your world, does the baker show up at the church or bring a gift to the reception? Because in the wide world out here where people both think and act with fairness, the baker drops off the cake and goes to the next delivery.

Yet you ignored my post and refuse to answer my questions, why is that?

Jesus did not shun prostitutes. He did not shun lepers. Jesus loved the poor, the feeble minded, the outcast.

So, to answer your question, yes indeed, Jesus would not cast aside a homosexual or a committed homosexual couple. His record of love and acceptance is the lesson of His life, no matter what St. Paul wrote to gentile congregations. I'll go with the lessons taught by Jesus Himself.

Still missing the point, what a surprise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The vendors are to provide services, not judgments. Could Woolworth's be Scripturally justified when they refused service to African Americans? Can Fred Phelps be doctrinally justified when he protests funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fags"? Are wedding vendors required to approve of each and every couple they serve? Is it ethically right to deny services normally provided to heterosexual couples, no matter how much a vendor might personally disapprove of their marriage, and still deny THE EXACT SAME SERVICES to homosexual couples? Is it right to justify that disapproval through the same Scriptural rationalization as Fred Phelps does? Would you see the actions of Phelps as Christian virtues? What is the difference between the judgments Phelps makes and his rationalization as the judgments and rationalizations of vendors refusing gays?

Why are you so obsessed with Phelps when 99.99% of the human population disagree with him and his tactics? No, I don't see Phelps's actions as christian virtues, Phelps targets people that have absolutely nothing to do with what he's supposedly protesting, and is only doing so for attention and to make money via lawsuits. Now, can we move beyond Phelps who has no bearing on this topic. There is no parallel between what Phelps does and choosing not to participate in something or offer your services for something you view as sinful. Now are you going to answer my question. Would Jesus consider homosexual sex and relationships as sinful? Yes or no?

Phelps uses Scripture to justify his hate. Just as the vendors who are refusing service to homosexual couples. The thread asks What's Christian about denying services. The same rationale used by Phelps is used by those brick headed vendors.

So do you.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm curious. Just exactly what did Jesus say about gays? I've read the Bible three times, cover to cover, including the Old Testament, which is, as far as I am concerned, strictly Jewish doctrine, and I never read anything that Jesus said about homosexuality.

Matthew 19 KJ21 - And it came to pass that when Jesus had - Bible Gateway

Still didn't see anything about homosexuals.....

 

[daws101]

This coming from an atheist? What would you know about it? Who are you to judge when someone is following His 'edicts' or not? You're actually worse than any Christian passing judgment that I've seen. Outside of one or two posters on here, you atheists are far worse at being judgmental than anyone I've ever seen. You've certainly opened my eyes Nosmo, I thought you were a nice person from conversations we've had in the coffee shop, had I known how hateful you really are outside of there, I wouldn't have wasted my time talking to you in there. Part of the reason why I don't frequent in there anymore, people are just two faced, friendly and nice in there and hateful out here. Sad.

another "since you're an atheist how could you know anything about god or Christianity" ploy!
best answer:

Knowledgeable atheists, which excludes you, can know something about religion, but they cannot tell other people what their beliefs are.

really I just did.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

another "since you're an atheist how could you know anything about god or Christianity" ploy!
best answer:

Knowledgeable atheists, which excludes you, can know something about religion, but they cannot tell other people what their beliefs are.

really I just did.....

No you didn't, you just think you did.

 

[Chuckt]

What is the difference between the judgments Phelps makes and his rationalization as the judgments and rationalizations of vendors refusing gays?

nobody is asking Phelps to do something he doesn't want to do......

What's the difference between Woolworth's in the south of 1960 and vendors refusing service to homosexuals? What's the difference between a Mom and Pop grocer in Alabama 1961 refusing service and citing scripture as an excuse?

Racism is wrong and so is homosexuality by the Bible. You couldn't defend either.

 

[Chuckt]

A couple of points you either over looked or failed to recognize:

1) I am a Christian

2) Jesus preached that we should not judge others, that we should do unto others as we would have others do unto us and , those without sin should cast the first stone.

Those are the basic tenets of the faith. The so-called Christians who are seeking legal cover to foment division, hatred, fear and suspicion of others are blatantly ignoring those basic tenets.

1) I can judge you and I can back it up with doctrine.
2) I don't believe you.

That's so sweet of you! Slave holders backed up their cruelty with doctrine. Old South Jim Crow bigots backed up their cruelty with doctrine. The Scriptures can be interpreted by villains to justify cruelty. The precedent has been set. If you seek cover for hatred amid the Scriptures, know this, you are not the first, nor regrettably the last hater to seek solace in a book dedicated to love.

So what.
Kids make mistakes in school. Is that justification not to go to school?
How old are you to make an argument like this? You're ridiculous.
What are you? Two?

 

[Nosmo King]

1) I can judge you and I can back it up with doctrine.
2) I don't believe you.

That's so sweet of you! Slave holders backed up their cruelty with doctrine. Old South Jim Crow bigots backed up their cruelty with doctrine. The Scriptures can be interpreted by villains to justify cruelty. The precedent has been set. If you seek cover for hatred amid the Scriptures, know this, you are not the first, nor regrettably the last hater to seek solace in a book dedicated to love.

So what.
Kids make mistakes in school. Is that justification not to go to school?
How old are you to make an argument like this? You're ridiculous.
What are you? Two?

What are you babbling about? I'm pointing out to you that there has always been haters seeking validation through scripture. You are nothing new in that regard.

 

[Nosmo King]

Moving the goal posts? I never said anything about attendance at the wedding.

I have never moved the goal posts, asshole. Read through this thread and you will see that my position has always been about forcing people to attend weddings. If you address me you are addressing the premise that people are being forced to attend a wedding.

Everyone else in this thread, ie you, keep moving the goal posts because they know that I am right, and, being unable to refute my argument, resort to lies in order to justify their position. Funny how you keep up the lies, isn't it?

We on this thread are considering the vendors supplying services for the wedding. In your world, does the baker show up at the church or bring a gift to the reception? Because in the wide world out here where people both think and act with fairness, the baker drops off the cake and goes to the next delivery.

No, we on this thread are considering the implications of the secular world and how Christians should deal with conflicts with their beliefs. That is the reason Marc started this thread in the Religion and Philosophy section. He thought he had all the answers, and I proved him wrong, which is why he is no longer in this thread.

Stop trying to make this about something it isin't, it just makes you look stupid. Did my use of an actual Scripture that is directly applicable to the issues here totally escape your notice?

I read the title of the thread, did you?

And you call me stupid and asshole. Is this the way you practice your faith? Is this a sterling example of Christian behavior. Is it then any wonder why I would reject any claims by you of righteousness and Christian comportment?

 

[Chuckt]

That's so sweet of you! Slave holders backed up their cruelty with doctrine. Old South Jim Crow bigots backed up their cruelty with doctrine. The Scriptures can be interpreted by villains to justify cruelty. The precedent has been set. If you seek cover for hatred amid the Scriptures, know this, you are not the first, nor regrettably the last hater to seek solace in a book dedicated to love.

So what.
Kids make mistakes in school. Is that justification not to go to school?
How old are you to make an argument like this? You're ridiculous.
What are you? Two?

What are you babbling about? I'm pointing out to you that there has always been haters seeking validation through scripture. You are nothing new in that regard.

You are making an argument that someone two years old might make.
There are good lawyers and bad lawyers. Should you give up knowing the law because there are bad lawyers?

I'm not two years old so you can't trick me with the Bible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Moving the goal posts? I never said anything about attendance at the wedding.

I have never moved the goal posts, asshole. Read through this thread and you will see that my position has always been about forcing people to attend weddings. If you address me you are addressing the premise that people are being forced to attend a wedding.

Everyone else in this thread, ie you, keep moving the goal posts because they know that I am right, and, being unable to refute my argument, resort to lies in order to justify their position. Funny how you keep up the lies, isn't it?

We on this thread are considering the vendors supplying services for the wedding. In your world, does the baker show up at the church or bring a gift to the reception? Because in the wide world out here where people both think and act with fairness, the baker drops off the cake and goes to the next delivery.

No, we on this thread are considering the implications of the secular world and how Christians should deal with conflicts with their beliefs. That is the reason Marc started this thread in the Religion and Philosophy section. He thought he had all the answers, and I proved him wrong, which is why he is no longer in this thread.

Stop trying to make this about something it isin't, it just makes you look stupid. Did my use of an actual Scripture that is directly applicable to the issues here totally escape your notice?

I read the title of the thread, did you?

The thread title? The one that says "What is Christian about denying service to any individual?"As I explained in my first post, the issue is not whether or not it is Christian not to photograph a gay wedding, the issue is whether the government can force people to do things what they don't want to do.

The radical so-called fundamentalists Christians up in Arizona tried to get a law pass that would deny service to people gay or perceived as gay in public and private places of business.

I'd like to know...what's Christlike about that?

What basis, does one build this argument in the first place?

What the radical RW have done in Arizona is prove exactly how UNCHRISTLIKE they really are by trying to pass this law.

Anyone care to show me how that radical bill they were pushing is Christian?

I'd like to know.

The expert on all things nothing speaks up once again, and once again demonstrates his ignorance.

The point here is not whether or not it is Christian to not photograph a gay wedding, the point is that the government should not be able to force anyone to perform a service they object to.

I actually proved, using Scripture, that anyone who calls themselves a Christian can have only one take on that issue, but you still sit here and try to argue that you are right.

And you call me stupid and asshole. Is this the way you practice your faith? Is this a sterling example of Christian behavior. Is it then any wonder why I would reject any claims by you of righteousness and Christian comportment?

Did I hurt your feewings?

Tough shit.

Unlike you, I don't base my relationship with Jesus on popular opinion. Jesus had no problem berating people who were misrepresenting the Word of God, so I have no problem doing the same. If you think being compared to a tomb is in some way less offensive than being called a stupid asshole I sugest you try to put yourself into the shoes of someone who, quite literally, had the power of life and death over everyone in Jerusalem at a time when free speech wasn't even a dream and feel the insult they felt.

Jesus was not a namby pamby nice guy that never got in anyone's face. You would know that if you actually read the Bible instead of being spoon fed stories by people with an agenda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point here is not whether or not it is Christian to not photograph a gay wedding, the point is that the government should not be able to force anyone to perform a service they object to.

Silly opinion from a silly poster.

Public opinion has shifted, legislatures and electorates have shifted, and judges have shifted.

That's how we do it in this country.