What's Christian About Denying Service To Any Individual?

[daws101]

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.

no... I did, not my concern if you don't get it..

 

[daws101]

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.

that's true chuckles , you done a fine job of tricking yourself with it...

 

[MarcATL]

Why do cons suck so bad at understanding the basics of how Public Accommodation Laws work?

Because they want to. They don't want to understand the basics. Instead they want to push their radical viewpoints and understandings.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?



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 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.

So to sum up, you took your own agenda to the thread, you blew off the topic to make a grander stance about something entirely off track. Next, you are selling me your version of Jesus as an intolerant man who would find His center at a CPAC convention where He could sneer and disapprove the way the intolerant modern Conservative does. You apparently do not see Christ as the manifestation of God's love, but you are trying feebly to push Him into the template of contemporary intolerance.

My solace comes from two realities; I see love in Christ and cannot be dissuaded from that truth and, the dinosaurs who continue to be intolerant and judgmental will soon be a dead generation. We are constantly moving toward a more open and forgiving society. The only question is, how much longer will the haters misinterpret the words of love and forgiveness given to us by God?

 

[MarcATL]

The radical so-called fundamentalists Christians up in Arizona tried to get a law passed 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.

SB1062 had nothing to do with homosexuals or even business laws, least not directly. What had people concerned was that if allowed for 'people' (expanded to mean individuals as well as corporations, churches, or any other entity - worrisome in its own right) to practice their faith while engaged in business pursuits, even if doing so wasn't specificly part of that faith. This was the major part, and why I think it got vetoed.

Since nothing in the Bible says to refuse service to a sinner (or whatever sort) you could have with this law refused service to any sinner be they homosexuals, adulterers, Sabbath-breakers, etc. even though doing so as a business practice isn't part of doctrine or Scripture.

Bill aside, there IS in fact numerous references to purging sin from our midst via exile or execution. So it is in fact Biblically consistent to do so. Via secular laws the BIble of course doesn't go into, but it would be logical doing so if via religious law youc ould exile certain sin-crime people.

I keep seeing some of you stating that there are "so many texts" but yet not ONE of you have posted any.

Please post some sir.

Thanks.

 

[MarcATL]

As I have said before. . As long as I can be refused service for exercising my 2 nd amendment rights because the owner is scared of or hates guns, then anyone can be refused service for any reason. You can't say they can abridge my rights but not someone else's rights.

Molon Labe

Your opinion is duly noted, however, it doesn't address the OP. How is what you stated addressing Christianity or being Christlike in any way, shape or form?

you ask the wrong question.......it assumes that in order to be "Christlike" one must bake cakes for gay marriage.......a better question is whether it is Christlike to compel people to do things they do not feel is right.......

No sir...YOU ask the wrong question.

My question is to the individual...the sinner. Your question is to the system, government.

God is concerned w/the individual response, NOT the government's.

Nice try though.

 

[MarcATL]

The radical so-called fundamentalists Christians up in Arizona tried to get a law passed 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.

I can make a case for this, Marc. I wrote it months and months ago but this topic and debate is phrased differently so I would have to see if I had to tweek it a little.

I am not interested in posting it in the forum cause I can't see how it is in our interests to fight this in public.

If you know me by now, you know I can do it and already posted it and it survived scrutiny on another message board.

I don't get it.

Fight what in public?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Public opinion has shifted in favor of slavery? So the fuck what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do cons suck so bad at understanding the basics of how Public Accommodation Laws work?

Because they want to. They don't want to understand the basics. Instead they want to push their radical viewpoints and understandings.

Why are you back in this thread? Didn't I already prove you were wrong? Do you want me to prove that you are willfully ignoring the Word of God now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



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.

So to sum up, you took your own agenda to the thread, you blew off the topic to make a grander stance about something entirely off track. Next, you are selling me your version of Jesus as an intolerant man who would find His center at an APAC convention where He could sneer and disapprove the way the intolerant modern Conservative does. You apparently do not see Christ as the manifestation of God's love, but you are trying feebly to push Him into the template of contemporary intolerance.

My solace comes from two realities; I see love in Christ and cannot be dissuaded from that truth and, the dinosaurs who continue to be intolerant and judgmental will soon be a dead generation. We are constantly moving toward a more open and forgiving society. The only question is, how much longer will the haters misinterpret the words of love and forgiveness given to us by God?

To sum it up, forcing people to work on something they object to, for whatever reason, is slavery.

Are you pro slavery, or pro freedom?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The radical so-called fundamentalists Christians up in Arizona tried to get a law passed 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.

SB1062 had nothing to do with homosexuals or even business laws, least not directly. What had people concerned was that if allowed for 'people' (expanded to mean individuals as well as corporations, churches, or any other entity - worrisome in its own right) to practice their faith while engaged in business pursuits, even if doing so wasn't specificly part of that faith. This was the major part, and why I think it got vetoed.

Since nothing in the Bible says to refuse service to a sinner (or whatever sort) you could have with this law refused service to any sinner be they homosexuals, adulterers, Sabbath-breakers, etc. even though doing so as a business practice isn't part of doctrine or Scripture.

Bill aside, there IS in fact numerous references to purging sin from our midst via exile or execution. So it is in fact Biblically consistent to do so. Via secular laws the BIble of course doesn't go into, but it would be logical doing so if via religious law youc ould exile certain sin-crime people.

I keep seeing some of you stating that there are "so many texts" but yet not ONE of you have posted any.

Please post some sir.

Thanks.

Not only did I actually post some, I actually posted an entire chapter that proves that, even if you are right, you are still 100% wrong.

Why don't you say something about that?

 

[Nosmo King]

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.



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.



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.

So to sum up, you took your own agenda to the thread, you blew off the topic to make a grander stance about something entirely off track. Next, you are selling me your version of Jesus as an intolerant man who would find His center at an APAC convention where He could sneer and disapprove the way the intolerant modern Conservative does. You apparently do not see Christ as the manifestation of God's love, but you are trying feebly to push Him into the template of contemporary intolerance.

My solace comes from two realities; I see love in Christ and cannot be dissuaded from that truth and, the dinosaurs who continue to be intolerant and judgmental will soon be a dead generation. We are constantly moving toward a more open and forgiving society. The only question is, how much longer will the haters misinterpret the words of love and forgiveness given to us by God?

To sum it up, forcing people to work on something they object to, for whatever reason, is slavery.

Are you pro slavery, or pro freedom?

"Forcing" "slavery" You use all the buzz words that seemingly add some righteousness to your argument, but hyperbole is really the refuge of a weak argument. With the advent of e Civil Rights act, were southerners "forced" into slavery when they were told to remove the "Whites Only" water fountains from their public spaces? When my brother takes an order at the print shop for raffle tickets where the prizes are guns, is he being "enslaved" because he also volunteers at Disarm Pennsylvania?

Ooo! The poor bigots! They are being "forced" into "slavery" because they must provide THE EXACT SAME SERVICES for homosexuals as they provide for heterosexuals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your opinion is duly noted, however, it doesn't address the OP. How is what you stated addressing Christianity or being Christlike in any way, shape or form?

you ask the wrong question.......it assumes that in order to be "Christlike" one must bake cakes for gay marriage.......a better question is whether it is Christlike to compel people to do things they do not feel is right.......

No sir...YOU ask the wrong question.

My question is to the individual...the sinner. Your question is to the system, government.

God is concerned w/the individual response, NOT the government's.

Nice try though.

Exactly, and I provided a Scripture to prove that you are wrong in insisting that you have a better grasp of the answer than the individual.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Your opinion is duly noted, however, it doesn't address the OP. How is what you stated addressing Christianity or being Christlike in any way, shape or form?

you ask the wrong question.......it assumes that in order to be "Christlike" one must bake cakes for gay marriage.......a better question is whether it is Christlike to compel people to do things they do not feel is right.......

No sir...YOU ask the wrong question.

My question is to the individual...the sinner. Your question is to the system, government.

God is concerned w/the individual response, NOT the government's.

Nice try though.

I wasn't referring to government action....I was referring to the bigots who attacked the bakers and forced them to close their business......thus we are both referring to individuals....(notice how I deflected your deflection?).......

 

[Bumberclyde]

you ask the wrong question.......it assumes that in order to be "Christlike" one must bake cakes for gay marriage.......a better question is whether it is Christlike to compel people to do things they do not feel is right.......

No sir...YOU ask the wrong question.

My question is to the individual...the sinner. Your question is to the system, government.

God is concerned w/the individual response, NOT the government's.

Nice try though.

I wasn't referring to government action....I was referring to the bigots who attacked the bakers and forced them to close their business......thus we are both referring to individuals....(notice how I deflected your deflection?).......

So bigots are people who try to force their views on others? Like the baker?

 

[Newby]

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.

Nosmo, you still have not answered my question. My question was not would Jesus shun them, my question was whether Jesus would see homosexual sex/relationships as sin? Why won't you answer that with a simple yes or no? I would like to know your stance on that exact question.

To respond to what you did answer, I've never submitted that Jesus would shun them, on the contrary, if He believed they were sinning He would have advised them that they were forgiven and to GO AND SIN NO MORE, in other words, change their ways and follow Him. That's exactly why He congregated with the worst of humanity, to SAVE them. He would not have participated with them in their sin. He would have loved them but He would NEVER have 'accepted' their sin. I don't know what Bible you read, but the one that I read never showed Jesus Christ 'accepting' anyone's sin. Christ was sinless. And I'm also not saying that Christians should shun them either, but neither should Christians participate in their sin (as Quantum has pointed out many times here) if they believe homosexual relationships to be sin. Some Christians do believe it's sin, some do not, for those who do believe it is sin, they should not be forced to particpate in what goes against their religious beliefs, which wouuld be SPECIFICALLY not providing service for a gay wedding. And you have no right to determine for them whether participating is sin or not. You're entire premise is based on these people USING the Bible and scripture to justify their bigotry, when in fact, the majority of these people are simply trying to stay true to their faith and do what they think God would want them to do and bigotry plays NO PART in it. But you are entirely unwilling to accept that premise. You would rather assign them feelings of hate than accept that they're being true to their faith. Why you need to see them in the light is beyond me, perhaps you only like to believe the worst of people? I can only assume it is so you can rationalize continuing your crusade of judgment against them and slinging mud for whatever reason.

 

[Newby]

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.

This is true, there are some who have hate and bigotry in their heart and USE the Bible to try and justify it. And they will be judged for doing so. I've had this conversation before. Most scripture that was used to justify slavery or interracial marriage had nothing to do with slavery or inter racial marriage, and that can quite easily be shown. Just because people misused it, doesn't reflect on the Bible itself, it says what it says. There are specific scriptures regarding marriage and lust however, which are difficult to take out of context and twist into something else. Your side of the argument is doing EXACTLY what the racist people did regarding the Bible, they're taking it and twisting it to mean or NOT mean what they want it too. You either believe that homosexual relationships are sin or not, many Christians believe it is sin, and therefore would caution against it and not want to participate in it to stay true to their faith, and hate/bigotry has nothing to do with it. It doesn't justify treating gay people as second class citizens, it doesn't justify not loving them, but it does justify not particpating in what some might believe to be sin, such as a gay wedding.

 

[Newby]

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.



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.

So to sum up, you took your own agenda to the thread, you blew off the topic to make a grander stance about something entirely off track. Next, you are selling me your version of Jesus as an intolerant man who would find His center at an APAC convention where He could sneer and disapprove the way the intolerant modern Conservative does. You apparently do not see Christ as the manifestation of God's love, but you are trying feebly to push Him into the template of contemporary intolerance.

My solace comes from two realities; I see love in Christ and cannot be dissuaded from that truth and, the dinosaurs who continue to be intolerant and judgmental will soon be a dead generation. We are constantly moving toward a more open and forgiving society. The only question is, how much longer will the haters misinterpret the words of love and forgiveness given to us by God?

So, to sum up your beliefs, Nosmo, anyone can do anything they want and Jesus would have, or will be, loving and accepting of their behavior? Because Jesus was Love and accepted anyone, even those that turned away from Him and continued their sin? In other words, He never spoke of consequences for living a life of sin? Or you feel that those consequence that He spoke of will never be applied?

 

[Bumberclyde]

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.



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.



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.

So to sum up, you took your own agenda to the thread, you blew off the topic to make a grander stance about something entirely off track. Next, you are selling me your version of Jesus as an intolerant man who would find His center at an APAC convention where He could sneer and disapprove the way the intolerant modern Conservative does. You apparently do not see Christ as the manifestation of God's love, but you are trying feebly to push Him into the template of contemporary intolerance.

My solace comes from two realities; I see love in Christ and cannot be dissuaded from that truth and, the dinosaurs who continue to be intolerant and judgmental will soon be a dead generation. We are constantly moving toward a more open and forgiving society. The only question is, how much longer will the haters misinterpret the words of love and forgiveness given to us by God?

So, to sum up your beliefs, Nosmo, anyone can do anything they want and Jesus would have, or will be, loving and accepting of their behavior? Because Jesus was Love and accepted anyone, even those that turned away from Him and continued their sin? In other words, He never spoke of consequences for living a life of sin? Or you feel that those consequence that He spoke of will never be applied?

What Jesus "spoke" of is hearsay, so realistically, you can't claim that believing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and that our debt is paid already, is wrong.

 

[Newby]

So to sum up, you took your own agenda to the thread, you blew off the topic to make a grander stance about something entirely off track. Next, you are selling me your version of Jesus as an intolerant man who would find His center at an APAC convention where He could sneer and disapprove the way the intolerant modern Conservative does. You apparently do not see Christ as the manifestation of God's love, but you are trying feebly to push Him into the template of contemporary intolerance.

My solace comes from two realities; I see love in Christ and cannot be dissuaded from that truth and, the dinosaurs who continue to be intolerant and judgmental will soon be a dead generation. We are constantly moving toward a more open and forgiving society. The only question is, how much longer will the haters misinterpret the words of love and forgiveness given to us by God?

So, to sum up your beliefs, Nosmo, anyone can do anything they want and Jesus would have, or will be, loving and accepting of their behavior? Because Jesus was Love and accepted anyone, even those that turned away from Him and continued their sin? In other words, He never spoke of consequences for living a life of sin? Or you feel that those consequence that He spoke of will never be applied?

What Jesus "spoke" of is hearsay, so realistically, you can't claim that believing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and that our debt is paid already, is wrong.

You seriously need to read the Bible for yourself, you're clueless.