Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hasty development. you co fuse the words judgement with informing.

No, I don't. And informing someone of your judgement of them still involves judgement.

 

[randomvim]

Most people wouldn't. But a good part of the people who are willing, eager even, to kill people are very deeply religious.

I actually do interpret the Bible to not have any passages where someone can point to in order to justify discrimination or bullying. The Jews are forbidden from marrying non-Jews, we find nothing else regulating commerce or business practices and nothing really about shaming and bullying people.

I know Jesus didn't. However those laws that Jesus specifically states he is not doing away with do speak against homosexuality. Jesus' message isn't to ignore the law, it's to not judge those who have because we're all guilty of something. If it were not for his bit about how those who relax the laws will be considered lesser, I'd almost think he was anti-death penalty, but I suppose a better interpretation may just be he wants people to mind their own business over things that really matter, and especially in the case of fornication, there was probably no use with those ready to throw stones to pretend they themselves hadn't done it at some point in their lives. A modern equivalent I suppose would be smoking pot. Even before legalization gained favor, lots of people were doing it, and much the crimes of the woman Jesus spared, pot is a victimless crime.
Overall, with a couple objections, I don't think Jesus had a bad message. It's just attached some rather unfortunate baggage.

1. to keep this short, the point on bullying is to distinguish when philisophical study is needed. as you suggest, bullying is not directly stated. but this doesnt mean there is indirect link nor that we can partake in that action.

2. you are incorrect about commerce. part of how we interact with each other plays its role in commerce. also, every seven years a debt or all debt is to be forgiven.

3. these two aspects highlight the need to study as some may not be correct with how they view. incorrect with their opinion.

4. this plays a role when considering stone throwing. this is a form of judgement which Christians are not supposed to do, but we should know that can not include determining anothers act as good or bad.

if it did, then there would be no need for law as we could not impose it. yet, there is a place for law in our society and Christian religion does not deny that.

 

[oldbadger]

why does He need to?

........ because true Christians seek out the truth about what Jesus said and did.

Sometimes that can hurt, and so some Christians just quote everybody else, or authors who never actually knew Jesus.

Christians who exhibit self-righteous judgement against ANY kind of love are just not Christians imo, because LOVE was Jesus's main message, methinks.

 

[oldbadger]

Simple to see you do not understand religion you speak about.

Ha! There's your problem You think that you're the only one who can say what Jesus said and did, maybe?

""some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

Rubbish.
The OT Laws were there to protect and strengthen the tribe, to keep it safe from all manner of risks. There was no other reason for them. Every one of them! If you care to question a single one then post it up for a simple explanation, from me.
But today some of those risks havre reduced to a mere nothing by comprison with thousands of years ago.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are.

Oh what fun!
So now you want to play the 'new-covenant' game?
So that you can ignore what you like and pop into the rule book what you like?
No no! If you want to go self-righteous about any, then you really ought to accept and live by all 613..... and then we'd be picking rather a lot of holes in you, maybe?

There are different aspects to Christian religion and how we grew from Judiasm. this needs to be understood and studied before jumping to conclusions.

Ha! Most Creeds in Christianity are all about Faith, not religion! And if only you would dump the religious baggage and look at Jesus you might find a better set of rules for life?


Many Christians haven't got any time for judgemental self-righteous bigots any more. I can think of a some really good examples if you need to be shown them.

You really should seek to understyand how other Christians feel about all this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. to keep this short, the point on bullying is to distinguish when philisophical study is needed. as you suggest, bullying is not directly stated. but this doesnt mean there is indirect link nor that we can partake in that action.

This has more to do with the so called "religious freedom" bills like the one Mike Pence signed. Many want to preserve things such as bullying and discrimination as "religious rights," but I can find nothing that would prohibit them from serving any type of sinner. We find some policies for slavery, banking, women, but there is nothing in there to support the idea of businesses being able to exclude certain people, especially in contemporary times as it applies to race, sexual orientation, and gender identity. For all the complaints I have with the Bible, those specific ones are just not in there. But on they go insisting that somewhere Jesus said "thou shalt not suffer a ***."

2. you are incorrect about commerce. part of how we interact with each other plays its role in commerce. also, every seven years a debt or all debt is to be forgiven.

Not to the extend people are demanding and insisting is their right and freedom, and they are basing it on something that does not support their claims.

3. these two aspects highlight the need to study as some may not be correct with how they view. incorrect with their opinion.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to.

4. this plays a role when considering stone throwing. this is a form of judgement which Christians are not supposed to do, but we should know that can not include determining anothers act as good or bad.

Yes, and the law is still the law. And any ruler who decides to not stone an adulteress woman would be considered among the least in Heaven for relaxing the law. And there is still the issue of Jesus saying to kill those who don't want him to reign over them.

if it did, then there would be no need for law as we could not impose it. yet, there is a place for law in our society and Christian religion does not deny that.

Of course there is still Law, and Jesus said he didn't come to do away with it. He never said to stop stoning those who commit sexual sin, but, at most we can get Jesus told people to just mind their own business, because he was also very big into not judging people. I suppose in modern terms, he is very "don't ask, don't tell." He never supports "no snitching," but, at most, the case can be made that for a victimless crime that is really no one's business, it's between them and god. The Law is very clearly the law, and pretty much just about everyone would be horribly mutilated and possibly enslaved or killed if everyone was punished under Jewish law. And Jesus, for the most part, makes appeals to our higher selves, but he doesn't mandate it, and the law is ultimately still the law, and you are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

 

[psychoslice]

so you know how you felt as a Christian going through your life. you may relate - but knowing what or how another person is thinking is impratical.

please lets be real here. there is no logical manner for you to speak for me, out side of me telling you. suggestions are welcone but open to error.

we may relate to one another, but speaking for millions of people? you should not be taken serious on that note.

Well who are you speaking for ?.

 

[randomvim]

This has more to do with the so called "religious freedom" bills like the one Mike Pence signed. Many want to preserve things such as bullying and discrimination as "religious rights," but I can find nothing that would prohibit them from serving any type of sinner. We find some policies for slavery, banking, women, but there is nothing in there to support the idea of businesses being able to exclude certain people, especially in contemporary times as it applies to race, sexual orientation, and gender identity. For all the complaints I have with the Bible, those specific ones are just not in there. But on they go insisting that somewhere Jesus said "thou shalt not suffer a ***."

Not to the extend people are demanding and insisting is their right and freedom, and they are basing it on something that does not support their claims.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to.

Yes, and the law is still the law. And any ruler who decides to not stone an adulteress woman would be considered among the least in Heaven for relaxing the law. And there is still the issue of Jesus saying to kill those who don't want him to reign over them.

Of course there is still Law, and Jesus said he didn't come to do away with it. He never said to stop stoning those who commit sexual sin, but, at most we can get Jesus told people to just mind their own business, because he was also very big into not judging people. I suppose in modern terms, he is very "don't ask, don't tell." He never supports "no snitching," but, at most, the case can be made that for a victimless crime that is really no one's business, it's between them and god. The Law is very clearly the law, and pretty much just about everyone would be horribly mutilated and possibly enslaved or killed if everyone was punished under Jewish law. And Jesus, for the most part, makes appeals to our higher selves, but he doesn't mandate it, and the law is ultimately still the law, and you are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

1. you do not understand what point I am trying to make.

2. you twist words around for an arguement you are having by yourself.

3. good day

 

[randomvim]

........ because true Christians seek out the truth about what Jesus said and did.

Sometimes that can hurt, and so some Christians just quote everybody else, or authors who never actually knew Jesus.

Christians who exhibit self-righteous judgement against ANY kind of love are just not Christians imo, because LOVE was Jesus's main message, methinks.

none of that explains why Jesus has to make a comment on every single law or subject matter in order to justify or maintain a paticular belief.

As you may notice, nothing was stated about slavery or many other aspects which many Christian religions deem immoral or sin.

 

[randomvim]

Ha! There's your problem You think that you're the only one who can say what Jesus said and did, maybe?


Rubbish.
The OT Laws were there to protect and strengthen the tribe, to keep it safe from all manner of risks. There was no other reason for them. Every one of them! If you care to question a single one then post it up for a simple explanation, from me.
But today some of those risks havre reduced to a mere nothing by comprison with thousands of years ago.


Oh what fun!
So now you want to play the 'new-covenant' game?
So that you can ignore what you like and pop into the rule book what you like?
No no! If you want to go self-righteous about any, then you really ought to accept and live by all 613..... and then we'd be picking rather a lot of holes in you, maybe?


Ha! Most Creeds in Christianity are all about Faith, not religion! And if only you would dump the religious baggage and look at Jesus you might find a better set of rules for life?


Many Christians haven't got any time for judgemental self-righteous bigots any more. I can think of a some really good examples if you need to be shown them.

You really should seek to understyand how other Christians feel about all this.

1. interesting. some how I think I am the only person to speak about Jesus, but you have inclined all I have said is wrong while you are 100% correct.

[emoji12]

Yeah. Right.

you only know about Jesus through religion. your welcome.

 

[randomvim]

No, I don't. And informing someone of your judgement of them still involves judgement.

informing a person they should not steal is not judging them and belittling them or hating them. there is a difference.

you clearly cant tell the difference.

not every person saying homosexuality is wrong, holds a sign that says God hates gays. get off that idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

informing a person they should not steal is not judging them and belittling them or hating them. there is a difference.

Not all judgement involves belittling or hating. If you're telling someone what they should or shouldn't do, you're judging them.

you clearly cant tell the difference.

not every person saying homosexuality is wrong, holds a sign that says God hates gays. get off that idea.

I'm not on it. Merely declaring something as wrong implies judgement.

 

[randomvim]

Not all judgement involves belittling or hating. If you're telling someone what they should or shouldn't do, you're judging them.


I'm not on it. Merely declaring something as wrong implies judgement.

1. if all forms of judgement is wrong then to say a person should stop judging is wrong.

Christianity is not built on this premise and reckognize there are different forms of judgement. As you stated there are different ways to judge, but not all forms portray a sin.

a gm analysing his pizza makers and ensuring all employees meet their time requirement is assessing their action, not the person themselves.

for example, ted was slow making his pizzas. we are assessing an action. gm can say, "ted i dont like the way you make that pizza."

but what is wrong is when gm say, " dang ted was slow. He must be mentally slow." this we can identify is wrong.

same is true for all things. there is a difference between.
" i saw ted steal today, I should ask him to stop."

vs.

" I saw ted stole today. that guy is a scoundral. never trusted him."

2. from this we can examine what is taught. For christianity, all forms of judgement is not bad. instead, to judge another persons heart is identified as being different than other sorts of judgement, like in a crime - determining guilty vs not guilty.

in order to maintain society. some sort of judgement must occur. so we need to identify which is okay vs. not.

3. telling anyone they are in the wrong is okay. everyone else here has done this already.

telling a person they are damned and dirty low lifes is not okay. this is what is often ment by "judging a person."

context must also be clear then when speaking on these matters.

 

[oldbadger]

none of that explains why Jesus has to make a comment on every single law or subject matter in order to justify or maintain a paticular belief.

Ha ha! So if Jesus did not especially make mention, you can decide what he thought?
Oh.... that is just too funny!

As you may notice, nothing was stated about slavery or many other aspects which many Christian religions deem immoral or sin.

Oh ho ho ha!
Ummmm...... Hey folks....Jesus talked of loving one another but we can steal away people's freedom and mistreat them all their lives. So it's OK to do that!

Each post seems to send you more deeply back into the dark ages, methinks.

 

[oldbadger]

1. interesting. some how I think I am the only person to speak about Jesus, but you have inclined all I have said is wrong while you are 100% correct.

[emoji12]

Yeah. Right.

you only know about Jesus through religion. your welcome.

I begin to believe that you don't know much about Jesus.
And you have no clue about my perceptions of Jesus and his life.

Now, I reckon that the ArchBishop of Canterbury knows a bit about Jesus, and so does the Church of England Synod, and they have accepted Gay Marriage and will also carry out the ceremony in churches.

So A WHOLE BUNCH OF CHRISTIANS DO CARE ABOUT GAY LOVE AND MARRIAGE!

(honestly, I think you're drowning on this one)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. if all forms of judgement is wrong then to say a person should stop judging is wrong.

I didn't say that all judging is wrong; I'm saying that judging goes against what the Bible teaches. Whether a person should decide that this means he shouldn't judge depends on how seriously he takes the teachings of the Bible.

Take me: I don't really care what the Bible says one way or the other, so I don't feel bound by this teaching at all.

Christianity is not built on this premise and reckognize there are different forms of judgement. As you stated there are different ways to judge, but not all forms portray a sin.

The kind where you try to tell a gay person to stop being gay is all about you judging homosexuality to be sinful. This is precisely the sort of judgement that Romans 14 is talking about.

a gm analysing his pizza makers and ensuring all employees meet their time requirement is assessing their action, not the person themselves.

for example, ted was slow making his pizzas. we are assessing an action. gm can say, "ted i dont like the way you make that pizza."

but what is wrong is when gm say, " dang ted was slow. He must be mentally slow." this we can identify is wrong.

same is true for all things. there is a difference between.
" i saw ted steal today, I should ask him to stop."

vs.

" I saw ted stole today. that guy is a scoundral. never trusted him."

Neither statement is supported by the Bible. The Gospels describe Jesus's teaching about how to deal with people who steal from you:

29 To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away.

2. from this we can examine what is taught. For christianity, all forms of judgement is not bad. instead, to judge another persons heart is identified as being different than other sorts of judgement, like in a crime - determining guilty vs not guilty.

in order to maintain society. some sort of judgement must occur. so we need to identify which is okay vs. not.

The passage in Romans is specifically talking about the sort of judgement where one person decides that another person is sinning.

3. telling anyone they are in the wrong is okay. everyone else here has done this already.

telling a person they are damned and dirty low lifes is not okay. this is what is often ment by "judging a person."

context must also be clear then when speaking on these matters.

The whole point of that passage in Romans 14 is that if you tell people that they are in the wrong, then you are playing God. God knows whether they're doing right or wrong, and he's more than capable of correcting their behaviour without your - quite possibly mistaken - "help".

 

[Prestor John]

Sorry for the delay in response. I have been on assignment.

If he doesn't take special orders.

So, you believe that the woodcarver has no say concerning special orders?

He can’t opt out to cross over a line into what he considers offensive like that one baker in Colorado?

She should have made these cakes. And then once the transaction was finished, declared the HRC's or ACLU's gratitude for the donation.

But she won the case.

The same judicial system that destroyed one baker for his unwillingness to do what he felt was offensive claimed that her refusal to complete the cakes was justified.

You believe that she should have been forced to complete those cakes, even though she did not agree with their anti-LGBT sentiment?

If my standards were mandated, people would be too well educated in school to accept a single story from the Bible as true.

This is called intolerance. It is hatred. You hate Christians and their beliefs. You are intolerant of them. You want them and their beliefs to disappear. These are your true colors.

This is the reason why I claimed that you were “projecting” when you claimed that the baker “hated” homosexuals.

Your actions might be motivated by intolerance and hatred, but that is not necessarily the case for everyone else. You simply assume that everyone is as hate filled and intolerant as you are.

All this baker desired was to not be associated with something he found immoral and offensive. He never claimed that he wanted homosexuals to disappear or for them to change their lifestyle.

Your desire, on the other hand, is for those who disagree with you to be silenced. You want them to go away. You want their lifestyle, beliefs and culture to be destroyed.

That baker is way more tolerant than you are.

I know. But that is a part of society. No one can ever entirely get their way…

Yet, that is what you and other homosexuals are fighting for.

You don’t just want to get married, but you want people to accept that your marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage, regardless of their personal beliefs regarding marriage.

You want people who disagree with you to shut up and do as you tell them or go away.

You cannot handle people disagreeing with your lifestyle. You cannot tolerate anyone disagreeing with you at all.

And here you are so hypocritically trying to force your concept of “equality” upon those you disagree with while being unwilling to place it upon yourself.

Why won’t you accept that other people’s lifestyles will differ from your own and that you might not entirely get your way?

…no one's personal beliefs have any business guiding public policy, and it is ultimately for the greater good of society if people cooperate rather than bickering over such petty things.

I agree.

So, why does that homosexual couple believe that their lifestyle choices should guide public policy and rather than cooperate with the baker, they decided to bicker over this petty thing?

You remember when I brought up the idea of military service and a person’s religious beliefs against violence?

You said in post #893,

“We in America are privileged enough to have a large enough population that volunteer for it that we don't really need mandatory conscription.”

I replied to that by saying in my last post,

“Kind of like how we have so many bakers who are willing to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings that we don’t need to force bakers who don’t want to bake them into baking them?”

If you believe that the idea that there are many other people willing to do what another person is unwilling to do because of their religious beliefs works for those who oppose violence, why can’t you also apply that idea to this scenario?

Aren’t there lots of other bakers willing to do what this initial baker was not willing to do due to his religious beliefs?

Aren’t we privileged enough in America to “have a large enough population that [would] volunteer [to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding] that we don't really need [to force a particular baker to bake a wedding cake in violation of his religious beliefs]”?

You claimed that this idea worked for those who have religious beliefs against committing acts of violence, so why can’t it also work for those who have religious beliefs against participating in same-sex marriage?

You can’t you operate consistency and without hypocrisy?

You serve the public, you serve the public.

A private business does not offer public services.

A private business chooses who they wish to do business with.

No service should be provided at the expense of someone’s rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

No special privileges, no special excuses, no special laws. You serve the public.

Yet, homosexuals are demanding special privileges, excuses and laws.

They wanted marriage when many people do not believe that they qualify for it.

They want to be able to cry “discrimination” whenever something does not go their way.

They want to use their lifestyle choices as a means of receiving special treatment.

If that is what they believe, there is nothing wrong with that example. They don't want to participate in gay marriages, fine. No one is forcing them to rent out their church anyways.

You don’t get to decide what level of participation they believe is appropriate.

The baker felt that his baking a wedding cake for that celebration was him participating in gay marriage.

You not considering that to be him participating is irrelevant, he felt that it was.

You cannot dictate what someone’s beliefs are.

Good. It was written for a world that lived and died centuries ago.

If you are at all upset with the fact that Trump won the election, you cannot blame anyone but yourself and others like you.

The United States of America is one of the (if not the most) tolerant countries.

It is the Constitution that makes the U.S. so tolerant.

It is the Constitution that makes the U.S. great.

How about you go visit one of those countries that executes homosexuals and then tell me how intolerant America is. It is the Constitution that makes the U.S. so tolerant.

Instead of trying to change my country, why don’t you go somewhere else?

It doesn't work like that. We have proof the Bible was used to justify slavery. Because this is documented, it is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

We also have proof that slaver-owners were making a lot of money. It is documented.

Then thus god does change is not eternal.

God’s commands may change as the conditions upon this world change.

I may tell my son when he is four that he cannot cross the street alone, but won’t that rule be subject to change as he grows?

Do the eventual changes to that rule change me, his father, somehow?

How does God changing His commands somehow change Him? How is that proof that He changes or is not eternal?

 

[Prestor John]

When it comes to owning humans as property, there is no such thing as "superior."

That is demonstrably false.

They could be beaten as severely as the master wanted just as long as they weren't killed. The Ottomans afforded Christians and Jews far more legal tolerance than the Christians showed Jews and Muslims (and often other Christians), but it was still hardly ideal or even praiseworthy.

Who claimed that any form of slavery was “ideal” or “praiseworthy”?

All I said was that slavery in Ancient Israel was superior to other forms of slavery.

If you believed that I was saying it was “ideal” or “praiseworthy” you were woefully mistaken.

Why? If god is truly omnipotent, he could have just given them an a humane law and protected Israel from the others who were the barbarians.

You do not understand the nature of God and His relationship with His children.

I don't assume hatred. When you make it your business for no other reason than your religious views, especially to the point of wanting to deny basic human rights, it is hatred.

How is claiming that you assume hatred an argument against the idea that you assume hatred?

Why do you assume that someone’s “religious views” have to be grounded in hatred?

Why do you feel that you can disregard someone’s religious views?

Why don’t you value someone else’s freedom to believe in and practice what they would like as much as how you value your own freedom to do such?

Buying a cake from a particular baker is not a “basic human right.”

As I said before, you are blurring all these lines and are trying to conflate this issue with others.

It’s like claiming that everything is “rape”. It confuses what rape actually is and delegitimizes actual cases of rape.

Not every disagreement is a denial of someone’s “basic human rights”. All that argument does is prove to me that you don’t know what actual “basic human rights” are.

When you go out of your way to judge and condemn, it is hatred.

The baker did not judge or condemn anyone.

You see how you are unable to handle the idea of someone disagreeing with you?

To you, anyone that disagrees with homosexuality and “same-sex marriage” is someone who is judging and condemning others. You assume this without any proof.

You assume this because you are projecting your own intolerance and hatred.

Not only that, but who are you to even talk? Didn’t you just claim above that if you had your way you would brainwash everyone into not believing in the Bible?

Aren’t you judging and condemning all Christians and Christian beliefs?

You are a hypocrite. You continually judge others for the very things that you yourself do. You tell others to do things that you are not yourself willing to do.

I can’t think of anything worse to be than a hypocrite.

When you tell people they are wrong and their love is an abomination, that is hatred.

How do you figure that?

Wouldn’t you tell a pedophile that they are wrong and that their desire for romantic love and sexual congress with children is not abominable?

You are too immature to live in a world where someone disagrees with you. You can’t handle it.

Rather than applying some empathy and trying to see the situation from a new perspective, you instantly try to shut down those who disagree with you be claiming that they hate and are intolerant.

That is the most hateful and intolerant way to live.

If you break the law, if you take a stand, you need to be ready for whatever comes your way.

So you believe that what happened to those who disagreed with Hitler was justified.

You agree with what happened to Rosa Parks and to all other people who disobeyed the Jim Crowe laws.

That is good to know.

No…

Wait a minute.

Didn’t you just try to claim above that buying a cake was a “basic human right” and now you are here claiming that buying a cake is not a right?

It is this inconsistency and hypocrisy that proves that you don’t really care about “basic human rights.”

You only care about “homosexual privileges” and doing whatever you can to snub Christianity.

You are willing to say or do anything, no matter how inconsistent or hypocritical it may be, to justify your hatred and intolerance and push your agenda.

…but if you serve the public and deny certain members of the public, you are denying them a civil liberty, one that has already been addressed and ruled: A business cannot legally discriminate.

Well, apparently it can because that one baker was allowed to not do as the customer instructed and she refused to participate in something she found distasteful.

She was not discriminating against the customer. She just did not want to do anything she found offensive.

I still claim that that homosexual couple was not discriminated against.

The baker was willing to do business with them. Their sexual orientation was not an issue. However, when they asked him to participate in a practice he found offensive, he had to draw the line.

A doctor who refuses to perform circumcisions or sexual transition surgeries because of his deeply felt views concerning genitalia mutilation is not discriminating against male infants or transgendered peoples.

A woodcarver who does not want to carve any religious symbols, icons, images or persons because of his disapproval of organized religion is not discriminating against religious people.

A baker who does not want to be associated at all with a same-sex wedding, which includes baking and decorating a wedding cake for the occasion, because he believes the practice violates his religious views is not discriminating against homosexuals.

Anyone who claims that these are examples of discrimination is wrong.

Why should a community not band together for defense?

It is naïve to believe that an active defense is always the option to an invasion.

Invading a city is one thing, but invading that city when everyone is trained to defend it, that is another situation [altogether].

That still does not always make an active defense a viable option.

You still did not answer my questions concerning your authority to judge who is or is not worthy to live in such a community or any of the criteria for how you would make that judgment.

Does it really matter when you are protecting yourself, your loved ones, and your community?

It seems to matter to you.

You were the one who claimed that someone may not be worthy to live in a community based on how they performed during a supposed invasion.

You believe that you are a privileged minority that can force other people to agree with you.

You believe that those who disagree with your lifestyle should shut up and do as you tell them or go away.

You want any ideology that disagrees with your own to disappear.

You hate the very things that make the U.S. great and tolerant.

You have been consistently inconsistent, hypocritical and intolerant during this discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry for the delay in response. I have been on assignment.

So, you believe that the woodcarver has no say concerning special orders?

He can’t opt out to cross over a line into what he considers offensive like that one baker in Colorado?

But she won the case.

The same judicial system that destroyed one baker for his unwillingness to do what he felt was offensive claimed that her refusal to complete the cakes was justified.

You believe that she should have been forced to complete those cakes, even though she did not agree with their anti-LGBT sentiment?

This is called intolerance. It is hatred. You hate Christians and their beliefs. You are intolerant of them. You want them and their beliefs to disappear. These are your true colors.

This is the reason why I claimed that you were “projecting” when you claimed that the baker “hated” homosexuals.

Your actions might be motivated by intolerance and hatred, but that is not necessarily the case for everyone else. You simply assume that everyone is as hate filled and intolerant as you are.

All this baker desired was to not be associated with something he found immoral and offensive. He never claimed that he wanted homosexuals to disappear or for them to change their lifestyle.

Your desire, on the other hand, is for those who disagree with you to be silenced. You want them to go away. You want their lifestyle, beliefs and culture to be destroyed.

That baker is way more tolerant than you are.

Yet, that is what you and other homosexuals are fighting for.

You don’t just want to get married, but you want people to accept that your marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage, regardless of their personal beliefs regarding marriage.

You want people who disagree with you to shut up and do as you tell them or go away.

You cannot handle people disagreeing with your lifestyle. You cannot tolerate anyone disagreeing with you at all.

And here you are so hypocritically trying to force your concept of “equality” upon those you disagree with while being unwilling to place it upon yourself.

Why won’t you accept that other people’s lifestyles will differ from your own and that you might not entirely get your way?

I agree.

So, why does that homosexual couple believe that their lifestyle choices should guide public policy and rather than cooperate with the baker, they decided to bicker over this petty thing?

You remember when I brought up the idea of military service and a person’s religious beliefs against violence?

You said in post #893,

“We in America are privileged enough to have a large enough population that volunteer for it that we don't really need mandatory conscription.”

I replied to that by saying in my last post,

“Kind of like how we have so many bakers who are willing to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings that we don’t need to force bakers who don’t want to bake them into baking them?”

If you believe that the idea that there are many other people willing to do what another person is unwilling to do because of their religious beliefs works for those who oppose violence, why can’t you also apply that idea to this scenario?

Aren’t there lots of other bakers willing to do what this initial baker was not willing to do due to his religious beliefs?

Aren’t we privileged enough in America to “have a large enough population that [would] volunteer [to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding] that we don't really need [to force a particular baker to bake a wedding cake in violation of his religious beliefs]”?

You claimed that this idea worked for those who have religious beliefs against committing acts of violence, so why can’t it also work for those who have religious beliefs against participating in same-sex marriage?

You can’t you operate consistency and without hypocrisy?

A private business does not offer public services.

A private business chooses who they wish to do business with.

No service should be provided at the expense of someone’s rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Yet, homosexuals are demanding special privileges, excuses and laws.

They wanted marriage when many people do not believe that they qualify for it.

They want to be able to cry “discrimination” whenever something does not go their way.

They want to use their lifestyle choices as a means of receiving special treatment.

You don’t get to decide what level of participation they believe is appropriate.

The baker felt that his baking a wedding cake for that celebration was him participating in gay marriage.

You not considering that to be him participating is irrelevant, he felt that it was.

You cannot dictate what someone’s beliefs are.

If you are at all upset with the fact that Trump won the election, you cannot blame anyone but yourself and others like you.

The United States of America is one of the (if not the most) tolerant countries.

It is the Constitution that makes the U.S. so tolerant.

It is the Constitution that makes the U.S. great.

How about you go visit one of those countries that executes homosexuals and then tell me how intolerant America is. It is the Constitution that makes the U.S. so tolerant.

Instead of trying to change my country, why don’t you go somewhere else?

We also have proof that slaver-owners were making a lot of money. It is documented.

God’s commands may change as the conditions upon this world change.

I may tell my son when he is four that he cannot cross the street alone, but won’t that rule be subject to change as he grows?

Do the eventual changes to that rule change me, his father, somehow?

How does God changing His commands somehow change Him? How is that proof that He changes or is not eternal?

Seems like your issue goes deeper than just same-sex wedding cakes; you're objecting to the whole idea of anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, you believe that the woodcarver has no say concerning special orders?

If the woodcarver takes no special orders, they take no special orders.

The same judicial system that destroyed one baker for his unwillingness to do what he felt was offensive claimed that her refusal to complete the cakes was justified.

Different states, different judges. However, I did state my position.

You believe that she should have been forced to complete those cakes, even though she did not agree with their anti-LGBT sentiment?

Yes. She serves the public.

This is called intolerance. It is hatred. You hate Christians and their beliefs. You are intolerant of them. You want them and their beliefs to disappear. These are your true colors.

I don't hate Christians. However, I see the Bible as nothing but evil. Misogyny, slavery, genocide, there is nothing "holy" about it.

Yet, that is what you and other homosexuals are fighting for.

Homosexuals are fighting for equality under the law. That is not a special privilege or right.

So, why does that homosexual couple believe that their lifestyle choices should guide public policy and rather than cooperate with the baker, they decided to bicker over this petty thing?

Asides from religious objections, there are no valid reasons for banning same sex marriage. Religious policy has no place running a state.

A private business does not offer public services.

They are indeed providing goods and services to the general public.

A private business chooses who they wish to do business with.

They can cater to certain a certain client base, but they can't refuse someone on the basis on a number of different things.

Yet, homosexuals are demanding special privileges, excuses and laws.

Equality under the law is not a special privilege.

They wanted marriage when many people do not believe that they qualify for it.

Religious beliefs have no place running a state. Homosexuals should not be banned from getting married just because some Christians have a problem with (many, infact, have no problem with it and support it as a right).

The baker felt that his baking a wedding cake for that celebration was him participating in gay marriage.

He wasn't participating in it, and there is nothing to support his decision in the Bible.

It is the Constitution that makes the U.S. so tolerant.

"Tolerance" is giving the right to vote to more people than just white property owning men. Tolerance is not counting a human being as 3/5 a person.

We also have proof that slaver-owners were making a lot of money. It is documented.

That doesn't change the fact they were demanding their so-called "god given right" to slavery.

That is demonstrably false.

There is no superior form of slavery. No matter how you dress it up, no matter how you do it, it is one of the greatest evils we can do to another person.

Who claimed that any form of slavery was “ideal” or “praiseworthy”?

You said Jewish slavery was "superior," despite the fact those slaves were still property and could be severely beaten, married to whom their master desired, and were considered property.

You do not understand the nature of God and His relationship with His children.

That is nothing more than an excuse. If a parent is abusive, we press charges and sometimes even remove the children from the custody of the parent.

How is claiming that you assume hatred an argument against the idea that you assume hatred?

When you want to strip someone of equality under the law, it is hatred. That is not love, that is not tolerance, it is hatred and seeing that group as "unworthy" and "undeserving" of the full privileges and rights of citizenship.

The baker did not judge or condemn anyone.

Yes, the baker did judge by claiming that a homosexual marriage is wrong.

Wouldn’t you tell a pedophile that they are wrong and that their desire for romantic love and sexual congress with children is not abominable?

I wouldn't be going on about how god finds it detestable, and that they are an abomination, and how horrible they are. They are still human beings, and still deserving of being treated well and with dignity.

You are too immature to live in a world where someone disagrees with you. You can’t handle it.

I handle it quite often. You, on the other hand, seem to not be able to stand it, at all, when equality is granted to a group your religion has taught you to view as "lesser than" and not worthy of equality under the law.

So you believe that what happened to those who disagreed with Hitler was justified.

What I'm saying is if you brake the law, you need to be ready for the consequences. Whether the law is just or not is a different issue.

Didn’t you just try to claim above that buying a cake was a “basic human right” and now you are here claiming that buying a cake is not a right?

No, if you look back, I have been using the terms rights, liberties, and privileges. I do not use these terms interchangeably as they are not interchangeable. In this case, I have been using the term "liberty" or "civil liberty" to describe the act of going to a store to purchase a good or service. Legally, for things such as sex, race, ethnicity, national origin, military status, religion, creed, and so on, businesses cannot refuse service. You are not only denying civil liberties, you are denying the right to full protection and equality under the law.

 

[Prestor John]

Seems like your issue goes deeper than just same-sex wedding cakes; you're objecting to the whole idea of anti-discrimination laws.

If the woodcarver takes no special orders, they take no special orders.

Different states, different judges. However, I did state my position.

Yes. She serves the public.

I don't hate Christians. However, I see the Bible as nothing but evil. Misogyny, slavery, genocide, there is nothing "holy" about it.

Homosexuals are fighting for equality under the law. That is not a special privilege or right.

Asides from religious objections, there are no valid reasons for banning same sex marriage. Religious policy has no place running a state.

They are indeed providing goods and services to the general public.

They can cater to certain a certain client base, but they can't refuse someone on the basis on a number of different things.

Equality under the law is not a special privilege.

Religious beliefs have no place running a state. Homosexuals should not be banned from getting married just because some Christians have a problem with (many, infact, have no problem with it and support it as a right).

He wasn't participating in it, and there is nothing to support his decision in the Bible.

"Tolerance" is giving the right to vote to more people than just white property owning men. Tolerance is not counting a human being as 3/5 a person.

That doesn't change the fact they were demanding their so-called "god given right" to slavery.

There is no superior form of slavery. No matter how you dress it up, no matter how you do it, it is one of the greatest evils we can do to another person.

You said Jewish slavery was "superior," despite the fact those slaves were still property and could be severely beaten, married to whom their master desired, and were considered property.

That is nothing more than an excuse. If a parent is abusive, we press charges and sometimes even remove the children from the custody of the parent.

When you want to strip someone of equality under the law, it is hatred. That is not love, that is not tolerance, it is hatred and seeing that group as "unworthy" and "undeserving" of the full privileges and rights of citizenship.

Yes, the baker did judge by claiming that a homosexual marriage is wrong.

I wouldn't be going on about how god finds it detestable, and that they are an abomination, and how horrible they are. They are still human beings, and still deserving of being treated well and with dignity.

I handle it quite often. You, on the other hand, seem to not be able to stand it, at all, when equality is granted to a group your religion has taught you to view as "lesser than" and not worthy of equality under the law.

What I'm saying is if you brake the law, you need to be ready for the consequences. Whether the law is just or not is a different issue.

No, if you look back, I have been using the terms rights, liberties, and privileges. I do not use these terms interchangeably as they are not interchangeable. In this case, I have been using the term "liberty" or "civil liberty" to describe the act of going to a store to purchase a good or service. Legally, for things such as sex, race, ethnicity, national origin, military status, religion, creed, and so on, businesses cannot refuse service. You are not only denying civil liberties, you are denying the right to full protection and equality under the law.