Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Try reading sometime. In this, and/or other baking threads, I already explained that the gay cake request (I picked the Colorado one, there are several) happened when a couple not from Colorado but from Massachussetts, boarded a plane and came to Colorado, where gay marriage WASN'T legal at the time, and demanded a wedding cake. The man, rightly declared that he could make them a wedding cake but not an explicitly gay wedding cake (with rainbow colored tiers etc). This was THEIR demand, which they traveled probably 13 states to harass a guy who just wanted to finish his day.
I have had days like this, where customers are totally impatient and unreasonable. Just because ppl think it's my fault doesnt make it my frault. It makes its yours. Your circus, your monkeys, your elephants. So yeah kindly go back to Massachussetts if you want gay marriage, go back to Saudi Arabia if you want Sharia law.
There is nothing about Rachel and Leah being "half-sisters" in the Bible. In fact some tradition has it that they were twins. Both women brought their handmaidens or younger sisters (depending on source) for Jacob to sleep with as well. So much for "one man, one woman."
For all your praise of Jesus living as a complete Jew you appear to be more ignorant than me with how Jews view this problem of marrying sisters:
---------------------------------
"This week’s Parshah contains an account of Jacob’s four marriages, all (according to Rashi) to daughters of Laban. Now this appears to contradict the traditional view that Jacob (together with Abraham and Isaac) kept all the commandments of the Torah despite the fact that G‑d had not yet given them to Israel—out of a combination of personal zealousness and a prophetic knowledge of what the law would be; for marriage to two sisters is later prohibited. Rashi seems to offer no explanation of the difficulty, and the Rebbe considers a number of possible solutions, eventually reconciling the apparent contradiction, and drawing out the moral implications of the story.
Jacob’s Wives
An important and well-known principle about Rashi’s commentary on the Torah is that his policy is to answer all the difficulties which are apparent in construing a literal interpretation of the verses. And when he cannot find an answer on this level, he will note the difficulty and add, “I do not know” how to resolve it. When there is a difficulty which Rashi does not even point out, this is because the answer is obvious, even to a five-year-old (the age when a Jewish child begins to study the Torah).
It is therefore very strange that we find in this week’s Parshah a puzzling fact, that has preoccupied many commentators, and which Rashi not only does not explain but of which he appears to take no notice at all.
We are told that Jacob married both Rachel and Leah, and later Bilhah and Zilpah, all daughters of Laban. Now since we have a tradition that the forefathers kept the entire Torah, even though it had not yet been given—how can it be that Jacob married four sisters, when we are told,1 “You shall not take a woman to her sister”—that is, one may not marry the sister of one’s wife?
Perhaps we could say that Rashi does not comment on the problem because when the “five-year-old” learns this Parshah, he does not know that Jacob’s act was forbidden (for the law does not appear until Vayikra (Leviticus), and the child has not yet reached that book). However, this will not do, for Rashi does not explain the difficulty even later on.
Alternatively, it is possible that Rashi felt that, amongst the many explanations of the point given in other commentaries, there was one sufficiently obvious enough that he was not bound to mention it. But this also will not explain his silence. First of all, there are many disagreements among these other commentators, so the explanation is not obvious; and second, they are not explanations of the literal meaning of the text—which is therefore still wanting." (Taken from Chabad.org)
----------------------------------
Neither can one find any prohibition in the Bible for a man to refrain from having sex with an unmarried woman!! It does seal of "sexual immorality" but the change in many English language Bibles is to improperly call that fornication. Fact is, no one knows for certain what sexual immorality may have stood for with one exception----adultery.
With regard to the four sisters or two sisters and two handmaidens that Jacob took to bed, one can only state that the lineage of Jesus came from a seriously dysfunctional family. The honest argument, if honesty is able to creep into your view of life as mirrored by Jesus, is that multiple spouses will sooner or later cause multiple problems. No need to create a fictional bible story to make it God's "command." Just look how messed up Jacob's family became.
Learn something about Judaism other than how many feasts you should keep in order to be "obedient," sans the love.
I forgot about them it's true....I was thinking of someone else. Still, my main point remains, and that is hat men didn't always keep the law but the word is reported faithfully.
At least you're starting to read something other than fairy tales. Peace
It's interesting to note that some of the most conservative christian states in the land have no prohibition against people having sex with animals. Texas is the Big one, but include KY, WV, WY and D.C. , maybe Hawaii as well. Lots of Bible believers in those states!
If gay people can't marry, let's refuse to let heterosexual couples divorce! After all, the Bible states that God hates divorce and we do want to be "righteous" don't we?
G-d never joined them in the first place, so it's not a problem. Peace
This is what is called squick factor. I may be cool with it, you may be cool with it, but it's up to the baker. If he gets creeped out by it, and you force him to do it anyway, then yes, that makes you an *******. Just as if you went to an atheist's place of business and do something against his personal feelings would be a POS move.
Equivalency, equivalency, you must learn equivalency! What is good for one group must be good for another, or it isn't good for anyone.
Committed nothing. You're making an automatic assumption. If we are holding to the view that homosexual relationships are real relationships, and not random dalliances, this still leave the fact that we cannot assume a given couple is any more faithful than the average het player. Besides which, why can't one have a committed relationship with a dog? What about man's best friend?
I demand creature marriage rights! (No, not really) I will come to your place of business, and demand you bake a cake for me and Rover. You must do it! No? Then stop giving me grief. You have no equivalency.
Try reading sometime. In this, and/or other baking threads, I already explained that the gay cake request (I picked the Colorado one, there are several) happened when a couple not from Colorado but from Massachussetts, boarded a plane and came to Colorado, where gay marriage WASN'T legal at the time, and demanded a wedding cake. The man, rightly declared that he could make them a wedding cake but not an explicitly gay wedding cake (with rainbow colored tiers etc). This was THEIR demand, which they traveled probably 13 states to harass a guy who just wanted to finish his day.
I have had days like this, where customers are totally impatient and unreasonable. Just because ppl think it's my fault doesnt make it my frault. It makes its yours. Your circus, your monkeys, your elephants. So yeah kindly go back to Massachussetts if you want gay marriage, go back to Saudi Arabia if you want Sharia law.
I get this .... why does militant always want to make everyone else as miserable as they are..
We are told that Jacob married both Rachel and Leah, and later Bilhah and Zilpah, all daughters of Laban. Now since we have a tradition that the forefathers kept the entire Torah, even though it had not yet been given—how can it be that Jacob married four sisters, when we are told,1 “You shall not take a woman to her sister”—that is, one may not marry the sister of one’s wife?
AH wait . you have bad translations issues or something wrong going on..
the bull nations and others kept a female clan system going back to eve..
you were not to marry you same female clan which means your own sister or any woman from your own clan. this is like marrying yourself.
so if he married all four sisters they all could have had different mothers or other female clans lines than he was.
so there is many definitions not considered which are in other cultures states as "sisters "but could be completely different materlineal clans.. we don't know because it doesn't say.. Mary and Elizabeth were "clans women".. that wasn't about levi or judah .. but they were also tracing materlineal lines of descent. these relations came from the ancient bull nations of sea people and the Family of JOB's 7 sons and 3 daughters .. there was also other female lines of inheritance at the establishment of the land that was given to females also .. surely those ladies lines were being tracked and the land inherited accordingly . so there was probably many female lines of descent that were being recorded for inheritances purposes.
sister can also mean a clans woman and or half sisblings and . it can means lots of things I don't even know now ...
so maybe in that case different clans woman than him .. but all daughters of Laban and maybe not have been full sisters even all having different mothers( and clan).
inbreeding is marrying your own female clan line and that shouldn't be done unless you are a perfect Adam and Eve.. because that is really inbreeding. I mean Adam and Eve were marrying themselves broken in two. this also means that they genetically would match perfectly.
in a fallen world this creates problems , but maybe in a perfect world finding your broken half is the Father's plan of perfection, and we don't know that yet.
so you are drawing conclusions from assumptions you can' t make to judge God or man from anyway. sisters means many things.. . by doing that you only prove mankind's ignorance on all subjects pertaining to history , genetics and social systems and cultures . and the truth of even how genetics works is still not known ..
Lev 18:6
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Lev 18:7
The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:8
The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Lev 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Lev 18:10
The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
Lev 18:11
The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:12
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
Lev 18:13
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
Lev 18:14
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
Lev 18:15
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:16
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
Lev 18:17
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Lev 18:18
Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Lev 18:19
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Lev 18:20
Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
Lev 18:21
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Lev 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 18:23
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Lev 18:24
¶
Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Lev 18:25
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Lev 18:26
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
you wouldn't want to VEX her with anyone ever . especially her own family , as they are supposed to be her support.. . much less to pit her against her sister or her clans woman or her mother or her aunts ......I don't think the point is not about sisters but about getting even and being vengeful to your WIFE... you want a miserable wife and a miserable Life.. do stuff like that !!! that is the abomination . and even in the new testaments says God says he will not answer your prayers if you frustate your wife..
I suggest that if two sisters in that time wanted to marry the same man to be each others nurse and friend and thus to help raise
their babies together , I say let it be. the point of that scripture is a about a husband vexing , to VEX .... I don't think it about them being sisters. because even in the new testament doing that to your wife is a curse.
Try reading sometime. In this, and/or other baking threads, I already explained that the gay cake request (I picked the Colorado one, there are several) happened when a couple not from Colorado but from Massachussetts, boarded a plane and came to Colorado, where gay marriage WASN'T legal at the time, and demanded a wedding cake. The man, rightly declared that he could make them a wedding cake but not an explicitly gay wedding cake (with rainbow colored tiers etc). This was THEIR demand, which they traveled probably 13 states to harass a guy who just wanted to finish his day.
I have had days like this, where customers are totally impatient and unreasonable. Just because ppl think it's my fault doesnt make it my frault. It makes its yours. Your circus, your monkeys, your elephants. So yeah kindly go back to Massachussetts if you want gay marriage, go back to Saudi Arabia if you want Sharia law.
Try reading and researching the replies to your false statements, There is NO indication that the bakers refused service for a "gay" cake and said he WOULD make a cake that did not give any indication of a single sex union. Repeating the lie does not make it true.
As for "equivalency" why is it SO hard for you to understand that the anti-discrimination laws, including those concerning sexual orientation where they are in force, have been made for those PARTICULAR classes of people BECAUSE of the pervasive inequity forced on those classes of people?
Try reading and researching the replies to your false statements, There is NO indication that the bakers refused service for a "gay" cake and said he WOULD make a cake that did not give any indication of a single sex union. Repeating the lie does not make it true.
As for "equivalency" why is it SO hard for you to understand that the anti-discrimination laws, including those concerning sexual orientation where they are in force, have been made for those PARTICULAR classes of people BECAUSE of the pervasive inequity forced on those classes of people?
and we are supposed to be that the 'COUPLE" WASN'TBEING MILITANT ? I SUGGEST YOU MAKE A POLE AND SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE BUY INTO THAT LOAD.
OF COURSE THEY WERE BEING MILITANT/FLAMING AND WAY OVER THE TOP JUST TO MAKE IT INTO A NARSISSISTIC DREAM COME TRUE.. THUS TURN IT A BIG DEAL AND THEN A WHINE FEST.. .AND A LAWSUIT EVEN ..
IF THEY HAD DONE THAT AGAINST A RACE OF PEOPLE WHO WERE THE STORE OWNERS , INSTEAD OF A BELIEF OF PEOPLE , IT WOULD BE CALLED GENOCIDE AND HARASSMENT AND THE GAYS WOULD BE THE ONES BEING SUED !! OH BUT BECAUSE IT WAS DONE TO CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE TO TURN THE OTHER CHEEK (ACCORDING TO ATHEISTS) ... NOW THE MILITANTS THINK THEY GOT BY WITH IT.
Try reading sometime. In this, and/or other baking threads, I already explained that the gay cake request (I picked the Colorado one, there are several) happened when a couple not from Colorado but from Massachussetts, boarded a plane and came to Colorado, where gay marriage WASN'T legal at the time, and demanded a wedding cake. The man, rightly declared that he could make them a wedding cake but not an explicitly gay wedding cake (with rainbow colored tiers etc). This was THEIR demand, which they traveled probably 13 states to harass a guy who just wanted to finish his day.
I have had days like this, where customers are totally impatient and unreasonable. Just because ppl think it's my fault doesnt make it my frault. It makes its yours. Your circus, your monkeys, your elephants. So yeah kindly go back to Massachussetts if you want gay marriage, go back to Saudi Arabia if you want Sharia law.
Sorry sir, your facts are wrong. The couple IS from Colorado and they went to the bakery with one man's mother to get the cake. They had to fly to Massachusetts because, while Colorado has a law against sexual orientation discrimination, the State had not yet legalized same sex marriage at the time of the incident. Like most people, they just wanted to celebrate with family and friends and wouldn't have dreamed of inviting their cake baker to their celebration. That's an ego problem of fundamentalist Christians--thinking everything is about them.
The baker didn't even wait to hear what the couple wanted on the cake before telling them he wouldn't do it.
Quote:
Conservatives often argue that cases like these that allegedly impose on “religious liberty” are the consequence of marriage equality passing, but Colorado doesn’t have marriage equality. The judge notes that this actually proves that the discrimination is based on the couple’s identity:
Nor is the ALJ persuaded by Respondents’ argument that they should be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages because Colorado does not do so. Although Respondents are correct that Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriage, that fact does not excuse discrimination based upon sexual orientation. At oral argument, Respondents candidly acknowledged that they would also refuse to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony or a civil union, neither of which is forbidden by Colorado law. Because Respondents’ objection goes beyond just the act of “marriage,” and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, it is apparent that Respondents’ real objection is to the couple’s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage.
Cakes Do Not Constitute “Speech”
Though the judge was sympathetic that cakes require artistry, he dismissed the idea that they constituted speech. In this case, the bakery refused to provide the cake before the couple could even specify what would or would not be on the cake, thus there is not even any speech to consider:
Like many who have homophobic religious beliefs, facts and existing laws don't appear to matter in the least.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 11-17-2017 at 11:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peace
Peace
