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.
How about if all of your wedding cakes have a male groom and female bride.
Should you have to make a cake with two females or two males on it?
If you're a baker who will make wedding cakes for dogs, as the baker in question did, it seems that any objection along the lines that he only makes cakes for straight male-female human couples is awfully convenient.
After I posted an explanation, I really don't understand why you posted this:
I'm not going to bother repeating all the times it has been posted in these forums that polygamy, pedophilia, and even bestiality have been clearly shown to be entirely unrelated to SSM. It becomes very difficult to converse with you when you omit things that have already been discussed.
Why isn't it? It's simply one person's definition of love and marriage. If you're going to be consistent, you need to answer the question.
Quote:
Since bigotry seems to come up from time to time, I thought it might be good to have the dictionary definition.
From dictionary.com:
bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Sure, no one it telling him what to believe. But being religious doesn't mean you get to ignore the law.
But we do get to practice our religion.
Quote:
And there are plenty of businesses this religious guy could go into that don't require him to be around icky gay people. Guess which option doesn't have someone violating civil rights laws?
I don't know that it has anything do with being gay. I'm sure he's served plenty of gay customers. It's tha they didn't believe in gay marriage.
Quote:
Yeah, sure, just like black people in the 60s demanding to be served at whites-only stores were bigots and harassing the fine upstanding businessmen who ran those shops.
It's been said repeatedly that gay <> black skin color. They are 2 different things. If you are going to persist in this silly statement, I'll have to apply the definition of bigotry that was posted by someone else.
Quote:
If you feel the need to advocate for these causes, go ahead. Strange you'd bring them up, though, since no one else seems to be worried about them.
Why do you feel the need to trample our religious rights?
Yep, within the confines of the law. Unless of course you are arguing that if a Church believed in stoning unwed mothers, that should also be allowed based on religious conviction...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Why do you feel the need to trample our religious rights?
Quite frankly, becasue the hypocritical position on rights that you advocate, namely that the law does not apply if religious principle is involved, will destroy our nation. If religion is a defense against malfeasance, then you are setting up the United states for a series of bloody holy wars, and I think too highly of the balance struck in our nation to want to start removing constitutional protections so that you can stand in judgement of people you believe God hates.
Yep, within the confines of the law. Unless of course you are arguing that if a Church believed in stoning unwed mothers, that should also be allowed based on religious conviction...
No one is suggesting such nonsense.
But we are arguing that the Bible actually be used to determine sinful behavior.
Quote:
Quite frankly, becasue the hypocritical position on rights that you advocate, namely that the law does not apply if religious principle is involved, will destroy our nation.
No one is suggesting such a thing. But we do have the right to our convictions.
not yet... But you are suggesting a principle that would allow it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
But we are arguing that the Bible actually be used to determine sinful behavior.
Ok, no one is stopping you. You can use the Bible, Muslims can use the Koran, whatever. Not a problem. However sinful does not have any meaning ourside of your specific interpretation of your faith. "Sinful" has no business being relayed to secular law. To argue that that your right to not "support" sin trumps the law is a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
No one is suggesting such a thing. But we do have the right to our convictions.
You are not suggesting it, but if you can for example refuse service to homosexual, refuse to rent to them, etc can you not also do the same for say Jews or Muslims ( all going to hell just like gay people...)?
Going back to the original issue, can someone acting on behalf of a civil authority refuse to provide government services or function to them? Can a Justice of the Peace refuse to marry an interracial couple if it offends her religion? Can a firefighter choose to not respond to fires of those living in a continual sin?
What about a Police officer who feels it is not incumbent on him to investigate crimes against the godless?
It's remarkable that Christians will refuse to do business with homosexuals because of their professed religious convictions, yet Christians never seem to get equally outraged by the other sins listed right alongside homosexuality, those other sins that seem to be quietly, and conveniently, forgotten:
--"Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people — none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."-- (NLT)
Moreover, when it comes to adultery and thievery in particular, those sins are actually prohibited by the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality is not. So where's the wrath and outrage for them?
I don't recall seeing protester signs at military funerals that read "God Hates Adulterers." Imagine a world where Christians directed all that outrage they have for homosexuality towards those who are greedy, abusive, and cheat people, who I believe do more harm. Yet of all the sins listed in 6:9-11, homosexuality is the one that sticks in their craw.
Do you remember when Jimmy Swaggart announced on air that he had committed adultery? I wonder what would have been the reaction if he had instead announced he was gay. Would they have forgiven him as quickly? Keep in mind that according to the Bible, adultery is a very serious sin, and "Swaggart had been with a New Orleans prostitute."
Because what really takes the cake as an example of typical Christian hypocrisy is the following:
"In 2005 Swaggart and a Toronto television station were disciplined over threats Swaggart made on the lives of gays. During a radio broadcast, he said, 'I'm trying to find the correct name for it … this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. … I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.'" Says the adulterer about the homosexual.
When Christians hide behind their faith to justify their hatred for homosexuality, I ask only that they either be honest that they simply hate homosexuality regardless of the Bible, or that they also begin to condemn with equal fury those who commit the other sins listed in 1 Corinthians, some of which are far more harmful to society.
Last edited by Mantronix4204; 06-07-2014 at 03:09 PM..
It's remarkable that Christians will refuse to do business with homosexuals because of their professed religious convictions, yet Christians never seem to get equally outraged by the other sins listed right alongside homosexuality, those other sins that seem to be quietly, and conveniently, forgotten:
--"Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people — none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."-- (NLT)
Moreover, when it comes to adultery and thievery in particular, those sins are actually prohibited by the Ten Commandments. Homosexuality is not. So where's the wrath and outrage for them?
I don't recall seeing protester signs at military funerals that read "God Hates Adulterers." Imagine a world where Christians directed all that outrage they have for homosexuality towards those who are greedy, abusive, and cheat people, who I believe do more harm. Yet of all the sins listed in 6:9-11, homosexuality is the one that sticks in their craw.
Do you remember when Jimmy Swaggart announced on air that he had committed adultery? I wonder what would have been the reaction if he had instead announced he was gay. Would they have forgiven him as quickly? Keep in mind that according to the Bible, adultery is a very serious sin, and "Swaggart had been with a New Orleans prostitute."
Because what really takes the cake as an example of typical Christian hypocrisy is the following:
"In 2005 Swaggart and a Toronto television station were disciplined over threats Swaggart made on the lives of gays. During a radio broadcast, he said, 'I'm trying to find the correct name for it … this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. … I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.'" Says the adulterer about the homosexual.
When Christians hide behind their faith to justify their hatred for homosexuality, I ask only that they either be honest that they simply hate homosexuality regardless of the Bible, or that they also begin to condemn with equal fury those who commit the other sins listed in 1 Corinthians, some of which are far more harmful to society.
I'll tell you right now--- Swaggart is a snake oil salesman. He is disqualified from serving in ministry due to his behavior. Under no circumstances would I suggest anyone listen to him.
Is that good enough?
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.
