Why do Christians accept adulterers' weddings but not same-sex weddings? (worship, homosexuality)
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.
Read the actual article, I included it in another thread.
The cake was custom ordered. As in "can you make this cake show us doing this..." Thet were also from Massachussetts, holding the reception there for some reason. Thgey literally did not know how things worked and were trying to stir up trouble. Oh btw, at thge time, gay marriage wasnt even legal in Colorado, COINCIDENTALLY the very next year it was. So what they were doing may have been to break a law, they ruined his business, destroyed his reputation, all for what seemed to be a vendetta against Christian businesses (reference again the fact that they were about 20+ states away) .
Why do they accept adulterer's weddings? Besides the fact that they dont advertise the fact like a badge of honor so they dont know? Its because adulterers dont ask for custom cakes.
Funny, I don't remember an article that said that the cake was custom ordered. Are you sure you are not conflating the article that you posted which did not mention that at all with the OPINION piece that stated that if they had done so there would have been a good basis for the baker to deny the CUSTOM work?
Here is my reply to that post, you can follow the trail back to that post to refresh your memory:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
[/list]The first article is factual, stating that the baker simply refused to bake a cake. The second article is an opinion piece saying essentially what I said, that IF it were about custom decorations the baker would be within his rights. That was not addressed or decided in the case as far as I can tell, and so the opinion stands.
If you have something that indicates that the case WAS about custom decoration and not just a wedding cake bring it out.
Last edited by nateswift; 10-23-2017 at 01:07 PM..
You would have a long wait as I do not remember you even asking for that. Nor have you answered what an annex is. You did claim that I was ignoring the facts so I listed all the facts that i was aware of in this case and your response was to bring up a religious belief.
For an argument I am going to paraphrase the former Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin back in 2005 when our Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to prohibit ssm.
As a devout Catholic I was adamantly opposed to SSM on religious grounds but then I viewed it as a human rights issue and how can one be against human rights.
To me that is by far a better argument than
My religious beliefs are against it so everyone must follow what I believe.
There is a nice book with a title something like the secret life or the history of same sex marriage. It is a book based on scholarship and research. As thete are SSM in Christian churches you may wish to take the religious debate up with them, I point out the legal points which you have for some reason declared your Supreme Court as making an unlawful decision and have implied that the judge in the case took a bribe. So if it was a legal discussion why bring your religion into play? Even if this forum is about Christianity the law of the land is not.
You are being disrespectful.
I clearly stated this is a legal discussion.
And ive given all the facts and parameters involved with the case.
First the issue is same sex union.
Before someone is to establish a legal standing of right and wrong.
The same sex union will have to be looked at from a legal perspective. An annex is a loose term i personally used to describe the current ruling of same sex union.
1; Marriage) is already established in the Legal system and all definitions accordingly)
-male and a female
-18 yrs or older
This is the question that arises all suspect actions against civil rights.
Marriage is between a man and woman.
And is the foundation of the framework of all subsequent Laws pertaining to the governing system.
Meaning the Definition was already established within the framework of the U.S governing Laws.
So with the established framework already in place defining marriage as between a man and woman, a well placed and firm foundation gives credence to what the judicial rulings should rest on. The constitution being already established also in describing Treason is a well established foundation and has a framework for prosecuting. The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
The supreme justices 9 siting judges are given the duty to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.
And if a said judge attempted to strip one amendment from the constitution this would be an act of treason.
A perversion of justice of the highest for a Nations liberty.
Yes but that was not what happened. It was due to the Constitution that a law was struck down as violating said Constitution. None of what you accused the SCOUS of is rational or relavent. Obviously you strongly disagreed with the Courts decision but your accusations are outrageous nor did they touch an ammendment nor the body of the Constitution.
Yes but that was not what happened. It was due to the Constitution that a law was struck down as violating said Constitution. None of what you accused the SCOUS of is rational or relavent. Obviously you strongly disagreed with the Courts decision but your accusations are outrageous nor did they touch an ammendment nor the body of the Constitution.
Now we are getting somewhere
Jurisdiction. And what Law exactly was struck down?
You are being disrespectful.
I clearly stated this is a legal discussion.
And ive given all the facts and parameters involved with the case.
First the issue is same sex union.
Before someone is to establish a legal standing of right and wrong.
The same sex union will have to be looked at from a legal perspective.
Your Supreme Court did look at it from a legal prespective. States had too with both SSM and same sex unions. It was discussed legally since at least 2005 when it became legal in MA. The Court ruled in favor of SSM after hearing the arguments for and against. Your side spoke but did not prevail.
You never presented facts of the caee, you kept on stating the law was unlawful and finally when off the rails with the treason and ammendments stuff which you are totally wrong about.
I am disrespectful? That is rich coming from one who changed my handle for some unknown reason, accused a judge of being crooked, stated that there could be no argument against what you said, accused justices of the Supreme Court of treason and will not answer questions. I have been totally civil to you even as you have constantly changed the conversation. I sure do not have to respect your accusations, your failure to be forthright or your unwillingness to explain yourself when asked.
Why do Christians accept adulterers' weddings but not same-sex weddings?
The issue seems to arise because secular Marriage which conveys legal rights and benefits to a union in our society is confused with Holy Matrimony which is the consecration of a union under the auspices of a particular religion. Marriage is licensed under secular law and authority. Holy Matrimony is consecrated under religious law, tradition, and custom. That is why there are usually two sets of documents involved and the rituals themselves vary so widely across the religious spectrum.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Which they did but you claimed unlawful. Under the 14th laws banning ssm are unconstitutional, that was the ruling now live with it. There are no requirement for you to have them in your church but they are legal throughout the land. Case closed.
Your Supreme Court did look at it from a legal prespective. States had too with both SSM and same sex unions. It was discussed legally since at least 2005 when it became legal in MA. The Court ruled in favor of SSM after hearing the arguments for and against. Your side spoke but did not prevail.
You never presented facts of the caee, you kept on stating the law was unlawful and finally when off the rails with the treason and ammendments stuff which you are totally wrong about.
I am disrespectful? That is rich coming from one who changed my handle for some unknown reason, accused a judge of being crooked, stated that there could be no argument against what you said, accused justices of the Supreme Court of treason and will not answer questions. I have been totally civil to you even as you have constantly changed the conversation. I sure do not have to respect your accusations, your failure to be forthright or your unwillingness to explain yourself when asked.
Which they did but you claimed unlawful. Under the 14th laws banning ssm are unconstitutional, that was the ruling now live with it. There are no requirement for you to have them in your church but they are legal throughout the land. Case closed.
Legally, no it isnt.
Jurisdiction
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Which they did but you claimed unlawful. Under the 14th laws banning ssm are unconstitutional, that was the ruling now live with it. There are no requirement for you to have them in your church but they are legal throughout the land. Case closed.
Same sex unions were only denied a marriage licence.
Because Marriage is defined as between a male and female of 18yr old.
So Where is a valid argument for the Supreme court to even hear the case.?
Corruption the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased. A perversion of Justice
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.
Why do Christians accept adulterers' weddings but not same-sex weddings?
