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.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16.
I think the main word there is "whoever". I know gay folks that believe in him.
If gays "believed" in him, they would not be engaging in sinful acts. Gays may be born that way and may face temptations to engage in homosexual acts. The temptation is not the sin. Acting on it is. It is no different than a pedophile or a rapist. The devil tempts even torments them, but as Christians they are to resist and avoid the acts, finding relief in prayer. That is what being a Christian demands. One can not choose to commit the sin and claim to be following the rules. One cannot celebrate sin with his labors and be a Christian either.
Wrong. The First Amendment defends bigotry, not hatred.
Stormfront, the KKK, Neo-Nazis and the Westboro Baptist Church are all hate groups. Their hate is protected by the Constitution and upheld in federal court. We might all wish we could force such groups to shut up, but you don't get to choose whose free speech is protected. Like it or not, following is protected by free speech and freedom of religion:
Quote:
That's the point. Freedom of religion guarantees that you may abide by your own beliefs and values within your own skin, within your own families, and within your own worship.
Very nice claim, but where's your evidence? Reality check here. A photographer specializing in group photos has the right to refuse to do a photoshoot of an orgy. Their artistic abilities cannot and should not be something than can be forced. Likewise, a caterer cannot be force to cater a nudist event. If a couple plans on marrying in the nude and then consummating their marriage in front of the entire wedding party right after the I do's then a minister has the right to refuse to be a part of that. If a cake decorator is asked to make a cake of shaped like a human reproductive organ or write profanities on the cake, they have the right to refuse.
So tell me, what is the basis for these cases? Why do these folks have the right to refuse? It's because they are not required to participate in something they think is morally reprehensible. They would be extremely uncomfortable performing their part in such events. There is zero difference between this and providing their services at a gay wedding.
In truth, you can make all the same arguments for a group orgy, a sex-at-the-alter wedding, a penis/vagina cake, etc. that you make in favor of the gay wedding. The only reason a business has any right to refuse in all of these cases is because they have the right to refuse to participate in something they think is morally reprehensible. And yes there are a lot of folks that would be just as uncomfortable involving themselves in a gay wedding as any of these other examples. And by the way, it's got nothing to do with hate in each of these cases, so why is it automatically assumed that refusal of service = hate in the case of a gay marriage?
Why are liberals and the LGBT so keen on forcing people to do things? They seem to believe that if they beat people over the had and force people to do things against their conscience that those people will eventually have a change of conscience. It's exactly the same mentality as a man who plans to kidnap a woman and rape her until she finally realizes that she loves him. It's a completely wrongheaded approach.
If gays "believed" in him, they would not be engaging in sinful acts.
I have faith but yet, when a very attractive woman walks by I think things I doubt would be approved. Is it your position that there are people that never, ever engage in sinful acts? Never boast, never think impure thoughts, never gossip, are never gluttonous? Are never jealous, are never deceitful?
Why not refuse to make a cake for the overweight couple?
Quote:
Gays may be born that way and may face temptations to engage in homosexual acts. The temptation is not the sin. Acting on it is. It is no different than a pedophile or a rapist. The devil tempts even torments them, but as Christians they are to resist and avoid the acts, finding relief in prayer. That is what being a Christian demands. One can not choose to commit the sin and claim to be following the rules. The path may not be easy, but it is clear. One cannot celebrate sin with his labors and be a Christian either.
That is not the role for the government to play though. Would the baker make a cake for a prospective groom that walked in and noted "boy, did you see that lady that just walked past"?
They are providing wedding cakes for those whose wedding doesn't violate their religion. SCOTUS just recently confirmed that business owners have that First Amendment right.
If you're not happy with that, take a case to SCOTUS.
Did SCOTUS say that HL could pick and choose which people they would cover BC for?
I seemed to miss that part.
They are providing wedding cakes for those whose wedding doesn't violate their religion. SCOTUS just recently confirmed that business owners have that First Amendment right.
If you're not happy with that, take a case to SCOTUS.
Quote:
a spokesman for Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian said the decision "did not appear" to affect state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And Jeana Frazzini, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, also argued that it wouldn't affect discrimination cases involving same-sex marriages.
Burr also said Monday's decision "does not appear to have any impact on our ability to protect people from discrimination on the job because of sexual orientation or gender identity."
Frazzini agreed, pointing to language in the decision saying that it does not "provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."
Said bakeries are not picking and choosing which same-sex marriages for which they will or will not provide cakes. You have no point.
They are picking and choosing which MARRIAGES they will provide cakes for, and which customers they will provide cakes for. HL can not pick and choose which employees they will provide BC for.
Said bakeries are not picking and choosing which same-sex marriages for which they will or will not provide cakes. You have no point.
They are picking and choosing which religious tenets they will honor and which they won't. Which makes this a thinly veiled protest against same sex marriage and not a religious freedom fight.
"Grey argued that the decision spoke directly to family-owned businesses involving owners who have sincere religious objections to taking part in a particular activity."
He is correct.
Order a wedding cake from a conglomerate: Albertson's, Harris Teeter, etc., and they won't be able to decline the order:
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.
