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.
Great news, over $200,000 raised in support for Sweet Cakes. Even more proof that I am not on a desert island in my beliefs here. Many people out there are against this ruling. 11,000 likes on facebook already.
I fail to see the relevance. Ok, so you think they are hypocrites. That doesn't change the fact that the government demanded that they perform an action that they personally felt violated their moral beliefs. You can think those beliefs are messed up, but it is still their personal religious beliefs and the 1st amendment guarantees us that government will not make a law restricting our free exercise of religion. Well it did here and punished them severely.
As a Christian, I would certainly feel uncomfortable if a gay couple asked me to perform a service for their same sex wedding. Especially during a time where it was not even legal in that state. How could I be discriminating against something that didn't even exist at the time? If a divorced person asks for a cake, I don't feel it is my moral obligation to investigate and find out their background. If they told me the cake was to celebrate adultery like a same sex wedding is a celebration and commitment to continue living a sinful lifestyle then I would probably feel the same level of discomfort and not want to bake it.
I really don't understand how you don't understand the relevance. How is it not hypocritical of YOU to claim that it's a valid reason not to serve a gay customer because as Christians you don't want to dishonor God by participating in a sinful union, but be perfectly fine with KNOWING that it is virtually guaranteed by the statistics that someone selling wedding cakes is participating in adulterous and "unholy unions" of heterosexuals? You are fine with dishonoring your God on behalf of heterosexuals, but not on behalf of gays.
Unfortunately, that is true but if you are a vocal representative for them, you may be in league with the congregation of The Westboro Baptist Church.
That should make your little fundie heart pitter-patter with joy.
I have been quite clear in past posts that I deplore the actions of Westboro and they share nothing with the beliefs of the Baptist church, but I guess that won't stop you from making up whatever fiction you need in order to paint us as the bad guys. Do you believe we all wear black hats and twiddle our mustaches with an evil grin too?
I really don't understand how you don't understand the relevance. How is it not hypocritical of YOU to claim that it's a valid reason not to serve a gay customer because as Christians you don't want to dishonor God by participating in a sinful union, but be perfectly fine with KNOWING that it is virtually guaranteed by the statistics that someone selling wedding cakes is participating in adulterous and "unholy unions" of heterosexuals? You are fine with dishonoring your God on behalf of heterosexuals, but not on behalf of gays.
Because the issue isn't whether or not you think their objections are justified. Since you are extremely supportive of homosexuality, it is a pointless debate anyways because you would never understand why they objected in the first place. Who are you to decide when a Christian's moral convictions are justified or not? Based on a statistic of probability? And that ignores my point that someone who is remarrying can be forgiven and renewed in their new relationship just like someone who has sex outside of marriage isn't in a constant state of sinning. A gay marriage is a constant state of rebelling against God's design.
I fail to see the relevance. Ok, so you think they are hypocrites. That doesn't change the fact that the government demanded that they perform an action that they personally felt violated their moral beliefs. You can think those beliefs are messed up, but it is still their personal religious beliefs and the 1st amendment guarantees us that government will not make a law restricting our free exercise of religion. Well it did here and punished them severely.
As a Christian, I would certainly feel uncomfortable if a gay couple asked me to perform a service for their same sex wedding. Especially during a time where it was not even legal in that state. How could I be discriminating against something that didn't even exist at the time? If a divorced person asks for a cake, I don't feel it is my moral obligation to investigate and find out their background. If they told me the cake was to celebrate adultery like a same sex wedding is a celebration and commitment to continue living a sinful lifestyle then I would probably feel the same level of discomfort and not want to bake it.
The government demands that all obey the laws, irrespective of their personal beliefs.
Great news, over $200,000 raised in support for Sweet Cakes. Even more proof that I am not on a desert island in my beliefs here. Many people out there are against this ruling. 11,000 likes on facebook already.
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.
They will send you a newsletter and a photo to you to frame. 
