Uh...that kind of confirms my point. It's the Church of England. That's like buying your great aunt's estate at a frigging barn sale.
Baking Cakes for Homosexual Couples
- Thread starter Volts
- Start date
- Status
Uh...that kind of confirms my point. It's the Church of England. That's like buying your great aunt's estate at a frigging barn sale.
IMJerusha
New member
And how have I disappointed you?..by standing on Scripture? "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Matthew 18:17
"Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds." 2John 1:9-11
You said they wouldn't want to force a church, and they would force a church and they will when they can get away with here too even though there are 'church' groups that are ok with gay marriage, they will seek to be married in the ones that arent to force it like they force other things.
IMJerusha
New member
Genuine was right on. Consider Ezekiel 3:18-19 "When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself.…" Not only is it loving to warn someone living in sin, it is self preserving.
No, what I asked was why anybody would want the church.
The church of what?
Freaks? Tea Party open-carry idiots? Homophobes? Neo-Confed racists? Nutters? Deniers? Morons who keep on punching out kids like movie tickets?
Seriously, the rate you guys are going, nobody's gonna wanna buy you at a silent auction.
Praise the Lord.
IMJerusha
New member
"No shirt, no shoes, no service." As long as that one sticks, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" will also stick. How about this?..."payment is due at the time of service, no exceptions, no terms" or "cash only, no checks accepted" or "no smoking". You can not force businesses to tolerate behaviors of the public simply because they are businesses that service the public. Notice I used the word "service" and not "serve".
genuineoriginal
New member
The Bill of Rights wrote protection of a person's ability to practice his religion into the very first amendment.
There is no constitutional right to force a businessperson to take your money.
:think:
if i'm required to serve the whole public, wouldn't it be only fair that the whole public be required to frequent my business?
musterion
Well-known member
Nothing short of having Luke 13:3 and Acts 16:31 iced on it would be "effective" for the sodomites.
Oh, and an update on the reasonableness and charity of the modern atheist:
http://christiannews.net/2014/08/29...iscount-despite-atheist-pressure-bomb-threat/
PureX
Well-known member
The practice of your religion stops at that point when it does harm to others.
There is no constitutional right that says a business person can lie to and cheat his customers in the name of religion, which is what you want to do. And for the hundredth time, no one is being FORCED to do anything. If you don't want to do business with certain members of the public, don't open your business up to the general public.
It's perfectly simple. There is no force involved. It's your own choice as to what kind of business you want to operate. But you aren't allowed to misrepresent your product or services and cheat people out of their money to time. Even if you think that's what God wants you to do.
GFR7
New member
Well, if you are serious and not merely rhetorical in what you've written, I certainly don't want any part of the bolded above. Leave that for the hate-filled people (like aCW: I would far rather join Tracer's camp than to deal with his venomous contempt for humanity).
I simply thought if civil unions could give them all the benefits, the matter could be resolved satisfactorily. To me, it seemed like some sort of vengeance on their part to push things this far, and not good for either side. I am not a hate-filled person and if anything I sympathize too deeply with gays and all minorities, if I must confront them face-to-face, and not with words typed on a keyboard.
To me, this has become a war of preservation of tradition VS the revisionists.
It is all about ideology and territory, I think. :think:
musterion
Well-known member
Anyone here disgusted by this outcome?
http://christiannews.net/2014/08/30...efusing-to-host-gay-wedding-shuts-down-venue/
Or does anyone here consider it a good, just outcome?
http://christiannews.net/2014/08/30...efusing-to-host-gay-wedding-shuts-down-venue/
Or does anyone here consider it a good, just outcome?
PureX
Well-known member
The weird thing about this last comment, is that you seem to imagine that ideology somehow transcends the confines of our own minds and has taken on some sort of life of it's own. And it doesn't. It can't. And especially in this case.
If our respect and appreciation for the equality of individual rights in this country has surpassed our desire to feel superior by practicing bigotry (in this instance, anyway), it's not happening because some evil spirit has taken over the minds of the people. It's happening because people have come to this general realization, each as individuals, and then the collective result is that the rules of society are changing to reflect that change in attitude.
The only way these changes can effect religious bodies that want to maintain their traditional religious bigotry is if the members of that body begin to change in their own minds and hearts. There is no threat from the "outside". There is no external pro-gay demon to fight. Ideology is an internal issue. And no one can make anyone else believe something or not believe it. We choose to believe as we do of our own free will.
The conservative Christian's enemy isn't the "gay agenda" because the gay agenda can't change anyone's mind about anything. It's their own conscience.
GFR7
New member
I was upset at that ruling, yes, and look at this:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/29/c...t-gay-wedding-shuts-down-venue/#ixzz3Bt9aNGmz
GFR7
New member
I understand this last very well. It is the fear of the effects on norms of permanence and fidelity - already ravished by heterosexuals and their no fault divorce - and the affects on future generations, that is the crux.
PureX
Well-known member
There are no "norms of permanence and fidelity". Life is change. Times change. People change. Conditions change. Everything changes.
Therefor, everyone has to be able to adapt to the changes sooner or later, if they want to survive. I realize that conservatives don't like this thought, and that they will instinctually fight against it. But the truth is that adaptability is just as valuable a quality as resistance is.
When Christians were being confronted with their blatant racism, and the social changes that came with that confrontation, they didn't like it. And the more 'conservative' they were, the more they resisted those changes. Some are STILL resisting them.
Now Christians are being confronted with their blatant moral bigotry, and the social changes that are coming with that confrontation. And they don't like it, either. The more conservative they are, the more they will resist facing it and accepting the changes that come with it. But the changes will keep coming never-the-less. Because that's how life is. And many of those changes will be for the better, in the end, even though the conservatives can't see that, now.
- Status