GoFundMe Shuts Down Camapign for Christian Bakers Asked to Pay $135,000 Fine.....

[TracerBullet]

Gosh, you should tell some of my friends that.
Yes, I do have gay friends. Does that surprise you?

do they consider you their friend?

 

[Foxfire]

Oh, what am i wrong about there? Back it up with scripture.

The ones asking Christ to stone her, were with sin, because they didnt follow the law and bring the man. Hence they were in violation of the law also. Then they left, and there were no longer any witnesses to condemn her:

Deuteronomy 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

Do you not understand the the subtle nuances between;
a)The ones asking Christ (multiple)
b)A single witness (singular)

You are citing a passage that demands multiple witness' and are simultaneously condemning multiple witness' for violating that passage.

Tinkertoy argumentation.

Put this with that to say something entirely different.

 

[TracerBullet]

As I told you before, you gravely insult a very great many good, upstanding Christian men and women who just happen to be of African descent when you compare their battle for equal rights with this nonsense of "gay marriage".

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.
"My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, 'We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... an inescapable network of mutuality,... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.' “I’ve always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy.”
“For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law. I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.

MLK had a dream...it was not a "wet dream".

how can you say sick and hateful things like this and still pretend that you act out of love?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Do you not understand the the subtle nuances between;
a)The ones asking Christ (multiple)
b)A single witness (singular)

You are citing a passage that demands multiple witness' and simultaneously condemning multiple witness' for violating that passage.

Tinkertoy argumentation.

Put this with that to say something entirely different.

I quoted the law itself on it. You need another argument. You lost this one. Deal with it.

 

[TracerBullet]

There is a mixed couple living across the street from me...wonderful people. They have an adorable little boy.
If you were to tell the father of that family that the fight for his people to share basic human rights with white people is in any way comparable to the battle for "gay marriage", you'd be waking up in a hospital with a tube up your nose.

and a generation ago this couple would have been hounded and condemned by their good Christian neighbors

 

[TracerBullet]

since when is a business not allowed to use the owner's discretion as to refusing service to someone?

you mean like this gentleman is doing?

 

[TracerBullet]

What I'm trying to tell you is that you insult decent Christians with your nonsense of trying to compare their battle with the current nonsense about "gay marriage".
Some of them are even more upset at the thought of exposing their children to people like you.

If I were you, I'd keep this stupid opinion to myself if I happen to find myself among African American Christians. Ya feel me?

Her opinion isn't stupid and I say that as an African American Christian

 

[TracerBullet]

Seems they didn't know their bible then or the difference between indentured servitude and slavery by kidnap (forced)

The bible is clear on the forced kind.

Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

Revisionist history.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. Leviticus 25:44-46

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. Exodus 21:2-6

 

[Angeltress]

xzz

 

[TracerBullet]

xzz

this is the smartest thing you have said here so far

 

[Foxfire]

I quoted the law itself on it. You need another argument. You lost this one. Deal with it.

Muahahahahaha You can't dodge your own (miss) quotes that easily.


You said;

Oh, what am i wrong about there? Back it up with scripture.

The ones asking Christ to stone her, were with sin, because they didnt follow the law and bring the man. Hence they were in violation of the law also. Then they left, and there were no longer any witnesses to condemn her:

Deuteronomy 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed

You quoted Deuteronomy 19:15 as your citation which has nothing to do with anything in this conversation.

Deut. 22:22-24 “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.”

Nothing here places the witness' in a state of sin for bearing witness.(by the law). This condemns both defendants equally, but makes no provision for exact protocol as to who is stoned first.

I am fairly certain that (at least most of) those in attendance at the time were far more knowledgeable on contemporary Mosaic law than yourself and nowhere is there a citation that backs up your hypothesis that the witness' were in violation of that law.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Muahahahahaha You can't dodge your own (miss) quotes that easily.


You said;

You quoted Deuteronomy 19:15 as your citation which has nothing to do with anything in this conversation.

I cited the laws on stoning and relevant laws on what should happen when one is caught in adultery, too bad you are not honest enough to cite those quotes too.

Since you've shown your integrity is something to be questioned clearly now, there is no need to continue a conversation with you. I don't like wasting my time. :wave2:

Youve been refuted on this one.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Actually Christ followed the law to the letter and failed in no point of it.

Perhaps you should learn some better debate tactics, like actually knowing what you are discussing.

Galations 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.…

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

Correct me if I am mistaken, oh wise and wonderful master of debate, but the way in which he kept the law was not quite in the manner in which it was prescribed.

John 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

*side note. Even though we are not likely to ever agree on this issue, I must still applaud you for at least attempting to articulate your position in a scriptural context.

No, actually He followed the law there, the man was not brought to be stoned also- then when it was said and done, she had no witnesses, and it would have required at least 2, in addition to the man being there.

Lev. 20:10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

They only brought the woman before Christ and were guilty of not fulfilling the Law of Moses by bringing the man as well.

Deut. 22:22-24 “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.”

Got anything better than what appears to be snippets off an atheism 101 slam site? Or would you like to keep showing you don't know that of which you speak?

No, I'll leave that to you.

Oh, what am i wrong about there? Back it up with scripture.

The ones asking Christ to stone her, were with sin, because they didnt follow the law and bring the man. Hence they were in violation of the law also. Then they left, and there were no longer any witnesses to condemn her:

Deuteronomy 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

 

[Foxfire]

I cited the laws on stoning and relevant laws on what should happen when one is caught in adultery, too bad you are not honest enough to cite those quotes too.

Since you've shown your integrity is something to be questioned clearly now, there is no need to continue a conversation with you. I don't like wasting my time.

Youve been refuted on this one.

Impuning my integrety is a cowardly retreat to avoid fessing up to your own miss quotes. IMO Bring em. I'm not stopping you.

 

[Rusha]

Thank you.
I'm not a Black American, however, I know plenty of them, and I know that they do not like to have their long and weary struggle to rise from slavery to equality compared with some foolish notion that "gay is okay".

Gay is not okay ... for YOU. Good thing no one requires your approval, huh?

As far as I know, there are no places like the one in the picture that say "Straight only"...there are no segregated bathrooms labeled "straight" and "gay"...although perhaps there ought to be, I know if I were a guy I might be a bit leery of exposing myself in front of gay men...no drinking fountains labeled "straight only" or "gay", or any such thing. No one is telling gay folks that they have to go to the back of the bus. No one is telling them that they have to send their kids to an inferior school rather than let them mingle with straight kids.

How generous.

You let me know when you see a bunch of people dressed up in sheets lynching a gay person, and I will fight beside you to stop them.

Oh ... do you see anyone getting lynched? Did I mention anyone getting lynched? Nope. Didn't happen. Now, since you desire to use this "it's not the same as black people comparison" feel free to dismiss my outrage that blacks cannot marry anyone who is not black. They are only allowed to marry within their *color scheme*.

What this thread is about is whether or not a bakery that was clearly labeled as being Christian had the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a pair of lesbians. Utterly ridiculous.
In the first place, who in their right mind would want their wedding cake done by someone who had to be forced to do it?
In the second place, there are plenty of bakeries who would love to cater such an affair. I suspect the only reason they raised so much sand about it was for the publicity. And, as we see....it worked.

*Sigh* Insofar as the law is concerned, I would not have required the bakery owners to provide the cake. However, my reason is not based on the hatred of any select group, but rather because I am inclined in most cases to side with business owners rather than their customers. It's about censorship and seeing a policy that, IMO, gives more leverage over the person who put their hard work and money into the business. A cake is not an emergency.

FTR, if it were just some random gay couple, I would bake the cake just as I would for anyone else. The only thing that would cause me to refuse a service to anyone would be personal dislike for a specific reason.

By personal, I mean I wouldn't bake a cake for my ex-mother-in-law (a Christian) or certain types of criminals/predators/abusers.

 

[Delmar]

You're simply making a tinker toy construct. Put this snippet with that snippet to make a statement that otherwise does not exist.

That is NOT what Christ used as reasoning for his action. If it were, I'm quite sure that would be duly reflected in John 8.

If you want to use scripture to put words in Christ's mouth, please use the words that came FROM His mouth.

Not at all. The Law stetes clearly that it takes 2 or three witnesses to convict. Jesus pointed out that exact fact when He asked "where are your accusers?" Jesus followed the Law to the letter in that matter.

 

[Delmar]

You mean just like wearing clothing made from more than one material? Or Mowing your lawn on Sunday? Adultry? All of which were crimes subject to immediate death by stoning?

Christ left the stone(ing) age behind. So should you.

You are confused about many things, including the day of the week.

 

[Foxfire]

Not at all. The Law stetes clearly that it takes 2 or three witnesses to convict. Jesus pointed out that exact fact when He asked "where are your accusers?" Jesus followed the Law to the letter in that matter.

Thank you for your reiteration of my very point.

Oh, what am i wrong about there? Back it up with scripture.

The ones asking Christ to stone her, were with sin, because they didnt follow the law and bring the man. Hence they were in violation of the law also. Then they left, and there were no longer any witnesses to condemn her:

Deuteronomy 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

Do you not understand the the subtle nuances between;
a)The ones asking Christ (multiple)
b)A single witness (singular)

You are citing a passage that demands multiple witness' and are simultaneously condemning multiple witness' for violating that passage.

Tinkertoy argumentation.

Put this with that to say something entirely different.

 

[Foxfire]

You are confused about many things, including the day of the week.

I respect that some observe a different day of Sabbath than others.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I am fairly certain that (at least most of) those in attendance at the time were far more knowledgeable on contemporary Mosaic law than yourself and nowhere is there a citation that backs up your hypothesis that the witness' were in violation of that law.

You don't know anything about Mosaic law, do you?

Jesus acted in accordance to the written Law and did nothing in violation to the written Law.