Gay writer makes the case for the baker in the gay-wedding culture war

[homersapien 11,362]

43 minutes ago, 17-16 said:

The goal of ALL Christians should be not to live as we are......sinners.

Who are you to be determining homosexuals are sinners for being born homosexual and acting as themselves?

 

[17-16 21]

I am sure you misunderstood me. I didn't intend to sound judgemental. I was not pointing at any group. Actually just the opposite. We are all sinners and will be as long as we are in this flesh. This flesh is corrupt and entered this world that way (Psalm 51:5) To live as we are is to follow the flesh, which is corrupt. Everyone of us, regardless of how we may be divided up, is in this same condtion. I am sorry if anyone thought I was pointing fingers, I was suggesting we all are in a struggle against "What comes natural".

[triangletiger 1,599]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 1:19 PM, McLoofus said:

Yes. They more or less dictate that people not hurt each other. That's why gay marriage was finally legalized. Unlike you, the law usually draws a distinction between what is actually wrong and harmful and what simply made some dudes feel uncomfortable in the desert a couple millenia ago. 

My only disapproval is of those who would prevent other consenting adults from experiencing love just because of their own hangups. And shaming doesn't occur unless somebody's actually ashamed. Feel free to vent. 

I suppose a legal case could be made, but I'm suuuuper comfortable with my stance, which I didn't require a book to dictate (or justify). 

Because he doesn't tolerate them. Refer back to the definition that was already provided.

Possibly so, but you haven't proven it here. 

It seems to me that you are presupposing/asserting that that book is merely of human origin.  What if it really is divinely inspired (of course, this would require believing in the reality of the divine)? 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, triangletiger said:

It seems to me that you are presupposing/asserting that that book is merely of human origin.  What if it really is divinely inspired (of course, this would require believing in the reality of the divine)? 

If Christians have it right, then I am very happy for a lot of friends and loved ones.

[triangletiger 1,599]

10 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

If Christians have it right, then I am very happy for a lot of friends and loved ones.

Are you an ‘apatheist’?

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

Are you an ‘apatheist’?

I don't know what that is. 

I am neither religious nor spiritual.

[homersapien 11,362]

4 hours ago, 17-16 said:

I am sure you misunderstood me. I didn't intend to sound judgemental. I was not pointing at any group. Actually just the opposite. We are all sinners and will be as long as we are in this flesh. This flesh is corrupt and entered this world that way (Psalm 51:5) To live as we are is to follow the flesh, which is corrupt. Everyone of us, regardless of how we may be divided up, is in this same condtion. I am sorry if anyone thought I was pointing fingers, I was suggesting we all are in a struggle against "What comes natural".

Seriously?   You totally missed my point. 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

4 hours ago, triangletiger said:

It seems to me that you are presupposing/asserting that that book is merely of human origin.  What if it really is divinely inspired (of course, this would require believing in the reality of the divine)? 

Well, this "cuts to the chase".    

[homersapien 11,362]

2 hours ago, McLoofus said:

If Christians have it right, then I am very happy for a lot of friends and loved ones.

Actually, "having it right" has nothing to do with their happiness.  Their happiness is founded on believing they "have it right".

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

This ruling was consistent with 95% of SCOTUS rulings.... it was narrow. Anyone who cares for democracy knows that’s how SCOTUS rulings should be (e.g., avoid overreach). The lower courts will continue to chew on it. The larger anticipated issue (LGBTQ rights) will remain static until proponents can attain success via the proper route, which is legislation... if that is in fact what society wants. 

[triangletiger 1,599]

9 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I don't know what that is. 

I am neither religious nor spiritual.

An apatheist is someone who finds the question of whether God(s) exist unimportant.

[triangletiger 1,599]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

Actually, "having it right" has nothing to do with their happiness.  Their happiness is founded on believing they "have it right".

 

I took @McLoofus‘s post to be referring to the next life, or hereafter.

[triangletiger 1,599]

Anyway, I fear that I maybe getting this post off-track.  I agree with @homersapien in one regard: the long-term outcome of this ruling  may not prove to be a ‘win’ for Christianity, and may serve to further polarize our society.  However, I’m inclined to agree with the ruling, if for no other reason than to rule otherwise moves us further in the direction of limiting our first amendment rights.  These are not easy questions to sort out, and, as a Christian, I wrestle with them.  

 

Consider a similar scenario:  Suppose there is a strident anti-theistic building contractor (think someone in the mold of Richard Dawkins) who believes that religion is the main source of great evil in the world.  If a a church comes to him with a proposal to build them a new building for their worship services, should he be forced by the government to do so?

[McLoofus 35,182]

56 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

I took @McLoofus‘s post to be referring to the next life, or hereafter.

Yup.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, triangletiger said:

An apatheist is someone who finds the question of whether God(s) exist unimportant.

Gonna go ahead and TL;DR something I didn't even bother to type, because I might still be typing it tomorrow:

Too many people have spent too much time thinking about and acting on whether or not there is a higher power for it not to be important. 

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Gonna go ahead and TL;DR something I didn't even bother to type, because I might still be typing it tomorrow:

Too many people have spent too much time thinking about and acting on whether or not there is a higher power for it not to be important. 

 

That is the obvious end result of contemplating mortality.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, Strychnine said:

That is the obvious end result of contemplating mortality.

Wondering if there's something after? As natural as breathing. 

The extent to which one wonders and the conclusions one draws are a much different conversation IMO. Especially since, for many, the question is answered very early on and therefore might cease to be important. But ceasing to be important for a given individual does not alone render the question unimportant. IMO. 

[homersapien 11,362]

3 hours ago, triangletiger said:

I took @McLoofus‘s post to be referring to the next life, or hereafter.

I understand.  And you make my point.

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

Wondering if there's something after? As natural as breathing. 

The extent to which one wonders and the conclusions one draws are a much different conversation IMO. Especially since, for many, the question is answered very early on and therefore might cease to be important. But ceasing to be important for a given individual does not alone render the question unimportant. IMO. 

 

I was not suggesting that the question was unimportant.  On the contrary, the question has a lot to do with the past, present, and future of human civilization.

[triangletiger 1,599]

14 hours ago, McLoofus said:

If Christians have it right, then I am very happy for a lot of friends and loved ones.

 

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Actually, "having it right" has nothing to do with their happiness.  Their happiness is founded on believing they "have it right".

 

 

3 hours ago, triangletiger said:

I took @McLoofus‘s post to be referring to the next life, or hereafter.

 

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I understand.  And you make my point.

 

So, is your point an assertion that there is no hereafter?  If so, it misconstrues the point that McLoofus was making and confuses the conversation.

[McLoofus 35,182]

19 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

I was not suggesting that the question was unimportant.  On the contrary, the question has a lot to do with the past, present, and future of human civilization.

Cool. We're mostly saying the same thing. 

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, triangletiger said:

So, is your point an assertion that there is no hereafter?  If so, it misconstrues the point that McLoofus was making and confuses the conversation.

Whatever.  There's no way of knowing there is a "hereafter".  But lot's of people find happiness in believing so, which was my point. 

But for what's it worth, I did "misconstrue" McLoofus's point. My statement was a non sequitur. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

On 6/5/2018 at 10:10 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

This ruling was consistent with 95% of SCOTUS rulings.... it was narrow. Anyone who cares for democracy knows that’s how SCOTUS rulings should be (e.g., avoid overreach). The lower courts will continue to chew on it. The larger anticipated issue (LGBTQ rights) will remain static until proponents can attain success via the proper route, which is legislation... if that is in fact what society wants. 

I agree that SCOTUS handled this properly. If the Baker had taken the position I will not serve a homosexual the baker would have lost and rightly so. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the Baker's religious belief's they are his belief's re-enforced by the teaching of his church. he took a stand on a very narrow part of his business and since there were ample choices for the homosexual couple to get the cake of their dreams there was no damage done to the couple. The baker made it very clear that he did serve members of the LBGT community and would continue to do so but would make an exception for this one area that impacted his religious belief's.