Judge: Baker can refuse to make gay wedding cake

[DKW 86 7,441]

You know, maybe we should just quit trying to judge the actions of everyone else in the world. Sheesh. Hell, I know I dont have time for all the judgement. I am weary thinking about what this bakers day must be like.

If you are such a prick that you think you have the right to judge any of your customers, you have the right to go out of business. Some of the people that describe themselves as Christians really dont seem to be to Christ-like. 1) We all sin. Period. No buts, ifs, or maybes about it. 2) When someone tries to convince me that there are different levels of sin, that is my red flag that they are up to no good and are trying to rationalize some sin in their own life.

You know:
"I may be a smoker, but I am not a DRINKER..." 
"I may be an adulterer, but I do not date UNDERAGE girls..." 
"I may be a fornicator, but I am not a HOMO fornicator." 
etc, etc, etc.
FOR THE RECORD, I AM THE MOST SCREWED UP PERSON I KNOW. HANDS DOWN.

Please forgive the preachiness of what follows:
People like that are what run folks away from the truth about Christ. We all sin, and we all fall short of the Glory of God. There are no if, buts, or maybes in the statement. If a man or woman can openly accept that they are just as bad anyone else, guess what? All the judgemental crap is immediately gone. The truth is plain and simple. We all sin. There is no hierarchy of sins. This is a light bulb standard here. You are either Christ...or a sinner in need of Christ. No other options are allowed.

But Dave, I am no Hitler! You dont understand God's Perspective. From God's view, you still failed. We might not be Hitler, we might not have failed as bad as Hitler, but from God's view, WE ALL FAILED JUST LIKE HITLER.

The reason we have failed sssooo badly as the Body of Christ in America is that we have let the judgementalism of some garbage of "hierarchical sins" creep into the message. If you have sinned, (and if you are human, you have sinned), then you missed the mark. If we have all sinned then we are all in the same boat. We are all equal; no one is greater, no one is lesser. 

Back to the baker: Maybe the baker could have done more by not making a huge scene about how pious they are and have slowly worked on becoming a point of Light in the people's lives? From here, they just look like arrogant people no one wants any part of...

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I find it interesting that we’re flinging around accusations of judgmentalism while believing we truly understand the motives and consciences of others.  

[DKW 86 7,441]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I find it interesting that we’re flinging around accusations of judgmentalism while believing we truly understand the motives and consciences of others.  

Absolutely. Why does a baker care what these people are doing? Because they are at some level judging their own sins to be less than the couples'. If we are all screwed up sinners, then all this means nothing. 

Does anyone want to tell the world that the message of Christ is made stronger by all this? How many people are now never going to listen to what any of the Body of Christ has to say in their lives? If you are truly concerned about OTHERS and not your piousness, then you dont do something like this. Can you see Mother Teresa, or any other successful member of the BOC doing this? Of course not. They would not even be looking at the Sin, because they knew they were just as they were. Piously driving away people from the Love of Christ is just another way of purposefully missing the scriptures to cover your own failings. 

When Christ was eating with the tax collectors and the prostitutes was He railing at them about their sins? Screaming at them about hell? NO. He was loving on them as we should too.In all this, many see nothing more than modern day Pharisees. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

15 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Shabby, I think you’re under some misunderstanding, but I can’t talk more right now. I’ll have to pick this back up later this evening. Peace

 

15 hours ago, shabby said:

 you're discriminating against all black people because some are black rappers then you certainly are Prejudice. Again this isn't about a baker refusing services to one specific person in a group. They're refusing services to all and that group. The entire class of people. Because they feel all of them are immoral. That is the very essence of prejudice and discrimination. I do not know how you cannot see that. It might have to do with your personal belief that homosexuality is immoral.

Ok, so let me back up and explain what I'm saying again because I think you've gotten some wires crossed here.

If I choose not to do the photo shoot for a black rapper because of the lyrical content of his music, I am not automatically discriminating against all black people as long as I would do a photo shoot for black people that do not have this content that violates my conscience and religious beliefs.  So if I'd, for instance, do a family photo shoot for this same rapper, or photos for other occasions for other black people such as parties, ceremonies, head shots, etc.  And since the content is what is the issue and not his race or skin color, I'll point out that I would reject an album photo shoot for any musician regardless of race if it contains similarly problematic content.  So I can refuse services to a specific client because of the specific nature of the event or content they wish me to use my talents to celebrate or promote without being discriminatory to the entire class or group of people they happen to also belong to. 

If I reject business from a white nationalist group for one of their events, I'm not being prejudiced against all white people, especially if it is plain to see that I willingly serve other white customers for other kinds of events.

Similarly, if I am willing to do business with gay customers, or even this same gay couple, for other events and occasions, it cannot be legitimately said that I am refusing services to all gay people.  I'll happily use my time, talents and artistic abilities to celebrate events like birthdays, graduations, work events, going away parties and the like for these very same gay customers.  Because just like the rapper or other musician, it's about the specific nature or content of the event they want me to materially participate in, not that I won't serve customers like them.

 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Absolutely. Why does a baker care what these people are doing? Because they are at some level judging their own sins to be less than the couples'. If we are all screwed up sinners, then all this means nothing.

I was actually referring to you presuming to know the hearts and minds of the people doing their best to follow what they believe their consciences are telling them about whether to have their time and talents be utilized to celebrate something that goes against one of the foundational understandings of Christianity and marriage.

 

Quote

 

Does anyone want to tell the world that the message of Christ is made stronger by all this? How many people are now never going to listen to what any of the Body of Christ has to say in their lives? If you are truly concerned about OTHERS and not your piousness, then you dont do something like this. Can you see Mother Teresa, or any other successful member of the BOC doing this? Of course not. They would not even be looking at the Sin, because they knew they were just as they were. Piously driving away people from the Love of Christ is just another way of purposefully missing the scriptures to cover your own failings. 

When Christ was eating with the tax collectors and the prostitutes was He railing at them about their sins? Screaming at them about hell? NO. He was loving on them as we should too.In all this, many see nothing more than modern day Pharisees. 

 

First of all, you're exaggerating.  No one was screaming at anyone about going to hell.

Second, there is nothing that says you can't serve and sacrifice for others in hundreds of ways that don't put you in the position of facilitating or materially participating in something that you believe is wrong and violates your conscience.  Saying "I can't help promote/celebrate this particular event" is not equivalent to being unloving or refusing to eat with sinners.  By the logic you're employing here, you would be saying that even a priest or pastor who said that he couldn't marry someone because it goes against biblical teaching on marriage (gay or straight) is being a Pharisee and that's just poppycock.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

14 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Shabby is just stirring the gravy. I'm starting to wonder if he is even being serious.

I'm actually starting to wonder if it's actually shabby or a friend using his account.  I've had good discussions with him in the past and I don't remember it getting like this.  Even the writing style seems different.

[shabby 1,958]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

 

Ok, so let me back up and explain what I'm saying again because I think you've gotten some wires crossed here.

If I choose not to do the photo shoot for a black rapper because of the lyrical content of his music, I am not automatically discriminating against all black people as long as I would do a photo shoot for black people that do not have this content that violates my conscience and religious beliefs.  So if I'd, for instance, do a family photo shoot for this same rapper, or photos for other occasions for other black people such as parties, ceremonies, head shots, etc.  And since the content is what is the issue and not his race or skin color, I'll point out that I would reject an album photo shoot for any musician regardless of race if it contains similarly problematic content.  So I can refuse services to a specific client because of the specific nature of the event or content they wish me to use my talents to celebrate or promote without being discriminatory to the entire class or group of people they happen to also belong to. 

If I reject business from a white nationalist group for one of their events, I'm not being prejudiced against all white people, especially if it is plain to see that I willingly serve other white customers for other kinds of events.

Similarly, if I am willing to do business with gay customers, or even this same gay couple, for other events and occasions, it cannot be legitimately said that I am refusing services to all gay people.  I'll happily use my time, talents and artistic abilities to celebrate events like birthdays, graduations, work events, going away parties and the like for these very same gay customers.  Because just like the rapper or other musician, it's about the specific nature or content of the event they want me to materially participate in, not that I won't serve customers like them.

 

I understand perfectly what your saying. It doesn't change the fact that you are removing a service from not just a sub-section of that group but the entirety of that group. Your just saying your okay with it. so lets explore that a little a deeper.  Let's look at this example. If a business owner bakes cakes for weddings but personally believes that interracial marriage is wrong. He looks in the bible and finds justifications for that belief. He decides he will not bake any cakes for interracial couples. Lets take the legality of that and place it to one side. Would that be a discriminatory practice in your mind? If so, how does that differ from the baker that refuses to sale to a gay couple?

[shabby 1,958]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm actually starting to wonder if it's actually shabby or a friend using his account.  I've had good discussions with him in the past and I don't remember it getting like this.  Even the writing style seems different.

Are you kidding me? You think because someone sees refusal to provide a service to gay people ( A class I proudly belong to) as a discriminatory practice makes stating that belief irrational? I clearly stated why I believe its a prejudiced viewpoint. You disagree. perhaps it's best if you look a little deeper at your motivations for your viewpoints instead of so casually trying to invalidate mine. I refer you back to the example I just posted.

[SaturdayGT 719]

I understand perfectly what your saying. It doesn't change the fact that you are removing a service from not just a sub-section of that group but the entirety of that group. Your just saying your okay with it. so lets explore that a little a deeper.  Let's look at this example. If a business owner bakes cakes for weddings but personally believes that interracial marriage is wrong. He looks in the bible and finds justifications for that belief. He decides he will not bake any cakes for interracial couples. Lets take the legality of that and place it to one side. Would that be a discriminatory practice in your mind? If so, how does that differ from the baker that refuses to sale to a gay couple?

  Seems a bad example. First of all, its Gods will, not the business owners. If the business owner did this, it would not be serving a religion, it would be serving himself. Christianity defines marriage is to be between a man and a woman, and that is how most Christians see it.  Just my 2 cents...

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, shabby said:

I understand perfectly what your saying. It doesn't change the fact that you are removing a service from not just a sub-section of that group but the entirety of that group.

In that sense, sure - just like the black rapper/musician.  I refuse to allow my talents to be used to facilitate, celebrate or promote products or events with content that violate my religious beliefs and it applies to all black people.  But then it also applies to all white people too.  I will serve them in other ways for other kinds of events, but not that particular one.  But again, I'm not refusing to serve black people because they are black.  I'm refusing to accept business for certain events, projects, etc. no matter who they are.

And I reserve the right to refuse to use my time and talents to materially participate in, facilitate, celebrate or promote heterosexual weddings that violate my religious beliefs too.  So I have the right to refuse to bake a cake or do a photo shoot for a wedding of a woman who cheated on her husband and left him and her kids to marry her (male) lover.  I am under zero obligation to accept business from a polyamorous group celebrating their "union."  The gay wedding falls under the same umbrella.

 

2 minutes ago, shabby said:

Your just saying your okay with it. so lets explore that a little a deeper.  Let's look at this example. If a business owner bakes cakes for weddings but personally believes that interracial marriage is wrong. He looks in the bible and finds justifications for that belief. He decides he will not bake any cakes for interracial couples. Lets take the legality of that and place it to one side. Would that be a discriminatory practice in your mind? If so, how does that differ from the baker that refuses to sale to a gay couple?

Well first, there simply isn't anything in the Bible to justify such a stance.  All one would have to do is point out Moses being married to Zipporah, a dark-skinned Ethiopean, for instance.  And among the plethora of biblical citations one can produce about marriage, never once in any of them is there anything in the restrictions or requirements about race.  Not marrying idol-worshipping pagans that will lure you away from God?  Sure.  Negative narratives about the outcome of men who take multiple wives?  Yeah.  Scolding for men divorcing their wives for reasons other than adultery or abandonment?  Absolutely.  Affirmation that marriage is between one man and one woman?  You bet.  But anything about skin color or race?  Nope. 

In historical Christian teaching on marriage, marriage is a particular thing - a holy union between one man and one woman.  There are many things it is not - a union between a group of 3 or more people, a union between two people where one or both are already married to other people, a union between two people of the same sex, and so on. 

But also, I reject the idea that sexual orientation and race are analogous.  When we speak of needing special protection for race it generally revolves around a few issues:  immutability, moral neutrality and detrimental economic/political impact.  And even the first criteria isn't that big.  Even if you invented a drug that people could safely take to change their race (so a black person could become Caucasian for instance), you wouldn't deny civil rights to blacks who declined the drug and chose to remain black.  So in the end, even with immutability taken off the table, you would still see race as a category worthy of protection because it is morally neutral and it is a characteristic (even if it's merely a social construct) that has proven to have significantly detrimental economic and political impact.

So with immutability off the table, let's focus on the 'morally neutral' criteria first.  From a Christian perspective, the answer to the question "is homosexual conduct (i.e. same-sex sexual activity) morally neutral" is "no."  There has never been a time previous in Christian history where sexuality has been considered a morally neutral characteristic of people and homosexual conduct specifically has been viewed as immoral behavior.  Obviously LBGT advocates attempt to make the case that it is morally neutral  in a way that is akin to race.  But there's a logical fallacy at play here.  The reasoning is circular.  It's basically saying that homosexual conduct is akin to race because it is morally neutral, and it is morally neutral because it's akin to race.  It lacks a needed additional premise that actually ties homosexual conduct to race.  Merely asserting that something is so doesn't make the case for it to be so all on its own. 

One might try to use the economic/political impact issue as a support, but that doesn't really translate when discussing the status of LBGT people.  As a group, statistics show that the median income for LBGT households is consistently higher than that of the average American household overall - usually hovering north of 10% higher.  As of a couple of years ago, almost 90 percent of American Fortune 500 companies voluntarily disallow sexual orientation as a consideration in hiring and promotion decisions.  Few political groups in the country can claim more political clout right now than the LBGT lobby.  The fact that we're even having this discussion where a business is having to fight tooth and nail for a narrowly applicable conscience clause for certain events is evidence enough of the legal and political power of the LBGT community right now.  The analogy of sexual orientation to race simply doesn't add up.  It seems more an emotional argument than a logical one.

All that said, I am in favor of a narrow conscience clause only and I don't think it would be all that difficult to craft.  For morally neutral events such as a going away party and such, you serve everyone no matter their sexual preferences, religion, race, etc.  For events that do have a moral component to them, the business owner should have some discretion to turn down a client. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 hours ago, shabby said:

Are you kidding me? You think because someone sees refusal to provide a service to gay people ( A class I proudly belong to) as a discriminatory practice makes stating that belief irrational? I clearly stated why I believe its a prejudiced viewpoint. You disagree. perhaps it's best if you look a little deeper at your motivations for your viewpoints instead of so casually trying to invalidate mine. I refer you back to the example I just posted.

shabby, don't put words into my mouth.  I never called you irrational.  I simply said that I've had discussions with you in the past on this, and they didn't go like this.  It's so different in fact that I wondered if someone else was using your account to make these arguments.

[DKW 86 7,441]

We could all stop and have extremely long winded and totally unproductive  doctrinal discussions with people that really could not humanly care less...or we could just act like Christ.

There is a time and place to share wisdom. In the public domain in front of a screaming crowd, or in a twitter rant, or on a talking head show is literally setting yourself up for failure.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

26 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

We could all stop and have extremely long winded and totally unproductive  doctrinal discussions with people that really could not humanly care less...or we could just act like Christ. 

There is a time and place to share wisdom. In the public domain in front of a screaming crowd, or in a twitter rant, or on a talking head show is literally setting yourself up for failure.

Has it occurred to you that one can act like Christ and still not do certain things?  No one is shouting or going on a rant.  No one is going on talking head shows.  A business owner is just trying to do his best to balance his faith with his work and we're discussing it.  I don't even understand what you're arguing against.

[DKW 86 7,441]

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Has it occurred to you that one can act like Christ and still not do certain things?  No one is shouting or going on a rant.  No one is going on talking head shows.  A business owner is just trying to do his best to balance his faith with his work and we're discussing it.  I don't even understand what you're arguing against.

https://bangordailynews.com/video/dueling-protests-outside-the-supreme-court-over-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

Oh yes, that discussion is going so well...

 

Question1: If a Muslim Bakery Refuses to Bake a GWC, then what exactly makes Us different again? Dont we look just as intolerant as the Muslims? The Muslims that dont preach love and tolerance?

Question2: If a Muslim Bakery Refuses to Bake a GWC, then how would the everyday Christians choose sides? I bet you that suddenly that most Christians would line up on the side of the gay couple.

I really do not think is even a beliefs issue. It is likely more of just a knee-jerk reaction for most.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

16 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

https://bangordailynews.com/video/dueling-protests-outside-the-supreme-court-over-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

Oh yes, that discussion is going so well...

Again with the red herrings.  We're talking about a business owner trying to balance serving his customers with his faith.  Stay on topic.

 

16 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Question1: If a Muslim Bakery Refuses to Bake a GWC, then what exactly makes Us different again? Dont we look just as intolerant as the Muslims? The Muslims that dont preach love and tolerance?

Question2: If a Muslim Bakery Refuses to Bake a GWC, then how would the everyday Christians choose sides? I bet you that suddenly that most Christians would line up on the side of the gay couple.

Question 3:  If a Muslim Baker refuses to have sex outside of marriage, what exactly makes us different again?  Don't we look just as sexually repressed as the Muslims?

You're employing a logical fallacy - guilt by association.  If Muslims and Christians happen to have some overlap in their beliefs on certain moral issues and how they might apply to certain situations, that does not mean Christians should change their response just to avoid being associated with Muslims' beliefs.

 

16 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I really do not think is even a beliefs issue. It is likely more of just a knee-jerk reaction for most.

Again with the assuming of other people's motives.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 2/15/2018 at 8:34 AM, shabby said:

I understand perfectly what your saying. It doesn't change the fact that you are removing a service from not just a sub-section of that group but the entirety of that group. Your just saying your okay with it. so lets explore that a little a deeper.  Let's look at this example. If a business owner bakes cakes for weddings but personally believes that interracial marriage is wrong. He looks in the bible and finds justifications for that belief. He decides he will not bake any cakes for interracial couples. Lets take the legality of that and place it to one side. Would that be a discriminatory practice in your mind? If so, how does that differ from the baker that refuses to sale to a gay couple?

Because you keep wanting to explore the non-legality aspects of the issue, here's a solution - the gay couple can go to another baker. Fair enough for your standards? 

[shabby 1,958]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Because you keep wanting to explore the non-legality aspects of the issue, here's a solution - the gay couple can go to another baker. Fair enough for your standards? 

What's wrong with wanting to discuss the non-legality issues of the topic? Is it really so hard for you to understand why someone should have a discussion about whether or not this is discrimination from both an established law point of view as well as the conceptual understanding of what discrimination means? Why is discussing the morality of legalizing such a practice off the table in your eyes? would you suggest that when discussing the civil rights movement one should not discuss the morality of segregation along with the legality of it?  Your welcome to step outside your I'm a pretend lawyer zone and discuss the whole issue.  Again I'll ask the same question I asked Titan:

  Let's look at this example. If a business owner bakes cakes for weddings but personally believes that interracial marriage is wrong. He looks in the bible and finds justifications for that belief. He decides he will not bake any cakes for interracial couples. Lets take the legality of that and place it to one side. Would that be a discriminatory practice in your mind? If so, how does that differ from the baker that refuses to sale to a gay couple? It's a valid question. Instead of whining about what aspects of the topic I choose to comment on, how about you have the courage to look at the entirety of the issue.

[DKW 86 7,441]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Again with the red herrings.  We're talking about a business owner trying to balance serving his customers with his faith.  Stay on topic.

 

Question 3:  If a Muslim Baker refuses to have sex outside of marriage, what exactly makes us different again?  Don't we look just as sexually repressed as the Muslims?

You're employing a logical fallacy - guilt by association.  If Muslims and Christians happen to have some overlap in their beliefs on certain moral issues and how they might apply to certain situations, that does not mean Christians should change their response just to avoid being associated with Muslims' beliefs.

 

Again with the assuming of other people's motives.

THAT is seriously weak. You dismiss anything that challenges your off-tilt assertions. You didnt answer even one question. You are not having a discussion, you are having a browbeating. 

The biz owner really doesnt even know what he stands for. If he is standing for Christ, he should follow the Teachings of Christ. 

I am expressly NOT using guilt by association. I am demonstrating that most Murican Christians are way too squishy about their own faith (hell look at the Christians supposedly supporting Trump). I am showing that to most Murican Christians their faith hangs on nothing more than political expedience these days. IE Some Murican Christians are against homosexuality to the point of being bat crap crazy. Now, add a twist to the scenario, where it is a Muslim baker, and MOST Murican Christians would suddenly flip to favor the Gay Side. I am demonstrating that faith has just about zero to do with this. It is really all about the politics. THAT was my point. To those that want to quote Leviticus here, go ahead and quote. Leviticus is also labels Tattoos, Eating Shrimp, and 600 more totally non-applicable things as well. Sin is sin. If you are a human, you sin.

Remember Jesus and the woman caught as an adulteress? THAT is Him teaching the people there that their own sin is just as bad as hers.
Declaring someone else's sin worse than your own....well that's a sin too.
In my book, that's about as bad a sin as you can commit...IF I BELIEVED IN HIERARCHICAL SINS, WHICH I DONT. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

THAT is seriously weak. You dismiss anything that challenges your off-tilt assertions. You didnt answer even one question. You are not having a discussion, you are having a browbeating. 

The only thing I dismissed was your consistent tactic of bringing in irrelevant happenings to this discussion.  The baker is not marching, hollering, berating, demonstrating or any other such thing. 

And I did answer your question.  I answered it with another question to show the fallacy of yours.

I'm not browbeating you, I'm expecting you to:

1.  Quit flinging red herrings around.

2.  Offer better arguments.

 

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

The biz owner really doesnt even know what he stands for.

You don't know this.

 

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

If he is standing for Christ, he should follow the Teachings of Christ. 

You haven't demonstrated that he isn't.  We know that Jesus managed to simultaneously show love to people while also calling them to leave their life of sin.  He could interact with sinners without ignoring the wrong things they were doing.  The baker, who by all accounts has willingly served gay customers for years for other occasions, seems to be trying to strike the same balance.

 

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I am expressly NOT using guilt by association.

It is precisely what you did. To recap what you said so we're clear:

Question1: If a Muslim Bakery Refuses to Bake a GWC, then what exactly makes Us different again? Dont we look just as intolerant as the Muslims? The Muslims that dont preach love and tolerance?

You put up a flimsy comparison between Christians who will not use their services for specific events, including one that involves gay customers and Muslims not doing the same thing, then implying that it makes those Christians no different from Muslims.  If that's not guilt by association, the phrase has lost all meaning.

 

 

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I am demonstrating that most Murican Christians are way too squishy about their own faith (hell look at the Christians supposedly supporting Trump). I am showing that to most Murican Christians their faith hangs on nothing more than political expedience these days.

You demonstrated nothing of the sort, but even if you had, you didn't demonstrate that that's what this baker we're talking about has done.  And that is the subject, not all the other hypothetical Christians you think you have all figured out.

 

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

IE Some Murican Christians are against homosexuality to the point of being bat crap crazy.

Sure they are.  But that isn't relevant to this case that we are discussing.
 

Quote

Now, add a twist to the scenario, where it is a Muslim baker, and MOST Murican Christians would suddenly flip to favor the Gay Side.

 

You don't know this.  In fact, I'd venture to say you're absolutely wrong.

 

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I am demonstrating that faith has just about zero to do with this.

You've demonstrated nothing of the sort.  You've asserted much, though.

 

Quote

It is really all about the politics. THAT was my point. To those that want to quote Leviticus here, go ahead and quote. Leviticus is also labels Tattoos, Eating Shrimp, and 600 more totally non-applicable things as well. Sin is sin. If you are a human, you sin.

Speaking of weak arguments....

 

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Remember Jesus and the woman caught as an adulteress? THAT is Him teaching the people there that their own sin is just as bad as hers.
Declaring someone else's sin worse than your own....well that's a sin too.
In my book, that's about as bad a sin as you can commit...IF I BELIEVED IN HIERARCHICAL SINS, WHICH I DONT. 

Yes, I do remember it.  It's a perfect illustration of loving someone - balancing grace for their sins without ignoring, minimizing or excusing them.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Titan, I stand by everything I just said. Most Murican Christians dont have a clue what they really stand for. They are somewhat moral folks that may even attend church but really have no understanding of what Following Christ is about.

This is my last post in this thread. I firmly believe that this is a no-win scenario for real believers. If you are in business, then you need to abide by the law. As Christ said: "Give unto Ceasar those things that are Ceasars." Our govt, for good or bad is ordained by God at some level. Maybe we deserve it? Maybe so...OUT.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, shabby said:

What's wrong with wanting to discuss the non-legality issues of the topic? Is it really so hard for you to understand why someone should have a discussion about whether or not this is discrimination from both an established law point of view as well as the conceptual understanding of what discrimination means? Why is discussing the morality of legalizing such a practice off the table in your eyes? would you suggest that when discussing the civil rights movement one should not discuss the morality of segregation along with the legality of it?  Your welcome to step outside your I'm a pretend lawyer zone and discuss the whole issue.  Again I'll ask the same question I asked Titan:

  Let's look at this example. If a business owner bakes cakes for weddings but personally believes that interracial marriage is wrong. He looks in the bible and finds justifications for that belief. He decides he will not bake any cakes for interracial couples. Lets take the legality of that and place it to one side. Would that be a discriminatory practice in your mind? If so, how does that differ from the baker that refuses to sale to a gay couple? It's a valid question. Instead of whining about what aspects of the topic I choose to comment on, how about you have the courage to look at the entirety of the issue.

GOOD GRIEF THERE IS AN INTELLECTUAL DISCONNECT. You can't disconnect the legality of the issue. "Discriminatory practice." Use your brain for one second and think to yourself, what is the "practice?" Intuitively, your hypothetical isn't durable - the "practice" [business] of selling sakes is governed by principles of law, not principles of personal moral convictions. The issue of whether its a discriminatory practice or a protected constitutional right is precisely what the Supreme Court is considering in the Colorado case - i.e., it's an unexplored issue! You keep bringing up race - there's a whole slate of jurisprudence to answer that question, notably McClung case in 1964 - now go read it...

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Titan, I stand by everything I just said. Most Murican Christians dont have a clue what they really stand for. They are somewhat moral folks that may even attend church but really have no understanding of what Following Christ is about.

This is my last post in this thread. I firmly believe that this is a no-win scenario for real believers. If you are in business, then you need to abide by the law. As Christ said: "Give unto Ceasar those things that are Ceasars." Our govt, for good or bad is ordained by God at some level. Maybe we deserve it? Maybe so...OUT.

Chandler is the man. I'm a big John Piper guy as well. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Chandler is the man. I'm a big John Piper guy as well. 

Chandler is great.  He can be rather blunt on this issue was well though, so I'm not sure posting one snippet works as a rebuttal from DKW on this.