Cakes, Fakes & Counter-Quakes; Do The Kleins Have A Countersuit Against The Lesbians?

[Syriusly]

[
Or the Baker who says it is against Gods law to bake his neighbor a wedding cake?

Again, enabling and supporting evil, destructive, and immoral behavior is not “love”, no matter how hard you try to twist and pervert scripture to argue that it is.[/QUOTE]

Again, baking a cake is not enabling, or supporting any 'evil, or destructive, or immoral behavior' no matter how hard you try to twist and pervert scripture to argue that it is.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, baking a cake is not enabling, or supporting any 'evil, or destructive, or immoral behavior' no matter how hard you try to twist and pervert scripture to argue that it is.

Baking a cake for a "gay wedding" is enabling the normalizing of homosexual kinks throughout a culture. And that cannot be done by a Christian. Period. Baking a cake for a party or a picnic for gay people, completely allowed. One is assisting the use of a social icon (marriage) to spread the idea of the sin "as normal". The other is making food to serve any garden variety sinner engaged in an activity that isn't related to the sin.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well that is a good question- why didn't Jesus mention incest or bestiality?

Jesus does condemn adultery- repeatedly.

But not incest- not bestiality- not child sex abuse- and not homosexuality.

But Jesus does mention divorce- again in terms of adultery

He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

So all of this does beg the question- why does Jesus focus on adultery- but not homosexuality?

Of course the easiest way you have to deal with it is with a hand wave- 'nothing to see here'- by presuming that 'of course Jesus' was against homosexuality.

And maybe he was- or maybe he just find the issue important like he did adultery.

We do have Jesus's very specific and unambiguous command about divorce though.

According to Jesus- Donald Trump is committing adultery against his first and second wives. And adultery is specifically mentioned in the 10 Commandments.

Now are Christians refusing to recognize Trump's wedding because of his violating Jesus's words?

Not that I have seen.

I think it is clearly an error to assume, as you are trying to do, that just because Jesus did not mention a particular behavior which has been explicitly mentioned else wherein the Bible as being sinful, that he was OK with that behavior. The Bible makes it clear enough that homosexual behavior is a serious evil, on a similar level to adultery. We don't need Jesus to have said so, too.

I imagine that the sins that Jesus felt a need to mention were sins that were common issues among his audience at the time. If incest or bestiality were not commonly occurring, but adultery was, then it'd make sense for Jesus to mention adultery.

Divorce is kind of an odd case. Under the Mosaic law, divorce was allowed. Jesus stated that it was allowed, because of the hardness of their hearts—basically, that the Israelites of the time the Mosaic law was given were not up to living the higher standard, under which divorce would be prohibited. He was addressing an audience that was ready for the higher standard. In fact, that was part of Jesus' purpose, to give a higher standard, a higher law, to his followers, than what had previously been given.

Are we that audience? In our modern society, many of us accept premarital sex, homosexual sex, and other behaviors as acceptable, that clearly would not have been in Jesus' time, nor in the Old Testament times. In some ways, we're at a lower moral level, now, than the ancient Israelites were. Divorce is certainly not a good thing, never to be encouraged, but given how the present generation has hardened its hearts against God, and against God's standards, I think there's little point in expecting divorce to be prohibited. We need to get homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion, and other serious moral issues under control again, before it makes sense to worry about divorce.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

[ To produce a custom artistic work, in support of an event, is to endorse that event, to say that that event is OK. There is simply no rational way to deny this..

That simply is not a rational answer.

You think that a Jewish baker who makes an Easter cake is endorsing Easter? That an atheist who bakes a cake celebrating Christmas is endorsing Christianity?

Baking a wedding cake for someone is hiring a craftsman to produce a custom work. They are not asking the craftsman- or the 'artist' to endorse anything.

If I were a baker, and a Jew asked me to produce a cake for a Hanukkah celebration, or a Bar Mitzvah, or something like that, I'd have no problem with it. I don't celebrate the same things that a Jew would, but I recognize the right of all to conform to their religious beliefs and traditions, and I find nothing morally-objectionable to them. That is not the same thing at all—and not even close to being comparable—to baking a cake to celebrate something that is overtly evil and immoral, such as a sick homosexual mockery of a wedding.

On the other hand, if a Jewish baker objected enough tomy Christian traditions that he did not wish to provide a cake to celebrate them, I would consider it entirely within his rights to refuse to do so. There simply is no right that I can claim to his service, that ought to trump his right not to support something that he finds objectionable.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Again, baking a cake is not enabling, or supporting any 'evil, or destructive, or immoral behavior' no matter how hard you try to twist and pervert scripture to argue that it is.

It most certainly is, when the purpose of that cake is to celebrate something that is overtly immoral and evil.

 

[JoeB131]

It was never Jesus' purpose or intent to reiterate all the various issues of right and wrong, that God had already clarified through His prophets,and which he further clarified after Jesus' time on Earth.

But yet he did just that with other issues, like stoning people and forgiveness of sins and paying taxes to Caesar. That's why they had his sorry ass crucified.

The standards of sexual morality have always been quite clear and consistent throughout the Bible, everywhere that they have been covered. There was never any need or reason for Jesus to specifically tell us what we had already been told plenty of times, and would yet be told plenty of times.

Okay, let's look at that. The bible says that women have to be virgins on their wedding nights. Well, news flash, buddy. Most women aren't. Buddy of mine got married and he and his girlfriend had been living together for a year and the priest was all like, "Well, everyone does that now!" Not a one of them called for stoning her like the Bible says we should.

 

[JoeB131]

On the other hand, if a Jewish baker objected enough tomy Christian traditions that he did not wish to provide a cake to celebrate them, I would consider it entirely within his rights to refuse to do so. There simply is no right that I can claim to his service, that ought to trump his right not to support something that he finds objectionable.

Well, too bad the laws says otherwise... as it should.

If you find other people objectionable, don't be in that business. Find something else to do for a living.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

On the other hand, if a Jewish baker objected enough tomy Christian traditions that he did not wish to provide a cake to celebrate them, I would consider it entirely within his rights to refuse to do so. There simply is no right that I can claim to his service, that ought to trump his right not to support something that he finds objectionable.

Well, too bad the laws says otherwise... as it should.

The First Amendment is the law, and it trumps the lesser laws that you defend, which openly violate it.

If you find other people objectionable, don't be in that business. Find something else to do for a living.

So, only those who have no moral values that they are unwilling to sell out for lucre, should be allowed to make a living?

 

[Silhouette]

Joe you're not going to have a winning argument in court. Otherwise your gay gestapo would be suing muslims too. Just because your cult isn't doing that now doesn't mean justices won't be mulling over that serious conflict as future potential...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Revelations speaks of the mark of the Beast, and of those who do not accept it being denied the ability to buy or sell.

I sometimes wonder if this mark may not be a physical of visual mark, but an ideological one. The principle expressed by several of those on the left wrong, most recently by JoeB131 just a few posts back from this one, that one should not be allowed to engage in commerce unless one is willing to disregard one's own moral values, seems to support this view of the form that the mark may take.

Perhaps this is the true form of the mark of the Beast—that one will not be allowed to engage in commerce unless one is willing to do so in manners which openly support evil.

 

[JoeB131]

So, only those who have no moral values that they are unwilling to sell out for lucre, should be allowed to make a living?

Um, the only reason to be in business is to make money. Otherwise, you'd do that shit for free.

There's an old saying, "your right to swing your arm ends at my nose". You are entitled to hate gays all you want, but when you open a business, you are obligated to follow all the laws the community set.

To refuse someone service because you don't approve of their lifestyle is about as sensible as not washing your hands because your interpretation of the bible says you don't have to.

 

[Silhouette]

So, only those who have no moral values that they are unwilling to sell out for lucre, should be allowed to make a living?

That is exactly how the Devil would have it. Use the ability to feed oneself as a whip to force decency into extinction. You bet.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe you're not going to have a winning argument in court. Otherwise your gay gestapo would be suing muslims too. Just because your cult isn't doing that now doesn't mean justices won't be mulling over that serious conflict as future potential...

Guy, Muslims aren't the issue here.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Muslims also willl not bake your gay wedding cake. How are they not the issue here?

To refuse someone service because you don't approve of their lifestyle is about as sensible as not washing your hands because your interpretation of the bible says you don't have to.

Busted! You said "lifestyle". Deviant kinks don't have Constitutional protections. Great debate. Better luck next time!

 

[JoeB131]

Revelations speaks of the mark of the Beast, and of those who do not accept it being denied the ability to buy or sell.

I sometimes wonder if this mark may not be a physical of visual mark, but an ideological one. The principle expressed by several of those on the left wrong, most recently by JoeB131 just a few posts back from this one, that one should not be allowed to engage in commerce unless one is willing to disregard one's own moral values, seems to support this view of the form that the mark may take.

Perhaps this is the true form of the mark of the Beast—that one will not be allowed to engage in commerce unless one is willing to do so in manners which openly support evil.

I wonder what kind of dumb-fuck dipstick you have to be to take the Book of Revelations seriously, given that it said that the end of the world was coming any minute now in the first century, and it's been 2000 years.

Do you know what I do when I encounter a Christian Customer. I smile politely, I don't give him a lecture about his bronze age sky fairy, and then I provide the service I promised. In short, if you have a meeting with me, you walk away with the product promised and I walk away with some of your money.

That's how commerce works.

 

[JoeB131]

Busted! You said "lifestyle". Deviant kinks don't have Constitutional protections. Great debate. Better luck next time!

The Supreme Court says they do... but thanks for playing.

Hey, guy, here's a concept. If you aren't gay, this shouldn't have any effect on your life.

The only reason why you homophobes get all worked up about this at all is because you are fighting down your own desires.

 

[Silhouette]

Which Supreme Court? Your pocket buddies of 2015? Or the one that will preside over this case?

 

[JoeB131]

Which Supreme Court? Your pocket buddies of 2015? Or the one that will preside over this case?

Court is pretty much constituted the same way. 4 Conservatives, 5 liberals or moderates.

Kennedy is not going to take your side on this. He's too invested in gay rights.

 

[Silhouette]

Court is pretty much constituted the same way. 4 Conservatives, 5 liberals or moderates.

Kennedy is not going to take your side on this. He's too invested in gay rights.

Thanks for pointing out that Kennedy is biased against Christians. "Invested"? Are you saying he is a paid champion of your cult? That explains Obergefell.

 

[JoeB131]

Thanks for pointing out that Kennedy is biased against Christians. "Invested"? Are you saying he is a paid champion of your cult? That explains Obergefell.

Hey, they are all invested in their ideology.

No bias in not letting Christians impose their stupidity on the rest of us. That's actually in the First Amendment.