Christian bakers: Wouldnt ANY wedding violate the deadly sin of gluttony?

[TemplarKormac]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

So you admit LGBT is a religion. Good. We're getting somewhere with your self-examination finally.. See? Isn't it liberating "coming out" of the cult closet?

LBGT is to religion what you are to rational debate. The items are unrelated.

Seen any good movies lately?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

You've come a long way Rainbow Baby.

 

[Avatar4321]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

So you admit LGBT is a religion. Good. We're getting somewhere with your self-examination finally.. See? Isn't it liberating "coming out" of the cult closet?

LGBT is a religion?

We really are losing the Spirit as a people. We have people claiming Islam isn't a religion and that other things that aren't are.

Soon we will be left to fend for ourselves completely. We will become animals. Unless we use the atonement to have our natures changed.

 

[JoeB131]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

So you admit LGBT is a religion. Good. We're getting somewhere with your self-examination finally.. See? Isn't it liberating "coming out" of the cult closet?

LGBT is a religion?

Are their ceremonies "Fabulous"?

 

[JoeB131]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

Actually, the religious restoration act was an awful law. Half the lawsuits filed by federal prisoners are prisoners claiming "religious" exemptions for things. (usually them being the only members of their "religion".)

In this case, someone thought about it before they put it into law, with the GOP Assemblymen who passed it begging Brewer to veto it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

Perhaps you should ask Bill Clinton.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993.[1] The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and was passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes.[2] It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. But it continues to be applied to the federal government, for instance in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TemplarKormac]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

You've come a long way Rainbow Baby.

Whatever that means.

 

[JoeB131]

"federally recognized religions"? Ah, like when Jesus said Come be Fishers of Men and they said, where's your permit Dude? That kind of thing right?

Perhaps you should ask Bill Clinton.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion. The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993.[1] The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and was passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes.[2] It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. But it continues to be applied to the federal government, for instance in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And again, they realized it was an awful decision when it was applied, which is why it WAS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL in 1997.

Guy, you lost. The whole, "Well, I can still be a Homophobe on the Job" (You do know what a Job is, right) was found to be a bad idea when you actually think about it. Which is why these laws are all grinding to a halt in the States.

 

[paperview]

For people who keep saying RFRA is the exact same law as passed in 1993 (which as Joe points out, was found unconstitutional as it applies to the States...)

people have to understand what Arizona's version of RFRA actually did, namely:

Meanwhile, most states provide religious exceptions to their own laws under state constitutional provisions and state-level RFRAs. The Arizona bill would amend that state’s RFRA to expand the protection that it already affords.

In particular, the Arizona bill would expand the definition of a “person” entitled to a religious exemption from other state laws. The original Arizona RFRA covered individuals and religious entities such as churches; the expanded version would also cover associations, corporations, and other business organizations. In addition, the Arizona bill that passed last week would make the state RFRA applicable in private litigation—for example, by photographers or bakers who refuse to serve same-sex couples.

Are Expanded Exemptions Constitutional?

Would laws expanding religious exemptions be constitutional? In the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to forbid laws that reflect “animus” against gay and lesbian Americans. Last year’s decision in United States v. Windsor reaffirmed the anti-animus principle. Given the motives of those who support the expansion of religious exemptions, it is not difficult to construct an argument that the new laws would deny equal protection.

<snip>
But the Arizona bill would go further. It would authorize religious exemptions for businesses from all state laws, including those forbidding race and sex discrimination. Under the bill, if the owners of a restaurant had a religious objection to a state law requiring them to serve customers regardless of race, they could, in principle, be protected under the Arizona bill.

In practice, however, even the Arizona bill would likely be operative only with respect to sexual-orientation discrimination. Federal statutes already forbid places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of race and sex, and under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, state law cannot provide exemptions from federal law.

- See more at: Arizona and Other States Consider Expanding Religious Freedom to Discriminate | Michael C. Dorf | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

The article above is well worth reading - and this one likewise:

Arizona's religious freedom debate and the Sherbert test

I suspect the words "Sherbert Test" will be entering into our conversations more here as we debate these upcoming challenges.

It would behoove those who have an interest in educated debate on the matter to partake in the exercises of deducing the measurements of The Sherbert Test (more recently reintroduced by SCOTUS) and very important language regarding strict scrutiny, rational basis scrutiny and heightened scrutiny.

An aside: as Windsor's effects are felt (and we are seeing them near weekly now) we are now seeing Federal Courts even going beyond the rational basis "with teeth" -- as some have called it, to a Strict Scrutiny in the Virginia ruling. How these survive, we shall see - but the momentum is certainly building.

(and yes, I have intermingled the two recent subjects in regards to Gay and Lesbian Rights - religious objections and same-sex marriage bans being overturned, but I think they clash here on some level as to how Justices apply their rationale to uphold or strike down these laws.)

 

[Silhouette]

Would the law require a christan baker to make a Lucifer cake for a satanist wedding?

If the answer, intellectually, is "No", then also a christian shouldn't be required to depict something so completely heretical to their faith as two members of the same gender marrying to placate the church of LGBT.

Remember, the sin of a homosexual takeover of an entire culture was a gradual process in Sodom. It destroyed an entire matrix within which christians could be tested individually. That's what makes it such an important sin. To passively or actively enable that to happen is a mortal sin of the gravest nature.

If a christian is not required to portray Satan, Lucifer etc. then also they are not required to similarly flaunt an antithetical irreverence of their faith, and one that can get them sent to the pit of fire forever for doing so.

Sodom and all its inhabitants, gay and enabling-gay straight were sent to the pit together. That's a pretty important lesson for an entire city to be wiped off the map for one particular type of sin. Can't really think of any other examples of a mortal sin where the whole town/civilization was wiped away.

 

[whitehall]

Don't you hate it when smarmy lefties quote Scripture while they are trying to tear down the fabric of Christianity? For a little perspective, the US spends millions feeding terrorist scum in Guantanamo a special diet that conforms to their religious beliefs. American lefties went hysterical over the unconfirmed rumor that Marines might have mishandled the Koran while they snicker as a Korean War monument was ordered demolished because it contained a symbol of Christianity that was offensive to a single agnostic.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Would the law require a christan baker to make a Lucifer cake for a satanist wedding?

Yes, and it should. You are not serving God when you are making a buck. Bake the damn cake.

 

[KNB]

Would the law require a christan baker to make a Lucifer cake for a satanist wedding?

If the answer, intellectually, is "No", then also a christian shouldn't be required to depict something so completely heretical to their faith as two members of the same gender marrying to placate the church of LGBT.

Remember, the sin of a homosexual takeover of an entire culture was a gradual process in Sodom. It destroyed an entire matrix within which christians could be tested individually. That's what makes it such an important sin. To passively or actively enable that to happen is a mortal sin of the gravest nature.

If a christian is not required to portray Satan, Lucifer etc. then also they are not required to similarly flaunt an antithetical irreverence of their faith, and one that can get them sent to the pit of fire forever for doing so.

Sodom and all its inhabitants, gay and enabling-gay straight were sent to the pit together. That's a pretty important lesson for an entire city to be wiped off the map for one particular type of sin. Can't really think of any other examples of a mortal sin where the whole town/civilization was wiped away.

You're kidding, right? Do you honestly believe that an invisible man in the sky fired meteors from space to destroy two ancient cities because of butt sex? Is that your scientific conclusion on the matter? Do you see why you're wrong?

It's because there isn't an invisible man in the sky who hates gay people. If God hates gay people so much, why hasn't the Vatican been destroyed?

 

[Freewill]

Would the law require a christan baker to make a Lucifer cake for a satanist wedding?

If the answer, intellectually, is "No", then also a christian shouldn't be required to depict something so completely heretical to their faith as two members of the same gender marrying to placate the church of LGBT.

Remember, the sin of a homosexual takeover of an entire culture was a gradual process in Sodom. It destroyed an entire matrix within which christians could be tested individually. That's what makes it such an important sin. To passively or actively enable that to happen is a mortal sin of the gravest nature.

If a christian is not required to portray Satan, Lucifer etc. then also they are not required to similarly flaunt an antithetical irreverence of their faith, and one that can get them sent to the pit of fire forever for doing so.

Sodom and all its inhabitants, gay and enabling-gay straight were sent to the pit together. That's a pretty important lesson for an entire city to be wiped off the map for one particular type of sin. Can't really think of any other examples of a mortal sin where the whole town/civilization was wiped away.

You're kidding, right? Do you honestly believe that an invisible man in the sky fired meteors from space to destroy two ancient cities because of butt sex? Is that your scientific conclusion on the matter? Do you see why you're wrong?

It's because there isn't an invisible man in the sky who hates gay people. If God hates gay people so much, why hasn't the Vatican been destroyed?

God is invisible? Who believes God is invisible? How do you know so much?

Ever consider that God may be Klaatu?

 

[Freewill]

Would the law require a christan baker to make a Lucifer cake for a satanist wedding?

Yes, and it should. You are not serving God when you are making a buck. Bake the damn cake.

Walk by that damn nativity scene in the town square ignore it, it ain't hurting anyone.

 

[Wake]

I find it fascinating that Christian bakers would say that catering a gay wedding would violate their rights because their religion doesn't support it.

Lets think about that for a moment. A Christian baker catering weddings. With huge cakes, lots and lots of food, usually an open bar, sweets, excess food and drink.

Wouldn't all that violate the Christian belief that gluttony, one of the 7 deadly sins, is wrong???

Defined: Gluttony, derived from the Latin gluttire meaning to gulp down or swallow, means over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or wealth items to the point of extravagance or waste. In some Christian denominations, it is considered one of the seven deadly sins—a misplaced desire of food or its withholding from the needy.

So, unless that Christian baker is baking a tiny, minimalist sized cake, and then spreading all the excess cake around to the needy, and demanding the excess food and drink be made available to the needy.......wouldn't they be violating the belief of their religion, since gluttony which occurs at EVERY wedding is occurring in the baker's presence?


Hmmm. This should be interesting.

My friend, gluttony is an excess in eating. The cake is large, because typically the group is large. If every single person there had a huge cake, instead of a slice or so, your OP would be more reasonable.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Would the law require a christan baker to make a Lucifer cake for a satanist wedding?

Yes, and it should. You are not serving God when you are making a buck. Bake the damn cake.

Walk by that damn nativity scene in the town square ignore it, it ain't hurting anyone.

Let me install a tribute to Satan next to it and I will. I have no problem with wide open debates, I have a problem with Christians trying to exclude everyone else based on "tradition". Clear now?