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

[Freewill]

So just to summarize.

A) Christians no longer think the deadly 7 sins are all that big a deal.

B) And they feel its ok to support and cater a wedding full of gluttony, as it doesn't conflict with their Chrisitan beliefs (see A).

Got it.

Let's get this straight.

1. You are still 12

2. You still don't understand the definition of gluttony.

Gotja.

 

[Nutz]

You want to know which gay people are destroying the world? Gay priests, and not because they're gay but because they're priests.

Get it right, they are pedophile priests, not gay. But, I'm pretty sure making sure pedophilia will be a perversion forced on Americans by the gay agenda in the near future since sodomy and equal rights are so important.

 

[bucs90]

So just to summarize.

A) Christians no longer think the deadly 7 sins are all that big a deal.

B) And they feel its ok to support and cater a wedding full of gluttony, as it doesn't conflict with their Chrisitan beliefs (see A).

Got it.

Let's get this straight.

1. You are still 12

2. You still don't understand the definition of gluttony.

Gotja.

Sweet comeback bro'

 

[Katzndogz]

Single people do not have the same rights as married people. Those with children have more rights than those with dogs. There is no right to marry. There is no right to marry who you want to. If there was a universal right to marry the government would have to provide a spouse to everyone that wants one.

 

[Avatar4321]

You realize they have lots of cake, food, and drink because they are having lots of people there, right?

I mean if one person or just the couple was eating the entire thing at one time, that's gluttony.

100-200 people eating it in the course of the evening is likely moderation.

Christians are commanded to be of Good cheer and to celebrate occaisions like weddings.

Since you seem to interested in Christians, i highly recommend reading some books and learning more. Id start with the Bible. I might also add Mere Christianity, I've been reading it and the arguments are very sound and doctrines seem pretty understandable and accurate.

 

[Avatar4321]

Single people do not have the same rights as married people. Those with children have more rights than those with dogs. There is no right to marry. There is no right to marry who you want to. If there was a universal right to marry the government would have to provide a spouse to everyone that wants one.

The biggest flaw with this idea is that the governments can somehow convey the rights of marriage on people. But they can't. Some can claim they are married, but the government can never give people the power to create life together. And that is the main right and responsibility of marriage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I wonder how the Christian bakers of the 1960's handled interracial weddings. Probably the same way they're handling gay weddings now.

Well gee, since Democrats introduced the concept of banning interracial marriage, why don't you ask them that?

 

[Silhouette]

Gluttony is an individual sin. No matter how grave it is nowhere near as grave as promoting a homosexual cultural takeover of a society. God's Plan describes a matrix in which people are tested male-female sexual relationships. To blend God's Plan is to destroy the framework itself. This is worse than an individual sin of gluttony. An individual can be retrieved. A destroyed matrix cannot be retrieved. If you destroy the entire classroom's framework, no one can be retrieved because the idea of the behavior as a sin has been eradicated. Sin is literally replaced as a virtue when homosexuality demands "normal" status.

Therein lies the difference and the description of the depth of the warnings and punishments reserved for those who enable a homosexual cultural takeover such as the one held out in Jude 1 and Romans 1. Sodom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Negged for being spam

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

Yes Buc, if these people were consistent and truly did have "deeply held religious beliefs" that would preclude them from baking a cake for a gay wedding, then those same "deeply held religious beliefs" should drive them out of business period. If their beliefs are so deeply important that baking a cake would cause them mental anguish and "undue burden", then serving divorcees or people who have sex out of wedlock should make them apoplectic. Jesus himself condemned divorce, but was mum on "the gheys" (he may have even have had spoken in support..."For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

These laws aren't about protecting their "religious liberty", they are about justifying bigotry.

This was probably the best response yet. Too bad no one else responded to it.

If Christians truly cared about their beliefs, as it translates to business, then they wouldn't do business with anyone who had a divorce, or cheated on their significant other, or stole something, etc etc. But they do. It's only those icky gays that they don't want to do business with. This bill was attempting to legalize discrimination under the mask of religious freedom. Nothing more.

 

[paperview]

I wonder how the Christian bakers of the 1960's handled interracial weddings. Probably the same way they're handling gay weddings now.

Well gee, since Democrats introduced the concept of banning interracial marriage, why don't you ask them that?

The first laws banning interracial marriage occurred long before there was any Democratic Party, and long before there was even a United States.

 

[Nutz]

This was probably the best response yet. Too bad no one else responded to it.

If Christians truly cared about their beliefs, as it translates to business, then they wouldn't do business with anyone who had a divorce, or cheated on their significant other, or stole something, etc etc. But they do. It's only those icky gays that they don't want to do business with. This bill was attempting to legalize discrimination under the mask of religious freedom. Nothing more.

The mask is the gay left turning this into a gay issue. They invented the cake scenario and this idea that the bill would be the end of freedom for gays....what about these scenarios?

• A hotel refuses to host a NAMBLA meeting
• A toy store owner refuses to provide service to a pedophile and wont let him in the store.
• A beauty salon refuses to cut a rapists hair

 

[paperview]

Hey Nutzo, NAMBLA, pedophiles and rapists are not protected categories.

You idiots have the stupidest analogies.

 

[Nutz]

Hey Nutzo, NAMBLA, pedophiles and rapists are not protected categories.

You idiots have the stupidest analogies.

Neither is gayness!

But NAMBLA is a recognized organization and they meet openly, have a website and lobby government. But what is the difference when you believe a business owner doesn't have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

 

[Nutz]

I wonder how the Christian bakers of the 1960's handled interracial weddings. Probably the same way they're handling gay weddings now.

Well gee, since Democrats introduced the concept of banning interracial marriage, why don't you ask them that?

The first laws banning interracial marriage occurred long before there was any Democratic Party, and long before there was even a United States.

If the US didn't exist, how could the law exist?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This was probably the best response yet. Too bad no one else responded to it.

If Christians truly cared about their beliefs, as it translates to business, then they wouldn't do business with anyone who had a divorce, or cheated on their significant other, or stole something, etc etc. But they do. It's only those icky gays that they don't want to do business with. This bill was attempting to legalize discrimination under the mask of religious freedom. Nothing more.

The mask is the gay left turning this into a gay issue. They invented the cake scenario and this idea that the bill would be the end of freedom for gays....what about these scenarios?

• A hotel refuses to host a NAMBLA meeting
• A toy store owner refuses to provide service to a pedophile and wont let him in the store.
• A beauty salon refuses to cut a rapists hair

As long as NAMBLA remains an idea only, it's allowed, but I suspect the hotel is all booked up that day.

The toy store sells toys and if the guy is out about then he has served his time. They don't use toys much anyway, they pay attention to kids, something most adults don't do much of.

Cutting hair doesn't make you the Morality Police and we have a lot of rapists walking around.

To sum up, shut up and do your damn job. If you wish to be all moral in a capitalistic system go work at a church.

 

[Nutz]

This was probably the best response yet. Too bad no one else responded to it.

If Christians truly cared about their beliefs, as it translates to business, then they wouldn't do business with anyone who had a divorce, or cheated on their significant other, or stole something, etc etc. But they do. It's only those icky gays that they don't want to do business with. This bill was attempting to legalize discrimination under the mask of religious freedom. Nothing more.

The mask is the gay left turning this into a gay issue. They invented the cake scenario and this idea that the bill would be the end of freedom for gays....what about these scenarios?

• A hotel refuses to host a NAMBLA meeting
• A toy store owner refuses to provide service to a pedophile and wont let him in the store.
• A beauty salon refuses to cut a rapists hair

As long as NAMBLA remains an idea only, it's allowed, but I suspect the hotel is all booked up that day.

The toy store sells toys and if the guy is out about then he has served his time. They don't use toys much anyway, they pay attention to kids, something most adults don't do much of.

Cutting hair doesn't make you the Morality Police and we have a lot of rapists walking around.

To sum up, shut up and do your damn job. If you wish to be all moral in a capitalistic system go work at a church.

So its ok if the hotel is all booked up for a gay wedding? Its ok to allow pedophiles to frequent places where kids are present? You would want you mother, if she were a hairstylist, to cut a rapists hair, right before closing when she is the last person in the building? Morality Police or common sense.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well gee, since Democrats introduced the concept of banning interracial marriage, why don't you ask them that?

The first laws banning interracial marriage occurred long before there was any Democratic Party, and long before there was even a United States.

If the US didn't exist, how could the law exist?

People would say that God introduced the law against Interracial Marriage. That's pretty dumb as well considering that he was perfectly fine with Incest. Let's mush on.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The mask is the gay left turning this into a gay issue. They invented the cake scenario and this idea that the bill would be the end of freedom for gays....what about these scenarios?

• A hotel refuses to host a NAMBLA meeting
• A toy store owner refuses to provide service to a pedophile and wont let him in the store.
• A beauty salon refuses to cut a rapists hair

As long as NAMBLA remains an idea only, it's allowed, but I suspect the hotel is all booked up that day.

The toy store sells toys and if the guy is out about then he has served his time. They don't use toys much anyway, they pay attention to kids, something most adults don't do much of.

Cutting hair doesn't make you the Morality Police and we have a lot of rapists walking around.

To sum up, shut up and do your damn job. If you wish to be all moral in a capitalistic system go work at a church.

So its ok if the hotel is all booked up for a gay wedding? Its ok to allow pedophiles to frequent places where kids are present? You would want you mother, if she were a hairstylist, to cut a rapists hair, right before closing when she is the last person in the building? Morality Police or common sense.

1. It's not okay but they might get away with it. 2. Yes, they still have rights. 3. That's her job and women shouldn't trust any man in that situation. 4. Morality Police.

 

[paperview]

Hey Nutzo, NAMBLA, pedophiles and rapists are not protected categories.

You idiots have the stupidest analogies.

Neither is gayness!

But NAMBLA is a recognized organization and they meet openly, have a website and lobby government. But what is the difference when you believe a business owner doesn't have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

I don't care what NAMBLA is or when or how those freaks meet.

They do not fall under protected status under the Pubic Accommodation laws.

In a number of states, sexual orientation does, including Oregon, which is where the bakery case originated.