Progress

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Re: Progress

Postby Jim » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:46 pm

Sandy wrote:
Jim wrote: You completely miss the point, of course. The passages express a firm form(s) of discrimination by both Christ and Paul for those who have earned the right to be avoided and exempted from being served.


:lol:

No, they don't, not even close. And certainly not in any way that involves being paid to provide the service. You miss the point, and you're interpretation of these verses, aside from ignoring the context in which they are written, is even a stretch for mere prooftexting.

Alas! As Jesus put it to Saul (via KJV), it's hard to kick against the pricks. You're out in left field but don't know it, of course, so you bluster or dream up ad hominem remarks like hypocrisy for those who see through your fog-mindedness. For a crystal clear episode of discrimination by Jesus check out the temple-defilement episode again in which Jesus not only discriminated against a bunch of crooks but actually lashed them with a whip and physically expelled them from the property. Being able to discriminate in any situation is no vice or sin but plain common sense. Try it sometime.
Jim
 
Posts: 3605
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:26 am

Jim wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Jim wrote: You completely miss the point, of course. The passages express a firm form(s) of discrimination by both Christ and Paul for those who have earned the right to be avoided and exempted from being served.


:lol:

No, they don't, not even close. And certainly not in any way that involves being paid to provide the service. You miss the point, and you're interpretation of these verses, aside from ignoring the context in which they are written, is even a stretch for mere prooftexting.

Alas! As Jesus put it to Saul (via KJV), it's hard to kick against the pricks. You're out in left field but don't know it, of course, so you bluster or dream up ad hominem remarks like hypocrisy for those who see through your fog-mindedness. For a crystal clear episode of discrimination by Jesus check out the temple-defilement episode again in which Jesus not only discriminated against a bunch of crooks but actually lashed them with a whip and physically expelled them from the property. Being able to discriminate in any situation is no vice or sin but plain common sense. Try it sometime.


:lol:

Moral relativism from an Evangelical.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Chris » Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:47 pm

Jon Estes wrote: Jeremiah 1:5.


I believe Jeremiah 1:5 refers to the soul, which is ETERNAL (it has no beginning, it has no end), Not the human body which lasts from the first breath outside the womb, until the last breath. If you believe in "eternal life", as most conservative Christians profess, then you must understand that the soul has no beginning, just as it has no ending.
Jesus paid the price for me and everybody.
Chris
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: Progress

Postby KeithE » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:12 pm

There is a difference in being discriminating and showing discrimination against a class of people.

Jesus saw the greed of the money changers (no doubt that is what Jim was referring to with the "temple-defilement episode”) and wanted to make a point emphatically to not use the temple for monetary gain. That is what those money changers needed at the time. Jesus hoped that they would end this practice.

Jesus saw the hearts of the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law, and lashed out at them and He showed more anger at their sinful attitudes than any other type of sin. That is what those people needed again hoping they would become less judgmental and legalistic.

Jesus had witnessed the lack of welcoming or listening (Matt 10:14,15 a passage that Jim used to justify discrimination of a class of people) had told disciple to leave. Jesus believe was that the disciples should not browbeat or coerce them not belief. That would not be effective at that time, was Jesus’s guidance. So he asked te disciples to be discriminating but do not call for a forever-discrimination against those who were not receptive.

Then when Jesus Himself went into two of those unbelieving cities (Chorazin and Bethsaida Matt 11:20-25 larger context of what Jim offered to justify discrimination) and warned of a Day of Judgment that would be coming. That was what they needed.


So, yes Jesus was discriminating, but it was to be redemptive in the the most effective ways and I’m not about to challenge Jesus’s discernments.


Jesus also saw the sin of “sinners” like the woman caught in adultery (that the Pharisees brought to Jesus) and was tender with her as He saw her repentance and asked that she “sin no more” to the consternation of the Pharisees. He was always sympathetic towards those who are marginalized (e.g. Pharisee-condemned “sinners”, lepers, beggars, the sick, those with “demons”, Canaanites) whether they were sinners or not. These people were suffering from discrimination by the local people and Jesus condemned that discrimination. Jesus did not avoid interacting with the marginalized, as those cake makers or florists (in today’s issue de jour) are doing due to their discrimination.

For the record, in the LGBT/the cake maker&florist dilemma, I believe it is a very minor issue flared up by the RW. I believe LBGTs should just shake the dust off their feet and go elsewhere for their desired service and cake makers/florists should hold their nose and perform the service - they are not liable for the sin of others (if in fact God sees a same-sex marriage as sin) but their unloving attitudes very well could be sin.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8404
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Progress

Postby JE Pettibone » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:33 pm

KeithE:
For the record, in the LGBT/the cake maker&florist dilemma, I believe it is a very minor issue flared up by the RW. I believe LBGTs should just shake the dust off their feet and go elsewhere for their desired service and cake makers/florists should hold their nose and perform the service - they are not liable or the sin of others (if in fact God sees a same-sex marriage as sin) but their unloving attitudes very well could be sin.


Ed: And Keith, if The baker and, florist recognize homosexuality as a sin why should they be forced to enable celebration of the sin, which to them is in itself sinful?
BY the way tomorrow afternoon, Trudy will be hostessing a small group of our neighbors serving cake, pie, coffee and ice cream on our patio to celebrate my 85th birthday (Corection 84th). One of the 5 or so couples attending will be a legally married pair of rather nice women who are almost as old as I am.
Last edited by JE Pettibone on Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Progress

Postby Chris » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:47 pm

JE Pettibone wrote:if The baker and, florist recognize homosexuality as a sin why should they be forced to enable celebration of the sin,

Right. So, if I am in the passing lane, driving 65 mph in a 65 mph zone, and the car behind me is flashing its lights, hoping I will move over...I should not move over because in doing so, I will be helping the other driver to fulfill his desire to break the speed limit, which is a sin. I knew I've beenright about this for years!
Jesus paid the price for me and everybody.
Chris
 
Posts: 4164
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:45 pm

Yes, you should move over.

Here lies the body of old John Gray
Who died defending his right-of-way,
He was right - dead right - as he sped along,
But now he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

To this someone has added:
John had the courage; he had the pluck,
But the other guy had a very big truck!
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby KeithE » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:55 pm

JE Pettibone wrote:Ed: And Keith, if The baker and, florist recognize homosexuality as a sin why should they be forced to enable celebration of the sin, which to them is in itself sinful?

For several reasons:
1) they do not need to celebrate the same-sex wedding - they usually do not celebrate most weddings they service
2) they need not think they are sinful in making a cake or providing flowers
3) they are not following the golden rule - do unto others what you would want done unto you (I have not heard of any LBGT cake makers/florists who would not provide the service to a opposite-sex wedding)
4) Jesus sided with the marginalized
5) one should guard against judgmental/ Pharisaic attitudes
6) consistently loving attitudes to others is want God desires for his created beings - not sour attitudes towards others
7) same-sexual preference is seen in most all animal populations
8 ) the cake maker / florist is not “enabling” the celebration - it will go on without the cake or flowers.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8404
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Progress

Postby JE Pettibone » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:23 am

KeithE wrote:
JE Pettibone wrote:Ed: And Keith, if The baker and, florist recognize homosexuality as a sin why should they be forced to enable celebration of the sin, which to them is in itself sinful?


Keith :For several reasons:
1) they do not need to celebrate the same-sex wedding - they usually do not celebrate most weddings they service.

Ed: A. The coup;e do not "need" a Cake or flowers.

2) they need not think they are sinful in making a cake or providing flowers.

A . The couple do not need to be married.

3) they are not following the golden rule - do unto others what you would want done unto you (I have not heard of any LBGT cake makers/florists who would not provide the service to a opposite-sex wedding)

A .Nor have I heard of any LBGT cake maker or florist who have been asked to to perform services for a straight couple
.
4) Jesus sided with the marginalized

A. Not in every case. Only one of the theives on crosses on each side of him was promised a place in paradise.

5) one should guard against judgmental/ Pharisaic attitudes

A. So why pass judgment on those of us who understand homosexuality to be a sin.

6) consistently loving attitudes to others is want God desires for his created beings - not sour attitudes towards others

A. It is supporting another in their sin is not displaying a "loving attitude".
.
7) same-sexual preference is seen in most all animal populations

A. Are you saying that humans are to be judged on a basis of the deviation of a minority of "most all" animal populations?

8 ) the cake maker / florist is not “enabling” the celebration - it will go on without the cake or flowers.

A. So where is the injury in their refusal to make a cake or prepare flowers to enhance the celebration of what they believe to be a sin. I am glad to see we agree on this one. See my reply to your first point.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:09 am

Chris wrote:
Jon Estes wrote: Jeremiah 1:5.


I believe Jeremiah 1:5 refers to the soul, which is ETERNAL (it has no beginning, it has no end), Not the human body which lasts from the first breath outside the womb, until the last breath. If you believe in "eternal life", as most conservative Christians profess, then you must understand that the soul has no beginning, just as it has no ending.


Sorry C|hrist - but the subject matter of Jeremiah 1:5 is much deeper than you present.

J. Piper says it clealy... ...God knew you. With Jeremiah we say God knew us before he formed us in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5). God knew you in eternity before anything was made, and he knew you in history, before your arrival here on earth.

Also from Piper - 1. Jeremiah's Life Is Rooted in the Purposes of God
The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah and said, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
The first reason Jeremiah should be encouraged to take up the ministry is that his very life is rooted in the unshakable, sovereign purposes of God. Notice the four acts of God surrounding the birth of Jeremiah:

1.1. God Knew Him

First, God knew him: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." God took Jeremiah into his loving acquaintanceship, he set his caring eye upon him and chose him—that's the biblical idea of God's knowing his people (Amos 3:2). This is true for every child of God according to Romans 8:29.

1.2. God Consecrated Him

Second, God consecrated him. "Before you were born I consecrated you." God set him apart for some special holy purpose. He destined him for something significant. And that is true for you too. In giving every Christian grace and gifts, God consecrated us to be like Jesus and to use our gifts for his glory.

1.3. God Formed Him in the Womb

Third, God formed Jeremiah in the womb. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." What Jeremiah became though the genetic make up of his mother and his father Hilkiah was no accident. God shaped and designed him in his mother's womb. The Hebrew word (tsur) refers to the design of a house or the sculpting of a statue. The "you" that God has to work with today, minus the remnants and effects of sin, is a "you" that God designed and knows very well. If he calls you to something, it is because the design is right.

1.4. God Appointed Jeremiah to Be a Prophet

Fourth, God appointed Jeremiah to be a prophet. "I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations." This is why Jeremiah was born. This is his destiny. And you have one too. No Christian exists merely to make an honest living, raise a family, enjoy retirement, and die. Every one of you is called to a ministry.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:13 am

JE Pettibone wrote:
KeithE wrote:
JE Pettibone wrote:Ed: And Keith, if The baker and, florist recognize homosexuality as a sin why should they be forced to enable celebration of the sin, which to them is in itself sinful?


Keith :For several reasons:
1) they do not need to celebrate the same-sex wedding - they usually do not celebrate most weddings they service.

Ed: A. The coup;e do not "need" a Cake or flowers.

2) they need not think they are sinful in making a cake or providing flowers.

A . The couple do not need to be married.

3) they are not following the golden rule - do unto others what you would want done unto you (I have not heard of any LBGT cake makers/florists who would not provide the service to a opposite-sex wedding)

A .Nor have I heard of any LBGT cake maker or florist who have been asked to to perform services for a straight couple
.
4) Jesus sided with the marginalized

A. Not in every case. Only one of the theives on crosses on each side of him was promised a place in paradise.

5) one should guard against judgmental/ Pharisaic attitudes

A. So why pass judgment on those of us who understand homosexuality to be a sin.

6) consistently loving attitudes to others is want God desires for his created beings - not sour attitudes towards others

A. It is supporting another in their sin is not displaying a "loving attitude".
.
7) same-sexual preference is seen in most all animal populations

A. Are you saying that humans are to be judged on a basis of the deviation of a minority of "most all" animal populations?

8 ) the cake maker / florist is not “enabling” the celebration - it will go on without the cake or flowers.

A. So where is the injury in their refusal to make a cake or prepare flowers to enhance the celebration of what they believe to be a sin. I am glad to see we agree on this one. See my reply to your first point.


Good comments Ed.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:20 pm

I've never heard of a gay florist or baker who objected in principle to heterosexual marriage, or considered it, and aiding and abetting it, sinful. So it is not surprising that like Ed, I have never heard of one being asked to provide services to one. You only hear about it when someone sues.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11689
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby JE Pettibone » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:36 pm

Haruo wrote:I've never heard of a gay florist or baker who objected in principle to heterosexual marriage, or considered it, and aiding and abetting it, sinful. So it is not surprising that like Ed, I have never heard of one being asked to provide services to one. You only hear about it when someone sues.


Ed: Hauro, do you in fact know of a gay Baker or Florist who objects in principle to heterosexual marriage?
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Progress

Postby KeithE » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:30 pm

JE Pettibone wrote:
Haruo wrote:I've never heard of a gay florist or baker who objected in principle to heterosexual marriage, or considered it, and aiding and abetting it, sinful. So it is not surprising that like Ed, I have never heard of one being asked to provide services to one. You only hear about it when someone sues.


Ed: Hauro, do you in fact know of a gay Baker or Florist who objects in principle to heterosexual marriage?


I don’t know any. That does not make the point I was making (see below) non-applicable.

one of KeithE’s point: 3) they {cakemakers/florist who would object to performing their services for same-sex marriage} are not following the golden rule - do unto others what you would want done unto you (I have not heard of any LBGT cake makers/florists who would not provide the service to a opposite-sex wedding)


In fact it establishes the point that LBGTs cakemakers/florists are following the golden rule (doing unto others...). They are in most cases loving their enemies (those that are ill-deposed to them). Of course they may be out of business if they did object to providing cakes/flowers for heterosexual marriages. But at least they do not judge people normally for their marriages unlike their own.

Not going to take the time to debate each of my eight reasons or Ed’s As (I assume that A means answers).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8404
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:09 am

KeithE wrote:In fact it establishes the point that LBGTs cakemakers/florists are following the golden rule (doing unto others...). They are in most cases loving their enemies (those that are ill-deposed to them). Of course they may be out of business if they did object to providing cakes/flowers for heterosexual marriages. But at least they do not judge people normally for their marriages unlike their own.

Thios has nothing to do with objecting to providing items for those unlike their own. It is completely about not putting themselves in a position to show support for what they read clearly from scripture is objectional to God (capital G). Loving others does not mean we do what they want us to do.
God doesn't do that. Loving others does not mean we commit a sin just to tell others that giving to them what they want from us is more important than being true to God, as we understand it.


Not going to take the time to debate each of my eight reasons or Ed’s As (I assume that A means answers).
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:53 am

JE Pettibone wrote:
Haruo wrote:I've never heard of a gay florist or baker who objected in principle to heterosexual marriage, or considered it, and aiding and abetting it, sinful. So it is not surprising that like Ed, I have never heard of one being asked to provide services to one. You only hear about it when someone sues.


Ed: Hauro, do you in fact know of a gay Baker or Florist who objects in principle to heterosexual marriage?

No. I said "I've never heard of [one]", so it would be strange for me to know of one.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11689
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby Jim » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:51 pm

The evil-of-discrimination thing, or political incorrectness, always seems to redound to the treatment of the LGBTQ gang, not least perhaps because it has to do with God's design for perpetuating the race and the acceptance of people of that design or rejection/violation of it for whatever reason, usually the satisfying of carnal-as-opposed-to-spiritual acquiescence regarding God's plan. For those not accounting Genesis as myth, mankind is made in God's image. No one seems to know exactly what that means but it seems to me that man and woman were created with owning no imperfections. Perhaps Paul said it best in I Cor. 6:19 when he concluded the human body to be the physical/spiritual temple of God (Holy Spirit) on earth. Just as Jesus cleansed the temple of uncleanness when he violently threw out the money-changers and their spoils, God intends the human to keep uncleanness from his/her body. Uncleanness or defilement of the body is well-explained in scripture, both OT and NT. It includes homosexuality with bestiality and by extension any sexual exercises that run counter to protecting the original attribute of flawlessness, including the attempt to change sex. The pastor who weds man to man in the church defiles the earthly temple building-wise. The two men defile their bodies, with the pastor complicit. The denominations accepting as normal these perversions are at the gasping stage, a slap in God's face.
Jim
 
Posts: 3605
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:12 am

Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: And Keith, if The baker and, florist recognize homosexuality as a sin why should they be forced to enable celebration of the sin, which to them is in itself sinful?
BY the way tomorrow afternoon, Trudy will be hostessing a small group of our neighbors serving cake, pie, coffee and ice cream on our patio to celebrate my 85th birthday (Corection 84th). One of the 5 or so couples attending will be a legally married pair of rather nice women who are almost as old as I am.


Happy Birthday!

The baker and florist are not being "forced to enable celebration of the sin." They are contracting to provide a product or service for which they are getting paid. They're in business. The information being provided to them about the use of their products is voluntary. They operate a business in the public domain, so picking and choosing which customers to serve and which not to serve, based on their sexual orientation, is discrimination, just like it was discrimination when restaurants refused to serve African Americans.

If the scriptural analogies used here were applied in context, instead of as a prooftext, then it would have required someone in the agreement taking advantage of the other, or cheating them out of what they were entitled to receive for their products and services, in order for the example to fit. Jesus didn't run the money changers and merchants out of the temple court because they were merely selling something, he ran them out because they were cheating and stealing. There's no comparison or justification in those scriptures for this situation.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:25 am

Sandy wrote:
Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: And Keith, if The baker and, florist recognize homosexuality as a sin why should they be forced to enable celebration of the sin, which to them is in itself sinful?
BY the way tomorrow afternoon, Trudy will be hostessing a small group of our neighbors serving cake, pie, coffee and ice cream on our patio to celebrate my 85th birthday (Corection 84th). One of the 5 or so couples attending will be a legally married pair of rather nice women who are almost as old as I am.


Happy Birthday!

The baker and florist are not being "forced to enable celebration of the sin." They are contracting to provide a product or service for which they are getting paid.

So you support the forcing of the bakery to enter into a contractual agreement with someone just because they have a product the customer wants? Interesting. BIg Brother just can't let people choose who they want to business wth.

They're in business. The information being provided to them about the use of their products is voluntary. They operate a business in the public domain, so picking and choosing which customers to serve and which not to serve, based on their sexual orientation, is discrimination, just like it was discrimination when restaurants refused to serve African Americans.

It was Voddie Bauchum who said a while back this... “I’m insulted that people equate not just a sinful behavior but a behavior that’s a special category of sin called abomination with the level of melanin in my skin,”

If the scriptural analogies used here were applied in context, instead of as a prooftext, then it would have required someone in the agreement taking advantage of the other, or cheating them out of what they were entitled to receive for their products and services, in order for the example to fit. Jesus didn't run the money changers and merchants out of the temple court because they were merely selling something, he ran them out because they were cheating and stealing. There's no comparison or justification in those scriptures for this situation.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:05 pm

Here's a pretty thorough treatment of what Voddie Bauchum and King James I of England and VI of Scotland misleadingly called "abomination": Does the Bible really call homosexuality an abomination.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11689
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:09 pm

Haruo wrote:Here's a pretty thorough treatment of what Voddie Bauchum and King James I of England and VI of Scotland misleadingly called "abomination": Does the Bible really call homosexuality an abomination.
Even if one doesn't take the position that homosexual sex is a sin, it is still a stretch to compare a consensual decision on consummating a sex act with the color of skin with which one was born.
Last edited by Rvaughn on Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:40 pm

Rvaughn wrote:Even if one doesn't take the position that homosexual sex is a sin, it is still a stretch to compare a consensual decision on consummating a sex act with the color of skin with which one was born.


From a Christian perspective, absolutely. But in the United States, as required by the constitution, the law must be equally applied, and may not recognize the establishment of a religious perspective. So in the public domain, a business owner who has voluntarily opted to engage in the economy by selling products or services may not, under the law, discriminate when it comes to offering those products or services on any basis, and religious neutrality makes the beliefs of the customer equal to those of the business owner, who has voluntarily decided to participate in the public domain in order to earn money. And while we believe there is definitely a difference between an African American and a gay person when it comes to personal identity, the law recognizes sexual orentation as a protected minority status in the same way that being an African American is recognized.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:00 pm

I see a difference between selling equally to everyone a product you have on your shelf, as opposed to contracting to provide a specific product or service which one doesn't do all the time and may or may not want to do.

[But my comment about comparing a consensual decision on consummating a sex act with the color of skin with which one was born was mostly to Leland about Voddie Baucham and abomination in the Bible, and not specifically regarding the overall topic of butchers and bakers and candlestick makers. I've gone back and edited to make that clearer. BTW, I don't think one has to have a Christian perspective to understand that one's choice regarding sexual activity and "born-with" skin color are apples & oranges, not the same kind of categories.]
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:33 am

Rvaughn wrote:I see a difference between selling equally to everyone a product you have on your shelf, as opposed to contracting to provide a specific product or service which one doesn't do all the time and may or may not want to do.

[But my comment about comparing a consensual decision on consummating a sex act with the color of skin with which one was born was mostly to Leland about Voddie Baucham and abomination in the Bible, and not specifically regarding the overall topic of butchers and bakers and candlestick makers. I've gone back and edited to make that clearer. BTW, I don't think one has to have a Christian perspective to understand that one's choice regarding sexual activity and "born-with" skin color are apples & oranges, not the same kind of categories.]

First of all, I would say that if you are a cakemaker in business as such (or a baker who advertises her or his cakes) then a wedding cake is much more akin to "a product you have on your shelf" than it is to "a product or service which one doesn't do all the time and may or may not want to do". Now there may be details that arguably make a particular cake closer to the second category (e.g. if the person ordering the cake asks that it display homoerotic imagery in its decorations, etc.).

Secondly, with regard to the Voddie abomination issue, while certainly specific intentional acts are not in the same category as inherited genetic traits, discrimination against classes of people are in the same category whether the class is racial or orientational. There is a likeness of kind between the kinds of discrimination and violence directed against racial group members because of their race, and the kinds directed against those perceived to be homosexual.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11689
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:34 am

Haruo wrote:
Rvaughn wrote:I see a difference between selling equally to everyone a product you have on your shelf, as opposed to contracting to provide a specific product or service which one doesn't do all the time and may or may not want to do.

[But my comment about comparing a consensual decision on consummating a sex act with the color of skin with which one was born was mostly to Leland about Voddie Baucham and abomination in the Bible, and not specifically regarding the overall topic of butchers and bakers and candlestick makers. I've gone back and edited to make that clearer. BTW, I don't think one has to have a Christian perspective to understand that one's choice regarding sexual activity and "born-with" skin color are apples & oranges, not the same kind of categories.]

First of all, I would say that if you are a cakemaker in business as such (or a baker who advertises her or his cakes) then a wedding cake is much more akin to "a product you have on your shelf" than it is to "a product or service which one doesn't do all the time and may or may not want to do". Now there may be details that arguably make a particular cake closer to the second category (e.g. if the person ordering the cake asks that it display homoerotic imagery in its decorations, etc.).

You are making a case by claiming a non-shelved item be considered such because you see gay marriage as acceptable. You also try and make it about imagery on a cake instead of a sinful lifestyle (which is what the bakers do not want to promote). Nice try but it falls short.

Secondly, with regard to the Voddie abomination issue, while certainly specific intentional acts are not in the same category as inherited genetic traits, discrimination against classes of people are in the same category whether the class is racial or orientational. There is a likeness of kind between the kinds of discrimination and violence directed against racial group members because of their race, and the kinds directed against those perceived to be homosexual.


There is no scientific proof of a genetic cause for homosexuality. There have been some things of late to show it is not genetic. I read a report recently on the genetic make-up of identical twins where one chose the gay life and the other didn't. The scramble to explain from the left was quite sad.

The pandoras box you want to open needs to remain shut.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest