Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3483
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:39 pm

Side note, if you don't want to provide a cake to a same-sex couple, why not just say that you're booked up, or won't be able to complete it in time (or other skirt-around-the-truth methods)? No one gets offended, and you don't have to do something you don't want to. And you avoid nasty publicity. I have no problem if you don't want to do it, but you don't have to be rude about it.
It's not a terrible idea, though I suspect if a particular bakery shows a pattern of doing that, people will figure it out.

For those still okay with forcing a Christian bakery to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding I ask you this:

Would you be okay forcing a Christian bakery to bake a custom cake for a party celebrating the grand opening of a new abortion clinic?
How about the 100th anniversary of the local KKK chapter?
How about a custom cake with a nice, big, fat inverted pentagram with Baphomet's picture on it?

Would you be okay forcing a Jewish cake shop to put bacon on a custom cake?

Would you be okay forcing a Muslim owned bakery to bake a cake with the Prophet Mohammed's picture on it?

I think those of us who are actively involved in this discussion at this point are more or less in agreement that to force someone to do a custom cake violating their own beliefs is not okay, so this question is really aimed more at any others who might like to respond.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

storm
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:41 am

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby storm » Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:49 am



I think those of us who are actively involved in this discussion at this point are more or less in agreement that to force someone to do a custom cake violating their own beliefs is not okay, so this question is really aimed more at any others who might like to respond.
Ok for clarification must one be in agreement with you to be considered actively involved in a topic that your in ?
I am not saying I disagree with what you have to say (strangely enough I agree with the main part of it as I understand it ). I am just asking
1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (NKJV)
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Greg King

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3483
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:52 am

Ok for clarification must one be in agreement with you to be considered actively involved in a topic that your in ?
I am not saying I disagree with what you have to say (strangely enough I agree with the main part of it as I understand it ). I am just asking
I just said that to avoid ruffling feathers. I didn't want anyone who has already agreed with us to think I was aiming my comments at them.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

storm
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:41 am

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby storm » Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:57 am

Ok for clarification must one be in agreement with you to be considered actively involved in a topic that your in ?
I am not saying I disagree with what you have to say (strangely enough I agree with the main part of it as I understand it ). I am just asking
I just said that to avoid ruffling feathers. I didn't want anyone who has already agreed with us to think I was aiming my comments at them.

Very good thank you and not to worry I would never accuse you of aiming any kind of negative comment to people who agree with you. I hope you didn't think I felt that way.
1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. (NKJV)
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Greg King

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3483
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:59 am

Not at all :)
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17042
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ccgr » Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:35 am

I thought this video proved a good point


User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3483
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:46 am

And that's prettymuch that.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ChickenSoup » Sun Apr 05, 2015 5:43 am

"I felt like they were going to blow me up while I was there!"

Okay, guy.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

ActiveRedStone
Noob
Noob
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:09 am
Are you human?: Yes!

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ActiveRedStone » Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:21 pm

Romans 1: 21-32
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
II Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:27 am

Well yes, many of us are familiar with this and other passages. Have not all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God though? Why is this one any better or worse than any other sin? My understanding is that any sexual activity (thoughts and actions) outside of the Sacrament of Marriage is a sin regardless of sexual orientation. Yes, the sacrament is between a man and a woman but sexuality of any sort outside of this is equally viewed as a sin.

We certainly have a double standard in our society given the undue amount of attention we give to homosexual relations. Most people don't even bat an eye towards heterosexual ones. We are perfectly ok with giving wedding cakes to them and tend to be more lenient and understanding in those cases. Heterosexual sin goes against the Sacrament and thus the faith just as much as homosexual sin does, so why would we only deny cakes to one and not the other?
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22960
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby Chozon1 » Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:59 am

Well yes, many of us are familiar with this and other passages. Have not all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God though? Why is this one any better or worse than any other sin? My understanding is that any sexual activity (thoughts and actions) outside of the Sacrament of Marriage is a sin regardless of sexual orientation. Yes, the sacrament is between a man and a woman but sexuality of any sort outside of this is equally viewed as a sin.

We certainly have a double standard in our society given the undue amount of attention we give to homosexual relations. Most people don't even bat an eye towards heterosexual ones. We are perfectly ok with giving wedding cakes to them and tend to be more lenient and understanding in those cases. Heterosexual sin goes against the Sacrament and thus the faith just as much as homosexual sin does, so why would we only deny cakes to one and not the other?
We hear about it more because most people don't militantly attempt to get other types of sexual sin perceived as a valid life choice. And in the current conversation, it's because most people don't walk into a bakery and ask for a "We've been living together in sin for six months" cake. If they did, I would hope the Christians bakers would refuse them.

Heck, for that matter, most people don't walk into a bakery and ask for a "I've just lied to someone", "I just stole 10K from the office" or "I really hate that guy" cakes.

As for Christians accepting it, to take a relatively common and in-explicit example, let's say you ask a Christian their opinion on a couple living together. You'll hear them say it's wrong (I would hope), but as most people don't ask about it or try and force someone to accept its righteousness, you won't hear that Christian fighting it quite as vocally. The deuce with adultery, or whatever.

The reason homosexuality get's so much attention drawn to it by Christians is because a very vocal minority of homosexual people draw attention to themselves, acting the suffering saint, because they want homosexuality viewed as a valid way of living or else. And that doesn't line up with the Bible. You'd hear Christians fighting lying, stealing, murdering, or any number of other sins if people tried to make them a valid way of life.

I realize "acting the suffering saint" is not a very kind way to say it, but that's the only way I feel adequately describes the "accept me or else" attitude I see on the news, or in cases such as this, where a denial of service resulted in court cases.

I myself sit with Sstavix and his first post; I have the right to be a jerk, "I reserve the right to deny service to any customer for any reason", and neither the government, nor a consumer, should be able to take that away from me.
Image

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:03 am


We hear about it more because most people don't militantly attempt to get other types of sexual sin perceived as a valid life choice. And in the current conversation, it's because most people don't walk into a bakery and ask for a "We've been living together in sin for six months" cake. If they did, I would hope the Christians bakers would refuse them.
That's not entirely accurate actually. Sure you won't see people coming in to make "pro sex before marriage" cakes, but that doesn't mean they aren't militantly against the idea of abstinence before marriage. I've seen some people be respectful of the choice to not have sex before marriage and I have seen others who will try to force their views on you as well. The militant stance is far from unique to LGBT people.

As for Christians accepting it, to take a relatively common and in-explicit example, let's say you ask a Christian their opinion on a couple living together. You'll hear them say it's wrong (I would hope), but as most people don't ask about it or try and force someone to accept its righteousness, you won't hear that Christian fighting it quite as vocally. The deuce with adultery, or whatever.
So why don't we do that with homosexual couples then? As I said before, most of them aren't the militant type and as you said before those kind are a very vocal minority. We make it clear what Christianity teaches in love and then let them decide what to do with that. I don't see why we must treat homosexual relations any differently than the way you describe how one would deal with heterosexual ones.

Also, as far as churches who do not stand by what Christianity actually teaches, those are also the same churches that most likely think sex before marriage is perfectly fine anyway. Again, no one bats an eye so much these days when churches teach that error regarding heterosexual relations, so once more, why are homosexual ones deemed so much more important? Why is it so imperative that we take the strongest and harshest stance possible with homosexual relations but not so much with heterosexual ones?

I think part of the reason may be that heterosexuals can relate more to their own and perhaps see themselves make some of the same mistakes. Perhaps this is part of the reason we are more likely to be lenient with them and far more sympathetic? There does seem to be a level of detachment regarding homosexual relations that is not being shown regarding heterosexual ones. Perhaps it is because in regards to the latter it is something we have either done or could see ourselves doing while not being the case with the former?

The reason homosexuality get's so much attention drawn to it by Christians is because a very vocal minority of homosexual people draw attention to themselves, acting the suffering saint, because they want homosexuality viewed as a valid way of living or else.
So due to this minority, the majority of them who do not do this at all must pay a penalty for it? I would hope some discernment would be in order to distinguish which one is which. That majority should not be treated in the same way as the vocal minority to say the least.

As for the suffering saint, well, perhaps you could argue that regarding the vocal minority as you put it. I would say that for everyone else it is simply causing unnecessary hurt due to the fact that their sexual activities are treated far more harshly than their heterosexual counterparts. Treating them as if they are the same as the vocal minority would be like them treating us as if we were the vocal minority of fanatical extremists.

The only two reasons I can think of is either homosexual relations outside of marriage are far worse than heterosexual ones, or there is some other bias involved. Since it is not the former, I can only conclude the latter. Be it due to misunderstanding, inability to relate, or outright prejudice I am not sure. Since there is nothing heinous about homosexual relations that warrants the reactions we often see, we need to examine what is really going on in our minds and hearts. We need to see where we are truly drawing our premises from.

I myself sit with Sstavix and his first post; I have the right to be a jerk, "I reserve the right to deny service to any customer for any reason", and neither the government, nor a consumer, should be able to take that away from me.
Well, assuming this is true for the sake of argument, just cause one has the right to be a jerk does not mean that they should do so.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22960
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby Chozon1 » Tue Apr 07, 2015 12:22 pm

That's not entirely accurate actually. Sure you won't see people coming in to make "pro sex before marriage" cakes, but that doesn't mean they aren't militantly against the idea of abstinence before marriage. I've seen some people be respectful of the choice to not have sex before marriage and I have seen others who will try to force their views on you as well. The militant stance is far from unique to LGBT people.
That's true. I didn't imply it was. I've actually been mocked before because of my choice to abstain from sex before marriage. It happens.

And it doesn't change much, really. Being mocked or yelled at is a tad different from seeking legal action to shut me up.
So why don't we do that with homosexual couples then? As I said before, most of them aren't the militant type and as you said before those kind are a very vocal minority. We make it clear what Christianity teaches in love and then let them decide what to do with that. I don't see why we must treat homosexual relations any differently than the way you describe how one would deal with heterosexual ones.

Also, as far as churches who do not stand by what Christianity actually teaches, those are also the same churches that most likely think sex before marriage is perfectly fine anyway. Again, no one bats an eye so much these days when churches teach that error regarding heterosexual relations, so once more, why are homosexual ones deemed so much more important? Why is it so imperative that we take the strongest and harshest stance possible with homosexual relations but not so much with heterosexual ones?

I think part of the reason may be that heterosexuals can relate more to their own and perhaps see themselves make some of the same mistakes. Perhaps this is part of the reason we are more likely to be lenient with them and far more sympathetic? There does seem to be a level of detachment regarding homosexual relations that is not being shown regarding heterosexual ones. Perhaps it is because in regards to the latter it is something we have either done or could see ourselves doing while not being the case with the former?
For one, and it's important, most people, and I personally am among them, rebel at intolerance; when someone says to me "this is what I believe, and you must believe that way or else", I take offense. Vocal minority or not, homosexual people tend to push their lifestyle as something totally innocent, and if you say otherwise, you're homophobic.

For two, no. It's not a matter of inward revulsion at someone causing me to "hate" them in the name of God. I have nothing against homosexuals, and as a matter of course, I'm more likely to find myself biased against live-in couples, partially because the lack of warning or care given to them. I said above that I rebel at agenda's; that's not in any way homosexuality specific.

But a lack of a teaching against of one type of sin (pre-marriage sex) does not mean it's OK to ignore them all. If we used that logic, then no one would be able to say anything regarding any type of sin. Including racism, homosexuality, lying, cheating, murder, theft, ETC. Not a very effective church, or person.

For three, there's the matter of love itself. If I let someone go on in self-destructive behavior, while doing little more than "hai U guys stop", am I actually demonstrating love? If Christians taught that homosexuality was no big deal, would it change what God says happens after life? When we take a stand against homosexual policy, it's not a matter of hatred, but a fear that a sin will become a standard, and people will forget that it will cause separation from God.

Because no one changes if they don't know they need to. Would you consider it OK for a Christian to lie frequently, or steal? As long as they knew it was wrong, would you not bother trying to stop them, just treat them as "lovingly" as possible?
So due to this minority, the majority of them who do not do this at all must pay a penalty for it? I would hope some discernment would be in order to distinguish which one is which. That majority should not be treated in the same way as the vocal minority to say the least.

As for the suffering saint, well, perhaps you could argue that regarding the vocal minority as you put it. I would say that for everyone else it is simply causing unnecessary hurt due to the fact that their sexual activities are treated far more harshly than their heterosexual counterparts. Treating them as if they are the same as the vocal minority would be like them treating us as if we were the vocal minority of fanatical extremists.

The only two reasons I can think of is either homosexual relations outside of marriage are far worse than heterosexual ones, or there is some other bias involved. Since it is not the former, I can only conclude the latter. Be it due to misunderstanding, inability to relate, or outright prejudice I am not sure. Since there is nothing heinous about homosexual relations that warrants the reactions we often see, we need to examine what is really going on in our minds and hearts. We need to see where we are truly drawing our premises from.
Can you explain the reasoning behind the idea that Homosexuality isn't worse than heterosexuality? Or that it would be bettered by marriage?

Still, I have to reply "no". Because it needs to be acknowledged from point 0 that, whether the vocal minority or average Joe homosexual, it's God who's firmly against it; not Christians by themselves. If a Christian were queried about homosexuality and answered with nothing but biblical quotes, it would still come up as "sin". And that, whether the vocal minority or average Joe, it is wanted to become "normal". I have never met a practicing homosexual who admits what they're doing is wrong. Have you?

(And before anyone goes into a lengthy argument, I realize God used people who used counterpart Hebrew words, translated into Greek then English. The point remains that God used some very strong language.)

In fact, it's sort of ironic you bring it up; because Christians who will dare to say that an "alternative lifestyle" is wrong usually get lumped in with extremists. You'd be surprised how often "homosexuality is wrong" will instantly get you called homophobic. You even imply it in your post, however gently.
Well, assuming this is true for the sake of argument, just cause one has the right to be a jerk does not mean that they should do so.
Nope. But it does mean that trying to take away that right by force is wrong. It also means that, even if someone thinks I'm being a jerk when I'm not, they can't take legal action against me for it. Which is sort of the point of the new law. I can refuse to be a part of something I think is wrong.

Which isn't an irrational request.
Image

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3483
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:33 pm

Image
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:26 pm


And it doesn't change much, really. Being mocked or yelled at is a tad different from seeking legal action to shut me up.
Although some of those do try to take legal action to force churches who don't believe in Birth Control to provide it, take away a church's non-profit status and possibly tax them into the ground. So while it may not be in the arena of wedding cakes, there are other controversies.

For one, and it's important, most people, and I personally am among them, rebel at intolerance; when someone says to me "this is what I believe, and you must believe that way or else", I take offense. Vocal minority or not, homosexual people tend to push their lifestyle as something totally innocent, and if you say otherwise, you're homophobic.
I still think that's painting too broad a brush, but supposing that the vast majority of homosexuals were like this...

Even with that as an additional hurdle, there are ways to bring it up and ways not to bring it up. Most people are aware of what Christianity teaches but it is important to note several things:

1) It is only homosexual activity, not their sexual orientation in of itself.
2) To make clear that it is an automatic condemnation any more than heterosexual ones (more on this later in the post).
3) There is no double standard that makes homosexuality any better or worse than anything else. I understand this may come off as being "soft", but I think this perspective is due to an unnecessary level of harshness and attention.
4) We are no better than them
5) We are not trying to "change" their sexuality either by trying to "make them straight" or something. There are all kinds of horror stories talking about those and it kind of relates to #1. It is not their orientation or identity we are trying to change (of which they may not have any control over).

There is also the fact that Christians have all too often done the same thing in regards to this and other similar controversies as well, which doesn't help our case much.

But a lack of a teaching against of one type of sin (pre-marriage sex) does not mean it's OK to ignore them all. If we used that logic, then no one would be able to say anything regarding any type of sin. Including racism, homosexuality, lying, cheating, murder, theft, ETC. Not a very effective church, or person.
I didn't say that it was, although I don't think these are the only two options. Rather than this line of reasoning, it would be better to re-emphasize teachings about heterosexual relations. Again, the whole point here is to show that there is no double standard.

For three, there's the matter of love itself. If I let someone go on in self-destructive behavior, while doing little more than "hai U guys stop", am I actually demonstrating love? If Christians taught that homosexuality was no big deal, would it change what God says happens after life? When we take a stand against homosexual policy, it's not a matter of hatred, but a fear that a sin will become a standard, and people will forget that it will cause separation from God.
Well, you kind of have a point, but are the only options either extreme (and possibly unnecessary) harshness or being lax? I hardly think so. There are many other ways to address this. Each person and situation is different and must be handled on a case by case basis. There is no one size fits all.

Because no one changes if they don't know they need to. Would you consider it OK for a Christian to lie frequently, or steal? As long as they knew it was wrong, would you not bother trying to stop them, just treat them as "lovingly" as possible?
Not sure if we are defining the term lovingly in the same way here. I think part of that love is to of course is to say what Christianity teaches, but people need to come to it in their own time and just to have someone who will be there for them regardless. If they come to the realization, great, if not, that should not change how we relate to them. It seems to go back to once again, the idea that treating this without incredibly harsh or austere measures is mistakenly thought of as "too soft". Tell them the fullness of the truth when they are ready to hear it and possibly consider and/or accept it. Each situation is different and to give a heavy handed one size fits all approach would be ineffective at best and downright cruel at worst.

Can you explain the reasoning behind the idea that Homosexuality isn't worse than heterosexuality? Or that it would be bettered by marriage?
I am not sure of my answer second question just yet but I will gladly explain my reasoning regarding the first...

As for Paul, there are verses such as the one quoted here and others relating to it to take into context. I do not think the words used to describe homosexuality in this passage or other related ones are limited to just that one item. In another one he lists a whole bunch of people who will not inherit the Kingdom, which includes heterosexual sins (fornication) as well. They are all lumped in together.

Although, as he also writes all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God is merciful to all of us, and we do not deserve it regardless of what the issue is. As he also writes in Corinthians God will judge those outside the Church. Our responsibility is towards those in the Church. Therefore, once more, proclaiming a final judgment would not be the correct thing to do. In like manner, to say that the harshest words only apply to one particular sin that Paul names to me is a misinterpretation. It seems here and elsewhere he treats them all equally.

There is much more I could say on this topic but I think this is enough for now. Hope that helps.

Still, I have to reply "no". Because it needs to be acknowledged from point 0 that, whether the vocal minority or average Joe homosexual, it's God who's firmly against it; not Christians by themselves. If a Christian were queried about homosexuality and answered with nothing but biblical quotes, it would still come up as "sin". And that, whether the vocal minority or average Joe, it is wanted to become "normal". I have never met a practicing homosexual who admits what they're doing is wrong. Have you?
How many are Christians that were properly taught and understood it correctly in the first place would be the first question. Obviously, a non-believer may not accept the Bible at all so it shouldn't be all that surprising then.

I can't recall if I ever heard anyone who said homosexual activity is wrong so I will give you that.

In fact, it's sort of ironic you bring it up; because Christians who will dare to say that an "alternative lifestyle" is wrong usually get lumped in with extremists. You'd be surprised how often "homosexuality is wrong" will instantly get you called homophobic. You even imply it in your post, however gently.
Sure, but with the caveats I mentioned earlier of course. It won't satisfy everyone but then again that is not the goal here. This is in part to differentiate from the usual implied messages which often come from extremists. It also shows that no, one is not automatically condemned or should be seen as doing anything inherently worse than anyone else. You and I are no better than they are after all. Oftentimes people are used to Christians proclaiming that they are better, their sins are somehow not as bad, or that someone else's is just plain worse than theirs even when it isn't. We must do what we can to alleviate this and send out the correct message.

Nope. But it does mean that trying to take away that right by force is wrong. It also means that, even if someone thinks I'm being a jerk when I'm not, they can't take legal action against me for it. Which is sort of the point of the new law. I can refuse to be a part of something I think is wrong.

Which isn't an irrational request.
Refusing to be a part of something that is believed to be wrong isn't an irrational request in itself. However, it circles back around to what constitutes as being a part of an event in the first place. Not every business situation does and therefore it would not be the right thing to do in those cases. Some beliefs can be mistaken and therefore wrong. I have made clear that refusing service on the issue of wedding cakes under any or all conditions is a wrong viewpoint to have. I may not have explicitly said that until now but that's the main thesis. I believe that some situations do not constitute as being asked to partake in something that goes against someone's beliefs and thus these situations are not covered by freedom of religion. These do not constitute a right and should not be defended as if they were.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests