After Orlando, time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom: Neil Macdonald

a reply to: AMPTAH

But, then the Christian would be "doing something" to further promote the sin.

Wouldn't that apply to any Christian then, not just a baker. Why should a butcher sell a roast to gay couple who are going to copulate after eating it? Why should a tow truck driver repair a flat tire if the car owner is on their way to a gay date, or to vote Democrat?

I mean, a Christian EMT could refuse life giving aide, because the victim is gay and will only go on to sin some more if his life is saved, right? Where does Christianity draw the line?

originally posted by: DeadFoot
. My personal interpretation, after Jesus' coming, would be that Leviticus is a historical account of ancient Christian law that was all but thrown out by Jesus.

You don't need a personal interpretation. Listen to what Jesus says,

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." -- KJV, Matthew 5:17

The law is still valid. But, Jesus demands his followers "do even better" than the law commands;

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." -- KJV, Matthew 5:20

So, it's not that Leviticus is no longer valid, rather Christians must do even better than that law demands.

So, what is better?

Does better mean, ok, now men can have sex with men? Can you possibly interpret "better" to mean actions that would completely reverse the interpretation of the old law?

Or, would you say that "better" must mean, even while fulfilling the obligations under the old laws, men must improve upon them, and rise even higher?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AMPTAH

Wouldn't that apply to any Christian then, not just a baker. Why should a butcher sell a roast to gay couple who are going to copulate after eating it? Why should a tow truck driver repair a flat tire if the car owner is on their way to a gay date, or to vote Democrat?

That's why the "context" is so important.

The wedding cake is specifically for the celebration of gay sex.

The roast and the tow truck driver aren't celebrating gay sex. They most likely don't even know the couple is gay.

When you get a flat tire, do you call up the tow truck and say "gay couple flat, need help?" Who does that?

a reply to: AMPTAH

The wedding cake is specifically for the celebration of gay sex

What? Is that what you think of every wedding cake, or just the cakes that are eaten after gay couples pledge life long fidelity and devotion to one another?

When you get a flat tire, do you call up the tow truck and say "gay couple flat, need help?" Who does that?

Tow Truck Driver Leaves Victim on Side of Road Because "Religion"?

dbl post

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Does better mean, ok, now men can have sex with men? Can you possibly interpret "better" to mean actions that would completely reverse the interpretation of the old law?

I can point you to a few hundred that somehow did. Working on the Sabbath, shaving your face, eating fish, touching a menstruating woman.

I mean, the list goes on; based on what you're saying I would have to believe that it is still not okay to let an adulterer live in your town.

Either way this conversation isn't really getting anywhere. Even if you do manage to convince me that a Christian shouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding, you still have to convince me that having these words in your biblical text allows you to break the law.

Reading through this thread disappoints me.

We are all just people. Have you Christians forgotten the story of the good Samaritan?

Luke 10:25-37New International Version (NIV)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Samaritans and Jews hated one another, yet it was an enemy who helped the Jew out while his fellow Jews left him there to die. It is acts of compassion and humanity that define people as Christian. This teaching says it right here.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Does better mean, ok, now men can have sex with men? Can you possibly interpret "better" to mean actions that would completely reverse the interpretation of the old law?

Perhaps you should not worry about what other people do when it doesn't directly affect you, and worry about yourself. That's the problem with a lot of strictly religious people: they make other people's business theirs when it's not.

As far as the old law, I think Jesus transcended that. And he'd probably give you a stern "talkin' to."

We see what you're about.

Bigotry of any kind should be socially unacceptable, I completely agree on that point.

As far as religion is concerned, people should be able to conduct themselves in any way that doesn't harm others or their property. If you want to pull the religion card and not bake a cake for a gay couple, go for it. In the same way I can just as easily boycott that bakery for being prejudice. This is the social factor coming in to play, let the press shame the heck out of them, and the rest of us boycott. Involving laws to govern religious beliefs is just going to get libertarians screaming.

If someone is going to be violent or is advocating for violence arrest them. But if some guy with a below average IQ wants to refuse baking a cake for a gay couple then let him. Much easier for me to identify which businesses to avoid when they aren't forced to comply with laws.

originally posted by: Liquesence

Perhaps you should not worry about what other people do when it doesn't directly affect you, and worry about yourself.

But, that's the whole problem. The Christian tries to concern himself with just things that directly affect's him. He doesn't go looking for faults in others. He's not supposed to go looking for those faults. It is others who come to him and demand that he do this or do that, and if he doesn't do these things they complain, and bring the law to force him to do those things he would not. He, the Christian is trying his best to avoid confrontation, to separate himself from the actions of sinners, but others won't leave him alone.

originally posted by: centrifugal
Bigotry of any kind should be socially unacceptable, I completely agree on that point.

Right, and we shouldn't be bigots against any religion, or religious person, but accept them with their beliefs.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: centrifugal
Bigotry of any kind should be socially unacceptable, I completely agree on that point.

Right, and we shouldn't be bigots against any religion, or religious person, but accept them with their beliefs.

By allowing them to break the law.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: centrifugal
Bigotry of any kind should be socially unacceptable, I completely agree on that point.

Right, and we shouldn't be bigots against any religion, or religious person, but accept them with their beliefs.

By allowing them to break the law.

Which law?

God's Law? Or, Man's Law?

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: centrifugal
Bigotry of any kind should be socially unacceptable, I completely agree on that point.

Right, and we shouldn't be bigots against any religion, or religious person, but accept them with their beliefs.

By allowing them to break the law.

Which law?

God's Law? Or, Man's Law?

Do you think you get to pick the former over the latter when you have the option to comply with both?

originally posted by: centrifugal
Bigotry of any kind should be socially unacceptable, I completely agree on that point.

As far as religion is concerned, people should be able to conduct themselves in any way that doesn't harm others or their property. If you want to pull the religion card and not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, go for it. In the same way I can just as easily boycott that bakery for being prejudice.

And if they previously baked a birthday cake, graduation cake, etc do you still boycott them?

This is the social factor coming in to play, let the press shame the heck out of them,

Is it part of the press' job to shame people?

But if some guy with a below average IQ wants to refuse baking a wedding cake for a gay couple then let him.

That certainly isn't a prejudiced statement at all.

Much easier for me to identify which businesses to avoid when they aren't forced to comply with laws.

I fully agree. Let the market decide. I do not agree with partisan journalists 'shaming' anyone. What happened to objective reporting?

wedding added by me.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

Do you think you get to pick the former over the latter when you have the option to comply with both?

There's never a problem when we comply with both. No one can call us a bigot then.

The wise person always tries to do his best to keep God's law, while avoiding situations that would compromise it in attempting to satisfy man's law.

"They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, "Caesar's men demand taxes from us." He said to them, "Whose face is on the money?". They answered, "Caesar's." He said to them, "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine."" -- The Gospel of Thomas #100, KJV, Matthew 22:17-22, etc..

a reply to: AMPTAH

And then there's Romans 13
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Are you proposing to do away with religious freedom? Seems to be the intent of your statement.

No, I'm not, and never suggested as much. I've been pretty clear. You do not have the right to legally discriminate against others while trying to hide behind religion.

Not participating on someone else's decision is not discrimination.

originally posted by: Liquesence
The implication of the OP was not passing "religious freedom" laws in order to legally discriminate while hiding behind religion. I presume Tenth would agree with me.

By all means, then, tell us what those laws would state, in detail.

originally posted by: Liquesence

Plus, a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. It's his business, after all. If someone wants to refuse service to whomever, as a private business, they should be allowed.

That's your opinion. I, and the law, disagree that you can't refuse based upon race, creed, etc; it's discrimination; hence the Civil Rights act.

Changing laws doesn't change how people feel. Addressing that is the key, not passing laws that force commerce.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nobody is forced to "do commerce".

Oh, but they are. Forcing someone to host someone, or bake a cake, or take pictures, or whatever, is forcing commerce.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

When you get in your car and drive, are you forced to stop at a stop signs and red lights, or are you respecting your commitment to society to be orderly and follow the laws as they're written, when you stop.

If you can't drive without feeling "forced" to obey the laws, then you probably shouldn't drive. Same with business. When you are a public business, if you have to be forced to work with "the public", you probably shouldn't be in business.