Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

How have I said anything different? If I refuse to treat it as legitimate in some circumstance where it is requested of me, I will be legally punished.

I don't haave a clue what you are talking about. I've never used the term "table fellowship" and have no idea what it means. You seem to be going on about something in your own head, certainly not anything that has to do with me. (except the upper part of your post above the asterisks, that I recognize as mine but I have no idea what you are saying about it.

WHAT? Who says that? I can't possibly have said any such thing. What are you talking about? You need to stop misrepresenting me. I've said no such thing. This is all in your head. Everything in that paragraph is wacko. You are making bizarre logical leaps and attributing things to me that I didn't say. The meat sacrificed to idols doesn't apply today just because we aren't surrounded by idolatrous religions, but the principle certainly applies: there are NONSINFUL things we are free to do such as eat meat sacrificed to idols, that we shouldn't do if there is someone among us with a tender conscience about it. Eating meat is nonsinful, it just has implications in context that we need to consider as a reason not to eat it. Fornication on the other hand is clearly a sin no matter what the context, and how you got from eating sacrificed meat to temple fornication is beyond me.If you are going to impute words to me, words I don't recognize AT ALL, you are obliged to quote them. I don't recognize anything you've said about "ceremonial and table fellowship" -- something you put together in your own mind.Please stop. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why is this a question?Why did you change the subject? The point of its being a wedding cake was that even if they were having a civil union and not a wedding all the terminology that was used referred to weddings, and I believe that is how it was presented to the bakery too.If they'd been asked for a birthday cake although using a cake in the wedding category, there probably wouldn't have been a problem. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Interesting quotes about freedom of conscience extending to business owners. I think America could do with some of that thinking on this subject.From The Guardian: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

When people don't read the context and follow the argument what happens is posts that are something like a bait-and-switch. We're talking about one thing and then suddenly we're having to deal with something completely different because the same words have been moved into a new context.Mod pointed out that the Oregon couple were having a civil union, not a wedding. I answered that from the bakery's point of view it was presented as a wedding and the whole argument has been about a wedding.Now you seem to be introducing a completely different topic but I'm not really sure what it is.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What I said to Mod was that I hadn't thought through the situation of a civil union versus a wedding so I don't have an opinion about it. I don't know if there is enough of a difference to make a difference. I'm not and never have been talking about what the customers think they are doing, I'm only talking about the Christian's view of gay marriage.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think this topic has been done to death and now old issues that have already been thoroughly answered are just being recycled.But in the parallel discussion that has been going on with Modulous, Tangle and PaulK, Tangle quoted a gay activist in the UK who had been against a Christian bakery in a similar situation to those we are talking about here, and has since changed his mind on the ground that the bakers should have freedom of conscience. I haven't brought that up on this thread though I used to argue it. I think it needs to be brought up now.Tangle quoted the man in his Message 422 and I followed up in Message 434

No, of course not, far far better that a Christian bakery suffer the indignities and even be put out of business.

Race is not a sexual aberration. I'd happily punch you in the nose for that lie that has been answered dozens of times already. I'd happily get my hand broken for the trouble. I'd happily sit in jail for it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In case you think this is what the Christian baker, florist and photographer are doing, it ought to be clear by now that they are not, as has been said many times already. It's about the definition of marriage given by God, as understood by conservative Christians. it's not about any class of sinners. You ought to have grasped that by now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think this gets unnecessarily confusing when you include what a business simply does not stock. Just because there may be a religious reason for that in some cases can't be made an issue because businesses only stock what they stock for WHATEVER reason.Shouldn't the topic be confined to what IS stocked but available under some circumstances and not others?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not so, I regard every word of it as true, when read in the light of everything else in the Bible. If you read it that way you understand there are conditions and contexts that define how to read parts of it today, especially the OT in light of the NT. It doesn't make the OT any less true to recognize that it had a different role in the time of Moses versus the time of Jesus. Jesus' coming changed the whole meaning of the OT (however, many preachers argue that it's all there in the OT if you understand how to read it properly, because there are plenty of hints about the role of the Messiah to come, but that's too fine a point for this discussion.) At the very least the OT was written for a theocracy, the NT is written to the universal Church which is scattered among all the nations on the planet, and whose "citizenship is not of this world." But ALL of it is still read as true, as "admonitions" as the NT puts it (the stonings and killings teach about the severe offensiveness of sin), or just in general to understand the mind of God. I would expect people to accept what a person says about why they believe what they believe, yes, and what I believe and have tried to explain does not come from me but from years of hearing sermons and reading theology. My view of these things falls pretty much right in line with the standard views of the Protestant Christian Church since the Reformers. It is certainly shared by the majority of conservative Christians today who would agree that God's definition of marriage as I quoted it requires us to refuse to do anything to appear to legitimize gay marriage.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Left out this part: I'm thinking of the many references scattered here and there about marriage, instructions to husbands, wives and children for instance, that all together in the context of the whole Bible should confirm the defrinition as given. I don't know if I could come up with any specific passages that would make the point. If I think of any I will. Otherwise I recommend you spend the rest of your life reading the Bible, commentaries and theology books. It's good for the soul and should answer most of your questions.

To my mind the thread changed direction when Tangle posted the article in the Guardian by the gay activist who had changed his mind about punishing a Christian bakery for discrimination against gays. The bakery in Belfast had refused to honor a particular request for a gay-marriage-affirming message on a cake, were sued and fined 500 pounds (about $620 in American dollars), and appealed the case. Just before the appeal date the gay activist reported on his change of mind.I'd kept the topic of this thread to the simple effect of the legalization of gay marriage on Christians who cannot accept gay marriage as legitimate. I didn't want to include the question of the legitimacy of the law itself as a violation of freedom of conscience, or freedom of religion, to avoid complicating the discussion but also because I've accepted that political trends are such we're going to have to accept that our freedom of religion is now destroyed by political correctness and that is that. I just wanted to emphasize that this DOES punish conservative Bible-believing Christians.It also demolishes freedom of religion, and I'm glad to see this fact raised in the UK, and by a gay activist yet. This Opinion Piece in the Guardian, I’ve changed my mind on the gay cake row. Here’s why makes a good case for that so I think it should be included on the thread. Tangle has been more or less defending it in recent posts.Here's the conclusion by the author, Peter Tatchell: Yahoo. NOT AGAINST IDEAS. Beliefs, political opinions. Such as objection to gay marriage.None of the businesses we've been discussing refused services to gays in general, only services related to gay marriage. Same as the situation in the UK.A sparkling note of sanity in the enveloping midst of PC murk. (I don't have any illusions that it will go much beyond this refreshingly sane moment, of course, but it's a huge relief to know there are still people who can rise above the PC muck that is engulfing the world.)So, after pages of the usual PC murk on this thread so far, I invite the same for this revised version of the topic. Let's see freedom of religion trashed to a fare-thee-well on behalf of gay marriage. I'm sure you're all up to it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.