Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

No. Nobody has any business judging anybody's sin or what they want your services for unless you happen to know they are planning something criminal, this isn't hypocrisy this is just life. But neither would the Christian baker. Why aren't you getting this point?Your idea that there's some kind of pretense involved in simply minding my own business, as in hiding behind a "cloak of ignorance," would mean nobody could live at all in this world, we'd all have to become obnoxious busybodies. I don't need to know everything about other people's business. If I'm not writing the inscription on the cake they can do whatever they want with it, it's none of my business.The issue I'm talking about comes up ONLY when someone requires ME, me personally, to do something that actively and consciously violates my conscience or my moral standards.ABE: Missing my own point: The point isn't sin and sinners as such, it isn't homosexuality as such or any kind of sin as such, in the bakery case: it's specifically the issue of gay marriage and their forcing the baker implicitly to validate it by specifically making a special wedding cake for it. That's been the context all along and over and over I've said that there is no problem with doing ordinary business with gays or anybody. 'I really don't see why this is so hard to understand. Just as you don't care what a white supremacist does with a generic cake, neither does the Christian baker care what a gay person does with a generic cake. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But it is the law and you have to obey it.Romans 13:1-2 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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.How is this different from a member of NAMBLA refusing to obey the law because it conflicts with what he feels is moral?

No I do not. Laws that directly oppose God are not to be obeyed. All this is going to do is persecute decent people, probably eventually send them to prison. But that's the way the country is going. No, I do not have to be subject to laws that contradict God's word. Well, you can decide between us if you want. There may be some here who would put NAMBLA above Christians.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you are charged and prosecuted for breaking a law, you are not being persecuted because you chose to break the law.You are free to decide to break any law you wish, but you are responsible for the consequences of your behavior: you are choosing lawful punishment in lieu of abiding by the law.Fully commited protesters understand this - you can see people making this choice protesting the XL pipeline for example.Claiming religious belief is not a "get out of jail free" card.

quote:

---

No I do not. Laws that directly oppose God are not to be obeyed

---

And how does this law "oppose God" ?

quote:

---

All this is going to do is persecute decent people, probably eventually send them to prison. But that's the way the country is going

---

Decent people wouldn't be breaking that law in the first place.

quote:

---

Romans 13:1-2 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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

​

No, I do not have to be subject to laws that contradict God's word.

---

The verses you quoted say that if you go against the secular law, you are going against God. You really should try to read the Bible more. Preferably a translation in a more modern English that you might find easier to understand.Romans 13 NASB Seems pretty clear. You should obey the government, and the government has the right to punish evil. So I guess that any real Christian would happily obey this law.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I don't see why baking a cake should violate anybody's conscience.Would it be reasonable for a sales clerk at The Gap to refuse to sell socks to either of the grooms?

Such a simple thing, such an obvious thing, explained over and over and over. Not "baking a cake," but constructing a special-ordered WEDDING cake for a gay wedding. Like if you were asked to inscribe "White supremacy reigns" on a cake. Would you do it? If not, surely you can see that there are some specific instances where a person's conscience would be forced into a corner by some requests. No. Selling socks doesn't validate gay marriage.

The first thing I would do is check to see if the customer had brown eyes; if he did, I'd tell him he wasn't really white.Your turn: If you were asked to inscribe "Happy 4.6 billionth birthday, Earth" on a cake, would you do it?

Would you/they construct a special-ordered wedding cake for my Catholic wedding?If so, you're a hypocrite.If not, then that's unconstitutional and the business should not serve the public.

Oh I'll be a hypocrite and any other kind of evil thing you can come up with no matter what I say.The issue is not what church is doing the wedding, but who is getting married. Gay marriage is not acceptable but heterosexual marriage of course is.I can hardly wait to find out what other totally irrelevant objection can be thought up against me.

What baffles me is that I (a committed atheist), seem to have a better grasp on the intra intricacies of the Bible than an obviously committed xian.Go figure.

quote:

---

Gay marriage is not acceptable but heterosexual marriage of course is.

---

It seems that Jesus would disagree with the idea that all heterosexual weddings are acceptable. See Mark 10:11-12

I agree so I would limit the heterosexual weddings too.

Actually I think I spoke too soon. The issue here is an overt challenge to the conscience. If I'm asked to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding and have no reason to know whether it is a first or other marriage, I'd have no reason not to make it. That's the principle of minding my own business that I said before rules.

Hypocrite it is, then. The irrelevancies you think you are seeing are a result of you not being able to follow your arguments to their logical conclusion. But you've never been able to do that so I don't think you ever will. Oh well.