Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

Woolworth's was discriminating against PERSONS. There is NO COMPARISON with what we are talking about. Why can't you all think logically anyway?And you don't bother to say what happened when the law went against them? Were they fined, had to close their doors? Certainly not the latter.I will happily break any laws I consider to be against God without your approval..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Woolworth decided to open the counter to everyone.And until you can explain how a cake validates a marriage of course the baker was discriminating against persons.You are of course free to break any law but please stop whining when you are subject to the penalties.

In my previous reply, I forgot to mention King James I and VI, who gave his name to the 1611 translation of the Bible. King James was notorious for his fondness for handsome young men, particularly Robert Carr (later Earl of Somerset) and George Villiers (later Earl and then Duke of Buckingham). The king's defence of his affair with Villiers is worth quoting; he said:

quote:

---

I, James, am neither God nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man, and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf, and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George'.

---

As for Robert Carr (the Earl of Somerset), in 1616 (five years after the publication of the King James version of the Bible) his career blew up in one of the most lurid scandals in English history when he and his wife (formerly Frances Howard) were tried for the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury. The scandal had everything: murder, adultery, homosexuality, black magic, perjury, and allegations that the king himself was an accessory. The story is told in all its horrifying detail by Anne Somerset in her book 'Unnatural Murder'.No, if you were looking for high standards of sexual morality, the 17th century was not a good time to live. And yet, it was when Britain and Ireland were ruled by such a king, and when men and women of the character of George Villiers, Robert Carr and Frances Howard were being raised to the peerage that God supposedly bestowed on England the gift of the King James version of the Bible.

I DID answer your underhanded comparison.

There's nothing underhanded about the comparison, and you have not addressed the issue,If the laws compelling commercial bakers to provide wedding cakes to gays are unconstitutional, why are the same laws constitutional when banning segregation? Both are religious principles held by Christians (to be generous to you). Why is it acceptable to penalise one but not the other?

Poor King James, the slander against him continues to this day. This has even been discussed on other threads here and as I recall others agreed that he had been exonerated of homosexuality. I've searched but am not coming up with the right terms to get the posts I have in mind.It's irrelevant to our discussion whether he was a true Christian or not but most of the evidence goes for rather than against. When he says he loves certain men he is not implying homosexuality, and neither does the love between Jesus and John and King David and Jonathan.Why don't you quote him on the sin of homosexuality? He loathed and abhorred it.And here's my blog on the subject .Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have not shown that any such laws ever existed or that any bakery provided all services to blacks except making a wedding cake.

Faith, what are you talking about? As I saud it is the same laws in both cases. The only difference is the group being protected from discrimination.

You've said it you have not shown it.

Here's a page of quotes that should raise some doubts about the common accusations of King James IV and I.ABE: And here's another page of helpful links. /ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, how is saying "You can buy anything but a wedding cake" different than saying "You can buy anything in the store except at the white counter" or "You can ride anywhere on the bus as long as you don't sit in the front with the white folk"?

I will also always protest against unjust laws and penalties, as any decent person should.

It's been made clear, if you don't get it I can't help you.

Here is the law in Colorado, used in the Denver case.

But in the bakery instance there has been no penalty, just whining.Nor have you shown any reasoning to claim there is any injustice except for the bakers discrimination and bigotry.You still have presented no reasoning or support for your claim that a cake validates a marriage.