Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

Well, according to the Bible, marriage is also the sacred bond between a man and a woman and the woman's sister and the woman's slave and the woman's sister's slave. STOP REDEFINING MARRIAGE.

Well, first of all, gluttony is not really that bad a sin. There are admonitions but no punishments. In the bible gluttony is used more as an allegory for self-control. Controlling your physical self from gluttony is akin to controlling your spiritual self from things like lust, greed and avarice.Second, usury is only a sin if you extract usury from your family, friends, tribe or village. It’s perfectly fine to gouge a stranger into rags as long as he’s a them and not an us.He who layeth with another man as he would a woman, though, is quite different. You can have lots of fun with them like stoning them, hanging them, throwing them off of tall buildings. Those kinds of things that would make them suffer and then be dead which is exactly what the good book requires.The problem for the Christian is that, in a secular society that has become rather squeamish about such things as torture and murder (at least of our own citizens, inside our own borders, usually), you can’t legally express your revulsion and bigotry in these ways anymore. But the good book requires you to be hateful, spiteful and bigoted against these sinners. So you can only do the next best things like not serve them in your Christian stores, not acknowledge them as fellow human beings and not allow them the comfort and rights enjoyed by the good Christian citizens of the nation. To follow the requirements of their god, to follow the conscience which has been dictated to them under penalty of eternal damnation and torture, they have to treat today’s gays like they treated blacks in the 50’s.

Your actions speak louder than your words. If you people were against all the sins in the Bible and if you followed all the commandments in it, then we would think that being against homosexuality was just part and parcel of that. As you don't, it does look awfully like being mean to gay people is the objective and the Bible is just the excuse.

I thought there was something about the husband's brother too.

The people in the Bible were sinners who didn't obey God. God's law says marriage is between one man and one woman until death which is the only legitimate reason you can remarry. The polygamists were in disobedience to God. Obedience means marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman.And again we don't judge other people's sins. We do work for a society that tries to limit sin, and we will oppose a social policy that actively supports a violation of God's law, which gay marriage is.

And, curiously enough, also his favorite people. As God never mentioned his disapproval of polygamy you can hardly claim that they were disobeying him. And usury is too. Perhaps half of you could campaign against gay marriage, and the other half could crack down on usurers? No? You all want to oppose gay marriage? I wonder why.

Well, if there's one thing people need to know about God it's that as much as he hates sin He cares more about people's loving and honoring Him and His Law, and putting their trust in Him. King David was "a man after His own heart" although he committed adultery, polygamy and murder. What made him a man after God's own heart was his genuine grief over his sins, his contrition and repentance and his genuine love of the one true Creator God and dedication to honoring Him.God has to punish sin because that's just, but "mercy triumphs over justice" and that's why He punished Jesus Christ in our place. Jesus triumphed over death because He was the only sinless human being that ever existed, so He could take our punishment for us and die for us because He couldn't die for Himself. Well, but He did mention His disapproval of polygamy, but if the Old Testament mention isn't enough for you then take Jesus' word for it in Matthew 18 and Mark something, where He is preaching against divorce. What usury? We have laws against that.In any case we have plenty to do in campaigning against the murder of the unborn, the deformation of the culture by Political Correctness, and now this travesty of marriage. By now you should know and if you don't, I don't care,. Believe what you want, you will anyway because your real agenda is to find fault with Christians even if you have to make it up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was thinking about Abraham and Jacob. And, y'know, if God disapproved, he could have mentioned it. Abraham, who circumcised himself and was willing to sacrifice his own son at God's command could surely have taken the hint. It's not as though it's hard to not be a polygamist. Here's what the Bible has to say about polygamy: Not a mention there about how a man shouldn't have two wives. But moreover, it acknowledges that a man can have two wives, that this isn't a contradiction in terms. According to the Biblical definition of marriage, he is in fact married to both of them. Now, I notice that our godless society has changed the definition of marriage so that he can't be, so that a man who goes through a marriage ceremony with a second woman is not in fact married to her. Tsk, tsk, redefining marriage. Shocking! I hope you and your chums will put this right by campaigning to legalize polygamy. Y'know, banks. Yes, you're too busy fighting for conservative causes to spare any time for merely Christian causes. So stop pretending that you're doing it for God. It is becoming increasingly obvious. Faith, I couldn't make this shit up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You claim this to be a provision against polygamy? It might just as well be provision against children living with their parents after the children get married.And man and his wife are to be inseparable with their bond coming before that of parent/child. That's all the verse says. It is not a provision against a man doing a rinse, lather, repeat with multiple women.Your David reading is also BS. David's sin was murdering his friend and taking his friends wife and not simply having two wives. In fact, David had multiple wives even excluding Bathsheba and he never expressed even the slightest contrition about polygamy. So did Solomon, and Jacob, and Esau. Isaac seems to have been a one woman kind of guy, but Isaac stands out as a loner compared to a lot of the other favorites in the Bible. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We have laws against the modern version of usury which is charging statutorily high interest rates.However the Biblical definition is that usury applies to charging any interest at all. We certainly do not have laws against that.

Sort of - that's Judaism. In Christianity, we're all brothers in Christ so any usury is a sin. Which is why in Europe the Jews became associated with moneylending and jewellery. They were the only ones that could and would loan money to Christians without breaking religious laws, and they typically acquired lots of collateral on the way. Combined with the fact that at many times in history, Jews were more or less forbidden to take any significant job other than moneylending....Of course, from that perspective, it's also not a Christian sin to occasionally kill or expel the jews and steal all their money. Sure, but that same texts say working on the Sabbath deserves the same fate (Exodus 31:14). Also paying cult to other deities (Exodus 22:20), adultery (which, according to the NT includes remarrying after a divorce) (Leviticus 20:10), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), having sex with an engaged woman, or being an engaged woman who has sex (Deu 22:23-24), cursing your parents (Leviticus 20:9), being disobedient to your parents (Deu 21:18-21), contempt of court(ish) (Deuteronomy 17:12).So no, this isn't a problem for Christians at all. There are plenty of things the Israelites would kill each other over and most Christians don't worry about it and would happily sell wedding cakes to a man on his third wife who has two living ex-wives, who was contemptuous of a court decision or of a Jewish legal court's decision, and who worked on Fridays, Saturdays and/or Sundays. Even if his third wife to be was previously his neighbours wife he had an affair with while she was engaged to marry (and a virgin to boot), then continued the affair through the marriage before the divorce was finalised and who did this despite his parent's objections who he told go fuck themselves.I doubt that would have been remotely acceptable for almost all of Christian history. These days, it's just regarded as a funny anecdote.The problem is that homosexuals are not ashamed as a general rule, and happily 'sin' away with the blessing of society (it seems to the bigot). This really gets their goat and they feel it is their Christian duty to balance the persecution books a little, I'd wager - enact a cost for brazen sinfulness and all that.Christians loan money to their friends, family, fellow citizens, fellow country men all the time, the whole economy of Christendom has relied on this fact for some time. Unfortunately, society has never really 'needed' homosexuality to be accepted in order to function, but that might be something that secular societies need, and they are growing in power and Christians are faced with yet another decision in their long line of moral concessions. The evidence suggests that they are preparing to concede again.

quote:

---

Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them): "He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor's wife. He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable things.He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

​

--Ezekial

---

I'm willing to bet many of Hovind's supporters are anti-gay types. While supporting someone who disobeyed the courts. I think some people get confused about the lessons regarding hypocrisy and rigid obedience to the written word above and beyond human decency or they just want to be morally certain that being horrid to gays is supported by the biggest bully's bully of them all!I kind of like the Islamic solution, and I'm (not really) surprised more Christians aren't adopting the principles of Islamic banking.

quote:

---

Islamic banking has the same purpose as conventional banking: to make money for the banking institute by lending out capital while adhering to Islamic law. Because Islam forbids simply lending out money at interest, Islamic rules on transactions (known as Fiqh al-Muamalat) have been created to prevent it. The basic principle of Islamic banking is based on risk-sharing which is a component of trade rather than risk-transfer which is seen in conventional banking. Islamic banking introduces concepts such as profit sharing (Mudharabah), safekeeping (Wadiah), joint venture (Musharakah), cost plus (Murabahah), and leasing (Ijar).

​

In an Islamic mortgage transaction, instead of lending the buyer money to purchase the item, a bank might buy the item itself from the seller, and re-sell it to the buyer at a profit, while allowing the buyer to pay the bank in installments.

---

You know, they're at least trying to make it look they aren't charging interest which is more than the 'Christian' banks ever do!Direct to the topic - I think we're expecting to hear the decision regarding Sweet Cakes by Melissa sometime within the next week, right?

Well, I've known people to work on Saturdays without any shame and they don't get the same treatment.

Amusingly, making such a fuss over a simple ceremony actually raises it's prominence in the media and society in general, such that a lot more people that favor gay marriage will celebrate it.And be willing to see laws passed that make it legal for gay marriage, which will now be reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if it becomes the law of the land.Keep up the good work.

So you agree that you should refuse service if you know the gun is going to be used for an illegal purpose: murder; but that it is legitimate to sell the gun if you know (or are allowed to assume), that it is going to be used for a legal purpose.Now how about shoes: if the buyer says they are going to kill their boss and wants new shoes to dance on his body, are you proscribed from selling him the shoes? Whether or not you notify the police of his intent is a different matter -- do you or do you not sell the shoes?Enjoy

Which goes to show that the argument that its about not standing for the "redefining" of sin nor "compromising" on the Bible just doesn't hold any weight.