Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

You are aggressively missing the point, as usual.The reason to point out that the wedding cake is a big project is to emphasize the personal involvement that engages the baker's conscience. There is no issue if a cake is bought off the shelf.It also doesn't matter how big a project a birthday cake might also be, a birthday cake doesn't engage the baker's conscience. AS I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER HERE.SUCH AS IN Message 230 and Message 216 and Message 1, the OP even. Also on other threads about this same subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no such thing as sexual orientation, homosexual acts are sin. Comparing it to race is in itself sin. WHICH DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE SINNER, BUT WE ALSO AREN"T TO TREAT THE SIN AS A MERE SEXUAL VARIATION, WHICH IS WHAT LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE ASKS OF US.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.

Good grief man, THINK.IF YOU CAN GET A WEDDING CAKE OFF THE SHELF THEN IT ISN'T A PROBLEM FOR THE BAKER. It's when the baker has to make it personally specifically for the wedding, WHICH IS THE CASE IN MOST BAKERIES, that it becomes a problem in the case of a gay wedding.GOOD GRIEF, MAN, PLUG IN YOUR BRAIN!. And at least once in a while READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, but so far I'm not legally required to say they aren't sinful (though I think they're working on it), but legalizing gay marriage requires me to treat them as not sinful, rather as a normal sexual variation. It's something I've wondered about, because it often involves a whole personality expression, which is hard to explain occurring in a person who is clearly physically designed for normal heterosexuality. I don't think gays are "crazy" though, no, not the ones I've known.ABE: and I've also said I think some mental disorders, schizophrenia, psychoses, etc., could be caused by demons. But because we officially don't believe in demons any more, nobody will ever find out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU? This is about the baker's CONSCIENCE and changing part of a cake to make it into a wedding cake for a gay wedding may be a problem for his conscience, which would be the case where he/she has to be personally involved in anything that they know will be part of a gay wedding. You can't determine this, the baker does. I'm trying to define the situations where it is most clearly a problem for a Christian's conscience. All you are doing is playing silly games. Get off it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here, let me see if I can come up with the main elements that would probably be involved in engaging the baker's conscience over a cake for a gay wedding:As I think about it, the main thing would probably be KNOWING THAT THE CAKE WAS FOR A GAY WEDDING. The more personal the involvement the greater the problem, but even a small thing like turning a birthday cake into a wedding cake by changing one ornament could be a problem. Turning a shelf cake into a wedding cake could be a problem. Even selling a cake out of the display case could be a problem if it's known to be for a gay wedding.That's what I think it all comes down to. Not knowing it's for a gay wedding would be no problem, and any other cake bakery item for any other purpose would be no problem.I hope I've covered all the possible conditions here.ABE: I think I need to add that some degree of personal involvmenet or personal responsibility is part of it. Even if an employee does the work the owner could feel personal responsibility for it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

[MSG=382]

Just this for now, maybe back later: Those "compelling" arguments may be compelling to you but millions of Bible-believers don't find your objection compelling, and especially those who have actually acted on our Bible-based position and been punished for it. You can't tell us what to believe. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your title is very strange. The whole point of this thread is that I oppose legal gay marriage and legal gay marriage opposes Christianity. You have a point?I can't follow your convoluted and unbiblical stuff, sorry. In this post you are claiming there's some kind of difference between "ceremonial" sin and some other kinds of sin? Sin is sin, it's all judged by God as sin.

It is hard to respond to such irrelevant arguments.I put up a post showing that wedding cakes are usually very comp0licated affairs because people were referring to them as if they were just ordinary cakes like one might make in your own kitchen. This was to demonstrate that a custom wedding cake can involve a lot of time and skill on the baker's part.So you come along objecting on such grounds as that wedding cakes can indeed be made in someone's kitchen. Oy.Or that they CAN be found on a supermarket shelf or in the display case. Well I've never seen them treated so cavalierly but if they are then they don't engage the baker's conscience, they can just be taken off the shelf to the checkstand without any to-do about what they are for.And you go on about how birthday cakes can be just as elaborate as wedding cakes, which is utterly irrelevant since birthdays aren't a problem for the baker's conscience and I already said gays can have elaborate birthday caies without a problem.You also brought up how easy it could be to change a birthday cake into a wedding cake by substituting a small ornament, failing to grasp the most minimal point that this is about the baker's conscience. As I thought about it I realized that such a minor change COULD be a problem for a Christian's conscience because the problem is about doing anything that supports a gay wedding.It isn't about the cake, it's about the baker's conscience which is engaged by his sense of personal involvement in it and by knowing the cake is for a gay wedding. I still think that's a pretty good way of understanding the principle here.I forget what all else you keep trying to make into an argument. It's all irrelevant.All you are doing by now is harassing me with your irrelevant arguments. 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.

YOU can't "establish" how the Bible is to be read, sorry. It's been explained over and over why most of the OT practices no longer apply today, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE ITSELF. Your opinion is worth nothing. I thought it was common knowledge. Here are a few examples: And the one LamarkNewAge keeps making hash out of: There is also the story of Sodom and Gomorrah where the men of the city came to have sex with the angels who were visiting Lot, and the city was then destroyed by God.(ABE: If, however, what you meant was had I given chapter and verse for gay marriage as a cruel joke, of course not, it's clear enough from the actual facts that marriage can't sanctify homosexual acts, and all it does is trash the idea of marriage. /ABE) It doesn't need to. References in the rest of the Bible make it clear if it escapes you as written. And again, millions of conservative Christians disagree with you, to which can be added millions from centuries past as well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why is this so difficult?It's GAY MARRIAGE that's the problem because of the SCOTUS RULING that requires me to treat it as legitimate which the Bible says I cannot. I'm giving a reason why I can't, because homosexual ACTS are sin, not a sexual variation. Why is this so difficult?

I didn't know until your post about it that it was a civil union. Everything I've read about it including most of your posting called it a wedding and speaks of them getting married. As for how to respond to a civil union, I'll have to think about it, but it was a "wedding" cake they ordered.

No.

If I refuse to serve a gay wedding I will be punished. How is that not requiring me to treat gay marriage as legitimate?