Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Faith avoids the question again:

quote:

---

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?

---

Your lack of a straight answer to a simple question.How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

quote:

---

This is about the baker's CONSCIENCE

---

I know. So answer the question. What is the "conscience" involved in a piece of plastic? There's nothing the baker did differently in creating the birthday cake. The same conscience is used. So why is it OK to deny one cake but not the identical cake?

quote:

---

and changing part of a cake to make it into a wedding cake for a gay wedding may be a problem for his conscience

---

But why? It's the same cake made in the same way.Seventh time, Faith:How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

quote:

---

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.

---

Which is precisely the same thing as any other cake. The baker is "personally involved." So for the eighth time:How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

quote:

---

You can't determine this, the baker does.

---

That's why I'm asking what it is. Because I used to be a cake decorator, Faith. I know precisely what it means to make a cake for weddings and birthdays and any other occasion you care to name. You care about all of them. Your conscience is involved in all of them.So what's the difference? For the ninth time:How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

quote:

---

I'm trying to define the situations where it is most clearly a problem for a Christian's conscience.

---

But you're not explaining why there's a difference. A cake is a cake is a cake. For the tenth time:How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.All you're doing is avoiding the question. Get on it.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

As I think about it, the main thing would probably be KNOWING THAT THE CAKE WAS FOR A GAY WEDDING.

---

So? You're not part of the wedding. You aren't the ones getting married and you aren't the one performing the ceremony. We're back to yet another question you've steadfastly refused to answer:How does one "validate" a marriage?You're selling food. Should a grocer be allowed to deny selling a gay person food if they know that the person is going to be using it to cook an anniversary dinner? Wouldn't that be "validating" the marriage? Should a postal worker be allowed to refuse to deliver a wedding invitation to a gay wedding? Or an anniversary card?Remember, Faith, we went through all this in my very first response to you in this thread. So here we are, nearly 300 posts later, and you're still refusing to answer the simple questions put forward to you:How does one "validate" a marriage? The cake isn't the marriage. The cake is just some food being bought to serve the guests.

quote:

---

The more personal the involvement the greater the problem

---

All cakes have personal involvement. Why is one cake allowed but not the identical cake?

quote:

---

I think I need to add that some degree of personal involvmenet or personal responsibility is part of it.

---

You are not personally involved or have any personal responsibility to the wedding if you are not the ones getting married or the one performing the ceremony. Everything else is just window dressing. We get it that you don't like the idea that someone is going to be using something you sold in a way you don't like, but you don't get to deny them if you are open to the public. If you want to limit your customer's use, you need to be a private contractor.I notice you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that, Faith. Why is that? Do you have a problem with private contractors?

Faith avoids the question:

quote:

---

Message 382

---

Message 384

We've already established many times that this isn't true. We don't believe in stonings, we don't murder witches, insects don't have four legs, etc., etc., etc. Have you provided chapter and verse for this, too? If the definition were complete and said what you think it says, then it would say it applies to only one man and one woman, but it doesn't. And as I noted earlier, it doesn't even say anything about women. There have been a good number of compelling arguments that your Bible-based position is both inconsistent and not actually Bible-based, and that therefore anti-discrimination laws are not an attack on Christianity.--Percy

I still don't see why the homosexual activity vice, in I Corinthians 6, isn't 'ceremonial' and only related to the idols feast with sex and drinking. You made the idol temple issues up, based on chapter 10's events (the Jannes and Jambras innertestamental literature detailing the Baalam event in Numbers)as an excuse when you felt meats were an issue in chapter 6, though your reason for bringing meat into the chapter was to explain away Paul's "all things are lawful " declaration while sexual acts are being discussed as sin (and marriage issues were a big topic in chapters 5-7). I know that the 'ceremonial' explanation is commonly given as the type of sins in the first Vice List outside the Gospels. I am referring to none other than the Acts 15:20(15:29 repeat )Apostolic Council with fornication as a sin. You have yet to show what is and isn't simply a "ceremonial' sin verses a non ceremonial one in chapter 6. My question applies to the "table fellowship " explanation for food prohibitions too. I haven't seen any response from you on the drinking parallel (in the chapter 6 sin list )to chapter 10 idol ceremony issues. Infact you owe us an explanation for ALL listed sins in Acts 15 and I Corinthians 6. Quote each sin in the list and explain how it is to get followed and why.

quote:

---

PaulK spins the merry-go-round again:

---

The only viable alternative is to stop talking and have you accuse me of running away.

quote:

---

So you're denying you wrote what you wrote? What a surprise.

---

Outright lying is hardly productive. I suggest you stop it.

quote:

---

ee, when I quote you fully in complete context, including providing the links back to the original post so that people don't have to go looking for it in case they are concerned that I didn't provide complete context, your claim that I am "hoping other people will miss the context" is trivially shown to be false

---

Except of course that you did not provide the context in that case.And when you do quote me it never supports your claims. I wonder why that is.

quote:

---

So yes, you have been quoted denying your own words.

---

Pointing out that you missed the context and misinterpreted my words is not denying them. So it seems that even when you produce the quotes in context you will still brazenly lie even when it is obvious for anyone to see.It is like arguing against a Christian Fundamentalist. Except that they can't be bothered with quotes.

Wait, you were calling me, personally, prejudiced? Why are you making this personal? Against whom am I prejudiced? Out of context?In this thread you have been saying:

quote:

---

You risk alienating your friends by raving at those that support your cause

---

quote:

---

if the public hears constantly about seemingly trivial complaints from a particular section of society it will turn them against that sector.

---

quote:

---

I think it's a possibility that people will become irritated if there is continued pursuance of trivial complaints, yes.

---

quote:

---

If you want to win the hearts of the nation you've just conquered on the battlefield, it's generally thought a bad idea to bayonet their wounded.

---

You had also been suggesting there was some activist campaign to deliberately target 'bigoted' service providers. Maybe that happened, but you failed to provide any evidence of it. So I entered a specific case into discussion. Sweet Cakes by Melissa featuring Rachel and Laurel. In it I concluded:

quote:

---

Clearly the main battle has not been won, as our allies are still ignorant as to the impact this bigoted behaviour can have on people's lives.

---

That's the context of this discussion.Your reply?

quote:

---

This is a real problem, you're talking to people who are on your side. People who hate these bigots at least as much as you do.

---

Now, look, I don't hate bigots. I get angry at them, maybe sometimes that becomes hatred. But that was usually when I was younger.I responded with:

quote:

---

No the problem is that you say you are {on side}, but you clearly aren't.

---

And your retort:

quote:

---

You may be right, perhaps I'm not on your side. But I *am* on the side of LGBT folk that can see beyond their own prejudice.

---

So forget about me, this isn't about me. I was talking about Rachel and Laurel. Are you on their side? They sued a bakery {sort of, they raised a formal complaint to BOLI and requested compensation from the service providers}. Their actions are what is being discussed here, specifically them in the messages you were replying to - they were the context - they were who I was saying you were not allies with by insinuating their woes were over trivia {actually I wasn't even directing it at you, I was directing it at whosever thought they were being 'irritating' or 'harming the cause' over 'trivia}. If you are on their side, are there any same-sex couples you are not on the side of? Can you please be specific. Who is targeting 'bigoted' bakers? Who are these 'activist gays' who are harming the cause by suing people over a cake? Who is it that is actually doing the suing (note: I've never sued anyone for failure to provide service) that you are not on the side of? Who that is doing the suing *are* you on the side of?I can't be expected to know what behaviour, specifically, you consider potentially problematic, unless you at least give some examples of potentially problematic behaviour. So please do. You must have something in mind when you are talking about this issue - what is it? Are you still labouring under the impression that the gays are getting together and putting 'sue bakers' on the gay agenda? I assume not, but your first few posts in this thread were certainly suggestive of thinking along these lines. Please help me understand your position, by actually explaining the specifics with reference to particular cases you think might be a problem. I don't think saying 'fuck you if you think that' as a general reply, and then calling back to that comment when you effectively held your hand up and said 'I think that' constitutes 'multiple personally abusive' 'attacks'. Yes. But this isn't a cause. That's the error you keep making. You seem to be arguing like this is part of some strategy, it isn't. It's individuals who are individually harmed taking individual actions for it's own end. Awww, did someone saying 'fuck you' upset you? It's the most trivial piece of contemptuous dismissal there is. 'Shrug it off'. 'Ignore it' and 'stand above it', 'impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner'. It'd be super if you didn't lie about me in this grotesque fashion in your quest to seek the moral high ground. I didn't abuse you, what nonsense. Stop 'throwing yourself under the King's horse - get smarter'. 'You're behaving like a total arsehole. How do you think that plays with your real opponants?' I'm sorry you feel 'feel offended by an idiot' but that's no excuse to make up egregious lies about me, 'at some point it's going to look like you've got a real chip on your shoulders'. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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.

And if you think that's what I'm saying you're not reading/thinking. You're editing out every nuance and turning everything I say around so that you can be righteously angry.I'm not saying never sue, I'm saying that sometimes it's a better idea not to. Not a particularly difficult concept I thought.There's no point me reading the rest of your post until you can grasp that.

I don't know Chuck could it be because, amongst other inane rants where you refuse to consider that I might not be saying what you think I'm saying, dismissing my attempt to explain to you that I too have personal experience with LGBT people close to me, you say this? Don't be silly, nothing you can say can possibly upset me, you quite plainly haven't the first clue about me. Get over yourself, you're just another angry guy on an internet forum with a chip on your shoulder. But I do find your attempts to do so interesting, given the context of what we're discussing.Read what I write not what you'd obviously prefer me to have written - I'm not saying that people should never sue, I'm saying that it's not always necessary and might be counterproductive in the long run. But I'm pretty sick of saying this now.

You're wrong. It's the conservative view that's irrelevant. What IS relevant is the legal rights of all people, including gay people. If equal rights offends your conservative view, then your conservative view is wrong.

Meat is not the issue in those posts. The issue is that Faith cherry-picks which parts of the law to obey.