Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

How have I said anything different? If I refuse to treat it as legitimate in some circumstance where it is requested of me, I will be legally punished.

Quite interesting statement by Peter Tatchel who's a long term campaigner for LGBT rights in the UK. Probably best known for the direct action campaign group Outrage! He's pretty much the spokesman for LGBT in the UK.He says he's changed his mind about our very own cake problem. I’ve changed my mind on the gay cake row. Here’s why | Peter Tatchell | The GuardianI guess he's now part of 'the problem.'I was also wondering whether I could demand pork from a Jewish butcher or beef from a Hindu. But of course I wouldn't dream of asking for them or even thinking that it was a problem that they don't. I'd go to them for their own culture's food that I can't get elsewhere. Maybe the problem is that our fake Christian bakers don't have a culture with sufficiently differentiated food to prevent us from making a mistake of asking for something that they feel they can't provide?Am I able to demand a service that Jews or Hindus don't provide because of their religious beliefs? The answer is no because they don't provide pork or beef to anyone. They're therefore only guilty of total discrimination not partial.Going back to this dreadful cake business that is now talismanic, even though I disagree with their reason for not baking the bloody cake for an LGBT wedding, like Tatchel, I find myself having some sympathy for their position.

If it was a wedding cake for one of their birthdays, would that have been a problem? An odd request, for sure - perhaps some kind of inside joke. Would it have been sanctioning a gay marriage, though?

LOLAgain, how is baking a cake treating a wedding as legitimate?You can bake a wedding cake cake for a marriage that is not legitimate.

Even with FORNICATION as a sin. The sin list is seen as culturally irrelevant and obsolete today. Faith already said so in another thread. The same thing was said about fornication in REVELATION 2:14 and 2:21. Faith already brought the "obsolete " meat issue into I Corinthians 6 with excuses of idol ceremonies so by that logic, the whole chapter is about temple prostitution and not private sins. Ceremonial and Table Fellowship in Faith's own words in past threads and frankly even this one (if you know what to look for ).

You are an idiot. I have already said I am fine with suing. I don't care about alienating. I care about results.

No. He's making a perfectly valid point and citing a specific case and his particular issue with it. The very thing I have been asking of you for some time. This case was not a wedding cake but one with a specific message supporting same sex marriage. The key issue in the defence in this case was that they would not have baked a cake with the same message on it had the patron been a straight advocate of same-sex marriage.So I agree that this case can be legitimately questioned.The wedding cake issue is more clear because the cakes are exactly the same. It's what the intend to do with it that's the problem. And what they intend to do with it is tied intimately with their sexual orientation. As Scalia said - a tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. It would only be a problem if they sold pork/beef - just not to people like you. It's not discrimination at all to not sell a product. I don't sell pork either. That's not discriminatory. I don't sell wedding cakes for that matter.

POST 399 In this post you are claiming there's some kind of difference between 'ceremonial ' sin and some other kind of sin? Sin is sin, it's all judged by God as sin. POST 302 Prostitution is referring back to what he'd said about having liberty as a Christian to eat meats sacrificed to idols... fornication is identified as a sin... however we are to understand him it can't be as a license to visit a prostitute. POST 318 it is clear from pages of NT text that we are to give up all sin so it can't be treating fornication or any other sin as optional. -Faith- ********,***************************************************************** Now You have said that Acts 15:20, 15:29, Revelation 2:14, 2:21, is about "table fellowship " just like you are saying here about I Corinthians 6 (selectively you are in this case ),chapter 10 (this thread), plus elsewhere in I Corinthians 8 and Romans 14-15. But the Acts 15:20, 15:29, Revelation 2:14, 2:21 are about "fornication" but you say it is obsolete "table fellowship " and you said that in a response to my quoting a fundi dictionary saying it was just a TEMPORARY ceremonial issue. I plan to start a thread so you can not hide from your own claims and perhaps it can be only us two posting.

Those verses culturally obsolete too Faith? More cultural relativism on your part?

I don't haave a clue what you are talking about. I've never used the term "table fellowship" and have no idea what it means. You seem to be going on about something in your own head, certainly not anything that has to do with me. (except the upper part of your post above the asterisks, that I recognize as mine but I have no idea what you are saying about it.

WHAT? Who says that? I can't possibly have said any such thing. What are you talking about? You need to stop misrepresenting me. I've said no such thing. This is all in your head. Everything in that paragraph is wacko. You are making bizarre logical leaps and attributing things to me that I didn't say. The meat sacrificed to idols doesn't apply today just because we aren't surrounded by idolatrous religions, but the principle certainly applies: there are NONSINFUL things we are free to do such as eat meat sacrificed to idols, that we shouldn't do if there is someone among us with a tender conscience about it. Eating meat is nonsinful, it just has implications in context that we need to consider as a reason not to eat it. Fornication on the other hand is clearly a sin no matter what the context, and how you got from eating sacrificed meat to temple fornication is beyond me.If you are going to impute words to me, words I don't recognize AT ALL, you are obliged to quote them. I don't recognize anything you've said about "ceremonial and table fellowship" -- something you put together in your own mind.Please stop. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why is this a question?Why did you change the subject? The point of its being a wedding cake was that even if they were having a civil union and not a wedding all the terminology that was used referred to weddings, and I believe that is how it was presented to the bakery too.If they'd been asked for a birthday cake although using a cake in the wedding category, there probably wouldn't have been a problem. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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

---

The SCOTUS decision doesn't say any such thing. Now are you going to answer my question and tell me exactly which of the secular rights conferred by marriage gays should be denied and what is the Biblical justification for denying them ?

Interesting quotes about freedom of conscience extending to business owners. I think America could do with some of that thinking on this subject.From The Guardian: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He's doubly an idiot. I haven't said anything against suing at all.