Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

The Guardian article, as PaulK also reminds you, is about writing on a cake, and you titled your post "The Main Points". Would you make up your mind, please, whether writing is an issue for you? You said it wasn't an issue for you in your last post to me, so there were points I didn't raise, but now here you are introducing writing again.Replying also to Message 554, Jesus would march into the bakery, buy the cake for the gay couple, then push over all the bakery displays. He didn't believe that showing love for his fellow man was an endorsement of anything.--Percy

quote:

---

Replying also to Message 554, Jesus would march into the bakery, buy the cake for the gay couple, then push over all the bakery displays. He didn't believe that showing love for his fellow man was an endorsement of anything.

---

Do you know that the Bible seems to allow Jews to sell non kosher food to gentiles (though the rabbinical authorities have debate over the issue)?I have already shown how Faith ignores the injunction against "blood" and what is "strangled"(which seems to be based on the Mishnah rules for slaughter), not to mention "fornication" (!) in Acts 15:20, 15:29, 21:25, etc.But consider Deuteronomy 14:21.

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 14:21King James Version (KJV)

​

21 Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

---

That was raw Bible text in the "Law of Moses"Rabbinical issues however.

quote:

---

Question: Can a religious Jew sell non kosher meat to other businesses if this is his means of income?

​

Answer: This is a very complex issue, and one that cannot be dealt with effectively divorced from specific details of situation and circumstance. Should this question have practical ramifications for you, I would strongly suggest that you consult with a competent local authority in Jewish law before deciding upon a course of action. With that in mind, what follows is a general summary of the issue of doing business with forbidden foods.

​

Unlike cooked mixtures of meat and dairy products, from which a Jew is forbidden to derive benefit, the Torah places no such restriction upon non-kosher foodstuffs, including meats. No distinction is made in this matter between the meats of non-kosher species and meats from kosher species which were improperly slaughtered. In fact, the Torah explicitly permits the sale of this second type of non-kosher meat to Gentiles (Deuteronomy 14:21).

​

However, the Shulchan Aruch, section Yoreh De’ah 117:1 records a specific prohibition against trading in non-kosher foodstuffs. While there are those amongst the early authorities who consider this prohibition to be of Biblical origin, most agree that it is an enactment of the Sages, either due to the issue of mar’is ayin (i.e. the appearance of impropriety which may lead others to transgress or to cast aspersion upon the actor), or as a safeguard lest one become inured to having non-kosher foodstuffs in his possession to the extent that he inadvertently partake of them.

​

While one is permitted to trade in non-kosher foodstuffs on an incidental basis (e.g. a kosher slaughterhouse may sell carcasses that are found to be unfit to a Gentile meat processing operation, since this is merely incidental to its main business — the production of kosher meat), this injunction would prohibit trading in non-kosher foodstuffs as the focus of one’s business, be it to other businesses or to consumers.

​

This injunction does distinguish between those foodstuffs which are non-kosher on a Biblical level and those which are non-kosher on a Rabbinic level (though Biblically kosher), permitting trade of the latter. In the case of meat, however, unless the business in question traffics in the byproduct of a kosher slaughterhouse or similar, it is unlikely that this distinction is of much utility, since both meat from non-kosher species and meat from kosher species which did not undergo ritual slaughter are Biblically prohibited.

​

The prohibition against trading in non-kosher foodstuffs is incumbent upon the business owner, a partner to such a business with a Gentile, and even upon a stockholder (should he or she have a role in the day-to-day decision making of the business). One may, however, hold stock in such a business provided that one has no active role in its operation.

​

In conclusion, being an owner, partner, or participant shareholder of a business that sells non-kosher meats as its primary objective would be, in all but very narrow and specific circumstances, prohibited for a Jew.

​

Again, if this question has practical application for you, I would stress the need for consulting with a competent, local authority on Jewish law prior to adopting a course of action.

​

I hope you found this information helpful.

​

Warmest regards,

​

Yitzchok Willroth

​

Ask the Rabbi, JewishAnswers.org » Selling Non-Kosher Food

---

Check out the technological marvel that is google!Googlealso put in words like:
kosher slaughter chickens neck (add strangled also)I don't want to over simplify this issue (otherwise I would be as lousy and disrespectful toward sin and the law and my fellow humans as Faith), as it is complicated.Shechita - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Torah (Deut. 12:21) states that sheep and cattle should be slaughtered as I have instructed you but nowhere in the Five books of Moses are any of the practices of shechita described. Instead, they have been handed down in Judaism's traditional Oral Torah, and codified in halakha.

​

Species[edit]

​

The animal must be of a permitted species. For mammals, this is restricted to ruminants which have split hooves.[1] For birds, although Biblically any species of bird not specifically excluded in Deuteronomy 14:12—18 would be permitted,[2] doubts as to the identity and scope of the species on the biblical list led to rabbinical law permitting only birds with a tradition of being permissible.[3]

---

Understand that here are forbidden techniques which are consistent with Acts 15:20, but contradict the written Torah. The Written Torah says that a chicken should be killed by wringing its head off but the New Testament and Rabbinical texts (the Mishnah which is in the Talmud) prohibit such.

quote:

---

ibid.
Forbidden techniques[edit]

​

Shehiyah (; delay or pausing) - A pause or hesitation during the incision of even a moment makes the animal's flesh unkosher. The knife must move in an uninterrupted sweep. Shehiyah occurs if the shochet accidentally stops the slaughtering process after either the trachea or esophagus has been cut, but before they have been cut the majority of the way through. Pausing can happen accidentally if muscle contractions in the animal's neck pull one of these organs out of contact with the blade. The latter case is especially common in turkeys.

​

Derasah (; pressing/chopping) - The knife must be drawn across the throat by forward/backward movements, not by hacking or pressing. Any undue pressure renders the animal unkosher. Derasah is the forbidden action that occurs when the shochet pushes the knife into the animal's throat without moving it back and forth, chops rather than slices, or positions the animal improperly so that either its head presses down on the blade as it expires or the shochet must push the knife into the throat against the force of gravity. There are those[6] who opine that it is forbidden to have the animal in an upright position during shechita due to the prohibition of derasah (pressing). They maintain that the animal must be on its back, lying on its side, suspended upside down by a rope or chain, or placed in a barrel-like pen that turns the animal on its back for slaughter. However the Orthodox Union accepts upright slaughter as long as the head is properly supported and today all cattle processing facilities in the U.S., except for the Agriprocessors plant in Iowa, use upright slaughter pens. South American kosher abattoirs primarily use the rotating pen, shackle and hoist as well as shackle and drag methods of slaughter.[7]

​

Haladah (; digging or burying) - The knife must be drawn over the throat so that it is visible while shechita is being performed. It must not be stabbed into the neck or buried by fur, hide, or feathers in the case of a bird. Haladah occurs if the shochet either accidentally cuts into the animal's throat so deeply that the entire width of the knife disappears in the wound, uses a knife that is too short so that the end disappears in the wound, or if a foreign object falls over the knife so the shochet loses sight of the incision.

​

Hagramah (; cutting in the wrong location) - The limits within which the knife may be applied are from the large ring in the windpipe to the top of the upper lobe of the lung when it is inflated, and corresponding to the length of the pharynx. Slaughtering above or below these limits renders the meat unkosher.

​

Iqqur (; tearing) - If either the esophagus or the trachea is torn during the shechita incision the carcass is rendered unkosher and cannot be eaten by Jews. Iqqur occurs if the shochet accidentally uses a chalaf with an imperfection on the blade, such as a scratch or nick, that causes a section of blade to be lower than the surface of the blade.[8][9][10]

​

Breaching any of these five rules renders the animal nevelah; the animal is regarded in Jewish law as if it were carrion.

​

Temple Grandin has stated that she has "observed that if the rules (of the five forbidden techniques) are disobeyed the animal will struggle. If these rules are obeyed the animal has little reaction."[11]

---

Faith is ignorant IMO.She will ignore Deuteronomy 14:21Just like she won't address Paul saying "all things are lawful" (whatever that means exactly with regards to "all" and "lawful" not o mention "things") in any other manner than a highly simplistic manner - and one that happens to fit conveniently into her preconceived ("biblical" so-called) views.

quote:

---

"I don't think we can spot Faith her territory here. Some Christians react in this way, but not all."

​

Well that depends on what you call a Christian. We know Faith has some pretty tight rules about what qualifies, and Catholics may not qualify under those terms

---

Faith typically follows Roman Catholic teaching 100%.(On this issue, however, the Pope says he has no right to judge and he said "mah", when asked about homosexuality, which means something like "how the heck would I know")More distortion on her part.She only attacks Catholics as a thinly veiled scheme to make it sound like her type of Christianity (Roman Christian or at least Orthodox) is one that is divorced from past persecutions. (she ignored Protestant atrocities and claims that was secular government's fault when asked)

We already seen that she feels James, Peter, Paul, etc. misunderstood what she feels they should have understood as sin (see her comments on Acts 15:20).I Corinthians 14:34-35 (the same forger who wrote the Pastoral Epistles added this to 1 Corinthians 14, and amazingly every fundamentalists I have asked to examine the whole text agrees with me that it was clearly added later in between 14:1-33 and 14:36-40)

quote:

---

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

​

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

​

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

---

I Timothy 2

quote:

---

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

​

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

​

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

​

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

​

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

---

Then 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

quote:

---

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

​

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

​

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

​

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

​

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

​

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

​

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

​

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

​

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

​

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

​

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

​

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

​

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

​

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

​

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

---

Respect the text.How to "follow" it is the responsibility of those who call themselves "Christians" I suppose, but it deserves the respect and attention of all.As does Deuteronomy 14:21.

In Colorado where a bakery refused to put the words "God hates fags" on a cake but did offer to sell the man a cake and provide icing for him to put whatever message he wanted on it, the court decided in favor of the bakery. This seems to be the appropriate ruling.

What I said to you was that this thread from the beginning has been about a wedding cake, that the writing on the cake was the issue in the UK that got the bakery there fined, which entered the thread recently and to my mind is not the topic here. You kept talking about it so I tried to explain that and of course you muddled it all up.However, I don't make a distinction, I believe they are the same kind of situation but you seemed to be making a distinction so I pointed out that the writing isn't what this thread has been about from the begtinning.But again, I think the two situations are equivalent myself. Jesus would kindly tell the gays to repent and be saved, He died for their sins, He would most certainly not join in anything that violates God's marriage ordinance which He himself confirmed in Matthew 19. He might treat them to coffee and a doughnut.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.

That sounds like a reasonable solution to the writing problem. Unfortunately I don't know what the comparable solution to the wedding cake problem might be: bag up all the ingredients to make such a cake and provide written instructions?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is just to report that I don't read his posts, because I really can't get through them. They are voluminous and what I pick up of his message here and there is so bizarre I don't know where to begin to respond anyway. I don't know what he thinks he is doing. He's apparently accusing me of this, that or the other, but his statements about me are all false as far as I've seen. He quotes me quite a bit apparently but doesn't seem to have a clue what I meant. I can't wade through all that word mush to find out if there's anything to any of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This a pretty strange thing to say. Certainly there are large areas of overlap between Catholic teaching and Protestant doctrine, but just as clearly there are departures, many of which have been the subject of discussion here. Faith is pretty much hardcore fundy Protestant. I don't think it is a scheme at all. I think her hatred for Catholicism is completely sincere. Her hatred is classic fundy Protestant doctrine. She does indeed ignore Protestant atrocities in new threads even after having acknowledged them in other threads, but that's a separate issue.

There obviously is a distinction.In the case of icing a slogan then the assertion that the baker is objecting to the slogan rather than the person it is for is defensible.In refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding it is rather obvious that the objection is to the wedding - and therefore the couple getting married.Yes, I know it is convenient for you not to see that distinction but it is there and is at the root of Tatchell's article.

Sorry, I continue to insist that objecting to a gay wedding is not the same as discriminating against gay people, who, as has been affirmed over and over and over, are quite welcome to anything else in the bakery. Objecting to a gay wedding is refusing a particular service which is the same thing as refusing the service of writing a message on a cake.You keep saying you are sure Tatchell would not agree about the wedding cake and perhaps you are right but you don't know and haven't shown it to be so.ABE: The message on the cake that was refused was Support Same Sex Marriage. It was a refusal to affirm gay marriage the same as a wedding caker for a gay wedding here is.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So if you believe they're equivalent then it's fine to discuss writing on a cake? You're sure this time? You do recall that you were earlier drawing significant distinctions between the two as your reasons for wanting to discuss one but not the other? Jesus would write in microscopic letters, "Speak softly. Repent of shouting at people in large type and be saved." Then he would say, "God loves everyone and wants them to have wedding cakes, including gays."The main point is as PaulK says, that there *is* a significant distinction between a messageless cake and a cake with a message. They are not equivalent.--Percy

quote:

---

Sorry, I continue to insist that objecting to a gay wedding is not the same as discriminating against gay people, who, as has been affirmed over and over and over, are quite welcome to anything else in the bakery

---

You can continue to assert anything you like but you are obviously wrong. The couple are not getting a wedding cake because they are gay. That is obvious.

quote:

---

Objecting to a gay wedding is refusing a particular service which is the same thing as refusing the service of writing a message on a cake.

---

Except that the objection is not to the service - the objection is to the recipients of the service. You can say that the baker would not ice that particular slogan for anyone but you can't say that the baker wouldn't bake an identical cake for a straight couple.

quote:

---

You keep saying you are sure Tatchell would not agree about the wedding cake and perhaps you are right but you don't know and haven't shown it to be so.

---

Actually I say that Tatchell's argument is all about slogans and doesn't address the issue of supplying otherwise uncontroversial services to a gay wedding. Given that he is a gay rights activist, I think it very likely that he does disagree with you, but there is no need to show that.

You seemed to making the whole thing to be about writing on a cake and completely ignoring the subject of this thread. And you were saying they aren't the same thing in your imperious know-it-all style. if you want to consider it in its proper position go ahead, but I've already answered it.Their MEANING TO THE BAKER IS EQUIVALENT. I could not care less what their meaning to YOU is.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is fairly obvious what the equivalent solution would be. Just make the cake without making it gay specific. The problem is that you would not accept that solution.