Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

There's also no great tradition of wedding cakes celebrating gay marriage, as it was not only illegal in Colorado in 2012 but only recently passed into law. There is, however, a long and storied tradition of traditional marriage which, while misguided in my opinion, formed the basis of his religious objections.

I'm sure we both understand that William Jack's antics were designed with the sole intent of proving a double standard held by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. By highlighting the disparate reactions, Jack hoped it would then advance Phillip's argument. That said, those antics were in fact integral in showing SCOTUS that the CCRC reacted with hostility and bias towards Phillips due to his religious predilections. So its entirely a moot point how the CCRC ruled when they were overruled and overturned, which leaves us back at square one. According to what? The shame of this case is that it was essentially dismissed on a technicality. The CCRC became more of the focal point, leaving wide open this uninterpreted and undefined clash between two rights -- the right to exercise sincerely held religious beliefs and the right to enjoy equal protection under the law regardless of sexual orientation. I might actually be inclined to agree with you if I were ruling on this case. Based on some of the answers from the other posters on the thread, the line seems to be that Phillips ought not to be compelled to decorate a cake if it conflicts with his religious belief, but must provide basic accommodations that he otherwise commonly advertises for sale.

Christians and non-Christians need clearly definable law. And the proof of God's own approval from a Christian perspective is God's own word: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for she is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, tan avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." -- Romans 13:1-7 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the Emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." -- 1 Peter 2:13-14Paul and Peter clearly did not agree with Roman rule, as it were, but understood that humans need law outside of "God's divine law." This isn't ISIS, we don't throw gays off buildings and call it god's wrath... we give them equal treatment under the law. And according to Scripture, God is honored in our honoring of that, regardless if God disapproves of homosexuality itself. And that is scriptural. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Which was demonstrated and highlighted by their treatment of both Jack and Phillips when compared with the treatment of the soon to be married couple. Yeah, but she lost 7-2... it sounds as if you're taking Ginsburg's opinion as if it is now law as a matter of fact when it isn't. You might as well take the opinions of Gorsuch or Thomas as fact. This isn't to say that I personally disagree with what Ginsburg wrote, I'm just pointing out that it has no actual legality to it. Yeah, its kind of like the Courts dismissing a charge against a defendant because they were able to prove that an officer had no probable cause. But I think the facts of the case stand on their own merits aside from the Commission. Something of this nature will arise again and had there already been precedent established, it could avoid lengthy and costly legal fees for a lot of clients. I still don't know how I would rule. I think I would really need to delve into the minutia of what actually transpired that day in order to formulate a genuine opinion. As it stands, I think both parties have valid complaints. I do think that most people's line of delineation being the decoration of the cake more or less being the line in the sand makes sense from a legal perspective. I think that distinction makes a huge difference.

I'm certain that Roman law often contravened the scriptures. Unless you think God approves of forcing slaves to fight one another to death for the entertainment of a blood-thirsty crowd... well, on second thought.....I'm also not aware of a single Scripture that says that we should follow law except where it contradicts scripture. If that provision was in there, it seems obvious that it would be explicitly included by both Peter and Paul... Hell, Jesus himself said render unto Caesar... nowhere did God Incarnate offer such a provision. I do understand that. I was once a Christian and when I was I believed that you could hate the sin while loving the sinner. I know where you are coming from. And I find Phillip's objections both scriptural and Constitutionally protected... up to a point.God isn't going to decide traffic laws... he grants the authority for humans to decide for themselves and by honoring those laws, you honor God. That's scriptural. So if humans pass laws granting gay marriage, then we are obligated to obey the law. God will judge with or without our intervention, seems to me.Was Jesus endorsing prostitution by talking to prostitutes? Okay, neither does he endorse gay marriage if we legally allow gay marriage. If you believe the bible, then you should trust that God is in control, that each of us will be judged on our merits, and that unlike fanatical Muslims who must believe Allah is so weak that he requires direct intervention on his behalf, that Jesus has the wheel... so to speak.As a Christian, you should always worry more about your walk with God than other people's. Many, many, many Christians (and I was guilty of it too) are far more concerned with what other people are doing wrong when its themselves they need to be worrying about.

Marriage isn't exclusive to child-rearing, though. A marriage is a partnership - a division of labor with someone you love. As for the biological imperatives, yes, there is a biological component to why most people are heterosexuals... even homosexuals would probably say that its a good thing that most couples are heterosexuals if, for nothing else, so they can continue procreating and continuing the human race.But here's the thing... if you can conceive that a person can be biologically born with elements of both male and female organs (even Jesus acknowledged that Eunuchs were sometimes manufactured and others were simply born that way, no fault of the parents or God) then surely you can conceive that nature can naturally produce attraction between members of the same sex.I mean, if God was so concerned about marriage to one person of the opposite sex then surely he could will it that we weren't attracted to multiple members of the opposite sex (polygamy/infidelity). Surely, in his omnipotence he has the power to ensure that each of us are only attracted to the one specific person he designed us to be with... and yet that is not clearly the case, as evidenced by the frailty of people in the modern era and was the bane of King David (carnal desire for people other than his wife) in his time, thousands of years ago.If you can grasp that conceptually then there really is no reason not grasp how homosexuals exist and how their existence is innocuous. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Marriage is about a lot of things and means different things to different people and to different cultures. Its somewhat accurate to say that historically marriage isn't about love in some cultures where marriages are arranged for the continuation of bloodlines. Strangely I feel that is somehow preferable to you than two men or two women who genuinely love each other.But traditionally, in the West, we see arranged marriages as shams that invalidates the feelings and agency of individuals choosing to marry who they love, who they have strong friendship with, who they are sexually attracted and sexually compatible with, who they trust to have their back and, yes, often times who they think will be a good mate in raising happy, healthy children with.But it isn't exclusive to having children. I know lots and lots of people who are married and who do not want children. Or had children in a previous marriage and do not want more in their new marriage. Happens all the time.

I suppose so. My point is that marriage isn't really as one-sided as Faith either believes it to be or wants it to be.We also shouldn't use traditions as the basis of validation at all. Hell, if she wants to get biblical and traditional then she should be a strong advocate of polyamory. Abraham, the father of three major religions, was a philanderer to the tenth degree. Lot was raped by his own daughters and impregnated them... Moses, the guy who said 'Thou shalt not murder," murdered an Egyptian and hid is dead body in the sand. David couldn't stop being unfaithful to anyone. Paul shunned marriage altogether.If we're gonna use tradition as the basis for anything, she needs to recognize that traditions morph over time.

That's certainly true some of the time but some of God's favorite people did some amazingly debaucherous things. Jacob had two wives and in addition to them had two sex slaves (concubines), sired children from all of them. David had twelve... and his son, the "wisest man of all time," King Solomon, took polygamy to an insane level. The bible never really condones it or condemns it. It just provided provisions for how to keep all the wives happy and in the New Testament some high ranking church members were expected to only have one wife, suggesting that it really was not uncommon for everyone else... or as Paul suggests, no wives if you can figure out a way to not "burn with passion."I think you, like many Christians, have an idealized and largely imaginary view of what biblical life was like or what you think life ought to be like. Every single generation of Christians, since the very beginning, believes that were "right at the door" of Tribulation and that society has "gone to hell in a hand bag." We have to "Make America Great Again," which is really preconditioned on this false Leave It To Beaver notion of the way they remembered the world. The reality is America and the world was more messed up in the 50's than it is now.

I mean about the way you envision life to be or the life must have been during biblical times. Well, I won't disagree that Marxism sucks or that on whole the US is still one of the greatest nations erected. But I always wonder when the moment America was Great that Trump is referring to. Certainly wasn't the 60's. Tribulation is a global event, according to Revelation, Daniel, and Isaiah. Trump isn't a Christian, never has been, never will be... and the only reason he could give two shits about Christians is because he knows he has to pander to that base to get reelected.