Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

There's nothing underhanded about the comparison, and you have not addressed the issue,If the laws compelling commercial bakers to provide wedding cakes to gays are unconstitutional, why are the same laws constitutional when banning segregation? Both are religious principles held by Christians (to be generous to you). Why is it acceptable to penalise one but not the other?

Faith, what are you talking about? As I saud it is the same laws in both cases. The only difference is the group being protected from discrimination.

Here is the law in Colorado, used in the Denver case.

Since I provided a link to the law that applied in Colorado Message 989, and it shows that the exact same clause applies against segregation, I would appreciate it if you answered the question.Why is it constitutional for the law to demand that the segregationists go against their religious beliefs ? Why does the same reasoning not apply in the cases you object to?

At every wedding I've been to the cake is part of the Reception. I wouldn't describe that as part of the ceremony.Which really drives home just how trivial the cake business seems to be. If the cake is just a traditional (and emotionally important) part of a secular post-wedding party, why is it so religiously significant to "Christians" that they can't just supply one to a gay couple getting married?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

4) The whole idea was concocted after his death and most of it in our time. Nobody ever accused him of homosexuality in his own time which they certainly would have in that age.

---

Did you not read the article on Buckingham that you cited ? [9] refers to: Bergeron, David M. (2002). "Writing King James's Sexuality". In Fischlin, Fortier. Royal Subjects: Essays on the Writings of James VI and I. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. p348[10] refers to: Ruigh, Robert E. (1971). The Parliament of 1624: Politics and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.p77

Then why did you claim that there were no contemporary allegations of a homosexual relationship, when the article says otherwise ?

quote:

---

I don't believe Bergeron, he's a little too eager to celebrate "homoerotic desire" and anybody who "creatively" reinterprets a historical figure is suspect to me, as said in this article on Bergeron

---

Since he's only cited as a secondary source for a contemporary letter, I think you can trust him on that.

quote:

---

However, homoerotic is one thing, actual homosexual activity is another.

---

But the letters are evidence of a homosexual relationship.But this is really besides the point. Why say that there were no contemporary conclusions so soon after seeing evidence to the contrary ? You don't have to answer directly, but you really ought to think about it and try to do better.

quote:

---

Where's the "evidence of homosexual relationship" in those letters?

---

The homoerotic content, for a start. Not to mention the quotes already provided.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I showed an example of the law in Message 989Here's the question again. Are you going to answer it ?

Is there any reason to consider Coston a reliable source ?

quote:

---

I can only answer for Christians asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

---

That's oddly specific - and also odd that you suddenly refuse to talk about situations you haven't investigated.

quote:

---

Anything that forces a person to act against their conscience is unconstitutional

---

Is it ? Can you point to the clause in the Constitution saying so ? And are you really claiming that there are no other situations where Public Accommodations law "forces" people to act against their conscience ?

quote:

---

This one is not going to yield because it is a matter of what the Bible says.

---

A matter of going against what the Bible says. Edited by PaulK, : Adding a response to Faith's additionEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Oh, so the Bible's just subjective now ?I think the fact that the only really relevant verse you've quoted says in no uncertain terms that you should follow secular law is pretty decisive.

quote:

---

Of course not, what nonsense. People are allowed to be wrong too as long as they are genuinely sincere

---

So, if we can find an example of segregationists who didn't give in when threatened with legal action you would support their stand, despite believing them to be mistaken (or worse) ?

quote:

---

The verse I quoted was of Peter and company saying they should obey God and not men, and I disputed the misinterpretation of the verse that says to obey the magistrates, because that's only if they don't contradict God.

---

Can you remind me of the first verse you mention ? And you seem to have forgotten to show that selling a cake is contrary to God's will.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Is there any reason to believe that anybody is a reliable source at this point?

---

More reliable than Coston ? Almost any historian of the period should be.