If the objection was to homosexuality then it should not be limited to wedding day service. The idea that supplying goods/services to sinners is participating in a sin is quite a stretch.
Goshin said:Say the rep for the Local Swingers 101 Club came by my restaurant, and said his group was having a big three-day event at a local hotel, featuring spouse-swapping and an orgy, and wanted my restaurant to cater and serve at the event.
Biblically, that's a sin... I'd want the right to refuse service on that basis.
3.) what does this mean, were people not spiritual in you grandparents day? they were so what does this mean
Simple: Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you. Christ got the point. Most so called "Christians" miss it completely.
If the objection was to homosexuality then it should not be limited to wedding day service. The idea that supplying goods/services to sinners is participating in a sin is quite a stretch.
Simple: Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you. Christ got the point. Most so called "Christians" miss it completely.
So, if two straight people were getting a civil ceremony same sex marriage for tax purposes, that would be objectionable? On religious grounds???
All Christians miss it at times, none miss it completely.
And if I were trapped in a sin, I would absolutely want my fellow man to A) refuse to enable me in it and B) if possible, try to help me out of it. They would be loving me by doing so.
You are correct (broadly) that Legalism is a temptation for many (not just Christians). You are simply wrong to conflate Legalism with recognizing sinful activity. Legalism is the idea that the path to salvation lies through following the law, usually with gradations of spiritual failure. Christianity teaches that all sin, and all need the redemption purchased by the Blood of Christ - the Doctrine of Sin is not only not legalism, it is a critical part of the rejection of legalism.
The only reason why a person would refuse to serve someone in their place of business based on their sexual orientation is because they are seeing that person based on the bodily concept of life, not on the transcendental platform.
I strongly disagree. If I were asked to cater a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood, I would be supporting abortion on demand, and this would be a grave hypocrisy.
You are raising up a strawman argument. No one is arguing for rejecting service based on identity, but rather activity. Gays, Adulterers, Liars, Lusters, Gluttons, Haters, Thieves, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Asexuals, Semisexuals, Comicon-attending-wish-they-could-be-sexuals, all are free to eat at my restaurant. I'm simply not going to cater your orgy. I'm also not going to cater your KKK meeting.
It's not a question of rejecting identities - it's a question of rejecting activities.
But would you claim that was execising freedom of religion? Or would it be choosing which group to be affilitated with? Refusing to cater to the Nazi party of America is not discrimination. Refusing to cater to Germans is.
So you would not cater to a meeting of liars? Which would mean that you would not cater a meeting of the Republican or Democratic convention, right?
:lol: I like itBut I think you should have gone with "Lawyers" or "anyone who files federal tax forms"
So you would not cater to a meeting of liars? Which would mean that you would not cater a meeting of the Republican or Democratic convention, right?
We can go there too. If you are really basing it on activity then you would not cater to liars.
That is incorrect. Everyone is a liar. I would not cater to (for example) events designed to teach people how to lie to their spouse without getting caught.
Remember that it's not the Identity - it's the Activity.
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
It has to do with having to actively participate in something one considers a sin, or actively help celebrate something the Bible teaches is a sin.
For instance, if I owned a restaurant, and some guy walks in and says 'Hey, I'm a married man having an affair, and I want to celebrate my adultery with a wild swingers party. I want your restaurant to cater the party."
I'd want the right to refuse to engage in an activity (catering his adultery party) celebrating a sinful activity (adultery).
Now granted, the above scenario is highly improbable. Let's re-frame that...
Say the rep for the Local Swingers 101 Club came by my restaurant, and said his group was having a big three-day event at a local hotel, featuring spouse-swapping and an orgy, and wanted my restaurant to cater and serve at the event.
Biblically, that's a sin... I'd want the right to refuse service on that basis. (Frankly, I'd want the right to refuse service anyway because it is icky and objectionable and I don't want me or my employees exposed to that kind of environment!)
Many conservative Christians would view being asked to cater/serve at a gay wedding in much the same light: being asked to help celebrate something sinful.
Getting the picture better now?
Serious question man. I'm catholic, & we had one of these Priest at our church. Plus the hypocrisy of these people is unreal. I could see them being OK with it because he's a Priest
And this is why more and more people are turning to atheism or alternative religions. Here we have an example of a non-bigoted Christian (I assume) making excuses and essentially apologizing for the conduct of bad Christians.
Guess what? Many Christians have come to accept the fact that gays CANNOT CHANGE THEIR NATURE, and thus it would be morally criminal to condemn them both in this life and the next. You can either join the revolution or be stuck playing clean up for the bigoted Christians of yesteryear.
Oh ****, you believe that fairy tale ****, lol.
For a devout Christian, someone who actually believes, it is a bit more complicated than that.
Being asked to choose between joining a popular trend and being right in God's eyes is easy... the devout person wants to be right with God.
Then yes, there's the whole inborn/innate orientation question... that one has been argued extensively on DP, no point in derailing the thread with a long dissertation on it.
There's the question of practicing vs celibate homosexuals, which is considered important by some denominations.
There are the arguments that NT references to homosexuality referred to temple prostitution, pederasty and involuntary circumstances and not to committed and loving relationships, which remains highly controversial in Christiandom.
Then there's the question of whether, when told by the law we must cater to things we fear are sinful, whether we should obey the law of man or risk displeasing God.
Mere popularity, or being in line with current social trends, is not really a concern to the devout in comparison.
Personally I am beset with some uncertainty on some of these questions myself... but I certainly will not condemn those whose conscience tells them they should not participate in such things. It isn't about hate (at least, not for most I believe), it is about being forced to participate in things one's conscience says are wrong.
Well, Jesus was a progressive and a reformer (of his own religion) and had an evolving opinion about many social issues.
And since Jesus set up the laws by which people are governed, it makes sense that he has since evolved on gay issues.
Does he still command that children be put to death for being disobedient? Of course not.
Why would anyone, as a Christian, seek to make life more miserable for someone that they know is going to be punished in the afterlife? It's certainly not out of love. Many gay people commit suicide in an effort to conform to non-gay/Christian standards.
It simply seems like punching down.
As an atheist, I have committed the most grievous sin of Christianity. I would never be denied service in America if I decided to celebrate an atheist wedding.
Why would anyone, as a Christian, seek to make life more miserable for someone that they know is going to be punished in the afterlife? It's certainly not out of love.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?