ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 No. You don't understand Christianity nor do you want to or care to. Which is fine for you and fine by me. You just want your view pushed onto everyone who doesn't agree with you. It has nothing at all to do with equality. It has everything to do with you demanding that Christians abandon their faith to endorse your lifestyle regardless of how we feel. It's the exact same thing you accuse Christians of doing to you. The other side of the same coin. That is an odd statement to make considering I am a Christian. Hint: your fundamentalist view of Christianity /= Christianity. And FTR, taking a picture /= endorsing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 In six or seven different places in the Bible, same sex relations are forbidden/condemned/ listed as the reason for the destruction of ancient cities, etc. It is pretty clear with a plain reading that same sex relations are not what God intended for his pattern for families and for marriage. (Yes, I know ALL sins separate every one of us--all of us sinners--from a holy, sinless God *to the same degree*, that is that we are entirely separate from God, we are utterly, hopelessly lost and unable to redeem ourselves. I am that kind of a sinner even though I've never done this, that, or the other thing because I've been prideful, I've been selfish, and foremost because I inherit a sinful nature. I also know that the list of seven sins God hates (in Proverbs) does not include any kind of sexual sin, neither same or opposite sex. So for those who are truly inquiring in order to understand, that is the context: if same sex relations are sin, this sin is not worse than any other, and I have been a sinner from the moment I was conceived, and I will be until I die. The reason this is one of the hot button topics that is getting a lot of press in our generation is that people who are "other" in their sexuality--it is not neatly categorized--no longer want to be seen as sinful due to being part of that "other" category. They want it to be perfectly socially acceptable. Shoot, I would like that for them, AND I would love it for me and all my sins, too. But God and His word say otherwise. That very fact keeps me watchful for the sins that I know I am prone to, keeps me on guard not to cheapen God's grace and mercy, and keeps me frequently before God asking for forgiveness, asking for His power to help me grow out of my sinful tendencies. He says that I am a new creature, and that He is able to complete the work He has started in me, and present me blameless before God the Father when I die. And that leaves me and everyone else scratching our heads, wonderinghow do we live in this new reality where the world around us (popular opinion and practice) are at odds with what God has said. We know what Jesus did: He looked at *every* person living in sin, touched their lives, healed their illnesses, forgave their sins (He knew which ones wanted forgiveness and which ones did not), and then in many cases told them to go and stop sinning. He did not do that with the Pharisees: one assumes they had no desire for forgiveness and considered themselves righteous in their own works. He did not just gloss over sin and tell people to carry on doing whatever it was they were doing. So here is the rub, and again not every Christian sees it this way. (Hat tip to Andy Stanley on cakes.) Many of us have been raised thinking that when we enable/condone/contribute to/pay for something that violates Scriptural principles or ethics or is incongruous with God's nature (his attributes), that makes us complicit in the sin as well. This is the exact rationale behind HL, Wheaton, and the multitude of other institutions who are co-litigants on some of these cases. It is why Catholic charities have preferred to close than to perform abortions or place children with same-sex couples. If either HL or Wheatonsupplies, provides, or pays for drugs or devices that keep a developing life from continuing its normal development by inhibiting implantation, thus effectively causing the embryo to die, it is sin. If I were a baker, florist, photographer, or decorator, I might think that I wanted the labor of my hands to go only to couples who were joining together in one man, one woman marriage as specified in the pattern set out for mankind in the first chapters of Genesis. (I'm sure someone in such a business would be able to much more clearly and eloquently state their case.) If you want to get technical, homosexuality doesn't make God's top ten. I don't see bakers or photographers or churches handing out surveys to see who has lied or killed. So they aren't not discriminating against sinners, just one subset of what they view as sinful. For some reason, christians pick same sex relationships as the ultimate of abomination, yet most same sex relationships pose no threat to your faith, it's not contagious. Personally, I'd like to see christians taking a stance against gossipers and liars and those that are double-minded, but well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Can we try to remember that this thread was started about companies that were refusing to even fill out a FORM saying they won't pay for birth control. These are companies that already had a waiver,, and were NOT being required to pay for birth control. They just had to fill out a form, and the insurance company would cover the birth control without charging anyone (because it was cheaper than covering pregnancies). So once again, how is it agains one's religion to sign a form saying you won't pay for birth control????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Also, for those saying they should be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple, should someone also be allowed to refuse service to an interraccial couple? To an interfaith couple? To a Jewish couple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Halftime Hope wrote: "In six or seven different places in the Bible, same sex relations are forbidden/condemned/ listed as the reason for the destruction of ancient cities, etc. It is pretty clear with a plain reading that same sex relations are not what God intended for his pattern for families and for marriage" Chapter and verse would be helpful -- usually the reading of a Bible passage is a bit, um, open to interpretation, shall we say. And it would be good for people to see exactly what you are referring to, and whether they would also interpret it that way. My quote thingy doesn't work or I'd have done that the proper way. (Nor do my fonts, or my smiley faces....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Obamacare from the get go was designed to force our country into government funded health care. That's right. And we know how competently the government handles things, from all the recent scandals. Not comforting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Can we try to remember that this thread was started about companies that were refusing to even fill out a FORM saying they won't pay for birth control. These are companies that already had a waiver,, and were NOT being required to pay for birth control. They just had to fill out a form, and the insurance company would cover the birth control without charging anyone (because it was cheaper than covering pregnancies). So once again, how is it agains one's religion to sign a form saying you won't pay for birth control????????????? Can't help you with that. There are a lot of things in this world that make no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiveOaksAcademy Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Bravo, Saddlemama!!! You nailed it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 But it's a parent-child class. The daughter couldn't be there without the parents, and the parents can't follow the instructions if they can't understand them. Oh, I missed the parent-child part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmandaVT Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I sense sarcasm..... Not really actually. I'm no expert, but everything I've ever read or heard about Jesus was that he loved everyone. And not all Christians are against gay marriage. The UCC Church I attend sometimes makes a point to be inclusive. UCC's were the first to ordain women (1853) and gay ministers (1972). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Since you don't endorse Christianity, have absolutely no empathy for those who do, and can't see the enormous repercussions for Christians who bow to the pressure to conform, I'll leave you with non-Biblical reasons why the claim of equality is erroneous. The following comes from http://www.str.org: Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights "We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination." There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don't have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don't have the same legal benefits as married couples. The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally. I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless. Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, "Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have." No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern. The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause. The second complaint is more substantial. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals--non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers--share those benefits, either. Why should they? If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved? The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she--and they--are still covered). These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families. Marriage begins a family. The purpose of family is to produce the next generation. Therefore, family is designed by nature for children. This description alone is consistent with our deepest intuitions, which is why every culture since the birth of time has recognized this. No other characterization fits what societies have been doing for millennia. Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids. Government has no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It privileges and sustains marriage in order to protect the future of civilization. Until now. I quoted this separately to fillet in its own space. Regarding the first part about homosexuals are equal because they can marry an opposite sex partner just like anyone else...the question then becomes why do heterosexuals have the right to marry their sexual partners but homosexuals do not? Why are the sexual preferences treated differently, and what is the justification under the law? To show just how ludicrous this argument is, please keep in mind the same argument was made to defend miscegenation laws - blacks and whites were treated equally as both could marry within their race but not outside of it. Would you think a law restricting marriage by religion would not be discriminatory? So no, the argument that I am not discriminating if I restrict your choices to the ones that match mine does not pass the logic test. Let's carry on, shall we? "If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved? The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she--and they--are still covered). These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families." Oh dear. You aren't seriously arguing that homosexual couples aren't forming family units, are you? That is exactly what they are already doing, and they simply want the same protections as heterosexual family units. Excluding the couples themselves for a moment, denying their relationships the same status as that of heterosexual couples acts as discrimination against their children, as they end up not receiving the same protections as the children of heterosexual couples (whether the child is the biological product of the relationship or not.) And FTR, heterosexual couples who choose not to marry, for whatever reason, often end up with certain marriage by default in many states if their relationship lasts long enough. Homosexual couples are still denied those protections and thus are still being treated differently. Which gives us...discrimination. "Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids. Government has no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It privileges and sustains marriage in order to protect the future of civilization. Until now." This section is pure nonsense as it tries to defend the indefensible by just brushing away the objection. No one disputes that marriage protects family units, which is why homosexual couples, who do have children like it or not, are seeking those protections. And yes, at some point it does take male and female reproductive systems to make a child. Here is what your essay fails to address because it cannot. 1.) No where does the law state marriage protections are dependent upon a couple having children. Therefore, trying to argue that the protections should only extend to hetersexual couples because they can have "natural" children smells a bit fishy. What about couples that we know can no longer have children? Why are their marriages not recognized differently under the law? 2.) Throwing aside the natural child argument, I think we agree that marriage laws help provide benefits to non-biological children of a heterosexual couple. Why should the non-biological children of a homosexual couple not have the same access to those protections? Should little Johnny have different standing under the law because he has two moms instead of a mom and a dad? That comes across as pure discrimination as you are singling Johnny out as having fewer protections than the non-biological child of a heterosexual couple. Frankly, the essay you shared was both a legal and logical fail across the board. And as a Christian, I struggle to believe the Jesus I believe in justifying the mistreatment of children based on who their parents are. You may want to spend a little time reading everything Jesus said about homosexuality. Hint: it won't take long. He didn't say a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halftime Hope Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I hope my annotation makes sense, elegantlion. Mine is bolded. If you want to get technical, homosexuality doesn't make God's top ten. Top ten or top seven, whatever. I was not trying to get technical. What I was trying to acknowledge in my post is this: neither same sex sin nor any form of opposite sex sin make God's list of "seven sins he hates" in Proverbs. I don't see bakers or photographers or churches handing out surveys to see who has lied or killed. So they aren't not discriminating against sinners, just one subset of what they view as sinful. For some reason, christians pick same sex relationships as the (1) ultimate of abomination, yet (2)most same sex relationships pose no threat to your faith, it's not contagious. (1) That was kind of my point, in my paragraph on context. I was trying to help someone who asked a genuine question understand why this is a hot button issue in this generation. For a bit of context, 30 years ago the hot button issues were abortion (we're still grappling with that one) and divorce and re-marriage, i.e. how does the church respond with grace, hold firm to biblical principles, and wherever possible, help couples stay together and learn to make their marriages work well. (2) It's not about whether those relationship pose a threat to others through contagion--your word--it is about whether a population is being forced to compromise their religious beliefs and practice to accommodate others who get protected preference. When a couple has to close their business or limit their business, it is a threat to their livelihood. The law was mandating that HL's owners had to act against their beliefs and practice running an explicitly Christian business or Wheaton's in running an explicitly Christian college--for goodness sake, its motto is "For Christ and his Kingdom." The laws in many places are written in ways that will force people to provide services they may not feel free to provide in accordance with their religious practice. Personally, I'd like to see christians taking a stance against gossipers and liars and those that are double-minded, but well.... I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say double-minded, but the church families I've been in take gossiping and lying very seriously. I have taken a stand on gossiping as well--the most recent time was within the last year--and have fought to overcome lying as that was something I was really, really good at as a child. EL, you may have been around Christians who were despicable, I don't know. But some of us are really trying to live worthy of the undeserved grace that we've been given and the love God has lavished on us all. To that end, I'm in the middle of a reading project, trying to understand "other" sexualities (that is the term one of my books uses, since there is such a variety of sexual practices and identities), so that I can be a grace-filled part of the milieu toward which I'm headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I have to trudge out in the heat and mow my yard (Yeah, fun!!). Yet, I can't help but think 50 years ago people were standing up against interracial marriage and thought that was an abomination. 100+ years ago there was a divide between business owners and those meager peasant employees. Yet now, the nations seems to pick same sex couples as this generation's scapegoat. I think God is weeping because we are ignoring the real evil in this world to spend fruitless effort fighting things we feel affront our faith. Find me an incident where a same sex couple was forced to marry against their will. God also said love your neighbor as yourself. Has that been forgotten? He didn't say you get to pick your neighbor. While christians argue around the issues of life, they are blinded by the acts of real evil done around the world. Should we not be concerned with human rights issues in China, the refugees of Syria, the situations happening now around the world? Evil exists, but it's not in the hands of Joe and Steve as they want to celebrate their marriage and/or relationship. Do we care about the people that made that Christmas decor you're stocking up on right now? If you think God is as mighty as you believe, start doing something about the hard things, not the ones that don't impact the amount of evil in this world. I know some of you will reply that this is the roots of evil beginning to grow and if not stopped it will lead to, well, whatever, zombie apocalypse. I don't believe that. I believe this same sex issues are a distraction, they are not the evil. You're being deceived to think it is such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Can I ask a sincere, related question? Did insurance companies commonly cover contraceptives BEFORE Obamacare? I ask because I have always had really good insurance as a teacher (small or no copay, Rx coverage, not an HMO, etc.) but my "Cadillac" insurance has NEVER covered birth control pills. I had to pay for them out of pocket for decades. I assumed that most people did? So the idea that these companies won't pay for birth control didn't really surprise me. I thought that was the norm. Are all these lawsuits really about birth control/abortifacients or is this mostly a reaction to Obamacare? I have had a lot of different insurance companies over the years. Some of them paid for BC and some did not. Some paid for some kinds of BC but not others. I don't think that there has ever been an across the board policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I have to trudge out in the heat and mow my yard (Yeah, fun!!). Yet, I can't help but think 50 years ago people were standing up against interracial marriage and thought that was an abomination. 100+ years ago there was a divide between business owners and those meager peasant employees. Yet now, the nations seems to pick same sex couples as this generation's scapegoat. I think God is weeping because we are ignoring the real evil in this world to spend fruitless effort fighting things we feel affront our faith. Find me an incident where a same sex couple was forced to marry against their will. God also said love your neighbor as yourself. Has that been forgotten? He didn't say you get to pick your neighbor. While christians argue around the issues of life, they are blinded by the acts of real evil done around the world. Should we not be concerned with human rights issues in China, the refugees of Syria, the situations happening now around the world? Evil exists, but it's not in the hands of Joe and Steve as they want to celebrate their marriage and/or relationship. Do we care about the people that made that Christmas decor you're stocking up on right now? If you think God is as mighty as you believe, start doing something about the hard things, not the ones that don't impact the amount of evil in this world. I know some of you will reply that this is the roots of evil beginning to grow and if not stopped it will lead to, well, whatever, zombie apocalypse. I don't believe that. I believe this same sex issues are a distraction, they are not the evil. You're being deceived to think it is such. As I have stated on this board in the past, once we have fed the hungry, sheltered the homeless, and cared for the sick and suffering, I will then entertain the notion that Jesus is concerned about homosexuality. Just entertain it, mind you, as he spoke a great deal about loving others and aiding our fellow man, yet was silent on this "hot button" issue. I still picture him coming back and saying "Wait, you spent money fighting gay marriage when children were starving in this world? Did you actually read ANYTHING I said?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 As I have stated on this board in the past, once we have fed the hungry, sheltered the homeless, and cared for the sick and suffering, I will then entertain the notion that Jesus is concerned about homosexuality. Just entertain it, mind you, as he spoke a great deal about loving others and aiding our fellow man, yet was silent on this "hot button" issue. I still picture him coming back and saying "Wait, you spent money fighting gay marriage when children were starving in this world? Did you actually read ANYTHING I said?" I don't have a horse in this race, mind you, being the happy godless heathen that I am, but in the rare moments I contemplate what/who Jesus was, this is the kind of picture I have in my head of the man--one who was concerned about, you know, being a decent human being. And I would pay good money to see him come back and deliver an epic smack-down to all those who spew hatred in his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I don't have a horse in this race, mind you, being the happy godless heathen that I am, but in the rare moments I contemplate what/who Jesus was, this is the kind of picture I have in my head of the man--one who was concerned about, you know, being a decent human being. And I would pay good money to see him come back and deliver an epic smack-down to all those who spew hatred in his name.Of course you have a horse in this -- godless heathens live in societies where Christians and other religions vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halftime Hope Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 While christians argue around the issues of life, they are blinded by the acts of real evil done around the world. Should we not be concerned with human rights issues in China, the refugees of Syria, the situations happening now around the world? Evil exists, but it's not in the hands of Joe and Steve as they want to celebrate their marriage and/or relationship. Do we care about the people that made that Christmas decor you're stocking up on right now? If you think God is as mighty as you believe, start doing something about the hard things, not the ones that don't impact the amount of evil in this world. I think you are assuming that I/we don't care and don't have skin in the game on those "big"issues as well. You are wrong on both counts. Even on the stocking up on Christmas décor one. LOL! I just don't do décor--my kids wish otherwise. The only reason I'm here talking with you all about this is that I'm laid up for the day, to the point that I'm not even supposed to be up taking care of my house, which would be really nice because that falls by the wayside in my normal schedule. I'm here talking with you all extendedly about the topic of how the church and individuals approach "other" sexualities because it is something that I'd like to do well, and in which I'm actively in the "seek to first to understand" stage with authors who have thought this through well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I don't believe in same sex marriage, but my husband, as a photographer, can no longer do weddings in our state because we would be sued for not providing that service to a practice our faith is explicitly against. That's forcing us to either give up part of our business, the whole business or our faith. . Did your husband photograph wedding of people who co-habituated? Drank to excess? Use recreation drugs? Had an abortion? Have been divorced? Cheated on a spouse? How about people who failed to help widows? How about photographing people who gossip? What if they are going to Las Vegas for a honeymoon? What if they have had a sexual threesome? What if they were not modest (dress or expense) at their wedding? Did you decline THAT business? If homosexuality is a sin (I don't believe in sin nor did I believe it was when I believed in sin). But how can you justify offering selective services as a business owner that highlights one sin over another lifestyle/marriage related one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Of course you have a horse in this -- godless heathens live in societies where Christians and other religions vote. Well, of course...just speaking from the perspective of having an opinion on who (or what kind of person) Jesus was and what to take from his message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmiraGulch Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 No. You don't understand Christianity nor do you want to or care to. Which is fine for you and fine by me. You just want your view pushed onto everyone who doesn't agree with you. It has nothing at all to do with equality. It has everything to do with you demanding that Christians abandon their faith to endorse your lifestyle regardless of how we feel. It's the exact same thing you accuse Christians of doing to you. The other side of the same coin. Why can't we both agree to disagree. What's wrong with saying, "Hey they're a Christian studio. Let's bypass them and choose another photographer who will appreciate our union." Instead of: "Hey, they're a Christian studio. Let's sue them so they go out of business because they don't agree with us." First of all, I don't think it's accurate for you to say "Christians believe," about anything, really. There are Christians taking part in this very conversation who do not believe the same way you do. So, the accurate statement would be "I believe." At least own it as your own personal bigotry and not that of an entire religion. Second, do you feel the same way about interracial marriage? Will you also refuse to photograph a marriage between a black man and white woman, for example? Because just a few short years ago that, too, was entirely fine to do. Many, many people hid behind the banner of Christianity to discriminate based on race, and cited the Bible and their religious beliefs as justification. Did the Bible verses change? Or were they just not being interpreted "correctly?" If it's the latter, then perhaps that's the case with the verses you turn to to support discriminating against homosexuals? The reason people won't just skip your business and pick another is because your right to discriminatory business practices based on your religious beliefs should quite simply not trump basic human and civil rights. It's a matter of principle. It's that same principle that is sparking outrage at the Hobby Lobby ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saddlemomma Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 So, do you only photograph marriages for Christians who have weddings in a church that believes the same way you do about it? No secular weddings at the town hall, no Jewish weddings, no liberal denominations, etc.? I'm wondering if it's that important to you, can you avoid advertising to the general public and just offer your services to those you know agree with you, such as the members of your church? In the past, we photographed marriages between one man and one woman, as specified by scripture. Scripture doesn't differentiate between Christian and non-Christian. It only specifies one man and one woman. This exact solution occurred to the proprietor of a bakery in Oregon. They refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, based upon religious grounds. They were sued and lost their bakery. They proceeded to bake from home and were targeted there as well. They have received numerous death threats and "pro-homosexual forces threatened to boycott any florist, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the bakery." When the general questions are always asked by pro-homosexual activists, "What does it have to do with you? What are you afraid of?" and told "same-sex marriage won't change anything for you." This is exactly what we were afraid of, and exactly what is happening. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/01/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_investigation_wraps_up_as_state_finds_evidence_that_bakery_violated_civil_rights_for_refusing_to_make_same-sex_wedding_cake.html http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/09/gresham_bakery_that_refused_to.html http://cnnw.com/state-files-charges-against-gresham-bakery-owners/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/court-holds-that-wedding-photographer-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/ There is no safe haven for Christians who just want to be able to live according to their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 In the past, we photographed marriages between one man and one woman, as specified by scripture. Scripture doesn't differentiate between Christian and non-Christian. It only specifies one man and one woman. This exact solution occurred to the proprietor of a bakery in Oregon. They refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, based upon religious grounds. They were sued and lost their bakery. They proceeded to bake from home and were targeted there as well. They have received numerous death threats and "pro-homosexual forces threatened to boycott any florist, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the bakery." When the general questions are always asked by pro-homosexual activists, "What does it have to do with you? What are you afraid of?" and told "same-sex marriage won't change anything for you." This is exactly what we were afraid of, and exactly what is happening. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/01/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_investigation_wraps_up_as_state_finds_evidence_that_bakery_violated_civil_rights_for_refusing_to_make_same-sex_wedding_cake.html http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/09/gresham_bakery_that_refused_to.html http://cnnw.com/state-files-charges-against-gresham-bakery-owners/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/court-holds-that-wedding-photographer-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/ There is no safe haven for Christians who just want to be able to live according to their faith. The bolded is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. Maybe all week. You do live in the U.S., don't you? But there is "no safe haven" for you to practice your faith? Are you actually serious? Never mind. Don't answer that. :laugh: And "Pro-homosexual activists" is an interesting term. Nah, most people don't really care all that much about the homo or the sexual part; see, it's more like "let's just try to be decent to each other." You know. Because being decent is the right thing to do (and many Christians, as discussed in this thread, would argue it's also what Jesus would have done). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Not aiding and abetting in a sin is understandable. However, I think some Christians have defined what that means too broadly when it comes to same sex relationships (SSRs). We all, believers and nonbelievers alike, have to weigh other people's behaviors and decide which are bad enough for us to meddle in and which might not be ideal but are none of our business. We do this as a society too. Which behaviors do we try and prevent from the public space, which do we shrug and ignore, and which do we embrace and encourage? SSRs are tough because they have changed rapidly from "try and discourage from the public space" to "shrug and ignore" to "it's perfectly okay". Let's say a Christian owned a restaurant and, like all good Christians, he read his Bible and knew gluttony was a sin. Now let's say an obese person wanted to order dessert at this restaurant. Should the owner refuse and tell her why? "I'm sorry but you are too overweight and I cannot support your sin." The legality of discrimination is one thing, but the ethical implications are another. Most people would recoil at the above scenario because it's unkind. It is not the restaurant owner's job to police everyone else's sin. Overeating is not considered a behavior that warrants us condemning the person doing it to her face at the time. The owner would be acting unkindly, which, in this case, is arguably worse than overeating. SSRs are now in this category too (though even then there are differences because overeating actually does cause harm). Christians don't have to agree with SSRs, but they need to be very careful that they aren't singling out a behavior that doesn't warrant it and causing greater harm by being unkind. Some behaviors require us to meddle and condemn and we won't always agree on which those are. But there is a world of options between meddling and privately disagreeing but not policing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 In the past, we photographed marriages between one man and one woman, as specified by scripture. Scripture doesn't differentiate between Christian and non-Christian. It only specifies one man and one woman. This exact solution occurred to the proprietor of a bakery in Oregon. They refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, based upon religious grounds. They were sued and lost their bakery. They proceeded to bake from home and were targeted there as well. They have received numerous death threats and "pro-homosexual forces threatened to boycott any florist, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the bakery." There is no safe haven for Christians who just want to be able to live according to their faith. Here's the thing, this is how capitalism works. It is lauded for its ability stabilize the marketplace. Most conservatives LOVE capitalism, until they don't. When we boycotted Chik-fil-a, duck dynasty, hobby lobby, etc, it's because were big ol' meanies who are intolerant of a businesses' right to behave in a bigoted way. But it's working exactly the way it's supposed to. People who don't want to serve the general public shouldn't be in service industries. When a company is not in line with my morals, I don't support them, period. If that causes them to go out of businesses, well too bad. I'm sure it sucks, but they are at the point where they have to choose which side of history they'll be on and if they need to make a living more than they need to discriminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 IMO (as a Christian), Jesus was pretty specific that he expected people to follow the laws of the government unless they specifically interfered with worship. So, Christians (and/or Jews) were expected to pony up tax money, even when it was being used to persecute (and kill) Christians through people like Saul/Paul. From Romans 13 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Love Fulfills the Law 8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,†“You shall not murder,†“You shall not steal,†“You shall not covet,â€[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.†10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Based on those verses, which do you think is the more Christian scenario? A ) you refuse to follow the state's discrimination law, you refuse to serve a portion of the population Or B ) you love your neighbor by providing them with the services you probably provide to all sorts of sinners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 In the past, we photographed marriages between one man and one woman, as specified by scripture. Scripture doesn't differentiate between Christian and non-Christian. It only specifies one man and one woman. This exact solution occurred to the proprietor of a bakery in Oregon. They refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, based upon religious grounds. They were sued and lost their bakery. They proceeded to bake from home and were targeted there as well. They have received numerous death threats and "pro-homosexual forces threatened to boycott any florist, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the bakery." When the general questions are always asked by pro-homosexual activists, "What does it have to do with you? What are you afraid of?" and told "same-sex marriage won't change anything for you." This is exactly what we were afraid of, and exactly what is happening. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/01/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_investigation_wraps_up_as_state_finds_evidence_that_bakery_violated_civil_rights_for_refusing_to_make_same-sex_wedding_cake.html http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/09/gresham_bakery_that_refused_to.html http://cnnw.com/state-files-charges-against-gresham-bakery-owners/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/court-holds-that-wedding-photographer-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/ There is no safe haven for Christians who just want to be able to live according to their faith. Funny. I just worshiped over this past weekend with a whole lot of folks who were thanking God that we live in a country where we have the freedom to assemble and praise Him in such an open way. You might want to rethink that last statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obsidian Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 In the past, we photographed marriages between one man and one woman, as specified by scripture. Scripture doesn't differentiate between Christian and non-Christian. It only specifies one man and one woman. This exact solution occurred to the proprietor of a bakery in Oregon. They refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, based upon religious grounds. They were sued and lost their bakery. They proceeded to bake from home and were targeted there as well. They have received numerous death threats and "pro-homosexual forces threatened to boycott any florist, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the bakery." When the general questions are always asked by pro-homosexual activists, "What does it have to do with you? What are you afraid of?" and told "same-sex marriage won't change anything for you." This is exactly what we were afraid of, and exactly what is happening. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/01/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_investigation_wraps_up_as_state_finds_evidence_that_bakery_violated_civil_rights_for_refusing_to_make_same-sex_wedding_cake.html http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/09/gresham_bakery_that_refused_to.html http://cnnw.com/state-files-charges-against-gresham-bakery-owners/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/court-holds-that-wedding-photographer-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/ There is no safe haven for Christians who just want to be able to live according to their faith. Scripture specifies nothing about marriage between Christian and non-Christian? What about 2 Corinthians 6:14? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 In the past, we photographed marriages between one man and one woman, as specified by scripture. Scripture doesn't differentiate between Christian and non-Christian. It only specifies one man and one woman. This exact solution occurred to the proprietor of a bakery in Oregon. They refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, based upon religious grounds. They were sued and lost their bakery. They proceeded to bake from home and were targeted there as well. They have received numerous death threats and "pro-homosexual forces threatened to boycott any florist, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the bakery." When the general questions are always asked by pro-homosexual activists, "What does it have to do with you? What are you afraid of?" and told "same-sex marriage won't change anything for you." This is exactly what we were afraid of, and exactly what is happening. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/01/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_investigation_wraps_up_as_state_finds_evidence_that_bakery_violated_civil_rights_for_refusing_to_make_same-sex_wedding_cake.html http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/09/gresham_bakery_that_refused_to.html http://cnnw.com/state-files-charges-against-gresham-bakery-owners/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/court-holds-that-wedding-photographer-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/ There is no safe haven for Christians who just want to be able to live according to their faith. "They were sued and lost their bakery." James 3:14, "But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth." Based on your links above, you are not being truthful with that quote as you are implying their lost the bakery due to the lawsuit. From your scond link: "A Gresham bakery that sparked controversy earlier this year by refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple closed up shop this weekend." That article is dated 09/01/2013. Your 3rd link notes they are now facing a formal complaint. That article is dated 07/01/02014. It also states: "Although the Kleins early last year saw a surge in business from their supporters, it wasn’t enough to sustain their storefront operation near downtown Gresham and the bakery was moved into their home." They did not lose their bakery due to the lawsuit, but rather closed their storefront due to poor sales (not uncommon for small businesses.) Stating that they were "forced to close" is a falsehood. And again, there is no right to discriminate under the law. Trust me, the racists already lost this argument. When you open a business, you are agreeing to treat all groups equally. Note: anything with an actual religious function (church/school/charity) that does not accept federal money is exempt from this requirement. I am not sure why this is so confusing. I understand you want the right to express your dislike of homosexuals, just as others have wanted to do the same with regards to certain minority groups and other religions, but as a society we have decided that discrimination is not a right. Treat everyone equally and you have nothing to fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Here's the thing, this is how capitalism works. It is lauded for its ability stabilize the marketplace. Most conservatives LOVE capitalism, until they don't. When we boycotted Chik-fil-a, duck dynasty, hobby lobby, etc, it's because were big ol' meanies who are intolerant of a businesses' right to behave in a bigoted way. But it's working exactly the way it's supposed to. People who don't want to serve the general public shouldn't be in service industries. When a company is not in line with my morals, I don't support them, period. If that causes them to go out of businesses, well too bad. I'm sure it sucks, but they are at the point where they have to choose which side of history they'll be on and if they need to make a living more than they need to discriminate. Umm... wouldn't allowing capitalism to work mean that the people spurned by bakery #1 would go to a different bakery for their cake, and spread the word among friends and acquaintances that bakery #1 was a business to be avoided? Maybe start a boycott campaign on facebook or something? That's not what happened with the bakery. The couple filed a complaint with the state. That's completely different. (I'm not arguing against the couple filing a complaint - if the business broke the law, that needs to be dealt with. But that's not capitalism or boycotting at work.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Umm... wouldn't allowing capitalism to work mean that the people spurned by bakery #1 would go to a different bakery for their cake, and spread the word among friends and acquaintances that bakery #1 was a business to be avoided? Maybe start a boycott campaign on facebook or something? That's not what happened with the bakery. The couple filed a complaint with the state. That's completely different. (I'm not arguing against the couple filing a complaint - if the business broke the law, that needs to be dealt with. But that's not capitalism or boycotting at work.) I believe she is referring to the boycott aspect of the situation which seems to bother saddlemomma. I actually don't think unregulated capitalism is a good idea so I do support government enforcement to provide consumers a level playing field free of discrimination. "Take your business elsewhere" is fine when dealing with poor service, but not a good option when dealing with denial of service in an area with limited options. Blacks in the south would have loved to give their business to those who weren't racist, but sometimes that is not an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Yeah, well, I've already started boycotting them. I figure it's at least something I can DO. So I'm not inclined to discuss it much, except to mention again that I'm not buying their stuff. Yes, the one good thing to come of these lawsuits is that we shall know these companies by their fruit, and can, hence, avoid plucking up the rotten apples inadvertently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I believe she is referring to the boycott aspect of the situation which seems to bother saddlemomma. I actually don't think unregulated capitalism is a good idea so I do support government enforcement to provide consumers a level playing field free of discrimination. "Take your business elsewhere" is fine when dealing with poor service, but not a good option when dealing with denial of service in an area with limited options. Blacks in the south would have loved to give their business to those who weren't racist, but sometimes that is not an option. Ah, I had read the quoted part too quickly. So, boycotts, no problem. People should boycott away. I'll assume no one here is cool with death threats. As to the bolded... I can't be sure, since it's been a while since I lived there, but I suspect there are plenty of wedding cake bakery options in the Portland metro area. In that case, boycotts should be sufficient and regulations not needed. (I do understand your larger point but I'm talking about the bakery situation.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Please don't assume everyone that believes in the rights of same sex marriage does not understand christianity. Many of us are christians, yet we've come to a different conclusion that what your particular denomination believes. Exactly. Heck, my mother is a lifelong Christian and worked as a Justice of the Peace in MA. She married many gay couples - several even in my childhood living room! But maybe she is one of those lifelong fake Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelwydd Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 IMO (as a Christian), Jesus was pretty specific that he expected people to follow the laws of the government unless they specifically interfered with worship. So, Christians (and/or Jews) were expected to pony up tax money, even when it was being used to persecute (and kill) Christians through people like Saul/Paul. From Romans 13 Based on those verses, which do you think is the more Christian scenario? A ) you refuse to follow the state's discrimination law, you refuse to serve a portion of the population Or B ) you love your neighbor by providing them with the services you probably provide to all sorts of sinners. Curse you, logic!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[email protected] Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 And...now we're done. Again. Moderator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts