SCOTUS Rules About Colorodo Baker

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2018, 12:31 PM)Beaker Wrote: But times have changed and many more people understand and abhor the practice of discrimination.

I don't think this is as true as you do.

[jj22]

There's plenty of room opened up in Heaven as of late as many Evangelicals are heading straight to Hell for their hypocrisy.. No one sin is greater than the other the Bible says. I'd support these cases if they'd refuse to serve adulterers, divorcees, unwed people with kids, and many of the other sins they willingly serve without hesitation. Heck they even go to prisons and feed those mass murderers, child rapist, and even cannibals (they'll even perform marriage ceremony's for them).... At least the weren't gay is what they'll say come judgment day. I'm not sold that'll work.

Reminds me of the Kim lady from Kentucky Evangelicals loved. I wonder if come judgment day she'll say even though she cheated on 3 husbands got pregnant with other men while married, abandoned her kids with earlier marriages to move on with new husbands etc. she refused to issue marriage license to gay couples so she deserves entrée into the pearly gates. ...... Good luck with that.

[Dill]

(06-07-2018, 12:09 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Sure, the bible doesn't say "gay people can't get married" but it doesn't mean one can't discern what the bible means. 

Wouldn't you agree that I did "discern" what the Bible means?  The JewishChristianMuslim God would be against gay marriage because he was against letting gays live.

[Dill]

(06-07-2018, 12:59 PM)jj22 Wrote: There's plenty of room opened up in Heaven as of late as many Evangelicals are heading straight to Hell for their hypocrisy.. No one sin is greater than the other the Bible says. I'd support these cases if they'd refuse to serve adulterers, divorcees, unwed people with kids, and many of the other sins they willingly serve without hesitation. Heck they even go to prisons and feed those mass murderers, child rapist, and even cannibals (they'll even perform marriage ceremony's for them).... At least the weren't gay is what they'll say come judgment day. I'm not sold that'll work.

Reminds me of the Kim lady from Kentucky Evangelicals loved. I wonder if come judgment day she'll say even though she cheated on 3 husbands got pregnant with other men while married, abandoned her kids with earlier marriages to move on with new husbands etc. she refused to issue marriage license to gay couples so she deserves entrée into the pearly gates. ...... Good luck with that.

I don't think the God of the Old Testament thinks ALL sins are the same since all do not call forth the death penalty.  E.g., you aren't supposed to eat shellfish or pork, but death is not the wage of those sins.

But you bring up an excellent point. There is some selectivity in which sins to publicly oppose, and based upon principles which involve more than "God's word" as interpreted from the Bible.  

[Dill]

(06-07-2018, 12:31 PM)Beaker Wrote: But times have changed and many more people understand and abhor the practice of discrimination. A far more likely scenario is that more of the 90% side with the people discriminated against, and the business loses more than 10%. Beyond that, 10% is not an insignificant number. If your competitors increase their business by 10% over you, they can use the additional profit to grab further market share through things like advertising, hiring additional help, etc. So in the end, you end up getting out competed by more than just 10%. Its not a static number.

I'm in general agreement with you, Beak. I'm just saying that it depends on the baker's locale.  I'm not confident a baker in Lynchburg, TN, or Odessa,Tx, or Salt Lake City would lose business.  There are also many places where losses and gains might balance out.

I.e., times HAVE changed, as you say, but unevenly--more so in San Francisco than in Oklahoma City.

[fredtoast]

(06-07-2018, 12:31 PM)Beaker Wrote: But times have changed and many more people understand and abhor the practice of discrimination. A far more likely scenario is that more of the 90% side with the people discriminated against, and the business loses more than 10%. Beyond that, 10% is not an insignificant number. If your competitors increase their business by 10% over you, they can use the additional profit to grab further market share through things like advertising, hiring additional help, etc. So in the end, you end up getting out competed by more than just 10%. Its not a static number.

Times have not changed where I live.  If a business here came out against gays their business would go up instead of down.

And like I said before.  In many small towns there is only one good bake shop.

Amyx Hardware store is on Grainger County where I live.  It is the only full hardware store within 30 miles

[*bfine32*]

(06-07-2018, 01:52 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm in general agreement with you, Beak. I'm just saying that it depends on the baker's locale.  I'm not confident a baker in Lynchburg, TN, or Odessa,Tx, or Salt Lake City would lose business.  There are also many places where losses and gains might balance out.

I.e., times HAVE changed, as you say, but unevenly--more so in San Francisco than in Oklahoma City.

I fairly confident they would lose any homosexual business they had; especially those wanting to get married. Would there be gain in some cases? Most likely, but probably only if one of the parties involved made the transaction public

[*PhilHos*]

(06-07-2018, 01:47 PM)Dill Wrote: There is some selectivity in which sins to publicly oppose, and based upon principles which involve more than "God's word" as interpreted from the Bible.  

As a Christian, if there's something that other "Christians" do that annoys more than this, I don't know what it is.

[Dill]

(06-07-2018, 03:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: As a Christian, if there's something that other "Christians" do that annoys more than this, I don't know what it is.

Well, I applaud your sense of integrity then. But it is kind of hard sometimes to know which sins are worst and how to treat sinners.

It was all clear back in the 8th century BCE, then this Jesus guy started hanging out with prostitutes and making a fuss about who should cast the first stone.  "Forgive those who trespass against you" and "turn the other cheek."  The only people he seemed to clearly dislike were money changers.

Not a religious role model for USA 2018. Paul is a little help, at least.

[Dill]

(06-07-2018, 02:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

If I were a cap maker, I would refuse to make caps with that slogan.  Flipside of the baker.  

[*PhilHos*]

(06-07-2018, 05:02 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, I applaud your sense of integrity then. But it is kind of hard sometimes to know which sins are worst and how to treat sinners.

It was all clear back in the 8th century BCE, then this Jesus guy started hanging out with prostitutes and making a fuss about who should cast the first stone.  "Forgive those who trespass against you" and "turn the other cheek."  The only people he seemed to clearly dislike were money changers.

Not a religious role model for USA 2018. Paul is a little help, at least.

It's sad, but far, far, FAR too many Christians have CLEARLY never read the Bible. I would actually not be surprised if more atheists have read the Bible than Christians (not percentage about total number of each group). 

Read the New Testament more and you'll see that Jesus may have disliked money changers but He aboslutely loathed the Pharisees and teachers of the law (think of when He called them a "brood of vipers" for example). I gotta think that He would have the same opinion of many pastors and preachers in America today.

I've said it many a time (not so much on here but definitely in most of the Sunday School classes I've been in and taught) but the greatest enemy of Christianity are Christians.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-07-2018, 02:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Times have not changed where I live.  If a business here came out against gays their business would go up instead of down.

And like I said before.  In many small towns there is only one good bake shop.

Amyx Hardware store is on Grainger County where I live.  It is the only full hardware store within 30 miles

Now, everything about you makes a bit more sense.  I had to look up Grainger Co., as it sounded familiar for some reason.  You're up there in God's Country, I was checking out vacation homes on Cherokee Lake, last week online.    I'm surprised they don't also have a sign reading "No Coloreds Allowed", as well.  

[Matt_Crimson]

(06-07-2018, 01:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Wouldn't you agree that I did "discern" what the Bible means?  The JewishChristianMuslim God would be against gay marriage because he was against letting gays live.

But that doesn't make sense Dill.

God isn't against gay marriage because he's against gays living. He's against gay marriage because it is considered sinful or in other words against God's natural order of things. 

If someone said "God is against adulterators because he doesn't want adulterators to live" would that make sense to you?

[Dill]

(06-07-2018, 07:33 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But that doesn't make sense Dill.

God isn't against gay marriage because he's against gays living. He's against gay marriage because it is considered sinful or in other words against God's natural order of things. 

If someone said "God is against adulterators because he doesn't want adulterators to live" would that make sense to you?

I believe that, over my lifetime, I have read the whole Bible. My memory is flagging now. But I don't recall any book speaking of gay marriage. I could be wrong.  This could be easily settled if someone can quote the Biblical Yaweh or one of the apostles on gay marriage.

In the meantime, I simply ask why would the God of the three religions rule at all on gay marriage, if in Leviticus he has condemned them to death?
Why would it make sense to discuss any further restrictions or laws regulating those marked for death? "You types are condemned to death; but in case you escape the sentence, you are not allowed to get married."

And yes, it would/does make perfect sense that if God does not want adulterers to live, then he is indeed "against" them.  Hence the death sentence.

Leviticus 20:10--"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."

It is perhaps possible to extrapolate from the teachings/actions of Jesus a more gentle orientation towards sinners, even gays. Paul seems to think gays will go to hell, but if they repent and receive Christ and sin no more, they can be saved. I don't see room for gay marriage here.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-07-2018, 11:43 PM)Dill Wrote: I believe that, over my lifetime, I have read the whole Bible. My memory is flagging now. But I don't recall any book speaking of gay marriage. I could be wrong.  This could be easily settled if someone can quote the Biblical Yaweh or one of the apostles on gay marriage. 

There is nothing in the Bible on gay marriage. When people refer to the Bible being against GM, their interpretation comes from the Bible only referring to marriage in the context of man and woman combined with the fact that the Bible frowns upon homosexual intercourse.

[Matt_Crimson]

(06-07-2018, 11:43 PM)Dill Wrote: I believe that, over my lifetime, I have read the whole Bible. My memory is flagging now. But I don't recall any book speaking of gay marriage. I could be wrong.  This could be easily settled if someone can quote the Biblical Yaweh or one of the apostles on gay marriage.

In the meantime, I simply ask why would the God of the three religions rule at all on gay marriage, if in Leviticus he has condemned them to death?
Why would it make sense to discuss any further restrictions or laws regulating those marked for death? "You types are condemned to death; but in case you escape the sentence, you are not allowed to get married."

Seems to me like you countered your own argument.

1) "The bible doesn't say anything about gay marriage"

2) "Why would God need to say anything about gay marriage if gays are already condemned to death".

In addition to that I'd like to say God didn't rule against gay marriage by saying "gay marriage is wrong". He ruled against gay marriage by establishing the norm for marriage.

[NATI BENGALS]

And here i thought the whole time the gay dude in this situation was the one decorating cakes for a living.






Jk

[Dill]

(06-08-2018, 06:27 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Seems to me like you countered your own argument.

1) "The bible doesn't say anything about gay marriage"

2) "Why would God need to say anything about gay marriage if gays are already condemned to death".

In addition to that I'd like to say God didn't rule against gay marriage by saying "gay marriage is wrong". He ruled against gay marriage by establishing the norm for marriage.

Um . . .#2; that is called "support" or sometimes "development."  In this case by deduction.

A "counter" to my argument would cite Bibilical support for gay marriage.

Where is it that you think we disagree?

[Dill]

(06-08-2018, 12:06 PM)PhilHos Wrote: There is nothing in the Bible on gay marriage. When people refer to the Bible being against GM, their interpretation comes from the Bible only referring to marriage in the context of man and woman combined with the fact that the Bible frowns upon homosexual intercourse.

So far as I can tell/remember, you are correct.