The Religion Thread

[GoCubsGo]

The two life-threatening diseases affected her digestive system -- but after she fell from that tree in 2011, she was asymptomatic and no longer needed medication, her mother Christy revealed.

‘Boy Who Came Back From Heaven’ actually didn’t; books recalled

Linked from the same article....opps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/sty ... publisher/

[Mr.B]

"Personally if you don't want my business see ya later I'll give it to someone who does."

That's not the point. The point was the two "gays" wanted the court to force someone to do something against their religious beliefs.
They didn't want the cake to begin with, they just wanted to force their hateful agenda.

[Mr.B]

‘Boy Who Came Back From Heaven’ actually didn’t; books recalled

Linked from the same article....opps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/sty ... publisher/

The name of the book's author should tell you something.

[GoCubsGo]

‘Boy Who Came Back From Heaven’ actually didn’t; books recalled

Linked from the same article....opps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/sty ... publisher/

The name of the book's author should tell you something.

Should have told the publisher......

[rstrong]

"Personally if you don't want my business see ya later I'll give it to someone who does."

That's not the point. The point was the two "gays" wanted the court to force someone to do something against their religious beliefs.
They didn't want the cake to begin with, they just wanted to force their hateful agenda.

Nonsense. The "gays" aren't asking businesses to do anything they don't normally do. They're just asking for the same services from a business that it serves the rest of the general publics. They're NOT asking for some service that the business doesn't normally provide.

When blacks made the same requests, people like you made the same claims: "They're forcing us to do something we don't normally do: serve blacks." They too used religious excuses - "the curse of Ham", etc.

America, Canada and other countries have found a good balance between civil rights for all and the rights of people like you to keep your bigotry and hatred: You're free to hate and discriminate all you want within private organizations. Churches can do so both privately and when dealing with the public.

But if you're a business, dealing with the public, then no, you can't refuse service, to blacks, the Irish, homosexuals, those in competing religions, or anyone else your magic sky fairy tells you to.

If you don't like it, there are still places like Iran and Saudi Arabia where people who think like you do are welcome.

[Colonel Taylor]

"Personally if you don't want my business see ya later I'll give it to someone who does."

That's not the point. The point was the two "gays" wanted the court to force someone to do something against their religious beliefs.
They didn't want the cake to begin with, they just wanted to force their hateful agenda.

Nonsense. The "gays" aren't asking businesses to do anything they don't normally do. They're just asking for the same services from a business that it serves the rest of the general publics. They're NOT asking for some service that the business doesn't normally provide.

When blacks made the same requests, people like you made the same claims: "They're forcing us to do something we don't normally do: serve blacks." They too used religious excuses - "the curse of Ham", etc.

America, Canada and other countries have found a good balance between civil rights for all and the rights of people like you to keep your bigotry and hatred: You're free to hate and discriminate all you want within private organizations. Churches can do so both privately and when dealing with the public.

But if you're a business, dealing with the public, then no, you can't refuse service, to blacks, the Irish, homosexuals, those in competing religions, or anyone else your magic sky fairy tells you to.

If you don't like it, there are still places like Iran and Saudi Arabia where people who think like you do are welcome.

How about businesses who don't service those carrying a legal firearm?
Also like the ham samwich claim I doubt the cake makers have women and women or man and man figurines in stock because they don't offer it, just like the lack of ham in a Muslim or Jewish deli.

[O Really]

How about businesses who don't service those carrying a legal firearm?
Also like the ham samwich claim I doubt the cake makers have women and women or man and man figurines in stock because they don't offer it, just like the lack of ham in a Muslim or Jewish deli.

I'd suggest you read the lower line on your avatar. Remember it. Live it.
It doesn't matter if they don't have the figurine. They could still offer to sell them the cake with Happy Wedding" on it. Besides, I'm pretty sure those figurines are separate and if they aren't you could take two and combine them. None of that is really relevant.

[O Really]

OK, this is interesting - Some Muslims chunked some Christians overboard on a migration to Italy.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pol ... ar-AAb6bxV

Let's say that from that we might derive that Muslims are more prone to direct violence than Christians, since Christians haven't been caught lately tossing those of different faiths off boats, nor recently chopping heads. So what does a country in which "freedom of religion" is imbedded in the Constitution do about that, if anything? If we knew certain people were more prone to violence than others, are there preventive steps? At one extreme, we could banish anybody who is a Muslim, right? But how could we prospectively banish somebody for a "belief" not all that different from the majority American "belief" if they haven't actually done anything illegal? And how could we toss an individual who is a peaceful Muslim just because others holding the same "beliefs" are violent, and let the Westboro people stay?

'Tis a slippery road when something as fuzzy as "beliefs" are protected at the expense of actual harm. I'm thinking a "freedom of religion" that seemed reasonable in 17-hundred something might be starting to be obsolete.

[rstrong]

How about businesses who don't service those carrying a legal firearm?

The right to do something usually includes the reverse; the right not to be forced to do something. Like NOT having weapons on your property.

If they allowed/disallowed only one specific minority to carry in firearms - "whites only", or "not Catholics", then you'd have something.

Also like the ham samwich claim I doubt the cake makers have women and women or man and man figurines in stock because they don't offer it, just like the lack of ham in a Muslim or Jewish deli.

They can use two separate man figurines from different sets and charge extra, or say that they don't have a man and man figurine in stock. Both practices are well established outside of the civil rights issue. When people want more of the same color towels for example.

It doesn't stop them from making a wedding cake.

[Colonel Taylor]

How about businesses who don't service those carrying a legal firearm?

The right to do something usually includes the reverse; the right not to be forced to do something. Like NOT having weapons on your property.

If they allowed/disallowed only one specific minority to carry in firearms - "whites only", or "not Catholics", then you'd have something.

Also like the ham samwich claim I doubt the cake makers have women and women or man and man figurines in stock because they don't offer it, just like the lack of ham in a Muslim or Jewish deli.

They can use two separate man figurines from different sets and charge extra, or say that they don't have a man and man figurine in stock. Both practices are well established outside of the civil rights issue. When people want more of the same color towels for example.

It doesn't stop them from making a wedding cake.

It would be just as easy for the deli's to serve ham but their religion don't allow it and I accept that. The folks at the cake shop don't serve gay cakes because of their religious belief and I accept that.
Why isn't religions rights as important as gay rights?

[GoCubsGo]

How about businesses who don't service those carrying a legal firearm?

The right to do something usually includes the reverse; the right not to be forced to do something. Like NOT having weapons on your property.

If they allowed/disallowed only one specific minority to carry in firearms - "whites only", or "not Catholics", then you'd have something.

Also like the ham samwich claim I doubt the cake makers have women and women or man and man figurines in stock because they don't offer it, just like the lack of ham in a Muslim or Jewish deli.

They can use two separate man figurines from different sets and charge extra, or say that they don't have a man and man figurine in stock. Both practices are well established outside of the civil rights issue. When people want more of the same color towels for example.

It doesn't stop them from making a wedding cake.

It would be just as easy for the deli's to serve ham but their religion don't allow it and I accept that. The folks at the cake shop don't serve gay cakes because of their religious belief and I accept that.
Why isn't religions rights as important as gay rights?

Why is this so hard for you? If a bakery specializes in cookies or dog biscuits for the general public, would you insist they make you a wedding cake because they are a bakery? If it's part of their normal course of business for the general public they can't discriminate. If it is not part of their normal course of business they are not obligated to do so whatever a customer might wish (ham head).
Rocket science.

[Seth Milner]

The best thing to do is stick with baking cookies, pastries, the usual run of the mill cakes and such.
Just say you don't make any sort of specialty cakes, and don't.
That'll shut everybody up.

[Mr.B]

Dear homosexual,

We are your fellow sinners and no better than you. We know this. We are saved from eternal torment, self-wrought, by the grace of Christ alone. If you are an unrepentant, “out and proud” homosexual practitioner, then you are not. It is our deepest prayer that you, too, will accept the free gift of eternal salvation, repent and “go and sin no more.”

The alternative is a living hell.

Let us be direct. According to the unequivocal moral precepts of biblical Christianity, explicit throughout both the Old and New Testaments, your homosexual behavior is sin. Sin is evil. Homosexual behavior is the central, defining characteristic of your counterfeit “gay marriage.” Therefore, “gay marriage” is evil. Christians are obligated to avoid sin – to “do no evil.” “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality. …” (1 Corinthians 6:9).

It really is that simple. This is why, as faithful Christians (apostate “Christians” notwithstanding), we will never have anything whatsoever to do with your pagan, sin-based “same-sex wedding” rituals.

We will not bake your fake wedding cake.

We will not arrange your fake wedding flowers.

We will not take your fake wedding pictures.

We will not host your fake wedding reception.

We will not do these things because to do these things is to disobey God. It is to aid you in your sin, to cause you to stumble, which, in and of itself, is to layer sin upon sin. “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble” (Luke 17:2).

While we all fall short of His glory, the history of God’s people has shown that no unjust law presuming to force us to do otherwise, will ever make us disobey God in this or any other regard. I realize that forcing others to affirm that which offends God makes you feel better about your sin for a time. I also realize that it infuriates you when we refuse to join in as you attempt, ineffectively, to justify your wickedness by calling it “marriage.”

This is nothing new. We Christians have been infuriating pagans by refusing to bend on truth for over 2,000 years. ( )

And we will continue to do so until Christ returns. ( )

Children don’t like to be told “no.” They sometimes throw a fit when we don’t give them what they want. Still, when we know that some desire they may have is both wrong and harmful to them, we must tell them no.

They get over it.

You’ll get over it.

We’re telling you no because we love you with the love of Christ. But understand this: As we are so commanded, we must, and do, hate the evil conduct by which you define your identity. Sexual immorality – in this case self-destructive and disease-spreading sodomy, which violates the laws of nature and nature’s God – is a grave sin that will destroy you in both body and soul. You are deceived. It is not “who you are.” It is what you do.

And what you do is wrong. Period. Full stop.

If we as parents were to condone, support and even assist our children in the commission of a grave sin, of a wrong, what kind of parents would we be?

What kind of friend would we be to you if we condoned, supported or assisted you in the commission of your grave “gay marriage” sin?

Maybe this will help you to understand. Whereas, and while you may be in denial of this fact, sexual immorality is the central defining characteristic of your temptation-driven “gay” identity, Christ’s righteousness and our obedience to Him are, at least in part, central aspects of our Holy Spirit-gifted Christian identity.

You can financially ruin us, sue us, throw us in jail or even feed us to the lions, but we will never, under any circumstances, while empowered by the Holy Spirit, deliberately disobey God to please you or anyone else. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

Of late, we Christians are especially inspired by one of our Christian sisters (and others who face similar trials). She is leading by example in her obedience to Christ.

“If Rob walked in the store today, I would hug him and catch up on his life. The same faith that tells me that I can’t be a part of Rob’s wedding is the same faith that tells me to love him as Christ does.”

And with this graceful, compassionate and very truthful statement, Barronelle Stutzman, the elderly grandmother and floral artist who faces financial ruin at the hands of both homosexual activists and the state of Washington, has at once mirrored the love of Christ and exhibited the heart of a lion.

Ms. Stutzman is the victim of anti-Christian persecution and discrimination. Her case has garnered national attention and represents a microcosm of the cultural Marxist effort in America to silence Christian dissent and compel us to join in sin. Barronelle is being sued by homosexual practitioner and longtime customer Rob Ingersoll for politely declining to create the floral arrangements for his mock “gay wedding.” She has been charged by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Because of the tremendous negative publicity Ferguson’s and Ingersoll’s persecution of Ms. Stutzman has generated, Ferguson recently offered, via press release, to quickly settle the case for $2,000 – as long as Ms. Stutzman would surrender her Christian freedom and right of conscience and promise, going forward, to sin. That is, to take-part in sodomy-based “marriages.”

Again, and with characteristic grace and courage, she flatly declined.

“[This conflict] is about freedom, not money,” wrote Ms. Stutzman in reply to the offer. “I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us ‘freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.’ I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.”

Truth, in love.

Dear “gay” friend, you will one day realize, hopefully before it becomes too late, that you are not only on the wrong side of history, you are on the wrong side of eternity.

It breaks our hearts to see you there.
And so we refuse to help send you.

Sincerely,
The Christians

©2015 mattbarber

The best thing to do is stick with baking cookies, pastries, the usual run of the mill cakes and such. Just say you don't make any sort of specialty cakes, and don't. That'll shut everybody up.
As evidenced in the red type above, that's all these "gay" lawsuits are about anyway.....$$$$$$.

[JTA]

What if someone calls in to order a wedding cake for "Pat and Sam"?

[Bungalow Bill]

First they came for the Christian florists, and I did not speak out.....

[Vrede too]

What if someone calls in to order a wedding cake for "Pat and Sam"?

First they came for the Christian florists, and I did not speak out.....

[JTA]

What if someone calls in to order a wedding cake for "Pat and Sam"?

First they came for the Christian florists, and I did not speak out.....

Let's suppose I got sex change and became a woman. Suppose I were to get married to a woman that became a man.

Is this technically a gay marriage?

What if I me and my spouse, who were in a heterosexual relationship (I being born a man, and she a woman) wanted to have a gay marriage. Would we be denied service?

[Mr.B]

"What if someone calls in to order a wedding cake for "Pat and Sam"?"

The best thing to do is stick with baking cookies, pastries, the usual run of the mill cakes and such. Just say you don't make any sort of specialty cakes, and don't. That'll shut everybody up.

Best answer I've heard yet. They can always buy one at Wal-Mart and decorate it themselves.

Seriously though, it's already been said..... If they don't want my money, I'll go somewhere else".

[Mr.B]

Let's suppose I got sex change and became a woman. Suppose I were to get married to a woman that became a man.

Is this technically a gay marriage?

What if I me and my spouse, who were in a heterosexual relationship (I being born a man, and she a woman) wanted to have a gay marriage. Would we be denied service?

The best thing (the bakery can do) is stick with baking cookies, pastries, the usual run of the mill cakes and such. Just say you don't make any sort of specialty cakes, and don't. That'll shut everybody up.
....and that takes the "confused gender" thingy out of the question.

[O Really]

All these things are reasonable. As well as the anti-gay baker simply saying "I'm sorry, we're totally booked, but Heather's Cakes down the street is good and maybe you could try them." No probable problem. But did they say that? Noooooo! They said, in a state with a law against sexual orientation discrimination, "we're not going to bake you a cake because you're gay." Stepped on their own dicks. At fault for their own misery. Deserve the abuse they get.