Judge Orders Bakery to Serve Gay Couple

[DarkSentinel]

Yeah, that'd be humorous if that were in fact what was happening in this thread. What I DO see is one incredibly patient person expressing his beliefs, while others relentlessly attack his character. These reactions would be one thing if the guy was spewing vitriol as well, but that isn't what's happening.

For the record, I'm not against gay marriage, just the hypocritical angst and feigned sense of higher morality in this thread. As for the topic itself, I'm fairly iffy on the idea of a judge forcing a business to make the cake, as well as the couple's desire to fight this in the first place. Should the owner have said yes in the first place? Yeah, I think so, and I don't believe that the couple is in the wrong for being upset, but I question the validity of their course of action. They could have easily gone somewhere else and not wasted time and drama and who knows how much money on the lawsuit...it honestly makes me think their reasons are disingenuous...IMO, if you want people to accept you, suing mom and pop shops isn't the way to do that. There's a sea of difference between honest acceptance and submission out of fear of legal action. That's not to say that legal action is never the right call - in many cases it is - but choosing the appropriate reaction to win the fight for acceptance is very important; otherwise the acceptance you win it is nothing more than silent animosity.

Not to mention it creates a precedent that allows others to use as an excuse.

 

[SentinelMind]

This activity that you "disapprove" of is a personal act between consenting individuals that has absolutely zero effect on you.

It's quite frankly none of your business.

The fact that you "disapprove" is pretty disgusting in it's own right because who are you to even put yourself in a position to disapprove of something that has no impact on you, or anyone else?

I've said before...I personally prefer a Don't Ask Don't Tell approach to life. What goes on in privacy of your house is your business not mine. I personally wouldn't mind if people in various states or cities made own decisions what type of activity to legalize...but I'm no longer naive enough to believe that gay lobby is willing to contain their activity to communities they want to live and let others practice their faith and values as they see fit.

Here in this thread a mom and pop shop doesn't want to participate in gay celebration and they're being railroaded by activist judges and leftwing lobbyists. Every corner of this country is going to face this activism....that's what disturbs me...people like TQ who think its objectively wrong that homosexual relationship isn't celebrated in every corner of earth, isn't taught to every child as equal to heterosexuality. They want to use the government to threaten everyone to believe one universalist, socially leftwing value system...that's threat to those who don't want to submit...so its our responsibility to speak out and oppose this fascistic demand everyone acknowledge and celebrate their lifestyle.

 

[Feenix]

You're exaggerating and are extremely paranoid. Nothing that you are describing is happening or will happen. You're just looking for a reason to spout off your beliefs to people who will not listen.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You're exaggerating and are extremely paranoid. Nothing that you are describing is happening or will happen. You're just looking for a reason to spout off your beliefs to people who will not listen.

I dunno, I think he might have a convert in Spider-Who.

 

[DarkSentinel]

Wait, Pinchy, was that directed at me

If it wasn't then take that as comically paranoid

 

[SentinelMind]

SM, you still haven't answered my question about the difference between "casting a stone" and condemning?

Post 306....."casting a stone" is making a final judgment call on value, dignity of person..sentencing them to ultimate death in literal terms. By chastising the Pharisees, Jesus gave the adulterous women new life...but He told her to sin no more.

Jesus doesn't want us to suffer that ultimate final death...He will forgive us for our sins if we accept Him. Only He can make that call for each and everyone of us. We have to trust He died on cross, rose the third day and paid price for all of our sins. In order to do that, we have to acknowledge sin exists. We have to acknowledge we have fallen short of His standard. If we believe the delusional lie that everything is ok...and we're perfect the way we are....we'll never come to point of accepting a savior. After that, we have no hope outside of Jesus.

 

[Feenix]

Wait, Pinchy, was that directed at me

If it wasn't then take that as comically paranoid

Oh! Sorry, no I should have quoted. That was directed at SM

 

[The Question]

Yeah, that'd be humorous if that were in fact what was happening in this thread. What I DO see is one incredibly patient person expressing his beliefs, while others relentlessly attack his character. These reactions would be one thing if the guy was spewing vitriol as well, but that isn't what's happening.

How is saying that gay marriage will signal the destruction of American society and that it is comparable both in nature and morality to pedophilia not vitriolic?

For the record, I'm not against gay marriage, just the hypocritical angst and feigned sense of higher morality in this thread.

I fail to see the hypocrisy you're talking about.

What exactly should we be doing differently?

 

[Quasimod0]

Its a free country. The Cake makers can do whatever they want. I dont think this was the judges decision to make

 

[DarkSentinel]

SentinelMind, you are WHOLLY misinterpreting the first part.

"Let he that is without sin cast the first stone" was simply Jesus's clever way of showing the Pharisees up on their own pious BS. It was in no way a deeper reference to a final, spiritual judgment call, though you are right in saying that only God can make that call.

Yes, he told her to sin no more, but I'm pretty sure he (being 100% God and 100% human, but that's for another thread) knew that she would sin again, because it had been (and still is) an integral part of human nature since the Garden. We are powerless to separate ourselves from this fact.

 

[SentinelMind]

Its a free country. The Cake makers can do whatever they want. I dont think this was the judges decision to make

We're losing that freedom drip and drip everyday...be prepared for it.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

We're losing that freedom drip and drip everyday...be prepared for it.

Yes. Soon you'll even have to tolerate gay people getting married. The horror!

 

[DarkSentinel]

JJJ, don't be an Ulcer!!!


Wait…

 

[The Question]

We're losing that freedom drip and drip everyday...be prepared for it.

Denying service to people on the grounds that they're different from you is a freedom I'll be happy to see gone.

 

[SentinelMind]

SentinelMind, you are WHOLLY misinterpreting the first part.

"Let he that is without sin cast the first stone" was simply Jesus's clever way of showing the Pharisees up on their own pious BS. It was in no way a deeper reference to a final, spiritual judgment call, though you are right in saying that only God can make that call.

I was responding to slightly different point to JJJ about difference between criticizing sin and condemning the whole person, but in this instance..
If the Pharisees had thrown the stones, she would be dead. That's pretty final. Jesus said he who hasn't partaken in that sin (obviously some of the Pharisees must be involved..it takes more than one for there to be adultery) can cast that stone..and He told them what he knew about the act. Thus, they were not in a position to be casting any stones if they were involved.

Yes, he told her to sin no more, but I'm pretty sure he (being 100% God and 100% human, but that's for another thread) knew that she would sin again, because it had been (and still is) an integral part of human nature since the Garden. We are powerless to separate ourselves from this fact.

He instructed her not to sin....in reference to the adultery. Yes, she is still a sinner and committed sin, but we don't know whether she stopped adulterous act. Nonetheless, the point is to instruct us to still try not to sin even if we will sin in the future. We must repent and try not to sin..understanding Jesus will forgive us if we do sin.

 

[Quasimod0]

Denying service to people on the grounds that they're different from you is a freedom I'll be happy to see gone.

Not wanting to make a Gay couple's wedding cake is pretty different than say, refusing to let a gay couple eat in your restaraunt, or letting them use your laundry service or whatnot. For someone who doesnt support gay marriage, Making a wedding cake is like a sign of recognizing and participating in the wedding. You see what im saying man? I just think its a different situation than just plain old refusing service

 

[DarkSovereignty]

We're losing that freedom drip and drip everyday...be prepared for it.

And I'm counting the moments. Now I'm gonna go back to eating my apple jacks and forgetting that you exist. S'gonna be awesome

 

[Sawyer]

Not wanting to make a Gay couple's wedding cake is pretty different than say, refusing to let a gay couple eat in your restaraunt, or letting them use your laundry service or whatnot. For someone who doesnt support gay marriage, Making a wedding cake is like a sign of recognizing and participating in the wedding. You see what im saying man? I just think its a different situation than just plain old refusing service

And I think you're just splitting hairs.

 

[DarkSentinel]

I was responding to slightly different point to JJJ about difference between criticizing sin and condemning the whole person, but in this instance..
If the Pharisees had thrown the stones, she would be dead. That's pretty final. Jesus said he who hasn't partaken in that sin (obviously some of the Pharisees must be involved..it takes more than one for there to be adultery) can cast that stone..and He told them what he knew about the act. Thus, they were not in a position to be casting any stones if they were involved.




He instructed her not to sin....in reference to the adultery. Yes, she is still a sinner and committed sin, but we don't know whether she stopped adulterous act. Nonetheless, the point is to instruct us to still try not to sin even if we will sin in the future. We must repent and try not to sin..understanding Jesus will forgive us if we do sin.

The verse states that Jesus said "He that is without sin." Sin in general. Any sin. Not adultery specifically. That's all I was stating. You're reading too far between the lines, my friend

 

[SentinelMind]

Not wanting to make a Gay couple's wedding cake is pretty different than say, refusing to let a gay couple eat in your restaraunt, or letting them use your laundry service or whatnot. For someone who doesnt support gay marriage, Making a wedding cake is like a sign of recognizing and participating in the wedding. You see what im saying man? I just think its a different situation than just plain old refusing service

TQ thinks its objectively wrong that you see a distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage and see no grounds in why you wouldn't want to participate in the gay wedding.

 

[The Question]

Not wanting to make a Gay couple's wedding cake is pretty different than say, refusing to let a gay couple eat in your restaraunt, or letting them use your laundry service or whatnot. For someone who doesnt support gay marriage, Making a wedding cake is like a sign of recognizing and participating in the wedding. You see what im saying man? I just think its a different situation than just plain old refusing service

Yeah, but the problem is that what you're saying only holds water if the opinion that gay marriage is wrong is an opinion that we should respect and treat as legitimate. And it isn't. I have absolutely no respect for that opinion and neither should anyone else.

TQ thinks its objectively wrong that you see a distinction between straight marriage and gay marriage and see no grounds in why you wouldn't want to participate in the gay wedding.

See? You get me.

 

[The Silent Traveler]

My reaction to this entire issue is indifferent. I'm usually apolitical. As reading the article, I don't know how I feel about the incident but I'm inclined to side with the judge's decision because denying the gay couple their wish is not morally right. I understand the bakery's policy of refusing to their service but denying the gay couple their wishes to receive a cake for their wedding is wrong. Bakeries should be catered to different demographic, IMO.

How would you react if Asians or Latinos or any minorities are denied to have a cake for their wedding just because of their privilege?

 

[Quasimod0]

And I think you're just splitting hairs.

I think we're just looking at it from two different view points.

 

[Joshua_B]

Post 306....."casting a stone" is making a final judgment call on value, dignity of person..sentencing them to ultimate death in literal terms. By chastising the Pharisees, Jesus gave the adulterous women new life...but He told her to sin no more.

Jesus doesn't want us to suffer that ultimate final death...He will forgive us for our sins if we accept Him. Only He can make that call for each and everyone of us. We have to trust He died on cross, rose the third day and paid price for all of our sins. In order to do that, we have to acknowledge sin exists. We have to acknowledge we have fallen short of His standard. If we believe the delusional lie that everything is ok...and we're perfect the way we are....we'll never come to point of accepting a savior. After that, we have no hope outside of Jesus.

Amen!

 

[SentinelMind]

The verse states that Jesus said "He that is without sin." Sin in general. Any sin. Not adultery specifically. That's all I was stating. You're reading too far between the lines, my friend

What point are you making in reference to what I was trying to convey to JJJ? I'm not type of person who likes to split verses up and debate minor syntax and stuff in Scripture...I generally want others to get the big picture.