Judge Orders Bakery to Serve Gay Couple

[Tanin]

Prove to me that love exists! BRING ON DA SCIENCE!

[YT]?v=z9OGfBGOCpk[/YT]

 

[KevanG]

Dammit Tanin. We did this joke already. Didn't you read the script?

 

[Tanin]

Never

It needs to be on 2 pages

 

[hippie_hunter]

Fair enough, my mistake. However, did he speak about each one or just said to ignore everything in that part?

Christians have interpreted Jesus' use of wine as a reason to allow wine during communion. Sacrifices are now obsolete in Christianity, thus the salt thing is well...pointless. A lot of the dietary restrictions (touching unclean animals like pigs and allowing to eat meat that is a bit more rare) had been lifted by Jesus. Some interpret the Book of Revelations of markings on Jesus when he returns as a sign that tattoos are okay. The mixing of fabrics (which had a more symbolic meaning) was done away with Jesus believing that Jews and Gentiles can mix together. And of course he dealt with the poor (who would often have things like unkempt hair).

He didn't undo everything. He didn't intend for that to happen. Jesus never dealt with the issue of homosexuality and thus the act of homosexuality is still a sin. However, I highly doubt that he viewed it the way many gay-bashing homophobes do like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think he would view it more along the lines that Pope Francis I is treating homosexuality to where even though homosexuality isn't approved, gay people with kindness in their hearts are still treated with the love and respect that they deserve.

Why is it a sin?

I didn't write the damn thing.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Yep, the Jesus wrote it

 

[DarkSentinel]

Love is measured in pie, everybody knows that

That's going in my sig. t:

 

[Slushy]

I don't agree with his beliefs, but if he owns the place, he can do whatever he wants. Forcing him to do something (especially through the legal system) he doesn't agree with just because you don't like his opinion or the way he conducts his business is un-American.

 

[KevanG]

I'd say we ask C Lee about what they meant but after todays random thread insulting him I don't think he's up for discussing his old neighbors.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Yep, the Jesus wrote it

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Exactly.

 

[Feenix]

Next we're gonna debate how you quantify love... just wait.

You measure love by how many "moments" you can have by yourself and still have feelings for the other person. More than 1? It's love!

 

[DarkSovereignty]

It can also be measured in hashtags.

 

[Human Torch]

Point to the word "marriage" in either of those passages.

So because the word "marriage" isn't in there it makes a difference?He's saying Homosexuality is wrong.To read it as anything else is the worst case of eisgesis I've ever seen.

Yeah you have no idea how translating things works, do you?

I'm well aware.It's usually the first line of defense when folks want to twist the Word into saying what they want to hear."It's not translated right."

 

[Human Torch]

Christians have interpreted Jesus' use of wine as a reason to allow wine during communion. Sacrifices are now obsolete in Christianity, thus the salt thing is well...pointless. A lot of the dietary restrictions (touching unclean animals like pigs and allowing to eat meat that is a bit more rare) had been lifted by Jesus. Some interpret the Book of Revelations of markings on Jesus when he returns as a sign that tattoos are okay. The mixing of fabrics (which had a more symbolic meaning) was done away with Jesus believing that Jews and Gentiles can mix together. And of course he dealt with the poor (who would often have things like unkempt hair).

Correct.

 

[Feenix]

The "Word" has been translated, deleted, added to, re-translated, picked apart, put back together, re-translated again, and is now in its current form open to many different interpretations.

 

[Human Torch]

BTW,Jesus never addressed homosexuality directly,simply because He was preaching predominately to Jews who were likely to obey the commands in the Torah.There was no way He was undermining the Laws of Moses.

Matt 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,further clarified the issue beyond the shadow of a doubt in Romans. (since the sin was more common in Rome.)

 

[The Question]

So because the word "marriage" isn't in there it makes a difference?He's saying Homosexuality is wrong.To read it as anything else is the worst case of eisgesis I've ever seen.

Of course it makes a difference. It's saying that the act of two men having sex (and not homosexuality in general, just two men engaging in sexual acts, and it doesn't mention two women having sex at all) is wrong. It does not, however, say that two men getting married or two women getting married is wrong. The Bible does not at any point mention gay marriage.

I'm well aware.It's usually the first line of defense when folks want to twist the Word into saying what they want to hear."It's not translated right."

Translation is a nuanced and complicated thing. You very often don't have words that translate directly to other words in another language, and when you're translating old texts you have to take the historical context and the way words and meaning has evolved over time into consideration. And two different translations of a single word in a passage can completely change the meaning of the rest of the passage. A lot of translation is interpretation and there's a lot of room for debate in regards to meaning, especially when the text in question is this old, and especially when it's already gone through several translations before getting to us.

 

[Hotwire]

BTW,Jesus never addressed homosexuality directly,simply because He was preaching predominately to Jews who were likely to obey the commands in the Torah.There was no way He was undermining the Laws of Moses.

Matt 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,further clarified the issue beyond the shadow of a doubt in Romans. (since the sin was more common in Rome.)

So that means all of the rules about what's acceptable to eat and wear would still apply as well?

 

[Human Torch]

Of course it makes a difference. It's saying that the act of two men having sex (and not homosexuality in general, just two men engaging in sexual acts, and it doesn't mention two women having sex at all) is wrong. It does not, however, say that two men getting married or two women getting married is wrong. The Bible does not at any point mention gay marriage.

So basically,what you're saying is according to the Bible, two men (and I suppose women?) can get married,just not have sex? That is the most strained line of reasoning I've ever seen.(and I've unfortunately seen plenty.)It's a blatant case of trying to take something that's clearly being stated,and trying to have the meaning hinge on a technicality.

The Bible has communicated homosexuality as a sin consistently,and constantly. In fact,homosexuality has been shown in a consistently negative light throughout all of scripture.It is virtually impossible to interpret it as a condoned behavior.

Translation is a nuanced and complicated thing. You very often don't have words that translate directly to other words in another language, and when you're translating old texts you have to take the historical context and the way words and meaning has evolved over time into consideration. And two different translations of a single word in a passage can completely change the meaning of the rest of the passage. A lot of translation is interpretation and there's a lot of room for debate in regards to meaning, especially when the text in question is this old, and especially when it's already gone through several translations before getting to us.

I understand and agree. I was only pointing out the passages in question couldn't be held up to the excuse that their meaning was misinterpreted.

Eh,I think I've said all I have to say about this. Kudos to The Question for not engaging in some of the mocking and name-calling going on in this thread.

 

[Human Torch]

So that means all of the rules about what's acceptable to eat and wear would still apply as well?

Refer to hippie hunter's last post.

 

[charl_huntress]

Not sure how I feel about this, on the one hand I think the LGBT community should be treated as equals and with respect but on the other hand if some judge tells me I have to DJ a party I don't want to or pay fines that goes against everything America stands for

I don't know how I feel about this and I don't want to offer an opinion either. I just want to say this thread is very fascinating.

 

[Evelisse]

Cake, Pie, where is the Cookie love? The 23%ers!

Unleavened=Unloved?

 

[The Question]

So basically,what you're saying is according to the Bible, two men (and I suppose women?) can get married,just not have sex? That is the most strained line of reasoning I've ever seen.(and I've unfortunately seen plenty.)It's a blatant case of trying to take something that's clearly being stated,and trying to have the meaning hinge on a technicality.

The Bible has communicated homosexuality as a sin consistently,and constantly. In fact,homosexuality has been shown in a consistently negative light throughout all of scripture.It is virtually impossible to interpret it as a condoned behavior.

But homosexuality, as a whole, has not been said to be a sin consistently. The bible only every mentions relations between two men, not two women. How can you say that two women having sex is sinful when the Bible never says that?

And the notion that gay marriage should be acceptable because it goes unmentioned only seems like strained logic to you because you immediately associate marriage with a sexual relationship. But that isn't the case for everyone. And the fact still remains that the Bible only ever talks about sexual acts between two men, not sexual acts between two women or the emotional aspect of a relationship between two men or two women.

The problem I have with your stance is that you say that something is clearly being stated, but it isn't clear at all. The only statements being made that are unambiguous are passages that say men should not engage in sex acts with other men. And even that isn't 100% clear, because wether or not Mosaic Law still counts since Jesus came on the scene and to what extent it still does is pretty vague. The only unambiguous statements about homosexuality that come post-Jesus (which even then really don't get into any specifics) come from the letters of Paul to the whoever, and I'm honestly not seeing what makes Paul such an authority on anything. Everything else, from applying that to women as well to saying that people can't get married to someone of the same sex, is inference.

The only thing I'm getting at here is that it isn't clear cut. There are huge gray areas and a lot of room for interpretation here. To say that the Bible means one specific thing and there's no room for interpretation or debate feels very intellectually dishonest to me.

understand and agree. I was only pointing out the passages in question couldn't be held up to the excuse that their meaning was misinterpreted.

Why couldn't they be? Paul's passages don't go into a whole lot of detail and there's a lot of room for differing interpretation based on original word choice and the historical context. I've heard arguments that the passages could refer specifically to sex acts that take place on or near holy sites, depending on how their translated, or that you could read Paul's passages as saying that God sent those who blasphemed against him into an unwanted sexual frenzy as punishment, not decrying activities that they engaged in normally. Wether or not you agree with those arguments or they've got holes in them, you can't just dismiss them out of hand. Cutting off discussion about new and differing perspectives on something and assuming you already know what's what doesn't get us anywhere.

Like, here's a really detailed breakdown of all the different ways you can look at the issue:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=244

 

[BestGirl]

I don't understand why hardcore Christians are thrown into such a tizzy over homosexuality, which, to my knowledge, Jesus never spoke about, and ignore divorce, which Jesus openly condemned. Why don't more of them refuse to serve divorcees or support legislation banning divorce?

 

[Tropico]

Because there's a very small market for divorce cakes? I don't know.