this is a good question ... but I think even professional trollers need prep time. I could be wrong, but given the BEVY of other options in custom bakers ... they targeted this guy and he responded with integrity. They have tried to use this against him. We'll see if SCOTUS has any integrity ... if they do ... the decision should reprimand everyone between this commission and the SCOTUS, too.
It's exactly what it means. In both situations, someone is forced by the power of government to perform a service they don't wish to, and Jesus response is "of your volition, go ahead double the amount of service." That's not even remotely close to "my" application. Sure but those are different clauses in the SOM, which is dodging the issue.
No, it's not. In no case can you ever find the Bible saying "if you believe something is sinful, and someone tells you to do it, go ahead and do it." In fact, just the opposite. "Whatsoever does not proceed from faith is sin." (Romans 14:23) In other words, if you believe it's sinful to do it, and you do it, it's sinful. You're completely dismissing that this person believes (whether you agree or not) that he's being told to do something sinful. The Bible very clearly teaches "we ought to obey God rather than man." My parallel is completely accurate. You're telling someone "Jesus would rather you sin than turn someone down if they tell you to do something that's wrong." There's nothing sinful about handing someone your cloak, or letting them slap you on the cheek, or any of the other things that are mentioned in that passage. The only parallel you can make out of this is that if the gay couple sues you, you give them what they ask for, you pray for them, and if they need any other kindness that doesn't involve violating God's law, you do that too.
Except through a kaleidoscope, perhaps, how can the Truth be seen any other way? I don't say this with intent to grieve or inflame as I've been informed we have those who practice homosexuality here on this board. we all have our crosses to bear and another's is not any worse than mine. The relevant point is that those sins separate us from God. This isn't like the aggys who went moose hunting and convinced the pilot to strap their quarry atop his bush plane (legit term, btw, for those not in the know) ... they crashed ... but one aggy turned to the other ... made it 200' farther than last year. DID NOT MAKE IT ... or better ... DID NOT CHOOSE to receive salvation. IDK if that illustration helps or not ... but we're all in the same boat ... that is ... in NEED of the boat to save us. There's no partially drowned ... there's only saved in the boat, or drowned in the sea. The crew of the USS Indianapolis can attest to immanence of danger being in the sea with no vessel. They were saved ... rescued. If not for the rescue effort, they'd have perished at sea; either as shark bait or lack of sustenance/shelter. They lasted a LONG time ... 4 1/2 days ///sarc. (not to diminish the duration of the men's condition/situation, but 4.5 days in a 64 year 1945 life expectancy ... likewise ... 79 years in 2017 to 6 or 7 thousand years of mankind?) We won't live very long lacking a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The Word is clear on the sexual relations we are intended to have ... and those we are NOT intended to have. The only real difference is in our own perception ... the kaleidoscope ... rather than receiving the Truth. We want to bend the appearance to something which pleases us. Well, the other difference is we are supposed to celebrate this manifestation of rebellion. peace to all and His grace to you.
(Bear with me... long intro) When Paul writes about the idea of eating meat offered to idols (be patient, I'm going somewhere with this...), that was a big deal at the time. You had a lot of Christians coming out of an idolatrous culture, and some still held onto the idea that there were lots of "little gods" that they weren't supposed to worship anymore. Then of course you had the Jewish Christians who were very careful about eating anything that was unclean. Here's the upshot of what he taught them: 1 Corinthians 8:8-13 (ESV Strong's) Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. Paul says that idols aren't real, and just because that steak was sitting on an alter earlier doesn't mean that it's now "evil steak." God will not judge you for eating it. BUT... sometimes hearing that doesn't make it feel any less wrong. Deep seeded ideas are hard to shake, and so many of them still had doubts about that, and just didn't feel right about doing it. And what Paul says here is, if you doubt, don't do it. And if you don't doubt, don't try to persuade the doubter to go along with you and violate his/her conscience. So what all that means basically is that if your brother thinks it's sinful - EVEN THOUGH IT ISN'T - and you embolden him to do it anyway, he's sinned, and you've sinned against him by causing him to sin. That's because as I quoted the passage earlier, whatever is not of faith is sin. In other words, if I'm convicted that something is wrong, and someone convinces or persuades me to do it, and I agree not because I was convicted by faith in God and trust in the scripture, but because I trusted that person's opinion or wanted to conform my actions to whatever that other person is doing - or I just wanted to do it anyway, and used that person as an excuse - then I've sinned. That sounds harsh? Think of it this way. If your kid believes that you absolutely forbid him to go into your bedroom, and he does it anyway, does it really matter that you don't care? Does that change the fact that he actively chose to rebel against what he thought you wanted? That's a pretty basic Bible principle: if we're disciples of Christ, that means we give our will to him. We seek God's will, not ours. And if our attitude is "I don't care what God says, I'm going to do it anyway," then we have a sinful attitude. Whether the action is inherently wrong or not is irrelevant. I thought it was probably sinful, and i went ahead and did it anyway. It's not that different from what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount when he said "whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart." Just because you didn't have opportunity, or weren't her type, or chickened out, or were afraid you'd get caught, that doesn't excuse you. How are you better than the person who acted on those impulses? The idea is that you don't get excused from sin because you just lacked the opportunity. If you could have, you would have, and that makes it sinful. It's all about your heart, and whether you're truly trying to serve God or self. So all of that applied in this case is simply to say this: if that person believed that baking a cake with words and phrases and artistry celebrating a gay wedding was sinful, and he chose to do it just to avoid an issue or so people would like him and not do bad things to him, then yes, that's putting selfish interest and worldly concerns ahead of pleasing God. As to whether it's inherently sinful for anyone to bake a gay wedding cake, I don't feel the need to sit in judgment on that. I know how I would respond, and I know what religious liberty demands that we as a society allow. The idea that a court order somehow changes any of that is ridiculous and an insult to Christians who died for their faith because they refused to violate their conscience and worship the Emperor, even though the law said they had to do it.
all things are lawful ... not all things are profitable. 1 Cor 10. Ya know ... I can accept either course of action insofar as the act of decorating a homosexual "wedding cake" itself being a sin or not. Depends upon the "conscience" of the baker ... and that of the customers (which seems pretty clear). The baker believes it to be and if it doesn't harm the other party ... IE cannot receive a legal good/service otherwise ... there should be no legal action to compel a reversal of that decision. The teaching about going 2 with one who asks you to go 1 mile ... that isn't engaging in commerce, I don't believe. It's not asking for the ox or the plow, so to speak. It's in asking for provision of some sort; food, clothing, etc. Don't short change the offering in response. I don't believe this addresses surrendering your beliefs simply to avoid discomfort/legal action. Otherwise ... where is the salt?
The baker believed that making the cake was sinful, that is all that matters to me. It's not up a judge or society to tell him otherwise IMO.
I have two Muslim girls who are exchange students living in my house until June, one from Egypt and the other from Tajikistan. They are delightful young women and a blessing to have in my home. I would never ever expect them to eat pork chops for dinner, nor would I ever ask them to prepare pork chops for me. And if I was crass enough to ask and they refused, it would never cross my mind to make a federal case of their refusal. I am proud to have more respect for the behavioral restrictions called for by their religion than the two ******** who are persecuting the baker have for his (and mine).
Totally agree. That stuff is nasty - the worst supposedly healthy knockoff of real food I've ever seen.
JF I thought that was from the Onion or a fake news story but Good Grief it actually happened. The left is stark raving nuts.
It's mostly due to MSM propaganda. They have successfully created a subset of people who are living in an alternate reality.
Found this article related to this and there is a part that quoted a Yelp review: I can assume by this review that they believe the cake owners had a right to refuse service to the gay couple?!?
This is a really sad time in our country when people like the Red Hen mgr, Seth Rogen Robert DeNiro etc etc etc, most media and many Dem pols are willing to say or write unspeakable things based on untruths and lies .
The sad part is that they can state their opinions without repent, but conservatives can't. Right or wrong doesn't really matter.
...and if there is objection to an errant viewpoint, even if sincerely well intended (the illegal minors) ... you've become vile and intolerant ... disrespectful and unkind.
Speaking of Rogen -- apparently he is "bragging" about how he refused to take a pic with Paul Ryan's kids Maybe it was not the photo he refused, just the proposed angle of the shot? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/24/seth-rogen-refuses-take-photo-paul-ryans-kids-brag/
VolHorn, To your point it has become acceptable for the left to say things like hoping a conservative woman gets raped Or the child of our President gets sodomized. This Admin. has done nothing different or outside the law yet people on the left continue to lie. Where will it end?
How long until they erect separate drinking fountains for us? (might be a good idea, but that's not the point)
They are right. Coastal elites openly acting like ******** (just as when they take crazy extreme positions like they are on immigration) will always help Trump, because it solidifies his support in the swing states. Refusing to serve people based on their politics isn't going to look good in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Does it help the rest of the GOP? Hard to say. Probably depends on who and where they are. But it no doubt helps Trump.
Lot's of snowflake behavior being demonstrated in this thread by those the decry "snowflakes". Neither side has a leg to stand on, IMHO. I understand the animosity towards Sanders but not serving her was not the appropriate response. Poor service would have sufficed. Not serving her simply made her any liberal that stood up to Pence's gay discrimination law in Indiana a hypocrite, by proxy. At least those defending the Red Hen owner.
