-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
G
To be clear, I do not affirm Arby's should not punish him. They should and did. Why? Because he was a pseudo-server. "Welcome to Arby's. Oops. You are mean man. You carry a weapon and wear a badge. Bad! Bad! I ain't no server now." Had to throw that in.
I already responded to your argument concerning the hierarchy and the rule, etc. The server is not in the military. There's it's obey your last general order. But even that is muzzled by the Constitution.
Arby's constitution is their policy. You wear this uniform. You signed agreement to our policy. You serve the general public, the men, the women, the boys and girls, the blacks, the whites, the homosexuals, the ex-cons, the large ones, the skinny ones, the ones in wheel chairs, the ones that accidently order a Big Mac, the tall ones, the short ones, the ones who drive American made and those who drive European, you serve the cowboy and the urbanite, you serve the smileys and the frowners. Serve the customers. Period.
To not do that because "I have a right to not serve this customer" is not a right the pseudo-server has. No right at all.
As I said, I already answered your argument.
Tell you what. Go ahead and violate one of the policies of CC. You have the power to. But you do not have the right to.
Exercising a right means resting on a standard or law that will protect you from being fired, from being banned, from being arrested. Etc.
If you have the right to violate CC policy, then you should not be banned when you do violate their policy. And that's not reasonable. Is nonsense. Foolish.
I already responded to your argument concerning the hierarchy and the rule, etc. The server is not in the military. There's it's obey your last general order. But even that is muzzled by the Constitution.
Arby's constitution is their policy. You wear this uniform. You signed agreement to our policy. You serve the general public, the men, the women, the boys and girls, the blacks, the whites, the homosexuals, the ex-cons, the large ones, the skinny ones, the ones in wheel chairs, the ones that accidently order a Big Mac, the tall ones, the short ones, the ones who drive American made and those who drive European, you serve the cowboy and the urbanite, you serve the smileys and the frowners. Serve the customers. Period.
To not do that because "I have a right to not serve this customer" is not a right the pseudo-server has. No right at all.
As I said, I already answered your argument.
Tell you what. Go ahead and violate one of the policies of CC. You have the power to. But you do not have the right to.
Exercising a right means resting on a standard or law that will protect you from being fired, from being banned, from being arrested. Etc.
If you have the right to violate CC policy, then you should not be banned when you do violate their policy. And that's not reasonable. Is nonsense. Foolish.
N
I don't know if anyone posted this, but doesn't the Bible address this with,
I don't know for certain, but it seems to me it fits this. The issue is not whether or not a thing is a sin or not, it's, "How does a Christian handle the changes in laws that go against the very values that make one a Christian"?
I read a story a while back about an abortion clinic. There were protesters outside with signs. It was a peaceful protest with singing, food and non-alcoholic beverages, and intense prayer. There was a priest leading this peaceful protest. The clinic had few patrons. Some of the protesters approached the public who seemed like they were going to be patrons of the clinic. Business was very poor that day. So much so, that one of the workers came out with a mobile phone and was talking to someone. Within a short period of time, a car pulled up and a few people got out and went to the priest who was in deep prayer. That person stood in front of him and said something in a language no one but the priest knew. Once gone, the priest confessed to others that he had just been cursed by that person.
They reported hearing strange noises and growling around the property. The protesters came back and walked in procession while praying, around the clinic. I don't think the clinic closed, but their patronage slowed greatly. I believe the growling was gone.
I do believe these peaceful protests are legal. I'm not sure, though. In any case, it seems that backing those who can make changes in laws and those whose beliefs align with your own, is the key to this. I don't think that woman who refused to give those men in Kentucky a license to marry was within her "rights" according to the law. She certainly can choose to refuse them and face the consequences.
The issue there is with the state. States' laws define marriage. The federal government stepped in and I wonder how that is legal? Maybe someone here knows?
I read a story a while back about an abortion clinic. There were protesters outside with signs. It was a peaceful protest with singing, food and non-alcoholic beverages, and intense prayer. There was a priest leading this peaceful protest. The clinic had few patrons. Some of the protesters approached the public who seemed like they were going to be patrons of the clinic. Business was very poor that day. So much so, that one of the workers came out with a mobile phone and was talking to someone. Within a short period of time, a car pulled up and a few people got out and went to the priest who was in deep prayer. That person stood in front of him and said something in a language no one but the priest knew. Once gone, the priest confessed to others that he had just been cursed by that person.
They reported hearing strange noises and growling around the property. The protesters came back and walked in procession while praying, around the clinic. I don't think the clinic closed, but their patronage slowed greatly. I believe the growling was gone.
I do believe these peaceful protests are legal. I'm not sure, though. In any case, it seems that backing those who can make changes in laws and those whose beliefs align with your own, is the key to this. I don't think that woman who refused to give those men in Kentucky a license to marry was within her "rights" according to the law. She certainly can choose to refuse them and face the consequences.
The issue there is with the state. States' laws define marriage. The federal government stepped in and I wonder how that is legal? Maybe someone here knows?
An interesting story, and an interesting point regarding the abortion issue. It is indeed good for the Christians to be unified if possible, or if not to at least chop it up and sharpen each other as with our little debate here, and indeed though I still disagree I find your reasoning at least to be of merit for ponderance. I have enjoyed this conversation with yourself and Sir Galahad acting as foils to myself for which we sharpen eachother, but I know this next response about the marriage issue will not go over well with certain people, so I will take my leave of this topic after this post, but I will read any responses you give.
As for marriage, this is a common argument in today's time pertaining to trying to force sexual abuse to be recognized as marriage, saying that it is the law of the land. However marriage is not defined by what a state says or what any person says. Marriage is not a ceremony, it is not a ring, it is not a certificate. Marriage is two people becoming one, and this happens during sex (1 Corinthians 6:16). Consummation is what finalizes marriage. Man and woman were designed by God to have complimentary parts for this. In the case of homosexuals, this is not possible, they can try to counterfeit it, but it isn't actually sex them lacking the complimentary parts. So one can see how they can never even truly be married. It is sexual abuse, abuse meaning also to use wrongly. Any person, state, church, or court that condones sexual abuse is illegitimate.
As for marriage, this is a common argument in today's time pertaining to trying to force sexual abuse to be recognized as marriage, saying that it is the law of the land. However marriage is not defined by what a state says or what any person says. Marriage is not a ceremony, it is not a ring, it is not a certificate. Marriage is two people becoming one, and this happens during sex (1 Corinthians 6:16). Consummation is what finalizes marriage. Man and woman were designed by God to have complimentary parts for this. In the case of homosexuals, this is not possible, they can try to counterfeit it, but it isn't actually sex them lacking the complimentary parts. So one can see how they can never even truly be married. It is sexual abuse, abuse meaning also to use wrongly. Any person, state, church, or court that condones sexual abuse is illegitimate.
N
Thank you for considering my thoughts on the matter. Now, I want to respond to the part of your post below.
For as much as it has to be, because not everyone will ever be a Christian until Jesus returns for the thousand year reign, I think there must be laws concerning marriage.
I always thought the reasons to have blood tests were to avoid blood relations from producing offspring with birth defects, but I don't know all of the reasons. I imagine that the division of property and rights of the individuals need to be protected, as well. So, I think there have to be laws.
Now, I do not think that the laws of the state should be the only way to get married. It may be time for the state to recognize marriages within the church as their own and having to comply with church laws only, except in the requirements like blood tests that would prevent some things that actually could cause issues with the general population of the state/country.
Those who want civil marriages can go through the state only.
Those who want a religious ceremony can go to some churches/religions which allows these unions. They are out there now.
As far as dividing property, divorcing for certain reasons, and so forth, the appropriate laws according to the authority which performed the ceremony would take precedence. Something to think about? I don't know if that's even possible and will address some of my thoughts/concerns below.
I will take you word for it that it is sexual abuse. I know it is a sin. I tend to separate those things in my mind, the civil and religious. It's not good and is fence sitting, to some extent. Yes, I am wrong for doing that.
I do agree that the marriage is not a marriage until it is consummated. Does the state also believe that? I'm not sure if that is within some law? You see, as long as the two are involved, we will not be able to separate from the worldly. Now, does anyone want Sharia style law? No, I doubt it, if one is a Christian. What I mean by that is those who do abide by some religious laws will take care of all laws in their community or country based upon their interpretation of their religious books/beliefs. Since I've read so many arguments on this site alone concerning doctrine, I don't know how one set of laws for all Christians could possibly be enough. Can it be done? I imagine it could be, just like it is with civil and criminal laws today in the secular world. What a mess. Other folks need to address this. I'm not intelligent enough.
For as much as it has to be, because not everyone will ever be a Christian until Jesus returns for the thousand year reign, I think there must be laws concerning marriage.
I always thought the reasons to have blood tests were to avoid blood relations from producing offspring with birth defects, but I don't know all of the reasons. I imagine that the division of property and rights of the individuals need to be protected, as well. So, I think there have to be laws.
Now, I do not think that the laws of the state should be the only way to get married. It may be time for the state to recognize marriages within the church as their own and having to comply with church laws only, except in the requirements like blood tests that would prevent some things that actually could cause issues with the general population of the state/country.
Those who want civil marriages can go through the state only.
Those who want a religious ceremony can go to some churches/religions which allows these unions. They are out there now.
As far as dividing property, divorcing for certain reasons, and so forth, the appropriate laws according to the authority which performed the ceremony would take precedence. Something to think about? I don't know if that's even possible and will address some of my thoughts/concerns below.
I will take you word for it that it is sexual abuse. I know it is a sin. I tend to separate those things in my mind, the civil and religious. It's not good and is fence sitting, to some extent. Yes, I am wrong for doing that.
I do agree that the marriage is not a marriage until it is consummated. Does the state also believe that? I'm not sure if that is within some law? You see, as long as the two are involved, we will not be able to separate from the worldly. Now, does anyone want Sharia style law? No, I doubt it, if one is a Christian. What I mean by that is those who do abide by some religious laws will take care of all laws in their community or country based upon their interpretation of their religious books/beliefs. Since I've read so many arguments on this site alone concerning doctrine, I don't know how one set of laws for all Christians could possibly be enough. Can it be done? I imagine it could be, just like it is with civil and criminal laws today in the secular world. What a mess. Other folks need to address this. I'm not intelligent enough.
N
I wish I would have seen this post. I didn't until it was quoted above. The sentence in bold says it all for me. I do understand her bold stance much better, now. While I agreed with her from the beginning, I didn't quite get why she was telling the whole office they could not issue marriage licenses. I do now.
Good for her. There needs to be an outcry against her being imprisoned for her views. You all know she was imprisoned today, right?
I thought about the changes in laws and how she actually may not have "signed on for that".
I agree that Arby's doesn't hold a candle to this.
Good for her. There needs to be an outcry against her being imprisoned for her views. You all know she was imprisoned today, right?
I thought about the changes in laws and how she actually may not have "signed on for that".
I agree that Arby's doesn't hold a candle to this.
And Jesus will indeed judge him, and you, very harshly. Denying food to a hungry person, especially based on the merits of hatred is a serious offense in the eyes of the Lord. But you support that hatred because your father is not God.
Better prepare your speech for when you meet Jesus come Judgement Day.
Better prepare your speech for when you meet Jesus come Judgement Day.
