Gay snub Cornish B&B owners lose Supreme Court appeal

[Maitreya]

The word "bigot" does not exist in the bible. It used to have a real meaning in English, like gay, as a proponent of some kind of deluded opinion. Then, as with gay, it became adopted by the gay lobby for their own purposes. It is now predominantly used as a verbal term of abuse by the gay lobby against their political opponents. What does this say about you?

Christianity is all about discrimination. God is found to be a discriminator whenever the gospel is preached. He discriminated against the worldly and idolatrous Egyptians when it came to selecting the nation of Israel. Those who remained in Egypt did not get saved. He discriminates against those whose righteousness is of the world and who account political correctness as a virtue. Those who remain mired in the standards of the world will never be saved. "Do not be deceived God cannot be mocked." (Gal 6;70).

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]2Cr 6:17[/TD]
[TD]"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you"
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

While it's true that God discriminates in the examples that you give, I find that the new covenant, the teachings of Jesus, when he talks about righteousness as being a virtue higher than lawfulness, give a very different impression between what is God's right and what is humanity's right.

Jesus says 'love others as yourself'.

It is the world's standard whereby pride, elitism and hatred come into view. Yet it is Jesus' standard of being pure, loving and humble that brings with it virtues like compassion, forgiveness and acceptance of others while a person hones themselves to be self-controlled and dignified.

You may count homosexual people as the enemy, but loving one's enemies, ie. having compassion for all of humanity, not just the ones that fit in your box, is what Jesus commands us to do.

'For the entire law is met in this one thought; that you will love those around you as yourself'.

 

[Ritter]

While it's true that God discriminates in the examples that you give, I find that the new covenant, the teachings of Jesus, when he talks about righteousness as being a virtue higher than lawfulness, give a very different impression between what is God's right and what is humanity's right.

Jesus says 'love others as yourself'.

It is the world's standard whereby pride, elitism and hatred come into view. Yet it is Jesus' standard of being pure, loving and humble that brings with it virtues like compassion, forgiveness and acceptance of others while a person hones themselves to be self-controlled and dignified.

You may count homosexual people as the enemy, but loving one's enemies, ie. having compassion for all of humanity, not just the ones that fit in your box, is what Jesus commands us to do.

'For the entire law is met in this one thought; that you will love those around you as yourself'.

This presupposes that the most loving action is to allow a group to not only engage in self-destructive behavior without warning, but also fundamentally obfuscate the meaning of the law.

That is not love, but a form of cowardice that seeks to avoid condemnation, but receives it ten fold.

 

[Ritter]

Also, I would like to point out, as I have on other occasions, that it is not within the government's jurisdiction to determine whom a business may or may not serve.

That is the real tyranny at work.

 

[Gjolll]

'For the entire law is met in this one thought; that you will love those around you as yourself'.

If I was lost in sin, I wouldn't want those around me to accept it without saying anything. I'd want them to rebuke me, or shun me, and expose my hidden sin for what it is. Accommodating the sins of others has nothing to do with displaying the love of God, but is angel worship, and false humility. It's what the institutional churches do, who have lost connection with Christ. Don't forget also that Jesus was talking to a theocratic society where the law was enforced. There were no homosexuals, and adultery was a criminal offense. The society we live in today is more than a witches' coven as anticipated by Alaster Crowley. It is like Sodom. As with Jonah and Nineveh, preaching repentance is what is required, not gratuitous socialization with sinners.

 

[Maitreya]

This presupposes that the most loving action is to allow a group to not only engage in self-destructive behavior without warning, but also fundamentally obfuscate the meaning of the law.

That is not love, but a form of cowardice that seeks to avoid condemnation, but receives it ten fold.

My presupposition is nothing to do with me allowing or disallowing another person their choices, no, nor about condoning self-destructive behaviour. What I'm suggesting is rather, that if a person comes to me and has no intent of changing their ways, then what good is malice, shunning or hatred?

The word love, in itself, truly means unconditional compassion. My compassion, should a gay person who is unwilling to change, come to my B&B, would firstly be for their shelter for that night, so that they might not go without shelter. Secondly for their breakfast the next morning, that they might not go without food. My compassion for their self-destructive behaviour may exist, but for a person unwilling to be 'told' and 'ordered' in how to live their lives or choose their sexual orientation, my compassion for their self-destructive behavior is irrelevant. To tell them 'repent of your ways' whent hey do not wish to hear it is to cause separatism, angst and a conversation in which they are unwilling to participate.

Besides, frankly, I am not of the authority to 'allow' or 'disallow' anybody their personal choices. The only person that I have control over in this life is myself, and rightly should it be so. I firmly believe that this gay couple KNOW that God views homosexuality as a sin, and thus, my preaching of it is pointless. It is my SHOWING of compassion that is likely to afford us the mutual respect to listen to one-another, and thus, they might hear.

However, should a person of said struggle (homosexuality) come asking my help, advice or opinion, I would gladly give it with as much tact and concern for their well-being and state-of-mind as I have reverence for the God who desires us to be free of our suffering in desire and sin.

Therefore, what I have demonstrated is compassion with thought, rather than a blunt force that puts the sin before the sinner. Simply put, I know of many sins, and of many wrongdoings that a person can do. I also know of a number of them that I myself struggle with. I already KNOW and UNDERSTAND that they are wrong. For someone else to point out their horribleness is pointless and would lead me to aversion of that person for a short time, simply because even THAT person has sins that they struggle with.

It is a matter of not over-stepping the boundary into another person's temple; their mind.

I am not ignorant of God's laws, nor of what is deemed harmful and what is not. But I am also not ignorant of offense, reckless speech or judgement. My self-control is firrmly rooted. Hence I have no reason to believe that my standing with God bears on how averse I am to 'sinners'. I myself am a sinner, in that I sin, albeit a person who goes forward in life wanting to rid myself of the parts of me that cause suffering.

 

[Maitreya]

Words mean nothing without compassion behind them.

As we are told, 'If I speak languages of men and of angels, but have no compassion, I am just a resounding gong, a clanging cymbal'.

Without compassionate actions, without empathy, without tact and respect and thought, preaching 'sinner repent' is nothing.

 

[Gjolll]

Words mean nothing without compassion behind them.

As we are told, 'If I speak languages of men and of angels, but have no compassion, I am just a resounding gong, a clanging cymbal'.

Without compassionate actions, without empathy, without tact and respect and thought, preaching 'sinner repent' is nothing.

I like the Charlemagne way "repent or we'll run you through with our swords." The point is that sinners will use, despise and humiliate their adversaries. Like the B&B owners. They did not have to start a lawsuit. They did it out of spite, malice, and hatred. Sinners are nasty people. You make them sound like hospital patients. The reason they are called sinners is because they harm others. If you want to show compassion, show compassion for their victims.

 

[Maitreya]

I like the Charlemagne way "repent or we'll run you through with our swords." The point is that sinners will use, despise and humiliate their adversaries. Like the B&B owners. They did not have to start a lawsuit. They did it out of spite, malice, and hatred. Sinners are nasty people. You make them sound like hospital patients. The reason they are called sinners is because they harm others. If you want to show compassion, show compassion for their victims.

You might like it, but it doesn't make it compassionate.

And what about your victims? Don't you sin? Isn't your Charlemagne demeanor despising and humiliating and nasty? I don't see the lawsuit as hatred, I see it as having knowledge of human justice and enforcing it by the means available to them. They were legally justified in pursuing their lawsuit, though you're right, they didn't HAVE to.

On the contrary, the owners, being christian folk, didn't have to deny anyone entry to their premises on the basis of their particular sins.

If they'd come across an unmarried couple staying for the night, I wonder would they have also denied them entry .....

 

[Ritter]

I like the Charlemagne way "repent or we'll run you through with our swords." The point is that sinners will use, despise and humiliate their adversaries. Like the B&B owners. They did not have to start a lawsuit. They did it out of spite, malice, and hatred. Sinners are nasty people. You make them sound like hospital patients. The reason they are called sinners is because they harm others. If you want to show compassion, show compassion for their victims.

Charlemagne was ultimately a great king, but I would hardly call the bloody verdict of Verdun a model for evangelism.

 

[Ritter]

My presupposition is nothing to do with me allowing or disallowing another person their choices, no, nor about condoning self-destructive behaviour. What I'm suggesting is rather, that if a person comes to me and has no intent of changing their ways, then what good is malice, shunning or hatred?

The word love, in itself, truly means unconditional compassion. My compassion, should a gay person who is unwilling to change, come to my B&B, would firstly be for their shelter for that night, so that they might not go without shelter. Secondly for their breakfast the next morning, that they might not go without food. My compassion for their self-destructive behaviour may exist, but for a person unwilling to be 'told' and 'ordered' in how to live their lives or choose their sexual orientation, my compassion for their self-destructive behavior is irrelevant. To tell them 'repent of your ways' whent hey do not wish to hear it is to cause separatism, angst and a conversation in which they are unwilling to participate.

Besides, frankly, I am not of the authority to 'allow' or 'disallow' anybody their personal choices. The only person that I have control over in this life is myself, and rightly should it be so. I firmly believe that this gay couple KNOW that God views homosexuality as a sin, and thus, my preaching of it is pointless. It is my SHOWING of compassion that is likely to afford us the mutual respect to listen to one-another, and thus, they might hear.

However, should a person of said struggle (homosexuality) come asking my help, advice or opinion, I would gladly give it with as much tact and concern for their well-being and state-of-mind as I have reverence for the God who desires us to be free of our suffering in desire and sin.

Therefore, what I have demonstrated is compassion with thought, rather than a blunt force that puts the sin before the sinner. Simply put, I know of many sins, and of many wrongdoings that a person can do. I also know of a number of them that I myself struggle with. I already KNOW and UNDERSTAND that they are wrong. For someone else to point out their horribleness is pointless and would lead me to aversion of that person for a short time, simply because even THAT person has sins that they struggle with.

It is a matter of not over-stepping the boundary into another person's temple; their mind.

I am not ignorant of God's laws, nor of what is deemed harmful and what is not. But I am also not ignorant of offense, reckless speech or judgement. My self-control is firrmly rooted. Hence I have no reason to believe that my standing with God bears on how averse I am to 'sinners'. I myself am a sinner, in that I sin, albeit a person who goes forward in life wanting to rid myself of the parts of me that cause suffering.

Is it not possible though, to hate what a person does and not what they are? I agree what we should not go about discriminating based on identity alone. That is the way of the ideologue and the cause for the worst crimes in the last one hundred and fifty years or so (give or take).

The Bible, as I understand it, has plenty of injunctions though against sin and pretty strong words against those who will not turn from it. Did Jesus not call those at the temple thieves before turning their tables? Were the Sanhedrin not called a den of snakes? Ultimately, their hearts were far from God and Jesus sought to identify that fact. He still loved them all the same.

The first step on the road to salvation is recognition of our own failures before God's law. As God's ministry, is it not our duty to identify the sin in others? Perhaps they had not considered it before.

And let's be realistic, shelter could have been found elsewhere. Their other choices were likely far from Dickensian.

In all likelihood, I would have done as you said you would, but I can understand the argument against it. I am also of the opinion that if a Christian family were to allow homosexuals into their bed and breakfast, they would not leave without hearing the gospel in some way, shape, or form.

Words mean nothing without compassion behind them.

As we are told, 'If I speak languages of men and of angels, but have no compassion, I am just a resounding gong, a clanging cymbal'.

Without compassionate actions, without empathy, without tact and respect and thought, preaching 'sinner repent' is nothing.

Compassion can accompany severity. It is a concept we tend to forget in our modern age.

Either way, we walk a tight rope as believers. Too much softness can lead to doctrinal changes that amount to a different religion entirely.

You might like it, but it doesn't make it compassionate.

And what about your victims? Don't you sin? Isn't your Charlemagne demeanor despising and humiliating and nasty? I don't see the lawsuit as hatred, I see it as having knowledge of human justice and enforcing it by the means available to them. They were legally justified in pursuing their lawsuit, though you're right, they didn't HAVE to.

On the contrary, the owners, being christian folk, didn't have to deny anyone entry to their premises on the basis of their particular sins.

If they'd come across an unmarried couple staying for the night, I wonder would they have also denied them entry .....

Now for the second leg of my argument: suppose for a moment that the family operating the bed and breakfast were communists who wished to deny potential customers based on their bourgeois credentials.

On this I would certainly be rejected being a middle-class American with know Communist Party ties.

If I were to bring suit to a real law-abiding court, I would and should be laughed into the streets. There is no real legal case here.

Alas, that does not stop people from mutilating the law to suit their political fancies.