"LGBT RIGHTS"

[Veritas]

Tell it to the bakers whose lives have been torn apart and are facing prison and bankruptcy court and whose customers and vendors have been harassed by homosexual extremists with even death threats made against their children over nothing more than refusing to violate their conscience and support an immoral act or the propagation of immorality in their community around a cake or a batch of cookies. Tell it to them friend. While you're at it, send them a donation. I have. Have you?

So what are saying? It sounds like you wish you could reach through this computer screen and and punch me! Climb down off your high-horse for a minute.

Why are you wasting time chastising a person who doesn't have the belief? Is that what was freely given to you? Not me. Not saying I haven't stuck my foot in my mouth, I certainly have.

Give it a rest.

 

[Huckleberry]

What is this christian preoccupation with homosexuality?

'Scuse me?

We've got everyone from the POTUS on down to our city councils
(not to mention Satan's minions all over the media and pop-culture)
shoving this perversion down our throat all day long.

We're not preoccupied, we're tired of it.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm saying exactly what I said. Nothing more or less. There is no violence or bad intention in my heart nor am I on a high horse. In truth, I don't even own a horse. I strive for accuracy and honesty even frank honesty. Your false characterization of me is an invention of your own you chose to project at me. The wise thing to do would have been to ask if I was angry. No. I am not. I'm at peace. I'm watching a movie and chatting in a forum. Now you know. Maybe next time ask?

And I'm not chastising anyone. I'm applying an accurate descriptive label to a person who's behavior is the support of laws that convict, imprison, and bankrupt moral bakers turning them into poor felons who refuse to violate their moral and religious convictions and bake for immoral activities and events in a free marketplace where a plethora of other options exist.

This behavior used to occur in the Soviet Union. I'm a Cold War veteran and remember it well. It is tyranny. It isn't an oversight. It isn't a minor issue. It's tyranny and tyranny destroys moral people's lives.

Your desire for me to abandon the position of advocacy for those moral Christian bakers would be to violate scripture. You may wish to revisit Jesus's teaching on the goats and the sheep. Are you a goat or a sheep when you fail to help your Christian brothers and sisters facing imprisonment and bankruptcy for refusing to violate their moral and religious convictions to support immoral activities yet become a stumbling block for those involved in assisting them.

No question mark at the end was necessary as the answer is obvious.

So what are saying? It sounds like you wish you could reach through this computer screen and and punch me! Climb down off your high-horse for a minute.

Why are you wasting time chastising a person who doesn't have the belief? Is that what was freely given to you? Not me. Not saying I haven't stuck my foot in my mouth, I certainly have.

Give it a rest.

 

[Jhana]

No. You are, once again, making false assertions based on fallacious reasoning. Interestingly, this false assertion aligns perfectly with your tyrannical behavior.

In order for a "victim mentality" to exist in the way you mean it, there has to be an absence of clear evidence to support the claim of victimization.

For example, to assert that Jews persecuted in the Holocaust had a "victim mentality" (which may be true in a positive sense) in an abusive way is fallacious and nothing more than a personal attack simply because there is evidence to support their claim of victimization. See how this works?

Currently people who choose to engage in homosexual behavior (e.g. homosexuals) have targeted numerous moral bakers in the U.S. for prison and bankruptcy (as I previously explained in this thread) as part of a wider strategy to obtain legal precedent to use government power to force all moral Americans to violate their moral and religious convictions in the way that I've already described to you or be imprisoned and pushed into bankruptcy from the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and legal costs which are presently associated with every legal case of this nature currently in progress.

The legal cases themselves are the evidence hence, there is no absence of evidence that this is occurring making your assertion nothing more than a personal attack on the very people you are seeking to victimize which is, of course, simply another thread in your tyrannous fabric. It's not enough to victimize moral people, you have to personally attack them too.

I find it interesting that tyrants always try to leverage the law as their justification for engaging in tyranny. If the government passes a law to execute everyone with a nickname of Jhana, are they morally justified to do it? Of course not! Tyrannical laws only give tyrants cover to do their dirty work. They are not just laws in themselves and should be immediately repealed and those who used them to engage in tyranny brought to justice.

Neither do two rights make a wrong. This isn't algebra where two negatives equal a positive. You support tyranny against moral people but state that you will align against tyranny against immoral people. This only makes you a hypocrite and a tyrant against moral people.

I don't support tyranny from the left or right. I didn't like it when the old right engaged in it and I don't like it now that the new left is engaging in it. I support liberty and that means a pluralism which allows both immoral consenting adult homosexuals and moral Christians to each have their liberty.. as you should in a country founded on the idea of it you tyrant.

By the way, I have an M.Div. and your misuse of scripture to support the tyranny under discussion is both fallacious and pharisaical.

An M.Div? Wow. So basically you're a thousand times more separated from reality than the rest of us? I have no respect for the letters after your name. Reality doesn't lie in letters, titles and scholarship. AgeOfKnowledge. I don't agree with your arguments. I don't care for your definition of fallacious reasoning. Frankly, you simply have a dualistic view of the world. You think yourself above me. And that in itself is laughable.

If you are an American or British citizen, regardless of your gender, your creed, your moral code, your colour, your background, your accent, or anything else - if you open a business, you have to obey business law. It's as simple as that.

You are a man of many contradictions and hypocrisies, yourself. If someone passes a law removing another person's right to breathe, for any reason, that's tyranny. Doesn't matter what my nickname is. That's not the same as a government passing laws that make each citizen equal.

If we both own a clothing business, I'm equally obliged to sell goods to you as much as you are obliged to sell them to a homosexual.

Suck it up.

 

[mystdancer50]

If we both own a clothing business, I'm equally obliged to sell goods to you as much as you are obliged to sell them to a homosexual.

Suck it up.

No business that sells ready made items, such as clothing stores or food stores or electronics stores, have refused to sell to homosexuals that I know of. The ones that have refused and been sued are bakers and photographers and the like. Why should there be a difference? Two things:

1. The creative element involved has a great deal to do with the final product. If there is no connection with a baker or photographer and their client, the product will show this. As such, the final product will be horrendous. As a photographer, this is something I know for fact. When I'm connected with a bride and groom, and they with me, the photos are wonderful and creative and beautiful. When I'm not, they are flat and dull and lifeless. It is actually BETTER that we refuse to work with a same-sex couple, if that be one's conviction and feeling at that time, than to give them less than appropriate customer service, less than our absolute best and less than we give others we feel the connection to.

2. Homosexuals are not banned from places that I know of. They can go into churches and stores and movie theaters and restaurants just like the rest of us. It isn't about equal rights, truly. Rather, what the media and the gay rights movement is trying to do is force everyone to accept the lifestyle, regardless of their personal beliefs. This is never going to happen, and that is great for the media because then they can keep it up front and current and continue to desensitize and train generations to accept immorality as the norm.

I think that people think this is a discrimination thing, but it isn't. The only 'rights' denied them was the right to legally join together in matrimony (we can't put 'holy' in front of it anymore, you realize?). Now they can, so the whole 'rights' argument is dead in the water. Businesses have the right to refuse service to everyone, and they do refuse service to some on occasion, but the only ones that make the news are the bakers and photographers that refuse to cover a same-sex marriage ceremony. Whose rights are truly violated?

 

[Jhana]

No business that sells ready made items, such as clothing stores or food stores or electronics stores, have refused to sell to homosexuals that I know of. The ones that have refused and been sued are bakers and photographers and the like. Why should there be a difference? Two things:

1. The creative element involved has a great deal to do with the final product. If there is no connection with a baker or photographer and their client, the product will show this. As such, the final product will be horrendous. As a photographer, this is something I know for fact. When I'm connected with a bride and groom, and they with me, the photos are wonderful and creative and beautiful. When I'm not, they are flat and dull and lifeless. It is actually BETTER that we refuse to work with a same-sex couple, if that be one's conviction and feeling at that time, than to give them less than appropriate customer service, less than our absolute best and less than we give others we feel the connection to.

2. Homosexuals are not banned from places that I know of. They can go into churches and stores and movie theaters and restaurants just like the rest of us. It isn't about equal rights, truly. Rather, what the media and the gay rights movement is trying to do is force everyone to accept the lifestyle, regardless of their personal beliefs. This is never going to happen, and that is great for the media because then they can keep it up front and current and continue to desensitize and train generations to accept immorality as the norm.

I think that people think this is a discrimination thing, but it isn't. The only 'rights' denied them was the right to legally join together in matrimony (we can't put 'holy' in front of it anymore, you realize?). Now they can, so the whole 'rights' argument is dead in the water. Businesses have the right to refuse service to everyone, and they do refuse service to some on occasion, but the only ones that make the news are the bakers and photographers that refuse to cover a same-sex marriage ceremony. Whose rights are truly violated?

I don't think anyone has to 'agree' with anybody else's lifestyle. That's where the argument comes from. I don't accept the homosexual lifestyle, as evidenced by the fact that I'm straight. That doesn't mean I have to tell a homosexual person to be the same as me. I don't engage in it because I, personally, think it isn't for me. I'm straight.

My acceptance of 'immorality' goes as far as the example I set in my own choices. I'm not homosexual. Neither do I murder people. Neither am I a violent person. Neither am I divisive of people. Neither do I walk down the street shouting 'we hate christians', or 'God hates fags', or whatever else there is.

My morality stands on the merits of the choices I make for my own body and my own mind. But MY morality does not give me the right to inflict such morality on other members of a free-market state.

The same way, my opening a business under the laws of that state means that, in the eyes of the law, my religious beliefs on 'law' must come second to the instituted laws of that country. Is it correct? I don't know. Is it morally upstanding? I'm not certain. But then again, if I don't like it, I'd be best not to open a business in the first place.

I certainly wouldn't refuse to bake cookies for someone just because those cookies will be brought to a homosexual gathering. They're cookies. Someone likes my cookies, and someone is paying me to do them a service by baking them. I might no inherently think homosexuality is benificial to the furthering of the human race, nor that it's inherently natural to the sexual compatibilites of the human species. It may be that it's even against the instructions of my religious faith, HOWEVER, that religious faith is MY religious faith, and MY choice. I have a right not to be discriminated against in law on that basis alone, but I also undertake a duty to NOT discriminate on others because of MY lifestyle choice or because of theirs.

Inherently, christianity is a right of lifestyle in the view of the law. The same way islam is, or homosexuality is, or getting married is, or living single is. We have the legal right to be any of these things, and not to be discriminated against for them. But even so, in the eyes of that same law, all beliefs and lifestyle choices are subject to that law. So for isntance, if I choose to be a hardcore feminist, and a lesbian, and part of my belief is that I should kill every man I see, then my lifestyle choice contradicts that law. If I choose to be christian, and I refuse another person their free market rights, then my lifestyle choice contradicts that law.

I've got control of my own body, my own mind, and I make my own moral and religious lifestyle choices. I must, by the law of my nation, afford others the right to do the same, as-well as all their other legal rights, the same ones which I possess.

Just the same way a homosexual mustn't deny me service purely on the basis of my religion or lack of one, I mustn't do likewise.

 

[cfultz3]

Is it morally right in God's eyes for one to discriminate based on another person's sin?

That is,

1) Is God's offer of salvation based on a person's state of moral existence? (Isn't salvation offered to a sinner?)

2) Is God a Respecter of persons? (Does He not let it rain on both the good and the evil?)

If God offers salvation to all, then should we not also show that love forward and let the Judge of sentencing be the only Judge?

 

[lookuptoseeJesus]

Morality is keeping the moral law

that means listening to God and what he says.
everything is immral
The bible is the morals of god and the word of God.

 

[mystdancer50]

It is the business owners right to refuse service to anyone. There are signs posted in businesses that say such. Unfortunately, due to Christians not being allowed to lie, when a photographer says they won't photograph a wedding due to their beliefs and morality and they're not comfortable with homosexuality, or whatever, it gives grounds, whereas another person could simply state that they don't feel they are the right photographer for them and refer them to someone else or can say they are unavailable for a certain date, and there's no uproar.

This is what must be considered when someone opens a business. This is why my photography is done on a personal level, rather than a business level, because I do not want to have to face lawsuits for refusing to photograph a homosexual wedding.

To me, it is not 'just cookies', unless they are pre-made and standard. If you are putting special touches and decorations and whatnot into the baking, then you are putting a part of yourself, investing yourself, your creativity, into the item, linking yourself on some level with the couple. It is the same with photography. It is an investment into their immoral lifestyle and choice, which is essentially accepting their choices. We are called not to have anything to do with immorality, and to flee sexual immorality, and that doesn't merely mean sexual fornication. It means all sexual immorality.

I have family members who are homosexual and I love them, but I do not volunteer to photograph them or help them in their wedding and such. This is due to my conviction that I am to live a holy life, set-apart from the immorality of this world.

 

[Jhana]

Is it morally right in God's eyes for one to discriminate based on another person's sin?

That is,

1) Is God's offer of salvation based on a person's state of moral existence? (Isn't salvation offered to a sinner?)

2) Is God a Respecter of persons? (Does He not let it rain on both the good and the evil?)

If God offers salvation to all, then should we not also show that love forward and let the Judge of sentencing be the only Judge?

Exaclty. And I'd like to add to this. As arbiters of this kind of thought, those who profess 'sight' should also realize that we cannot expect others to perform or to exist within the scopes of the same moral perspectives that we do.

Just because, as a seeker of the truth, I might set high standards of morality for myself, it isn't inherently 'holy' to inflict this on others. That's the calling to be 'above', and that's what it's about. Do I view people as cattle needing herded and branded since I'm 'better' and 'smarter' and 'more moral', or are others those whom the person with responsibility, wisdom and transcendant understanding must love as an eagle-sighted man loves a blind child?

Not that I am 'better' than others, simply that I am free.

- when you know yourselves.

 

[Huckleberry]

Unfortunately, due to Christians not being allowed to lie, when a photographer says they won't photograph a wedding due to their beliefs and morality and they're not comfortable with homosexuality, or whatever, it gives grounds, whereas another person could simply state that they don't feel they are the right photographer for them and refer them to someone else or can say they are unavailable for a certain date, and there's no uproar.

Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, right?
How about bearing false witness for thy neighbor? Where is that forbidden?
If I've got to lie to protect my family or friends, by God I'm doin' it.

 

[dcontroversal]

'Scuse me?

We've got everyone from the POTUS on down to our city councils
(not to mention Satan's minions all over the media and pop-culture)
shoving this perversion down our throat all day long.

We're not preoccupied, we're tired of it.

I agree and will add...It is ok for those who agree with the above named wickedness to mouth, condemn, belittle and express their view about why they think it is o.k. for them to do so, and at the same time if we open our mouth to say what we believe automatically makes us a bigot, hate monger, old fashioned or just dumb! If it were possible I would suggest that those who agree with homo activities go and carefully examine the area in the Middle East at the end of the dead sea and (see) what God thought about Homosexual, lesbian and beastiality as God burnt 4 of the 5 cities of the plain to the ground! Can you say....snap, crackle, and pop?

 

[Nephi]

Seems many Christians are homophobic... Possibly having homosexual feelings, why else publicly speak out against something that does not have anything to do with you?

 

[NightRevan]

I agree and will add...It is ok for those who agree with the above named wickedness to mouth, condemn, belittle and express their view about why they think it is o.k. for them to do so, and at the same time if we open our mouth to say what we believe automatically makes us a bigot, hate monger, old fashioned or just dumb! If it were possible I would suggest that those who agree with homo activities go and carefully examine the area in the Middle East at the end of the dead sea and (see) what God thought about Homosexual, lesbian and beastiality as God burnt 4 of the 5 cities of the plain to the ground! Can you say....snap, crackle, and pop?

The reason God gives for judging Sodom was much more then just because they were involved activities that were sexual immorality, God told Ezekiel the reasons He judged Sodom as He did Ezekiel 16:49:

''Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.'

The wickedness that reached God was far more then just homosexuality, and please don't joke about the judgement of anyone, it is a serious thing, and Christians should not be rejoicing over something like that.

 

[Huckleberry]

Seems many Christians are homophobic... Possibly having homosexual feelings, why else publicly speak out against something that does not have anything to do with you?

We only wish it didn't have anything to do with us.
I can't even turn on the Olympics without having to hear the phrase "gay rights" every five minutes.
Thank you NBC!
I don't want my little kids hearing that crap.

What's funny is you've been posting in the Ken Ham
thread as if you're some enlightened scientific thinker.

Your assertion that us "homophobes" are "[p]ossibly
having homosexual feelings..." is the epitome of illogic.

Nice try, genius.

Is your obsession with coming on a Christian forum, and telling
us all how dumb we are, because you're possibly feeling spiritual?

 

[mystdancer50]

Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, right?
How about bearing false witness for thy neighbor? Where is that forbidden?
If I've got to lie to protect my family or friends, by God I'm doin' it.

A lie is still a lie. We are called to be holy as Christ is holy. Sin is sin, regardless of the excuse behind it. Fornication doesn't cease being a sin if the couple is in love, as opposed to a man and a prostitute being together. Sin does not have shades of gray. All sin has the same wage: death. So, regardless if it's something considered a 'white' lie (there is no such thing) or if it is a bold-faced out and out malicious lie, it is still a lie and is still, therefore, sin.

 

[mystdancer50]

Seems many Christians are homophobic... Possibly having homosexual feelings, why else publicly speak out against something that does not have anything to do with you?

When a question is poised and asked and thus answered, how does it have nothing to do with us? We speak out against it because we are called to profess the truth. And, yes, allow me to be the first to thank you for the troll post.

 

[lookuptoseeJesus]

The people who lived in sodom and gomorrha who were NOT perverts died also...
It is a global problem, and it will not be solved except by fire.

 

[Nephi]

Why hey obey one commandment and not the other? 613 exist. Do you eat pork? Do you have a cotton and wool blend clothing item? These are also the truth...

When a question is poised and asked and thus answered, how does it have nothing to do with us? We speak out against it because we are called to profess the truth. And, yes, allow me to be the first to thank you for the troll post.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Your diatribe is a lot of nonsense and false assertions that appears to emanate from a highly emotionalized state. Nothing more.

And for the record, moral dualism (which is what I think you're referring to) is the belief in conflict between good and evil. As a Christian, I hold that good and evil exist and that they are in conflict. Yes.

Throwing moral bakers in prison and turning them into life long felons while bankrupting them and their families for refusing to bake a cake or a batch of cookies in support of immoral activities is tyrannical. It's evil.

I don't know how any genuine Christian could support imprisoning and destroying the lives of Christian families across the USA because they refuse to bake a cake or a batch of cookies in support of immoral activities.

Examine yourself. If you don't want to be identified with tyrannical behavior against moral people, then stop participating in tyranny against moral people. Simple.

This isn't rocket science.

An M.Div? Wow. So basically you're a thousand times more separated from reality than the rest of us? I have no respect for the letters after your name. Reality doesn't lie in letters, titles and scholarship. AgeOfKnowledge. I don't agree with your arguments. I don't care for your definition of fallacious reasoning. Frankly, you simply have a dualistic view of the world. You think yourself above me. And that in itself is laughable. If you are an American or British citizen, regardless of your gender, your creed, your moral code, your colour, your background, your accent, or anything else - if you open a business, you have to obey business law. It's as simple as that. You are a man of many contradictions and hypocrisies, yourself. If someone passes a law removing another person's right to breathe, for any reason, that's tyranny. Doesn't matter what my nickname is. That's not the same as a government passing laws that make each citizen equal. If we both own a clothing business, I'm equally obliged to sell goods to you as much as you are obliged to sell them to a homosexual. Suck it up.