Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

It appears to me that there are three options.Don't make wedding cakes at all.Continue making wedding cakes, but recognize the law is what it is and just grit one's teeth and sell them to all customers equally.Willfully disobey the law by selling wedding cakes except to same sex couples until the fines bankrupt the business.Are you saying that only the first and third are allowed options? That if a Christian follows the middle one then they are committing a sin?

I thought it was a big deal for Christians to ask for God's forgiveness, but I guess God cannot forgive wedding cakes, flowers, and photos.

quote:

---

That is the whole point to my mind and there is no other point to be considered. This isn't something a court or anyone else can decide, only the person put in the position of obeying or denying God according to his or her own understanding. Whether it's about a message on the cake, mannikins, decorations or just the fact that it is for a gay wedding, it's the baker's conscience that's engaged and nobody else can decide this.

---

So if a segregationist decides that obedience to God requires excluding Blacks or forbidding mixed-race relationships or marriages, they should be allowed to ignore anti-discrimination laws.If you really believed what you said, that is the position you would take. But you don’t take that position and you don’t believe it.It’s just an excuse, and not even a good one.

Nothing I said was about being "allowed." I said we would take the consequences.So if a segregationist also acts on conscience and takesthe consequences why not?But your comparison is of course just the usual twisted trap.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Nothing I said was about being "allowed." I said we would take the consequences.

​

So if a segregationist also acts on conscience and takesthe consequences why not?

---

It seems quite clear that you feel that the consequences are unjust.

quote:

---

But your comparison is of course just the usual twisted trap.

---

Or course it is neither twisted nor a trap. It is simply applying the principle you put forward to a closely-related situation. If there is a trap it is one you created for yourself by not thinking about the implications of your excuse.

I attended my first gay marrige last Saturday in a Christian church, even though gay marrige has been legal in my country for many years.Two of my friends got married. The reception was fun. The 'gay agenda' and all that...I look forward to years of absolute rule by my fabulous new Overlords.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

And here's you suffering no loss, having none of your rights infringed and getting to share in a part of the joy and wonder of two human beings, your friends, finding love with each other.It's political correctness gone mad !!! ;-)

I'm sure we both understand that William Jack's antics were designed with the sole intent of proving a double standard held by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. By highlighting the disparate reactions, Jack hoped it would then advance Phillip's argument. That said, those antics were in fact integral in showing SCOTUS that the CCRC reacted with hostility and bias towards Phillips due to his religious predilections. So its entirely a moot point how the CCRC ruled when they were overruled and overturned, which leaves us back at square one. According to what? The shame of this case is that it was essentially dismissed on a technicality. The CCRC became more of the focal point, leaving wide open this uninterpreted and undefined clash between two rights -- the right to exercise sincerely held religious beliefs and the right to enjoy equal protection under the law regardless of sexual orientation. I might actually be inclined to agree with you if I were ruling on this case. Based on some of the answers from the other posters on the thread, the line seems to be that Phillips ought not to be compelled to decorate a cake if it conflicts with his religious belief, but must provide basic accommodations that he otherwise commonly advertises for sale.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

This continuing attempt to define how a Christian business MUST respond to requests to serve a gay marriage is completely futile. He's going to act on his own understanding of what it requires of him, act on his conscience no matter what the law says, act on his understanding of what God requires of Him even if it conflicts with the law. You can define it to precision to suit a legal judgment and if it conflicts with the baker's understanding of what God requires of him, it's nothing but futility.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it was statements made on record by members of the Commission itself that showed hostility and bias. That the difference between the two situations was never adequately explained in the prior venues was a minor point and only becomes relevant in light of the explicit hostility shown by the Commission.- According to the written opinions by the Justices themselves. Ginsburg was very clear about what she saw as the difference between the two situations. She stated that plain cakes are not messages. Messages are inferred by what is explicitly expressed by the decorations.- I agree that it's a shame. By I can't fault the Court in this. We both agree that this is an issue that requires careful consideration and perhaps some compromises among people who have passionate beliefs. Jack Phillips was certainly entitled to an unbiased, respectful hearing.- I may personally feel that the line should be closer to one end than the other, but I can see how people may want the line further to the other end. But as AZPaul points out, it's the duty of the Courts to listen to our arguments about what is and is not Constitutional, taking into account how the law affects people in the real world, and gives us a judgement as, hopefully, an unbiased and neutral referee.

Christians and non-Christians need clearly definable law. And the proof of God's own approval from a Christian perspective is God's own word: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for she is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, tan avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." -- Romans 13:1-7 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the Emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." -- 1 Peter 2:13-14Paul and Peter clearly did not agree with Roman rule, as it were, but understood that humans need law outside of "God's divine law." This isn't ISIS, we don't throw gays off buildings and call it god's wrath... we give them equal treatment under the law. And according to Scripture, God is honored in our honoring of that, regardless if God disapproves of homosexuality itself. And that is scriptural. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

That requirement to obey the law is limited to whatever does not contradict God's law and that ought to be obvious. The Roman laws obviously did not contradict God's laws but now we have a law that does contradict God's law.And you obviously don't understand this whole gay marriage thing since it's not against gays as such but specifically against their being married, which is a violation of God's law of marriage between a man and a woman. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which was demonstrated and highlighted by their treatment of both Jack and Phillips when compared with the treatment of the soon to be married couple. Yeah, but she lost 7-2... it sounds as if you're taking Ginsburg's opinion as if it is now law as a matter of fact when it isn't. You might as well take the opinions of Gorsuch or Thomas as fact. This isn't to say that I personally disagree with what Ginsburg wrote, I'm just pointing out that it has no actual legality to it. Yeah, its kind of like the Courts dismissing a charge against a defendant because they were able to prove that an officer had no probable cause. But I think the facts of the case stand on their own merits aside from the Commission. Something of this nature will arise again and had there already been precedent established, it could avoid lengthy and costly legal fees for a lot of clients. I still don't know how I would rule. I think I would really need to delve into the minutia of what actually transpired that day in order to formulate a genuine opinion. As it stands, I think both parties have valid complaints. I do think that most people's line of delineation being the decoration of the cake more or less being the line in the sand makes sense from a legal perspective. I think that distinction makes a huge difference.

quote:

---

That requirement to obey the law is limited to whatever does not contradict God's law and that ought to be obvious. The Roman laws obviously did not contradict God's laws but now we have a law that does contradict God's law

---

Then why haven’t you found a real contradiction ?

quote:

---

And you obviously don't understand this whole gay marriage thing since it's not against gays as such but specifically against their being married, which is a violation of God's law of marriage between a man and a woman.

---

By which you mean it is against gay couples enjoying the same secular legal rights as straight couples. That is and always has been the central issue.