Nepotism and Hate: A Democrat Story

[Gil Dobie]

John, you are trying to spin what I said in the first part of your response. Live and let live does not have anything to do with facilitating sin.

I interpreted what you wrote as suggesting that "live and let live" includes actually performing a function that results in stamping a homosexual relationship as marriage. To me, that's not "live and let live." That's facilitating.

Where in the new testament does it say that 2 men in a loving relationship is a sin?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10New International Version (NIV)"

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now, I will tell you that you can find stuff on the internet where people try to parse translations and claim that it doesn't really say that. But I think what you have there is people who want to support homosexuality searching for some way to say that Christianity doesn't really say it's sin.

And then there's Romans 1:27:

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Look man, there are some "fringe" Christian groups which try to justify accepting homosexuality. But "fringe" is what they are. The overwhelming majority of Christians practice in Churches with theology that says homosexual behavior is sinful. For one thing, the Catholic Church says homosexual behavior is sinful.

If you don't agree with their theology, fine. But that doesn't change the fact that we are in a situation where people are being forced to either do things that are contrary to their religion or give up their livelihoods. That is CLEARLY an infringement on the free exercise of religion.

I see you have included the expected name calling of Christians that accept homosexuality. Some translations of the Bible have the meaning that you quoted above. Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. I'll go with his word over any translator.

And yes, this woman is bringing her politics into the workplace, not her religion. If she truly practiced her religion she would not take a job that she perceives to be against what she believes.

[Gil Dobie]

You CAN choose to make cakes for a living.

You should be able to choose to make cakes for a living without being forced by government to do things that are contrary to your religious beliefs.

Then you can choose to be a bartender in a Gay bar, and not serve Gays because it's against your religion.

[JohnStOnge]

You should be able to choose to make cakes for a living without being forced by government to do things that are contrary to your religious beliefs.

Then you can choose to be a bartender in a Gay bar, and not serve Gays because it's against your religion.

As I said early on in this discussion there is also the right of someone who owns a business to hire and fire people based on what he or she wants them to do. Obviously, the owner of a bar that caters to homosexuals is not going to want to hire and/or retain someone who refuses to serve homosexuals.

The stories about people refusing to make cakes for homosexual weddings involve people who own the cake making businesses. Government should not be telling them that if they want to be in business making cakes they have to violate their religious beliefs.

The story about the woman we're talking about here is kind of a hybrid in that the "employer" is the people of her State. The people of her State did not want to sanction homosexual marriages. Instead. the Federal judiciary is forcing them to.

[JohnStOnge]

I see you have included the expected name calling of Christians that accept homosexuality. Some translations of the Bible have the meaning that you quoted above. Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. I'll go with his word over any translator.

And yes, this woman is bringing her politics into the workplace, not her religion. If she truly practiced her religion she would not take a job that she perceives to be against what she believes.

"Fringe" is not name calling. It's referring to the fact that Christian Churches that accept the idea of marriage between two members of the same sex are out of the overall Christian mainstream by a lot. Also, Christianity is not "limited" to what the Jesus character said in the Gospels. What Christians believe in terms of moral teaching also includes other things such as all of the other books of the New Testament.

In any case it is clear that the Churches in which the overwhelming majority of the world's Christians reside teach that homosexual behavior is sin and teach that marriage is between one man and one woman.

I think it highly likely that when the woman took the job recognizing relationships between homosexuals as marriage had not yet been forced upon her State by the Federal Judiciary.

[kalm]

I see you have included the expected name calling of Christians that accept homosexuality. Some translations of the Bible have the meaning that you quoted above. Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. I'll go with his word over any translator.

And yes, this woman is bringing her politics into the workplace, not her religion. If she truly practiced her religion she would not take a job that she perceives to be against what she believes.

"Fringe" is not name calling. It's referring to the fact that Christian Churches that accept the idea of marriage between two members of the same sex are out of the overall Christian mainstream by a lot. Also, Christianity is not "limited" to what the Jesus character said in the Gospels. What Christians believe in terms of moral teaching also includes other things such as all of the other books of the New Testament.

In any case it is clear that the Churches in which the overwhelming majority of the world's Christians reside teach that homosexual behavior is sin and teach that marriage is between one man and one woman.

I think it highly likely that when the woman took the job recognizing relationships between homosexuals as marriage had not yet been forced upon her State by the Federal Judiciary.

Do those churches suggest refusing marriage documents and cake to fornicators? How about adulterers and shrimp eaters such as yourself?

[JohnStOnge]

Do those churches suggest refusing marriage documents and cake to fornicators? How about adulterers and shrimp eaters such as yourself?

I don't see why issuing a marriage document to a heterosexual couple that had been "fornicating" would offend mainstream Christian belief. Likewise making a wedding cake.

To my knowledge none of these wedding cake things so far have involved people who generally refused to engage in commerce with homosexuals. It's just been that one specific thing of making a wedding cake.

I can see a scenario you might want to use though. It's one in which someone is divorced and wants to re marry. That could definitely offend Christian theology; especially in Catholicism. Suppose a business owner learned that someone that had been married and divorced wanted to re marry and refused to make a wedding cake for them. Would you say the business owner should be forced to make the cake?

I would say "no." Of course, I would say that any party involved in either side of any potential transaction should have the right to opt not to engage in that transaction and it's none of government's business regardless of the reasons; religious or otherwise.

[AshevilleApp]

Then you can choose to be a bartender in a Gay bar, and not serve Gays because it's against your religion.

As I said early on in this discussion there is also the right of someone who owns a business to hire and fire people based on what he or she wants them to do. Obviously, the owner of a bar that caters to homosexuals is not going to want to hire and/or retain someone who refuses to serve homosexuals.

The stories about people refusing to make cakes for homosexual weddings involve people who own the cake making businesses. Government should not be telling them that if they want to be in business making cakes they have to violate their religious beliefs.

The story about the woman we're talking about here is kind of a hybrid in that the "employer" is the people of her State. The people of her State did not want to sanction homosexual marriages. Instead. the Federal judiciary is forcing them to.

Again, help me out here. Are there actual examples of the Government forcing people to cater, or bake cakes, for same sex marriages? If there have been, I tend to agree with you. But I'd like to see real examples. Thanks.

[Gil Dobie]

I see you have included the expected name calling of Christians that accept homosexuality. Some translations of the Bible have the meaning that you quoted above. Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. I'll go with his word over any translator.

And yes, this woman is bringing her politics into the workplace, not her religion. If she truly practiced her religion she would not take a job that she perceives to be against what she believes.

"Fringe" is not name calling. It's referring to the fact that Christian Churches that accept the idea of marriage between two members of the same sex are out of the overall Christian mainstream by a lot. Also, Christianity is not "limited" to what the Jesus character said in the Gospels. What Christians believe in terms of moral teaching also includes other things such as all of the other books of the New Testament.

In any case it is clear that the Churches in which the overwhelming majority of the world's Christians reside teach that homosexual behavior is sin and teach that marriage is between one man and one woman.

I think it highly likely that when the woman took the job recognizing relationships between homosexuals as marriage had not yet been forced upon her State by the Federal Judiciary.

It damn well is name calling or condescending towards a group that does not have the same beliefs as you. You have shown a couple verses from a translation of the Bible that some one other than Jesus said it was a sin to engage in homosexual activity. It is also a sin to engage in heteroexual activity outside of wedlock. The new testament does not say anything about homosexual marriage between to people in a loving relationship.

[JohnStOnge]

Again, help me out here. Are there actual examples of the Government forcing people to cater, or bake cakes, for same sex marriages? If there have been, I tend to agree with you. But I'd like to see real examples. Thanks.

I'm kind of surprised at our post because there have been a few very high profile cases that have made a lot of news. Here is one:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/ ... uples.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

You have shown a couple verses from a translation of the Bible that some one other than Jesus said it was a sin to engage in homosexual activity. It is also a sin to engage in heteroexual activity outside of wedlock. The new testament does not say anything about homosexual marriage between to people in a loving relationship.

There are numerous translations that say the same things. I think the various translations of the Romans verse is particularly consistent.

Yes, it was someone other than Jesus. But Christians accept all of the books of the New Testament as the inspired word of God.

The theology or theologies of Christian churches that include the overwhelming majority of Christians...I'd say way over 90 percent of them...include the idea that homosexual behavior is sinful. If you say homosexual "sex" is sinful that kind of covers homosexual marriage whether the relationship is "loving" or not. I think it's pretty fair to assume a homosexual "marriage" is going to be associated with homosexual "sex."

[Gil Dobie]

There are numerous translations that say the same things. I think the various translations of the Romans verse is particularly consistent.

Yes, it was someone other than Jesus. But Christians accept all of the books of the New Testament as the inspired word of God.

The theology or theologies of Christian churches that include the overwhelming majority of Christians...I'd say way over 90 percent of them...include the idea that homosexual behavior is sinful. If you say homosexual "sex" is sinful that kind of covers homosexual marriage whether the relationship is "loving" or not. I think it's pretty fair to assume a homosexual "marriage" is going to be associated with homosexual "sex."

There are numerous translations that say different. The Bible may be the inspired word of God, translated over time by humans. Each translation changes the meaning of versus to conform to the era it was translated.

Jesus Christ is the reason for Christianity.

Maybe 90% in the South. The chart below shows more than Christian Religions, but the tide is turning.
Link

Overall, a solid majority of white mainline Protestants (62%) now favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed, with just 33% opposed, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey. A similar share (63%) say there is “no conflict” between their religious beliefs and homosexuality.

[AshevilleApp]

Again, help me out here. Are there actual examples of the Government forcing people to cater, or bake cakes, for same sex marriages? If there have been, I tend to agree with you. But I'd like to see real examples. Thanks.

I'm kind of surprised at our post because there have been a few very high profile cases that have made a lot of news. Here is one:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/ ... uples.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I said, I haven't paid that much attention. Glad you can cite an actual incident and not just opinion.

[kalm]

Do those churches suggest refusing marriage documents and cake to fornicators? How about adulterers and shrimp eaters such as yourself?

I don't see why issuing a marriage document to a heterosexual couple that had been "fornicating" would offend mainstream Christian belief. Likewise making a wedding cake.

To my knowledge none of these wedding cake things so far have involved people who generally refused to engage in commerce with homosexuals. It's just been that one specific thing of making a wedding cake.

I can see a scenario you might want to use though. It's one in which someone is divorced and wants to re marry. That could definitely offend Christian theology; especially in Catholicism. Suppose a business owner learned that someone that had been married and divorced wanted to re marry and refused to make a wedding cake for them. Would you say the business owner should be forced to make the cake?

I would say "no." Of course, I would say that any party involved in either side of any potential transaction should have the right to opt not to engage in that transaction and it's none of government's business regardless of the reasons; religious or otherwise.