Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake

[jeremysdemo]

The whole thrust of my presence ITT has been to say that two grooms/brides on a wedding cake constitute things unreasonable, symbols that we could loosely describe as "...special writings and characters...."

I agree, not all cakes shops have to stock those items, Christian ones certainly don't if they don't want that business.

it's very easy to send a customer looking elsewhere when you do not carry what they are looking for.

that's not what all this is about tho because no one on either side is looking for simple solutions,

it's clearly about one group trying excerpt their authority using a right over another, and a little rubbing their faces in it too IMHO.

 

[Angel4Truth]

it's very easy to send a customer looking elsewhere when you do not carry what they are looking for.

Which is what the christian bakers do, they do not carry weddings cakes for anything other than a man and a woman.

 

[Jedidiah]

...it's clearly about one group trying excerpt their authority using a right over another, and a little rubbing their faces in it too IMHO.

The latter group being Christians, correct ?

 

[jeremysdemo]

Which is what the christian bakers do, they do not carry weddings cakes for anything other than a man and a woman.

I think some of them took it a bit further than that when they refused to make any kind of cake at all, all figurines aside.

The case I observed did just that, and won the court case.

granted it was one of those "tv" people court shows...lol

 

[jeremysdemo]

The latter group being Christians, correct ?

both actually.

neither of them are walking away from this unscabbed IMHO.

 

[Jedidiah]

both actually.

neither of them are walking away from this unscabbed IMHO.

Except for the stunt done for effect in the OP, I don't think there are any LGBTQ bakers enduring the same thing that Christian bakers are.

 

[jeremysdemo]

Except for the stunt done for effect in the OP, I don't think there are any LGBTQ bakers enduring the same thing that Christian bakers are.

how exactly are they going to walk away from this unscabbed?

I say it's shameful for both parties.

 

[patrick jane]

how exactly are they going to walk away from this unscabbed?

I say it's shameful for both parties.

i think it's unscathed. but i guess unscabbed works

 

[Jedidiah]

how exactly are they going to walk away from this unscabbed?

I say it's shameful for both parties.

That really doesn't figure in to my concern that there purportedly are bad laws on the books that purportedly would force Christian bakers to construct wedding cakes with two brides/grooms whenever asked to do so. I hope that there are no such laws and that I'm misinformed, but some other posters are indicating that this is in fact the case.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's a lie. That's like saying no one chooses to be a murderer.

Did you choose to be heterosexual?

:think:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Except for the stunt done for effect in the OP, I don't think there are any LGBTQ bakers enduring the same thing that Christian bakers are.

They need to be, then this can be forced to the supreme court and finished.

 

[Doom]

Did you choose to be heterosexual?

:think:

When someone steals, we refer to them as a "thief", if they murder, we call them a "murderer", or commit adultery, an "adulterer". They are defined by the act committed, that is, their evil behavior. There are not names to define those who do not commit those acts, because it makes no sense to label an individual for something they did not do.

When God created man, He created them male and female (Gen 1:27). He did not create them "straight" or "heterosexual". Those terms were created with the intention to legitimize homosexuality as an identity rather than a behavior. There is no such thing as a heterosexual, and the only people who are "gay" are those whose behavior is cheery or joyful. There is nothing joyful about evil behavior.

 

[Arthur Brain]

When someone steals, we refer to them as a "thief", if they murder, we call them a "murderer", or commit adultery, an "adulterer". They are defined by the act committed, that is, their evil behavior. There are not names to define those who do not commit those acts, because it makes no sense to label an individual for something they did not do.

When God created man, He created them male and female (Gen 1:27). He did not create them "straight" or "heterosexual". Those terms were created with the intention to legitimize homosexuality as an identity rather than a behavior. There is no such thing as a heterosexual, and the only people who are "gay" are those whose behavior is cheery or joyful. There is nothing joyful about evil behavior.

Well, let me ask you another way then. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite gender and could you choose to be attracted to your own where you could act on such?

 

[Doom]

Well, let me ask you another way then. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite gender?

It is natural.

What is unnatural is to choose to do otherwise.


"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Rom 1:27

 

[Jedidiah]

They need to be, then this can be forced to the supreme court and finished.

There's no need for others to endure what Christian bakers have had to endure. We can have a more peaceful solution. It depends upon whether those who are belligerently pro-LGBTQ-marriage, calm down.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It is natural.

What is unnatural is to choose to do otherwise.


"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Rom 1:27

So you didn't choose to be attracted to the opposite gender then? Fair enough if so as neither did I, it was just the case. Choosing to be attracted to blokes is in no way an option for me so why are you apparently suggesting that others can 'choose' theirs unless you can do so yourself?

 

[Doom]

So you didn't choose to be attracted to the opposite gender then?

The natural attraction of all males is to females, and the natural attraction of all females is to males.

Fair enough if so as neither did I, it was just the case. Choosing to be attracted to blokes is in no way an option for me so why are you apparently suggesting that others can 'choose' theirs unless you can do so yourself?

Is every person capable of having the desire to choose to do what is unnatural, of course they are. In fact, I am just as guilty for giving into my unnatural desires as you are. We all are, and that is why Jesus died for our sins. In fact, what's important is not that you are overcome by what is unnatural, but just that you agree with God that it is unnatural, and accept His once for all sacrifice for your sin of choosing to do what is unnatural, just as everyone else who believes in Him has.

You are most likely incapable of refraining from doing what is unnatural, just as the apostle Paul was, and yet he said there is no more condemnation for those in Christ. The bottom line is not what are you going to do about your unnatural desire, but what are you going to do about Jesus?

 

[Lon]

and that is why no one has the special right to discriminate

When it crosses the church/state line, it is against the Constitution. This law was made to protect people from Government abuse, not government from church, or else you couldn't be a Christian politician. That makes no sense and is exactly backwards from the Constitution. Of course we are in a backwards era now, where wrong is right. That pendulum has to swing back. Our country cannot sustain the extreme, morally or financially. The backbone of American liberty is and always will be families. No other group produces the next generation but them. Both the morals AND economics demands the pendulum swing back. We cannot sustain this. It can't be done.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The natural attraction of all males is to females, and the natural attraction of all females is to males.

So how can anyone consciously and volitionally choose to go against an inherent attraction? I can't. You might as well say that people 'choose' to fall in love with someone. It's not something within your control.

Is every person capable of having the desire to choose to do what is unnatural, of course they are. In fact, I am just as guilty for giving into my unnatural desires as you are. We all are, and that is why Jesus died for our sins. In fact, what's important is not that you are overcome by what is unnatural, but just that you agree with God that it is unnatural, and accept His once for all sacrifice for your sin of choosing to do what is unnatural, just as everyone else who believes in Him has.

You are most likely incapable of refraining from doing what is unnatural as the apostle Paul was, and yet he said there is no more condemnation for those in Christ. The bottom line is not what are you going to do about your unnatural desire, but what are you going to do about Jesus?

I'm guilty in my life of succumbing to lusts and desires for sure, but in context of the subject matter it's always been in regards to the opposite sex. I could no more 'choose' to start being attracted to men as I could change my DNA. If you can 'choose' to be attracted to your own gender then how exactly?

 

[The Barbarian]

When it crosses the church/state line, it is against the Constitution. This law was made to protect people from Government abuse, not government from church,

More specifically to protect people from church. The Constitution provides both freedom from religion (the first clause, prohibiting establishment of religion) and freedom of religion (the second clause, prohibiting interference in religion).