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

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You can keep making that argument, but as we've seen it's a failed legal argument. The only reason the baker will bake a wedding cake for couple A and not couple B is because of the sexual orientation of couple B.


And these bakery cases are exactly that. The only reason he won't bake a cake for couple B is because of their sexual orientation. If they were of a different sexual orientation (heterosexual), he would bake the cake.

This is pure fallacy. The reason is not sexual orientation, but the institution of marriage.

There have been homosexuals for millennia, just as there have been fornicators and adulterers for millennia.

The institution of marriage is not a legally-originated or -determined institution, but an institution established by God.

A birthday cake for a homosexual is for just another individual human. A wedding cake is being forced to comply with an unnatural and anti-religious change to the institution of marriage.

The entire homosexual agenda for partnership is to change the definition of marriage from that which God established. It has nothing to do with cake or baking or sexual orientation itself.

And Christians are predominantly against (hetero)sexual adultery and fornication; but the God-estsblished institution of marriage ends that sin rather than promoting more sin with homosexual marriage.

The legality should simply be to give them whatever privileges that they may be denied in comparison to married (hetero)sexual couples. The definition of marriage as an institution is well beyond the scope of human government.

It's neither hate nor bias to stand for the God-established institution of marriage as He defined it.

* I place hetero in parentheses because sexual is normative and shouldn't have to be designated as such to contrast with homo(sexual), which is non-normative.

 

[Jose Fly]

Figure it out, im not your mother.

In the other thread, you asked why I'm here. Well, it's this. You accuse me of something and when I ask you to back it up, you tell me to "figure it out".

I see this sort of thing from you fundamentalists all the time, and it is positively fascinating.

 

[Angel4Truth]

In the other thread, you asked why I'm here. Well, it's this. You accuse me of something and when I ask you to back it up, you tell me to "figure it out".

I see this sort of thing from you fundamentalists all the time, and it is positively fascinating.

What, you mean when we don't entertain a dumb question?

 

[Jose Fly]

This is pure fallacy. The reason is not sexual orientation, but the institution of marriage.

The have been homosexuals for millennia, just as there have been fornicators and adulterers for millennia.

The institution of marriage is not a legally-originated or -determined institution, but an institution estsblished by God.

A birthday cake for a homosexual is for just another individual human. A wedding cake is being forced to comply with an unnatural and anti-religious change to the institution of marriage.

The entire homosexual agenda for partnership is to change the definitin of marriage from that which God estsblished. It has nothing to do with cake or baking or sexual orientation itself.

And Christians are predominantly against (hetero)sexual adultery and fornication; but the God-estsblished institution of marriage ends that sin rather than promoting more sin with homosexual marriage.

The legality should simply be to give them whatever privileges that they may be denied in comparison to married (hetero)sexual couples. The definition of marriage as an institution is well beyond the scope of human government.

It's neither hate nor bias to stand for the God-established institution of marriage as He defined it.

Sorry bud, but this has been covered ad nauseum. And as I pointed out, it was tried in court and rejected.

 

[bybee]

In the other thread, you asked why I'm here. Well, it's this. You accuse me of something and when I ask you to back it up, you tell me to "figure it out".

I see this sort of thing from you fundamentalists all the time, and it is positively fascinating.

Generalize and paint in broad strokes.

 

[Jose Fly]

What, you mean when we don't entertain a dumb question?

So asking you to back up your accusations is a "dumb question"? You feel absolutely no moral obligation to answer?

 

[Angel4Truth]

So asking you to back up your accusations is a "dumb question"? You feel absolutely no moral obligation to answer?

Nope. Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.

 

[Jose Fly]

Generalize and paint in broad strokes.

Except it's true. I mean, if you're offended by being lumped in with the likes of Angel4Truth, then why aren't you taking issue with Angel4Truth's behavior making your faith look bad, rather than taking it up with the person (me) who points it out? :think:

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.

Oh, so you believe your holy book teaches that it's just fine to accuse people of things without any substance.

Good to know.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Except it's true. I mean, if you're offended by being lumped in with the likes of Angel4Truth, then why aren't you taking issue with Angel4Truth's behavior making your faith look bad, rather than taking it up with the person (me) who points it out? :think:

I make the faith look bad all because i wont teach you what hypocrisy means since im not your mother? :rotfl:

You claim the faith looks bad to everyone you can. Stop looking at people who need a Savior, look at Christ. If you dont want to do that, thats on you. Im not responsible for your salvation, you are.

If you want know how to be saved, read the last line of my signature - thats there for everyone to see.

 

[bybee]

Oh, so you believe your holy book teaches that it's just fine to accuse people of things without any substance.

Good to know.

What do you know of her "Holy Book"?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Oh, so you believe your holy book teaches that it's just fine to accuse people of things without any substance.

Good to know.

I have substantiation, your own words. Good thing for me, that you arent God, huh.

 

[Jose Fly]

I make the faith look bad all because i wont teach you what hypocrisy means since im not your mother?

You just said the Bible teaches that it's ok to accuse people of things without evidence. I'll let that speak for itself.

You claim the faith looks bad to everyone you can.

And all I have to do is point to behaviors like yours.

 

[Jose Fly]

What do you know of her "Holy Book"?

Were you paying attention? That's what she told me the Bible teaches.

I guess if you disagree, you should take it up with her.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You just said the Bible teaches that it's ok to accuse people of things without evidence. I'll let that speak for itself.

yes, what you said speaks for itself, you make false claims.

And all I have to do is point to behaviors like yours.

Good luck when you stand before God and blame your lack of salvation on me.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have substantiation, your own words.

No you don't. When I asked you to show where, you dismissed that as a "dumb question" and cited the Bible as teaching that you are under no obligation to substantiate your accusations.

 

[Jose Fly]

you make false claims.

Another empty accusation. What's one more on the pile, eh?

Good luck when you stand before God and blame your lack of salvation on me.

Ah yes, the fundie's last resort...."Well, you're going to hell!!!" Fascinating and hilarious.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Sorry bud, but this has been covered ad nauseum. And as I pointed out, it was tried in court and rejected.

None of that matters. Human government is not the final and highest arbitrage of truth or morality. The courts are wrong, and so are you and all the other self-righteous hate-mongering reprobates who despise morality and truth.

Nice dismissal of your fallacy and double standards, though.

The simple point is this... It's NOT about sexual orientation unless it's about some other pastry than a wedding cake. Few Christians who stand for the sanctity of marriage would have any problem with cakes baked for a homosexual's birthday or any other event.

So... It's about the institution of marriage, not hate and sexual preference.

Most Christians don't hate homosexuals at all, but they do hate the practice of doing despite to the God-estsblished institution of marriage.

You're just another secularist relativist pluralist positivist syncretist who wants to destroy various tenets of the Christian faith, beginning with marriage and family, etc.

Legality is not intrinsically synonymous with morality.

 

[Jose Fly]

None of that matters.

Yes it does. Not sure where you live, but here in the US court rulings do matter, especially to those who are involved in the case.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Sorry bud, but this has been covered ad nauseum. And as I pointed out, it was tried in court and rejected.

Oh... And if I owned a bakery, I would provide wedding cakes to any and all homosexuals who came in. I'd use the opportunity to demonstrate God's unconditional love in every way I could every time I spoke with them.

But others shouldn't be forced to provide retail services to anyone they choose not to serve.

If you hate-mongers can censor a historical flag and other things because of a racist murderer, then Christians should be able to stand for the sanctity of marriage as being between man and woman.