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

[jeremysdemo]

yes, He still turns away people that refuse to acknowledge Him in truth, even in this life.

biblical example?

 

[Angel4Truth]

biblical example?

John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[jeremysdemo]

John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

and that meant they were turned away from his services?

so the 5000 that ate fish and loaves, ALL believed? not a single doubter in the lot.

interesting take.

that's more miraculous than Peters 3000 conversion in Acts for sure.

 

[Angel4Truth]

and that meant they were turned away from his services?

so the 5000 that ate fish and loaves, ALL believed? not a single doubter in the lot.

interesting take.

that's more miraculous than Peters 3000 conversion in Acts for sure.

Weird, that you think those things have to do with serving God and that you think because they got fed food it means they received Him as Lord and Savior and recognized Him as such.

More bait and switch.

 

[jeremysdemo]

Weird, that you think those things have to do with serving God.

I tried to make a point about how we should conduct ourselves based on Jesus example.

who He offered his services (to feed) to and who He turned away based on His faith.

obviously and epic fail on my part.

but I do have a hard time believing all 5,000 believed in him and were not judged is how they obtained service.

just a wee little part of me wants to beleive Jesus gave equal food to all....

hanging on to hope of things unseen.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think they were initially well intended but are currently abused and misused. Most laws that cater to a specific gender/religion/race/sexual orientation are giving preferential treatment to only a specific few.

Not really. They're ensuring groups of people who have been wrongly discriminated against in the past, are not discriminated against now.

A law will not determine my opinion or treatment of another human being.

Not opinion, but behavior? Definitely.

I don't like having people second guess my reasons and intentions for how I react and treat others. It would be hypocritical to not afford others the same courtesy.

Society has decided otherwise.

 

[jeremysdemo]

and that you think because they got fed food it means they received Him as Lord and Savior and recognized Him as such.

More bait and switch.

not exactly, because they got fed food means He did not discriminate nor require them to be saved to eat from His supply.

it should be no different for a cake seller or provider of that service, unless of course they are being asked to write something on the cake that is blasphemous or against their beliefs, that would cross a line IMHO.

but simply making the cake and selling it to someone of another faith makes no one a bedfellow with the devil.

You mentioned hypocrisy before, I doubt any Christian cake maker can honestly say they have never sold a cake to a molester, a murderer, a thief, but somehow this one sin is different.
IF they can't honestly judge every person equally that enters their store, look into their hearts and know their every sin, then they shouldn't judge or turn away any of them to be fair, all "writings" aside.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You mentioned hypocrisy before, I doubt any Christian cake maker can honestly say they have never sold a cake to a molester, a murderer, a thief, but somehow this one sin is different.
IF they can't honestly judge every person equally that enters their store, look into their hearts and know their every sin, then they shouldn't judge or turn away any of them to be fair, all "writings" aside.

Those bakers didn't refuse to serve the gays and even offered them treats for their parties, they refused to support their marriage by making them a specialty item signifying approval. (like the tshirt makers didnt refuse them tshirts, they refused tshirts supporting gay marriage and gay pride parades)

Again, more bait and switch.

 

[jeremysdemo]

Those bakers didn't refuse to serve the gays and even offered them treats for their parties, they refused to support their marriage.

Again, more bait and switch.

I've read several cases on the matter, and even saw one on a popular Tv court show where they did just that, they refused to make cakes for the gays based on faith.

the one on TV, the Christians actually won the case because the gay was given ample time to find another baker and was told early on they were not going to be able to make their cake for them, the judge decided it posed no hardship to the fellow and they were within their religious rights to refuse.

so I don't get were your goin on about this bate and switch deal,

is that one of your catch phrases when you start loosing a debate? lol

are you familiar with all the reverse cases on this? I assure you I switched nothing, got no need to really as I see it my view has not only been supported biblically by Jesus own actions but is the stronger and more ethical stance all around IMHO.

 

[Doom]

You mentioned hypocrisy before, I doubt any Christian cake maker can honestly say they have never sold a cake to a molester, a murderer, a thief, but somehow this one sin is different.

I think the two men/women on top of the cake or the two male/female names would be an indicator to the baker. If someone from asked for a cake with NAMBLA celebrates 50 years on the cake, any baker should be free to discriminate.

Would you have an issue if a Jewish baker was asked to make a cake in the form of swastika and said no?

How about an African American baker being asked to put KKK on a cake in the shape of a noose?

Discrimination is a good thing, when it is done for the right reasons.

 

[Rusha]

Not opinion, but behavior? Definitely.

Behavior ... treatment. Same criteria.

Society has decided otherwise.

Society and legality do not necessarily determine between right and wrong. I am sure we would both agree that it should be legal for gays to marry, UNLESS they are under age. And yet, it is not.

What I wouldn't agree with would be forcing a pastor to marry any couple.

For me, it's not an issue of discrimination but rights and ownership (of property,merchandise and self).

 

[jeremysdemo]

You mentioned hypocrisy before, I doubt any Christian cake maker can honestly say they have never sold a cake to a molester, a murderer, a thief, but somehow this one sin is different.

I think the two men/women on top of the cake or the two male/female names would be an indicator to the baker. If someone from asked for a cake with NAMBLA celebrates 50 years on the cake, any baker should be free to discriminate.

Would you have an issue if a Jewish baker was asked to make a cake in the form of swastika and said no?

How about an African American baker being asked to put KKK on a cake in the shape of a noose?

Discrimination is a good thing, when it is done for the right reasons.

I agree,

and beleive I offered the same scenario as a solution for the baker on page 5, post #70.

the cases I am referring to tho, the bakers actually refused to even make the cakes, they refused service based solely on the person being wed being openly gay.

what that tells me is "we will serve any sinner as long as you keep your sin a secret"....

I just can't get on board that train....if you are going to refuse business based on sin and be honest across the board, you will go out of biz real quick as we do not live on a planet of holy's..lol

it was a good thing I proved early on Jesus never did such with his food supplies...

 

[Doom]

I agree,

and beleive I offered the same scenario as a solution for the baker on page 5, post #70.

the cases I am referring to tho, the bakers actually refused to even make the cakes, they refused service based solely on the person being wed being openly gay.

what that tells me is "we will serve any sinner as long as you keep your sin a secret"....

I just can't get on board that train....if you are going to refuse business based on sin and be honest across the board, you will go out of biz real quick as we do not live on a planet of holy's..lol

If I go into a restaurant and have a meal, I will tip the waitress. However, if she decides to inform me that she is saving her money to have an abortion, I will leave no tip. It is perfectly acceptable to make good decisions based on the information you have been given.

 

[jeremysdemo]

If I go into a restaurant and have a meal, I will tip the waitress. However, if she decides to inform me that she is saving her money to have an abortion, I will leave no tip. It is perfectly acceptable to make good decisions based on the information you have been given.

I mean really? not tipping your waitress of all the lame excuses I have heard.

you my friend are a bum. :rotfl:

I mean, I could see not giving anything above and beyond, but 15% is mandatory/customary.

I can't beleive you would go that far, to actually stiff a person whom gave you a service, someone that relies on that income for more than just their abortions.

How would you feel if your boss found out you were a Christian and decided as an atheist they weren't going to pay you what you earned?

seriously dude, where is the golden rule of Jesus in all this, as you would have them do unto you, would you really have atheist do that unto you?

 

[Doom]

I mean really? not tipping your waitress of all the lame excuses I have heard.

you my friend are a bum. :rotfl:

I mean, I could see not giving anything above and beyond, but 15% is mandatory/customary.

I can't beleive you would go that far, to actually stiff a person whom gave you a service, someone that relies on that income for more than just their abortions.

How would you feel if your boss found out you were a Christian and decided as an atheist they weren't going to pay you what you earned?

seriously dude, where is the golden rule of Jesus in all this, as you would have them do unto you, would you really have atheist do that unto you?

I personally would not support a women who is going to murder her child. You obviously see nothing wrong with that. You most likely think that Jesus would have given the woman caught in adultery a morning after pill.

 

[jeremysdemo]

I personally would not support a women who is going to murder her child.

there is a difference in 'supporting' someone and paying them for services rendered.

You obviously see nothing wrong with that.

Incorrect, I said I could see not going above and beyond, but I understand they get like $3 an hour, the tips are their income and 15% is customary/mandatory in most places.

she may have 5 other kids to support, you can't possibly be that short sighted.

You most likely think that Jesus would have given the woman caught in adultery a morning after pill.

I think we are going a bit off topic here, if ya must know I am pro-choice in the case of rape or incest but anti-abortion in general.

 

[Doom]

I think we are going a bit off topic here, if ya must know I am pro-choice in the case of rape or incest but anti-abortion in general.

So you are pro-murder with exceptions.

Is this how you love your neighbor?

There are some real flakes on this site.

 

[Rusha]

there is a difference in 'supporting' someone and paying them for services rendered.

In that particular situation though, it is assumed the waitress has made her abortion known to a customer. Not only unappetizing, but very unprofessional.

Incorrect, I said I could see not going above and beyond, but I understand they get like $3 an hour, the tips are their income and 15% is customary/mandatory in most places.

she may have 5 other kids to support, you can't possibly be that short sighted.

While this isn't really the thread for an abortion discussion, finances do not dictate the morality of abortion. The unborn baby of a rich person is no more deserving of life than the unborn baby of a poor person. It's about their value and right to life, not the parent's bank account.

I think we are going a bit off topic here, if ya must know I am pro-choice in the case of rape or incest but anti-abortion in general.

A child created out of rape or incest is no less innocent and deserving of life and protection than one created from consensual sex.

That is where the rape/incest/poverty arguments fail. It insinuates that an unborn baby's worth is determined by the parent's finances and circumstances.

 

[jeremysdemo]

So you are pro-murder with exceptions.

Is this how you love your neighbor?

There are some real flakes on this site.

yep, I don't beleive an incest child with mutations and such is going to have a good quality of life.

they will most likely have some genetic regressive disease that will be very painful and debilitating and they will be lucky to live past 4 years old.

it's more merciful that such a child never be born, IMHO, especially when it can be avoided early on before the child takes on a form that is human (embryonic).

must you turn every debate into abortion? we do have threads here for that btw....

what's it got to do with the gays and their cakes?

not wanting children to have live terribly excruciatingly painful lives might make me a flake but at least I tip!

 

[jeremysdemo]

A child created out of rape or incest is no less innocent and deserving of life and protection than one created from consensual sex.

That is where the rape/incest/poverty arguments fail. It insinuates that an unborn baby's worth is determined by the parent's finances and circumstances.

my reasons for wanting to allow incest abortions (embryonic) have nothing to do with levels of innocence or deserving of recipients or finances and everything to do with quality of life as I have gone into further detail with Doom and my last post.

If the child of incest was given the choice to live a miserable painful genetically regressive short life or none at all I feel they would agree.
Unfortunately they cannot make that choice for themselves.....and someone has to sit in the mercy seat sometimes.