Gay ex-workers and workers board

[dmmichgood]

Mar 28, 2014 9:18:17 GMT -5 hangingout said:

Mar 27, 2014 21:28:31 GMT -5 Gene said:

I should probably just read up on it, because I'm sure there's a logical answer, but why read up on it when I can just ask the question here?

Why are fundamentalist Christians so interested in what the gays get up to in the bedroom?

I mean, there are FAR more adulterers in the congregation (and in the pulpit) than there are gays! Why not focus a proportional dose of that energy on the adulterers? Or do they? Or do they not, because the gays are "them" and the adulterers are "us"?

  The whole gay argument has come to the fore in America more than ever because some - definitely not all - gays are trying to interfere with the rights of others to hold a different view.  So there's some pushback there.  It was one thing to be on board with the no-bullying position. One thing to be on board with basic civil rights.  But when someone's rights tramples someone else's - well, that's a bridge too far.

Your quote,  hangingout:

 "gays are trying to interfere with the rights of others to hold a different view. So there's some pushback there. It was one thing to be on board with the no-bullying position. -One thing to be on board with basic civil rights. But when someone's rights tramples someone else's - well, that's a bridge too far.,
-one thing to be on board with basic civil rights. But when someone's rights tramples someone else's - well, that's a bridge too far."



Lets talk about what "basic rights" that a business has when they deny service to someone. 

Also whether gays in this case are trying to interfere with the rights of others to hold a different view.



The suit of discrimination  against  bakery has been in the news lately for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage.

If a bakery, which are in the business of baking wedding cakes, won't make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, are they having their basic civil rights rights to hold a different view (on homosexual weddings) being "trampled"?

Let's use this analogy

If a bakery, which are in the business of baking wedding cakes, won't make a wedding cake for a mixed race wedding, are they having their basic civil rights rights to hold a different view (on mixed racial marriages) being "trampled"?

Is this a matter of  basic civil rights rights of  business's   being "trampled?"

Let's say  another business, a Jewish delicatessen which doesn't sell "pork," should someone be able to sue them because they won't sell pork?

Hardly, Why?
 Because they don't have pork on their menu.  If they did have  pork on their menu but refused to sell it to someone because of view that the Jewish delicatessen had about the person wanting the pork, -then yes, someone should be able to  sue them.

Because the Jewish delicatessen,  as well as the bakery are discriminating against certain people!

A bakery which never made any wedding cakes for anyone shouldn't have to make one !

A Jewish delicatessen which doesn't sell any  pork shouldn't have to make a pork sandwich for anyone!

but if either does sell wedding cakes or pork sandwichs to the public, then they shouldn't have the right to discriminate which people that they won't sell to!

All quite   simple, really.

[dmmichgood]

Mar 28, 2014 12:22:43 GMT -5 @wally said:

number 1

i'm reminded of this verse which by any measure lead one to believe that one can live "asexually" for God...

Mat_19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

That wasn't the   question of what one can do, live "asexually or not."

That would be their choice.

But It shouldn't be someone elses decision that they have to lead a  "asexual" life.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2014 13:13:15 GMT -5 faune said:

Mar 28, 2014 12:22:43 GMT -5 @wally said:

number 1

i'm reminded of this verse which by any measure lead one to believe that one can live "asexually" for God...

Mat_19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Wally ~ I believe Paul embraced this idea himself and perhaps that's why some have suggested that he might have been gay.  I don't believe that to be the case, by the way and provide this article and scriptural references to back up my opinion from one of his comments found in  I Corinthians 7:25-40.  I actually was wondering if Paul was speaking about couples living together as unmarried in the reference to I Corinthians 7:36-38 below?      What do you think?  I also liked the concluding paragraph regarding how Paul clarified his comments on different controversial issues, which was brought up earlier in this discussion. 

bible.org/seriespage/single-minded-1-corinthians-725-40  

i would tend to agree with that...

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2014 14:11:16 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

Mar 28, 2014 12:22:43 GMT -5 @wally said:

number 1

i'm reminded of this verse which by any measure lead one to believe that one can live "asexually" for God...

Mat_19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

That wasn't the   question of what one can do, live "asexually or not."

That would be their choice.

But It shouldn't be someone elses decision that they have to lead a  "asexual" life.

i know i am opening a can of worms but the church can ask them(gays) too live asexually for the good of the church

[faune]

Mar 25, 2014 20:27:10 GMT -5 @wally said:

i take it then you don't think Paul was inspired of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit to write romans 1 and 1 corinthians 6?

Wally ~ I personally feel this paragraph regarding Paul's teaching methods is very revealing in itself and helps to explain your position above?   If he wasn't exactly sure something came by inspiration of God, he stated this as fact.  I believe you can find a real example of this in I Corinthians 11 concerning "long hair" as being some sort of requirement for professing females, which has been debated for years by some churches in agreement with the 2x2's views, who still adhere to this custom in women's adornment today.  Just check out I Corinthians 11:16 for Paul's own words  pertaining to the long hair requirement in Christian churches.  He never indicated it was God inspired on his part and said that if believers contended with him on this matter, than it was not to be considered even a custom within the Church.  Pure and simple, don't you think?  

biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-16.htm   (I Corinthians 11:16 ~ different translations with Commentary)

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11&version=AMP   (I Corinthians 11  ~ Amplified Version)

Paul’s last comment is a unique one: “and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” This doesn’t mean Paul wonders whether he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, for he knew that; rather, he believes he has the illumination of the Spirit on this topic. I like that because it shows Paul’s humility and honesty. He was never arrogant about God’s truth. When he had a word directly from the Lord (as in 7:10 of this chapter), he made no qualms about sharing it and enforcing it. When he had opinions that were apostolic (as in 7:12 and 25), he gave them with conviction. But when he wasn’t sure whether his ideas conformed to that which the Spirit of God taught, he was willing to say so. Unfortunately, there are many in the ministry today who would never admit what Paul says here, and they aren’t even close to being apostles. Yet they always claim to be right, always have a word from the Lord, and are usually dogmatic about it. They may be wrong, but they’re never in doubt. Beware of teachers who claim to have a direct pipeline to God.

bible.org/seriespage/single-minded-1-corinthians-725-40  

[Deleted]

i agree in a couple of places paul didn't always speak by inspiration of God but of tradition or custom...

[Mary]

According to your post gecko a person who speaks out against murder are closet murderers themselves. Or those who speak out against child abuse are child abusers themselves. Weak argument.

[Gene]

I'm reading the article, hangingout, but I'm saving the froth for a cappuccino.

He does provide food for thought. But the first thing that really stopped me short was this:


"...Civil unions confer all the same rights as marriage..."


That is so utterly, obviously wrong that it makes it rather obvious that, while castigating others for not seeing the Christian point of view, he does not understand the gay rights point of view.

But that's a side note, really.

Of more interest is this: He asserts that business owners have a right to refuse service to anyone. On the other hand, he writes that laws that prohibit business owners from refusing service based on race are good laws.

He then appears to propose that, while race-based service refusals are bad, Christian belief-based refusals of service are good.

What he fails to point out is that the same "religious liberty" argument for allowing service refusals to gays was, not so long ago, used as grounds for refusing service to blacks!

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

– Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959

"This decision, that the IRS would no longer give tax subsidies to racist schools even if they claimed that their racism was rooted in religious beliefs, quickly became a rallying point for the Christian Right. Indeed, according to Paul Weyrich, the seminal conservative activist who coined the term “moral majority,” the IRS’ move against schools like Bob Jones was the single most important issue driving the birth of modern day religious conservatism. According to Weyrich, “t was not the school-prayer issue, and it was not the abortion issue,” that caused this “movement to surface.” Rather it was what Weyrich labeled the “federal government’s move against the Christian schools.”

When Bob Jones’ case reached the Supreme Court, the school argued that IRS’ regulations denying tax exemptions to racist institutions “cannot constitutionally be applied to schools that engage in racial discrimination on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs.” But the justices did not bite. In an 8-1 decision by conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Court explained that “[o]n occasion this Court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religiously based conduct.” Prohibiting race discrimination is one of these interests."

Source: thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/

[dmmichgood]

Mar 28, 2014 14:19:10 GMT -5 @wally said:

Mar 28, 2014 14:11:16 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

That wasn't the   question of what one can do, live "asexually or not."

That would be their choice.

But It shouldn't be someone elses decision that they have to lead a  "asexual" life.

i know i am opening a can of worms but the church can ask them(gays) too live asexually for the good of the church

That doesn't mean the church is right to ask the them too live asexually.

"for the good of the church
 

What possible good is that doing the church?

[hangingout]

“If a bakery, which are in the business of baking wedding cakes, won't make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, are they having their basic civil rights to hold a different view (on homosexual weddings) being "trampled"?“ - quote

This bakery, Melissa’s Sweet Cakes, felt that communicating support for nontraditional marriage violated their private religious beliefs, so they were unwilling to participate on that basis alone.  They've served gays in the past, they've hired gays as well.  It was the wedding cake that represented an implied philosophical consent which they objected to.  It's a fact that the gay couple who were denied the order for that type of cake could have easily enough found another bakery which would have happily helped them celebrate “their special day.”

Had this couple shown any degree of sensitivity and respect for the others' religious views, they would have pursued another wedding cake from any of the many available bakeries in the area without seeking to punish, make an example of, set a precedent for, and also take the money of a business whose owners’ simple, and polite refusal was based on something they also hold sacred: their religious values.  Gee...it wasn’t as if that was 'the only bakery in town' or that they were being denied basic, taxpayer-funded services.

“Let's say another business, a Jewish delicatessen which doesn't sell "pork," should someone be able to sue them because they won't sell pork? Hardly. Why? Because they don't have pork on their menu." - quote

But even when something is “not on the menu”, some gays have been pursuing suits against businesses, such as this one, in the UK:

youtu.be/T4a3814MC8Q

carm.org/christians-uk-bead-and-breakfast-homosexual

Their “menu”, i.e., website, clearly communicates their policy on renting to married couples only.  When the gay couple made the reservation, they were aware of their policies.  I wonder why could they not have acknowledged their right to hold such views and just find another bed and breakfast?  Again, it's not as if that was the only available one.

I think most people recognize that it is extreme insensitivity to not even acknowledge the rights of others in America to have differing religious perspectives. Most people, I’m pretty sure, would not have the...brutality...to ring up a Jewish delicatessen with an order to cater a KKK convention, even if it was corned beef hoagies they wanted, which would be on their menu.  Then when the deli refused, sue them?? 

That is what is meant by "trampling the rights of others" in the name of one's own preferences.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2014 17:14:42 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

Mar 28, 2014 14:19:10 GMT -5 @wally said:

i know i am opening a can of worms but the church can ask them(gays) too live asexually for the good of the church

That doesn't mean the church is right to ask the them too live asexually.

"for the good of the church
 

What possible good is that doing the church?

i think 1 corinthians 7 is a good chapter to read on how it strengthens a person to remain unmarried(asexual) therefor strengthening the church... 

[hangingout]

"He [author] then appears to propose that, while race-based service refusals are bad, Christian belief-based refusals of service are good.  What he fails to point out is that the same "religious liberty" argument for allowing service refusals to gays was, not so long ago, used as grounds for refusing service to blacks!" - quote

Yes, Gene, I realize that. But we are not fighting the battle of racial discrimination today -- for it has been won. Just as the Democrats of the Old South (who supported slavery) are not exactly the Democrats of today, it's a new era, with new circumstances, and we need to sort out the strands of thought more accurately.

To be frank, I really feel the gay lobby should drop 'the race card.' I don't believe that it even serves their cause well. Why?

1.  There is just zero scriptural support for a race-based hierarchy, and this was key to winning that argument. The issue now for Christians' objections to homosexuality really is simply the Bible's strongly-worded censures.

2.  It appears as though gay activists want to ride the coattails of the successful, racial discrimination cause of the 1950's. Not only it is really NOT the same, it also sounds as though the gay cause doesn't have enough of its own steam, it must continually borrow from a prior cause.

3.  And finally, there are actually conservative, Christian blacks who object to their skin-color being equated with something they also happen to believe is a "sin."

Gee, none of us are ever going to get everyone to think we're the bees' knees.  Someone is always going to find something that we hold dear objectionable. 

The question is really are we going to be able to tolerate each others' different views and seek to live together in peace? 

I heard a gay comedienne seriously remark awhile back that the quest in gay liberation now isn't for mere tolerance, it's for acceptance, because tolerance "isn't good enough."  I do think this is over-reaching.  If she cannot give the acceptance she is demanding, she cannot expect it back.  Tolerance, though, is much more do-able.  It says that I may not fully accept what you believe, but I agree that we both need enough latitude to co-exist peacefully.

[dmmichgood]

Mar 28, 2014 17:56:59 GMT -5 hangingout said:

“If a bakery, which are in the business of baking wedding cakes, won't make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, are they having their basic civil rights to hold a different view (on homosexual weddings) being "trampled"?“ - quote

This bakery, Melissa’s Sweet Cakes, felt that communicating support for nontraditional marriage violated their private religious beliefs, so they were unwilling to participate on that basis alone.  They've served gays in the past, they've hired gays as well.  It was the wedding cake that represented an implied philosophical consent which they objected to.  It's a fact that the gay couple who were denied the order for that type of cake could have easily enough found another bakery which would have happily helped them celebrate “their special day.”

Had this couple shown any degree of sensitivity and respect for the others' religious views, they would have pursued another wedding cake from any of the many available bakeries in the area without seeking to punish, make an example of, set a precedent for, and also take the money of a business whose owners’ simple, and polite refusal was based on something they also hold sacred: their religious values.  Gee...it wasn’t as if that was 'the only bakery in town' or that they were being denied basic, taxpayer-funded services.

“Let's say another business, a Jewish delicatessen which doesn't sell "pork," should someone be able to sue them because they won't sell pork? Hardly. Why? Because they don't have pork on their menu." - quote

But even when something is “not on the menu”, some gays have been pursuing suits against businesses, such as this one, in the UK:

youtu.be/T4a3814MC8Q

carm.org/christians-uk-bead-and-breakfast-homosexual

Their “menu”, i.e., website, clearly communicates their policy on renting to married couples only.  When the gay couple made the reservation, they were aware of their policies.  I wonder why could they not have acknowledged their right to hold such views and just find another bed and breakfast?  just find another bed and breakfast? Again, it's not as if that was the only available one.

I think most people recognize that it is extreme insensitivity to not even acknowledge the rights of others in America to have differing religious perspectives. Most people, I’m pretty sure, would not have the...brutality...to ring up a Jewish delicatessen with an order to cater a KKK convention, even if it was corned beef hoagies they wanted, which would be on their menu.  Then when the deli refused, sue them??

This is what is meant by "trampling the rights of others" in the name of one's own preferences.

Everyone of your arguments are regarding business's which provide services  to the public.

Everyone of those same kinds of arguments were used by  white business's regarding "their" religious rights to not serve blacks!

examples:

  gays  "They could have easily enough found another bakery"  = Blacks: "There are many available other places that will serve blacks"
        ( I can remember the days when my black friend & I were not allowed to eat in a public restruarant)

  gays:  "just find another bed and breakfast"=  blacks:  they can just find another bed & breakfast"


No matter how you phrase it, those places that serve the public should not be able to discriminate against any  group of people who are acting in a legal way and asking for the same service that the business  offer other people.

[dmmichgood]

Mar 28, 2014 18:51:17 GMT -5 hangingout said:

"He [author] then appears to propose that, while race-based service refusals are bad, Christian belief-based refusals of service are good.  What he fails to point out is that the same "religious liberty" argument for allowing service refusals to gays was, not so long ago, used as grounds for refusing service to blacks!" - quote

Yes, Gene, I realize that. But we are not fighting the battle of racial discrimination today -- for it has been won. Just as the Democrats of the Old South (who supported slavery) are not exactly the Democrats of today, it's a new era, with new circumstances, and we need to sort out the strands of thought more accurately.

To be frank, I really feel the gay lobby should drop 'the race card.' I don't believe that it even serves their cause well. Why?

1.  There is just zero scriptural support for a race-based hierarchy, and this was key to winning that argument. The issue now for Christians' objections to homosexuality really is simply the Bible's strongly-worded censures.

2.  It appears as though gay activists want to ride the coattails of the successful, racial discrimination cause of the 1950's. Not only it is really NOT the same, it also sounds as though the gay cause doesn't have enough of its own steam, it must continually borrow from a prior cause.

3.  And finally, there are actually conservative, Christian blacks who object to their skin-color being equated with something they also happen to believe is a "sin."

Gee, none of us are ever going to get everyone to think we're the bees' knees.  Someone is always going to find something that we hold dear objectionable. 

The question is really are we going to be able to tolerate each others' different views and seek to live together in peace? 

I heard a gay comedienne seriously remark awhile back that the quest in gay liberation now isn't for mere tolerance, it's for acceptance, because tolerance "isn't good enough."  I do think this is over-reaching.  If she cannot give the acceptance she is demanding, she cannot expect it back.  Tolerance, though, is much more do-able.  It says that I may not fully accept what you believe, but I agree that we both need enough latitude to co-exist peacefully.

There are some people still telling the Blacks to drop  'the race card.'

Maybe if there no longer was  "racial discrimination", they could drop the "race card!"

1)  No, there isn't "just zero scriptural support for a race-based hierarchy."

Many Christians at the times of the Civil Rights Movement used the example of Ham to support their racial views on discrimination against blacks, much as people are trying to quotes from Paul to use against Gays today.

2. This statement is just ridiculous!  "It appears as though gay activists want to ride the coattails of the successful, racial discrimination cause of the 1950."   It has been a long & hard battle for  gay activists.  They haven't rode on the coattails of ANY movement!  That is pure  supposition on your part and an attempt to trivialize  hard won rights.

3) There are also many   Christian blacks who work for equality  for the gay community.


It isn't just a question of only tolerating  each others' different views.

  Equality for all people  is something that everyone who believes in the civil  rights for  everyone should be  working for, NOT  just tolerating!

It doesn't matter whether it affects them personally or not.

And it doesn't matter whether it affects them as a group or personally.

We aren't an island of oneself only.

[Gene]

I'm not so sure the supreme court justices contemplated the validity of the scriptural basis for discrimination against blacks when they determined religious conviction was not a valid defense for such discrimination.

One day soon, you can expect them to find the same regarding discrimination against gays. But isn't that what we would want from a government that separates church from state?

But, take heart. It's a free country -- you can always move to Uganda!

[faune]

Mar 28, 2014 11:00:31 GMT -5 hangingout said:

Thank you faune.  I edited my post a few seconds ago to include more material on the theological controversy. (I know from your posts that you and I - as Christians - are not in basic agreement here.)

I do appreciate that you actually read the things I post and think about them, instead of skimming the surface and firing out a reply.  It makes a difference; it shows.   I think that's a very fair-minded approach to disagreement. 

Hangingout ~ Thanks for your comments.  I really was impressed with you taking on Dmmichgood's challenge and providing the information you did in return.  I enjoy a good debate and I do try to take both sides into consideration, weighing the evidence presented.  I think you did a great job in standing your ground as a Christian and providing adequate information to back up your argument.

However, there are issues that also enter into this discussion that I felt needed to be brought up as well.  That's why I presented the different links in my recent posts.   Personally, I feel most people who are born gay probably wouldn't choose this lifestyle because of the criticism and homophobia attached to it.   The same goes for transgender people  who are born with mixed up genes when it comes to their actual gender.   Also, let's not forget those who are born with Downs Syndrome  into this world and must learn to cope with their condition along with other physical and emotional handicaps.   These people are all part of God's creation and should not be discriminated against because they are different from the rest of us, IMHO.   Gay people have been around since the beginning of time and the book of Genesis, so perhaps they should just be accepted for who they are along with everyone else?  Since they were born that way, God obviously created them just as they appear?   Even scientific discoveries today relating to the hypothalamus in humans have shown a differentiation  between homosexuals and heterosexuals, which they feel cause the difference in sexual drives. 

So, regardless of what the Bible presents,  I try not to judge gays for their preferences, as it's a major part of their sexual programming.  Since I don't believe the Bible is totally inerrant throughout, I hold to this opinion.  Maybe there are some who are just testing the waters in this area of homosexuality, but I feel the people who are really gay need to be given a break and accepted just as they are wired.  Like yourself, I had a few gay friends in the past who were co-workers and they were fine human beings and fun to be around. Since Jesus himself didn't come to judge people others viewed as sinners in John 8, I feel we should follow His lead. Just my thoughts on this controversial issue.

[hangingout]

“It has been a long & hard battle for gay activists.” - quote

I am very curious about your statement here, dmmichgood.

Please elaborate on this and specifically explain how gay activists have “battled long and hard.”  I really want to read your own words about this. 

Thanks in advance.

[dmmichgood]

Mar 28, 2014 23:47:41 GMT -5 hangingout said:

“It has been a long & hard battle for gay activists.” - quote

I am very curious about your statement here, dmmichgood.

Please elaborate on this and specifically explain how gay activists have “battled long and hard.”  I really want to read your own words about this. 

Thanks in advance.

History is available about how hard a battle IT was  to  get   gay rights.  You can  check yourself  for yourself .

Why do you want to hear my own words?

 From past experience I'm sure you would just accuse me of "plagerism" anyway.



I will   give you  only one starting place.  You can check the    rest from there.

 Police in the past use to periodically "raid" suspected gay bars and arrest the people there.
Just like they raid suspected drug places these days.

Finally, in New York City at a place called Stonewall, people got tired of that kind of treatment and rebelled
  It has been " long and hard battle ever since.” to   obtain their civil  rights.                     


You know I don't really    feel much like answering your   questions , when you    don't answer the main           question that I challenged you to answer:


I challenge You and anyone to say where Jesus ever even mentioned homosexuality
                

[Jesse_Lackman]

The battle seems far from won. Here's an interesting article on university professor William C Harris's book "Slouching Towards Gaytheism: Christianity and happy Survival in America." : Click -->>  A New Breed of Breeder

“Breeding the [HIV] virus in another man’s body develops new kinships,” explains Harris (rather than, say, new burdens on health services), and they become one more couple in the “bug brotherhood.” The one who does the infecting is called the daddy, the recipient the son, and such incestuous overtones are also very exciting, argues Professor Harris, for they too are transgressive, subversive, and liberating.

[faune]

Here's an interesting article on the struggle for Gay Rights in America, which gives a time-line going back in American history.   Dmmichgood brought this subject up earlier in one of her posts and I felt it desired to be shared on this thread dealing with homosexuality, since I'm sure many are not familiar with the highlights of their struggles for equality. 

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/23/17418872-gay-rights-timeline-key-dates-in-the-fight-for-equality?lite

[Deleted]

after reading that timeline im gonna say that gays haven't suffered nearly as much as blacks did for civil rights...

[faune]

Mar 29, 2014 10:53:47 GMT -5 @wally said:

after reading that timeline im gonna say that gays haven't suffered nearly as much as blacks did for civil rights...

Wally ~ I agree with you on that point. Blacks have really suffered a lot down through the centuries in history and it's only has been since the last few decades since the 1960's that things  started to really turn around for them regarding their civil rights.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement

Here's some Black History Milestones just here in America in their struggles for equality and acceptance.   I feel the gays in America are only asking for the same consideration regarding their civil rights, too.

www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-history-milestones

[snow]

Mar 28, 2014 11:01:03 GMT -5 @wally said:

Luk_6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
Joh_15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Does that mean then that gays should should feel blessed when Christians hate them and reproach them. Does this mean that Christians will be cast out for hating gays?

[faune]

Mar 29, 2014 1:46:24 GMT -5 Jesse_Lackman said:

The battle seems far from won. Here's an interesting article on university professor William C Harris's book "Slouching Towards Gaytheism: Christianity and happy Survival in America." : Click -->>  A New Breed of Breeder

“Breeding the [HIV] virus in another man’s body develops new kinships,” explains Harris (rather than, say, new burdens on health services), and they become one more couple in the “bug brotherhood.” The one who does the infecting is called the daddy, the recipient the son, and such incestuous overtones are also very exciting, argues Professor Harris, for they too are transgressive, subversive, and liberating.

Jesse ~ I realize I don't share a lot of my fellow Christian views on this matter, since I feel a lot of the contents of the Bible relates to views held back in time ~ including the "flat earth" beliefs found in the Old Testament.  I wonder when people are going to wake up and face reality when it comes to the realization that gays are the born that way, although they come from straight parents? They definitely have their own sexual preferences due to the way they're wired, so why persecute them for it?   That is indeed homophobic, IMHO? I can remember one Christian friend of mine shocking me by her remark that "God doesn't make junk," in a comment on homosexuality. I reminded her that science has proven it's not a disease that needs to be cured or a condition that can be altered. They are born this way and, if we believe in an all-knowing Creator, this doesn't take God by surprise, as He obviously have a design for their lives, too.  Incidentally, she had a brother who was born gay, which equally added to the shock of her remark.

When I read the Bible and see the references in the O.T. regarding homosexuality along with a number of other things relating to O.T. Jewish law, I realize this was their personal views back in time and it doesn't necessarily pertain to how we view things today ~  especially in the light of new discoveries regarding  human sexuality and sexual drives.   Just like the "flat earth" concept outlined so well in the Old Testament, we know it has been proved false today in light of new knowledge that has surfaced over the years regarding the earth's surface.   Hopefully, this same realization will become a reality someday regarding gay people with their inborn sexual differences and they will be accepted for who they are without the cultural backlash? 

[snow]

Mar 28, 2014 15:29:14 GMT -5 @wally said:

i agree in a couple of places paul didn't always speak by inspiration of God but of tradition or custom...

How does one tell the difference?

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2014 11:20:23 GMT -5 snow said:

Mar 28, 2014 15:29:14 GMT -5 @wally said:

i agree in a couple of places paul didn't always speak by inspiration of God but of tradition or custom...

How does one tell the difference?

through prayer, comparing scripture and revelation

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2014 11:15:09 GMT -5 snow said:

Mar 28, 2014 11:01:03 GMT -5 @wally said:

Luk_6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
Joh_15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Does that mean then that gays should should feel blessed when Christians hate them and reproach them. Does this mean that Christians will be cast out for hating gays?

nope

[snow]

Mar 28, 2014 17:56:59 GMT -5 hangingout said:

“If a bakery, which are in the business of baking wedding cakes, won't make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, are they having their basic civil rights to hold a different view (on homosexual weddings) being "trampled"?“ - quote

This bakery, Melissa’s Sweet Cakes, felt that communicating support for nontraditional marriage violated their private religious beliefs, so they were unwilling to participate on that basis alone.  They've served gays in the past, they've hired gays as well.  It was the wedding cake that represented an implied philosophical consent which they objected to.  It's a fact that the gay couple who were denied the order for that type of cake could have easily enough found another bakery which would have happily helped them celebrate “their special day.”

Had this couple shown any degree of sensitivity and respect for the others' religious views, they would have pursued another wedding cake from any of the many available bakeries in the area without seeking to punish, make an example of, set a precedent for, and also take the money of a business whose owners’ simple, and polite refusal was based on something they also hold sacred: their religious values.  Gee...it wasn’t as if that was 'the only bakery in town' or that they were being denied basic, taxpayer-funded services.

“Let's say another business, a Jewish delicatessen which doesn't sell "pork," should someone be able to sue them because they won't sell pork? Hardly. Why? Because they don't have pork on their menu." - quote

But even when something is “not on the menu”, some gays have been pursuing suits against businesses, such as this one, in the UK:

youtu.be/T4a3814MC8Q

carm.org/christians-uk-bead-and-breakfast-homosexual

Their “menu”, i.e., website, clearly communicates their policy on renting to married couples only.  When the gay couple made the reservation, they were aware of their policies.  I wonder why could they not have acknowledged their right to hold such views and just find another bed and breakfast?  Again, it's not as if that was the only available one.

I think most people recognize that it is extreme insensitivity to not even acknowledge the rights of others in America to have differing religious perspectives. Most people, I’m pretty sure, would not have the...brutality...to ring up a Jewish delicatessen with an order to cater a KKK convention, even if it was corned beef hoagies they wanted, which would be on their menu.  Then when the deli refused, sue them?? 

That is what is meant by "trampling the rights of others" in the name of one's own preferences.

So I guess what it all boils down to is that people are supposed to respect your views, but you Christians do not in return have to respect gays views?

What possible harm can it do to Christians to serve gay couples. Is their money different somehow? Are they not of the same species, human beings? Were they not all created by the same creator you claim to be created by?