Posted on 04/12/2015 7:41:10 AM PDT by kanawa
Nice bit of sophistry, but it reeks of surrender- sort of like the difference between taking a running jump into the boxcar as opposed to being forced into it.
Actually, it did last week or so in the Azucar Bakery case, in which the judge referred to the Bible's advice to "love the sinner, hate the sin" as discriminatory and hateful speech. Seems we're not allowed to hate anything, even sin. Pastors have been jailed in Canada for reading the Bible's advice against homosexual behavior. It's coming here.
That’s why I never suggested leaving any “lone” business owners in the lurch. I see a lot of apathy among church leadership, during a time when they need to pull everyone together.
Yet it is moral cowardice when one of these purported church leaders (and Zuhldorf has made even more controversial statements in the past) suggests a concord between Christ and Belial, since that only makes Belial stronger. Too reminiscent of church leaders collaborating with the Communist Parties of such entities as the Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China.
That’s being morally equivalent. Should a bar owner or liquor store owner also take the money of drunkards and donate it to a temperance lobby, instead of cutting them off?
Nonsense. The Constitution is supreme law of the land; therefore, exalting state law over the First Amendment is morally unjust and obeying man rather than God, to state the corollary of Acts 5:29.
If you have five small children, it follows that you'd be happy to go to jail and not even try to find another way to make sure you are serving the Lord and not making an idol of your personal morality.
‘The Commission’s order affirmed previous determinations that Masterpiece’s refusal to sell Mullins and Craig a wedding cake constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Colorado law’
Here’s the decision
It IS coming here. One cannot defend against this on any other basis than religious objection
One cannot win such a case unless he can prove that it is against his religion. And one cannot do that if one does not devoutly practice a religion that has this in its tenets or if one practices a religion that does MOT have this as a tenet
Because otherwise then it is not a religious objection, it is an objection based on sex preference discrimination, which, as the militant gays have discovered, is the law
One would have to get the law changed. So that is something to spend ones time doing, that, or becoming very devout in a religion that does not allow for participating in activities against Gods word. But in those cases, one has to prove devout lifestyle. All of which are quite possible
But the decision here does not go against my point
In other words, one cannot win a case like this simply by going to court and saying they agree with yet bible on this, but not on other things. In that case it is not religious objection
No one is exalting state law; don’t be ridiculous. You are hopelessly romantic and even plain silly in your view of how constitutional law works. The photographer who was financially ruined (in Arizona or New Mexico, I don’t recall the state) for refusing to do a gay wedding lost on appeal and tried to get her case heard by the Supreme Court, which handles the final review of constitutional questions, but the Supreme Court turned it down. It seems apparent that they are doing everything they can to grease the skids for declaring gay marriage a federal civil right, just as they did with all cases involving liberalization of the distribution of birth control before they lowered the boom with Roe v. Wade.
What are you doing about Roe v. Wade, or the loss of prayer in schools, or the persecution of Christian teachers, or the imposition of gays in the military, since you are so righteously indignant about bakeries? Do you also blame Jews for crucifying Jesus, when in fact it was necessary for Him to provide to us the gift of His death on the cross for our salvation? In this matter, the triune God is in charge and will remain so, having already conquered this world. Try to be an little more compassionate in your harsh judgments of what other Christians “should” do. You are “shoulding” on them.
“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.” …Thought you wanted to argue logically? Unless you are claiming that this unjust state law somehow trumps the First Amendment? The ACLU are communists, remember.
It’s not what I’m doing; the question is what have church leaders done in all this time, while this evil marches on?
Constitutional law is not supposed to work where the law says one thing and the Supreme Court justices tear it down at will. Evil cannot be compromised with; we’ve had millennia to figure that out, even though the Bible states it plainly.
Any practicing catholic has a case with a ruling such as this. If I’m not discriminating against the gays but simply and sincerely not participating in their non marriage due to my religion, I don’t have to participate
He would expect to have to go to court, as that is where the gays are taking it,and prove that he adheres to the best of his human abilities to adhere to the religion and that in continuing to do so he will refuse to take part
That’s logic and one will lose in court without it
It's very tiresome to hear you judging others as morally deficient for not being willing to put their heads in the lions' mouths. Some will, and more power to them; in fact, may the whole armor of God protect them and their families forever, Amen! But unless you personally would be willing to sacrifice your business and your home for this cause, you really need to tone it down.
Are you a theologian? A lawyer? If not, try being a little more tactful about your absolutism, in case you may be the one who lacks a complete understanding. As an earlier post put it, a wedding cake is not the same thing as murdering a fetus.
You either submit to the “reality on the ground” or you change it. If the Founding Fathers were to have lost heart in the face of the “reality on the ground”, we’d be a dominion at best rather than a sovereign nation—but their faith is supposed to be a lesson to us rather than be ignored. People shed their blood to help enshrine the rights stated in the Bill of Rights, and to crouch down and lick the hands of those that orchestrated today’s “reality on the ground” (to paraphrase Samuel Adams) is to trample the sacrifice of such people. With all due respect.
How? You’re putting it in God’s hands.
The ACLU already admitted that it’s a religious objection. The judge unilaterally denied it. The ACLU is crowing that this is a victory for them. So is that following the law or trampling it? Looks like the latter to me.
check Titus 3:9
You're looking for an easy way out, something that makes you feel good about "resisting" and "serving the Lord" while not resisting or serving anyone but the queers. Fine. If you're at peace with that, you work it out with your Maker. I find it accommodating, compromising, and feeble.
And ultimately ineffective.
You don’t put it in God’s hands while obeying men rather than God. Take note of Acts 5:29, where the Apostles blatantly went against the command (presumably “lawful” in a similar context to today, since the Sanhedrin did have the force of law even under the Romans) to not preach in Jesus’ name in Jerusalem, and Peter’s reply.
They are talking about the Torah there.
Actually, It is the same, in terms of going against one’s faith. Nayone serious about his faith will not be able to participate in a gay wedding as it, though legal, like abortion, is against a commandment, (the sixth) as is abortion (the fifth)
One cannot, in this country, under the constitution, be forced to participate in an abortion, not legally, not under the law
Same with this. Problem here is that coercion has now entered the realm.
That’s what it’s about. And the big problem is that people who practice their own faith very lightly, picking and choosing what they want to follow, at will, has now come back to bite them, as predicted. The gay militants are seeing that weakness and taking advantage.
A guy who practices his faith lightly will waste his time in court trying to prove that it is against his religion to not discriminate against the gay customer’s wishes.
In other words, people who do not practice their faith, have chosen the government as their authority. And because we are not, thankfully, a theocracy, the constitution does not protect beliefs that are not religious.
It is not religious objection if a shop owner who does business with known adulterers, people who live together but are not married, does not attend regular religious services, contributes to planned parenthood, or participates in some active way, has an adulterous affair himself, by having sex outside of marriage, or has an unrepentant history of same, practiced birth control, has his shop open on Sundays, a violation of the third commandment, as is even shopping or mowing the lawn, and to refuse business to gays is in fact discriminatory in such a case.
If one is devout and can prove a history of adhering to the tenets of his faith as above then he could have a standing on religious grounds.
ARTICLE 3
(from the catechism
THE THIRD COMMANDMENT
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work.90
The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.91 )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.