Posted on 02/22/2022 7:24:33 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
IMHO, winning this requires a spiritual awakening. We should spend less time trying to win it politically and more time trying to win people back to believing in the Lord.
Let’s watch them dance around this issue again, ignoring the elephant in the room.
No mask, no service. End of oral argument.
John Roberts will DEFINITELY VOTE WITH THE LIBERALS!! He is VERY DICEY!
I wonder what Jesus would do?
The authorities of His day were convinced they could stump Him on paying taxes or not. He asked for a coin, asking whose face was on the coin? Caesar’s. “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and give unto God that which is God’s”.
On this issue, what belongs to Caesar [the guvmint] and what belongs to God? The lady is doing it right, taking it up through the courts. But even taking issues up through the courts is giving far more to Caesar than Caesar deserves. It’s almost like OVERpaying your taxes.
Sexual “orientation” is a choice, not a trait like skin color. It’s a choice every bit as much as,jointing one religion or another, or no religion is a choice. So it’s odd that one choice is elevated to trait while the other isn’t. Religion “should be” every bit as protected as skin color is protected agaisnt discrimination if they are going to protect an immoral choice like homosexuality as a trait
The left can’t even be consistent. One evolutionist describes relgiousness as stemming from a virus (the evolutionist that argued agaisnt Michael behe- can’t recall,his name right now), and other folks falsely claim that there is a “gay gene” and that people can’t help being gay- this they argued is why it needs constitutional protection like skin color gets. But if the left argue that religion or folks have a virus, then this means “they can’t help what they are either” and should be protected too
Of course it’s as false to say thst religious folks have a virus as it is to suggest that gay people,have a gay gene and can’t help their choices.
just as he would be to deny the same on racial grounds.
***You can change your sexual orientation but you can’t change your race. And if one is such a racist that they won’t build a website for black people, let the market have its say on such bigotry. I think there’s plenty of market for someone who won’t bake an LGBQake.
What makes obscenity a no go but promoting homosexuality, which brought down the wrath of God, not good enough to balk at? And why are you calling people names which is not very Christian rather than discussing the issue?
You don't seem to know the difference between participating materially in sin and not judging others. There is a difference.
It’s only a matter of time until the courts declare pedophiles to be protected under these non-discrimination laws.
This whole gay issue must be hitting a nerve or something the way you are lashing out at Christians.
Also, if sin is sin then why are you hell-bent on approving of it?
You can be an accessory to other's sins in the following ways:
1. By counsel
2. By command
3. By consent
4. By provocation
5. By praise or flattery
6. By concealment
7. By partaking
8. By silence
9. By defense of the ill done
FYI: The spiritual works of mercy include:
Admonish sinners.
Instruct the ignorant.
Counsel the doubtful.
Comfort the sorrowful.
Be patient with those in error.
Forgive offenses.
Pray for the living and the dead.
Hey Maga-dipwad:
I’ll pay you a dollar to post that your own viewpoints are antithetical to Free Republic so ya wanna be zotted, and make sure you cc the mods and JimRob.
Let me know where to send my $bill.
What makes obscenity a no go but promoting homosexuality, which brought down the wrath of God, not good enough to balk at?
***He thinks God should be apologizing to Sodom and Gomorrah.
It ain’t “serving a homosexual a cupcake”. What started this was the homos saw the christian emblems on the bakery and asked directly to have their homo-cake baked with a positive homo-marriage message on the top of the cake.
That’s the difference between serving a cupcake and participating in another person’s sin.
Not that you would know the difference.
Like another Freeper said on this thread “I still cannot get a ham sandwich at a Jewish deli”
***That’s good. I think I’ll add it to the tagline page.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3992415/posts?q=1&;page=367#367
This whole gay issue must be hitting a nerve or something the way you are lashing out at Christians.
***Yup. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Also, if sin is sin then why are you hell-bent on approving of it?
***Because he is a troll, posting stuff that is antithetical to Free Republic, in this case an anti-christian bigot trying to manipulate christianity into his own liking.
sin is equal in the eyes of the lord. Its all bad.
***Not true. God sent judgement in the form of fire from heaven onto Sodom and Gomorrah for that homosexual activity.
Also John 19:11
... Therefore the one who handed Me over to you is guilty of greater sin.”
That is true, but not according to WOKE from Hell "fluid" ideology. And SCOTUS has effectively equated amoral aspects as race, color, ethnicity with a immoral behavior, as if endocannibalism was a protected practice as being part of an ethnic class, and thus refusing to create a work of art for it as a commercial artist was a racist crime.
"And if one is such a racist that they won’t build a website for black people, let the market have its say on such bigotry. I think there’s plenty of market for someone who won’t bake an LGBQake."
But that could extend to a Muslim mechanic refusing to fix a broken vehicle of a Christian when no one else is around. The government cannot forbid matters of the heart and faith, but immoral actions only. Unless a difference is made btwn amoral aspects as race as well as beliefs, moral or not, and that of moral actions/practices with the latter being a basis for discrimination (so that a patriot cannot refuse to sell a flag to a liberal, unless he knows the intent is to desecrate it and yet which the state may allow) - and morality is defined by the Bible as understood by the NT church - then evil actions will be called good, or at least protected.
You are evidently uninformed and confusing the issues. Which is NOT that anyone is being denied a service because they are a sinner, but that of refusing to be complicit in the celebration of an event of practice with the clear express purpose of doing so. A commercial artist should be able to refuse to create a special work for anything they find morally objectionable when that is the express purpose of it, as it was in the case of Masterpiece bakery.
If you knew what Zyklon B was going to be used for then you should try to escape from providing it, and a patriot has the right to refuse to sell flags for antifa to burn, or a black or Jewish baker for creating a special cake for a KKK celebration.
On the other hand commercial artist cannot refuse a general service just because someone is a liberal or black etc. though refusal to host their ideological expression is allowed, thus FF need not accommodate liberals, as well as your irrational anti-Christian ranting.
" As a Christian, you are supposed to love everyone as Christ did, and let God sort out the sinners. Draw the line at obscenity but otherwise, be a faithful servant to all. Stop being a bunch of morons and provide a service you went into business for."
Rather, by imaging that to love everyone as Christ did meant contrary to His own words by His Spirit, "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them," (Ephesians 5:11) and by condemning those who obey "neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure" (1 Timothy 5:22) then guess who is acting ignorant?
Healing people, or even ministering to them as a guest at meals is simply not that of being complicit (a legally recognized condition) in providing for something when the express purpose of it was to enable or celebrate sin (versus something that might be misused for that). And for a true Christian then the service they went into business for is for the glory of the Lord, to show His love and Truth, which includes showing kindness and grace homosexuals but not helping them to specifically engage in immorality. I have brought such food but not their wedding cake.
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.