Posted on 07/01/2017 10:21:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I think this is less a matter of Behar imputing her own morality to Jesus than channeling the broad secular sense of him as a supremely chill dude whose chief virtue is that he Does Not Judge. That’s a weird read on a religious figure who speaks many times of hell in the gospels but that’s our culture, for better or worse.
She may not even be the most confused person here. Two other panelists press Jack Phillips, the baker, on the idea that he’s being judgey with gay couples, with one imagining that Christ might disapprove of their wedding but would tell them “I’m going to love you anyways.” Well … yes, that’s how Christianity works. But the issue, of course, isn’t whether Phillips is “judging” his customers or whether he loves his gay neighbors, it’s whether he should be conscripted by the state into participating in an event which his faith doesn’t condone. The guy’s not claiming that gay couples are less moral than any other variety of sinners, only that the act of marriage between them is a sin which he doesn’t want to be made complicit in. Jedediah Bila asks him at one point if he’d refuse to make cakes for other sinners, like adulterers. She doesn’t get a square answer, but I’m guessing if you asked Phillips to make you a torte for a weekend tryst with your mistress (inscription: “Here’s to Cheating!”), yeah, he’d probably turn you down.
Note, by the way, how often he and especially his lawyer try to steer the conversation away from religion and towards the idea of cake-making as art. At one point the lawyer even describes the wedding cake as a “canvas.” That’s a smart argument legally, as you’re on much firmer ground before the Supreme Court arguing free speech than you are arguing free exercise. If Phillips can convince Anthony Kennedy that Colorado’s antidiscrimination law is essentially compelling him to utter a statement he disagrees with, he’s got a real chance.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Hey Joy -
Wow, you’re really brave and cutting edge with that daring comment about Jesus Christ. I’m sure you must be concerned about the danger of “radical Christians” striking out at you.
Since you’re so courageous and insightful and all why don’t you tell us what you think Mohammed would have done in this situation.
I dare you.
I assume Joy will be having some Nazis over to her place for Dinner really soon.
Joy seems not to understand the difference between choice and compulsion.
Yeah. Because if I ever want to know what Jesus is thinking the first place I’ll go to is Joy Behar. You betcha.
Any other time that Behar mentions “Jesus” it’s most likely in vain.
No, he would have taught them how to make their own wedding cake.
Just like Jesus told the woman at the well that there is nothing wrong with being a tramp?
Joy Behar has no idea who Jesus is.... she thinks he stands outside of Home Depot looking for work.
No, He would have shown them what Torah says about homosexual behavior, and then said to them, “Go and sin no more.”
What about Muhammad?
The way I see it, this is the same as demanding that a Christian wedding photographer do a porno video of the couple’s first night. The first question the Christian would ask is, “What would Jesus do?”
Joy is a woman and a liberal.
Both mean she is never wrong and she never has to examine her inherent hypocrisy. If someone points it out she accuses them of harassment.
We don’t have slavery in this country; no one shall be forced to create any work of art or creation without their consent. No court shall overrule the natural inherent right of man.
Ahh.. Jesus. The person that they don’t believe that they always bring up when none of their other lies work.
What if he baked a cake for them with Leviticus 18 or Romans 1 or 1 corinthians or 1 timothy or jude 1:7 in icing on top of the cake?
As I related in a prior post today, a key problem for me is that marriage is a religious concept that should stand apart from the spinning moral compass of secular society. Tens of millions of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers find their Constitutionally defined human rights and equal protection under the law vanishing with the advancement of homosexual marriage.
For many followers of desert religions homosexual behavior cannot be validated within their religious faiths. Instead the behaviors reside among the myriad sins entrapping humanity living in a fallen world.
For them foundational scholarship concludes homosexual relationships separate believers from God. The Old Testament, holy to “People of the Book”, speaks of the character, identity, and purpose of God in a manner, which continuously addresses homosexuality. God is identified as masculine, and all humans become feminine in relation to Him. In addition to creating all things, God created the single institution of heterosexual marriage as the earthy manifestation of the absolute unity and love He seeks with each person. In the new Testament the church is called “the bride of Christ”.
Classical Semitic theology emphasizes searching for and identifying with God in the spiritual dimension. Marriage resides among the worthy actions humans can take in the material dimension to reinforce the faith commitment to this intimate spiritual relationship.
For Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers any subsequent reasoning from scriptures must derive from that basic understanding. Therefore, extending marriage to homosexuals represents injecting a crippling abscess into their faith. Immediately these people reside outside boundaries guaranteeing freedom, and become guilty of at least cultural prejudice, if not criminality.
There is plenty of room within the Constitution to accommodate civil unions, without having to attack believers. However, the 2015 ruling on gay marriage marginalizes Jewish, Muslim, and Christian participation in society.
The First Amendment says and used to mean, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”
We are familiar with the term “speech or expression’, which seems an innocuous expansion of the above amendment. However, “expression” enables a nearly unbounded multi-billion-dollar pornography industry.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion stated, “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to advocate and teach the principles that are so fulfilling and central to their lives and faith”. Such language severely restricts religious freedom by excluding “free exercise thereof”.
The country has so departed from first principles that a woman can express herself in the adult film industry, but cannot operate a bakery and exercise her religious convictions by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Unlike selling a car to or preparing double decaf lattes for a gay couple, baking and decorating a wedding cake is a very personal, distinct activity.
The Formal End to Judeo-Christian America
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2015/06/30/the-formal-end-to-judeochristian-america-n2018986/page/full
Wayne Cordeiro
https://www.facebook.com/pastorwaynecordeiro/posts/10153325310351210
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
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.