Posted on 06/08/2019 12:32:27 PM PDT by simpson96
An engaged couple in Missouri say they’re shocked and saddened after a restaurant in St. Charles County refused to host their rehearsal dinner upon learning they were in a same-sex relationship.
Kendall Brown told KMOV she had reached out to Madison’s Café in O’Fallon about booking dinner ahead of her wedding to Mindy Rackley on June 15, but claims she was told the restaurant couldn’t “condone” the brides-to-be’s nuptials.
“It just saddens me. I could not believe that really happened to us,” Rackley told KMOV. “I could not believe that still really happens in this world today.”
According to Brown, a woman on the other end of the line was willing to make dinner reservations for the group, but changed her mind upon asking for the “groom’s name” and learning there wouldn’t be one.
“She said, 'Your spouse is a woman?’” Brown said. “I said yes. And she said, ‘I’m sorry we are going to defer you to someone else because we don’t condone that kind of relationship.”
Brown said the woman also told her she was in an “unhealthy relationship.” Rackley added that she was appalled by the woman's comments, which made her feel “less than human."(snip)
Missouri’s Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sex and race, but not specifically sexual orientation, Yahoo notes. But Fox 2 contacted the city of O’Fallon for clarification, and officials said a municipal code may have been violated.(snip)
Brown added that she has no ill-will toward the restaurant, despite the disappointing turn of events.
“They’re human too.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Things seem to be moving rapidly.
Just as Jesus prophesied. Birth pains and and all that...
Matthew 24:7-9 English Standard Version
7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.
9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.
Would not fault any establishment refusing service to people who have consistently abused the rules of common courtesy and civiliy so amply demonstrated in their public parades.
Even I, as an agnostic, feel I must point out that we are closer to the end times than we have ever been.
Historically speaking it’s ALWAYS later
then it’s ever been. Doesn’t mean we’re
in end times.
And your point?
I think my second sentence sums it up.
I would not refuse to to mow their lawn either due to them being sodomites, but you, as well as others who respond likewise, fail to make the critical distinction between simple providing a amoral service, such as mowing a lawn, and being complicit in committing a crime and or a sin. "...neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure," (1 Timothy 5:22) rather than being politically correct.
In this as well as the Masterpiece bakery and Stutzman's florist shop (among others), the requested service was for the expressed purpose of celebrating that which is unlawful according to the God of Scripture (and in Masterpiece, even the highest state law at the time). To provide the service would mean the businesses would be complicit in the celebration of it.
Criminal law in Canada holds that everyone is a party to an offense who does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it or abets any person in committing it.
Under Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus one is an Accomplice who aids or abets another in a criminal act or enterprise, and facilitation means making it easier for another to commit an act, especially a crime.
While legally "in order to obtain a conviction of a defendant for being a principal or an accessory before the fact, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an act that either encouraged or actually helped the criminal, that he had the requisite intent of encouraging or helping the criminal, and that the criminal who was encouraged or assisted by the defendant actually committed the crime," (https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/accomplice-mens-rea-and-actus-reus)
yet for a person of conscience complicity can mean just knowingly helping the criminal commit an act that is purely for an sinful purpose.
And liberals are liberal in their idea of article in the NYT which focuses in the omission aspect of complicity, states,
The range of behaviors “complicit” encompasses is vast. Senator Chuck Schumer recently denounced Trump’s behavior on the world stage as “puerile” and accused Republicans who fail to speak out against him of “complicity in the degradation of the presidency,..”
Seriously? According to AOC we’ve only got 11.53 years! Just how close is close enough in your book???
I will be happy to send you a study Bible. OK?
Bingo. Mostly we'll tolerate, don't force us to celebrate.
LOL
TY for the Info. I have no reason to question you. It seems many forget that Jamestown was founded by protestants who wanted to escape the Church of England. Almost all early settlements in this nation were based on personal freedom and religious freedom.
And just what kind of response is that? Do you really think you have a Biblical case for either homosexual unions being sanctioned, or for expressly assisting in the celebration of such evil? Just what is your answer?
You need guidance kid.
Rather, it is you who is desperately in need of an argument, rather than refusing to answer questions and resorting to spitwads. Why hide what you believe? Again, do you really think you have a Biblical case for either homosexual unions being sanctioned, or for expressly assisting in the celebration of such evil? Just what is your answer?
I do not mow their lawns.
The Bible says to stay away from them.
Which means that you are ignoring that liberty of personal freedom was not absolute, and as shown, the limits include being complicit in knowingly assisting the committing of an unlawful act (for that express purpose).
Likewise religious freedom has its limits. US law forbids child sacrifice (outside the womb) or certain forms of what it calls child abuse, and to knowingly assist in clearly committing such would make you guilty of complicity. (Of course, liberalism promotes sanctioned forms of child abuse, and many are guilty of complicity in it).
For the Christian like Jake Phillips, personal and religious freedom offering any off the shelve items for sale to anyone. But it also means not consenting to create a special work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an unlawful (in the eyes of God as well as the state constitution at the time) marriage (and what they means). And if he had, then he would indeed be complicit in the committing of that crime.
Likewise a gun maker should be able to deny - based upon simply not wanting to be complicit - his product to one who expressly intends to use it just for crime. The legal problem is what SCOTUS has effectively done is forbid refusal of products to people based upon the expressed intended moral purpose of the request - if those people are homosexuals intending to commit an immoral act.
If can be argued that what homosexuals do does not negatively effect anyone, even though based on financial hudren alone, MSM are responsible for 82% of new HIV cases among men aged 13 and older (after decades of trying to tame the beast), at a cost of hundreds of thousand of dollars each for average lifetime treatment, or thousands a year for post-exposure prophylaxis (and the increase in STDs that result), which is much funded by taxpayers.
But homosexual relations are also otherwise deleterious t individual and society, being only forbidden by God.
I do not mow their lawns. The Bible says to stay away from them.
Which response once again examples your ignorance of the Biblical distinction explained to you, that of a basic amoral service and that of expressly knowingly assisting in the committing of an unlawful act or celebrating it. Likewise the difference btwn living among homosexuals and entering into a union with them to do evil
You can mow lawns without expressly assisting in the committing or celebration of an unlawful act. But if you choose to knowingly assist someone who was going to use a lawnmower for the express purpose of committing an immoral act with that, then you would be complicit in it, and should refuse.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
You may vainly argue that homosexual unions are not unlawful, but we are dealing with those who hold to a higher law. You should help
Yes the Bible says to stay away from those who are into abominations. If I got the wrong person who stated that he mowed fags lawns-I apologize. This has been quite a thread of diverse opinions except those who know the Bible.
Daniel: Your WORDS:
You can mow lawns without expressly assisting in the committing or celebration of an unlawful act. But if you choose to knowingly assist someone who was going to use a lawnmower for the express purpose of committing an immoral act with that, then you would be complicit in it, and should refuse.
If you accept their money-you are for hire to immoral types. BYE KID.
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.