Posted on 03/04/2014 9:08:24 AM PST by Morgana
March 3, 2014 (Breakpoint.org) - The call for tolerating same-sex marriage has become a demand for compliance. Cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado and Elane Huguenin’s New Mexico photography business have shown us that “tolerance” ends exactly where the right to say “no” begins. And so people, businesses, and non-profits are forced to choose between their livelihoods and their convictions.
Some fellow Christians are giving this new state of affairs a thumbs-up, including Kirsten Powers, whose fearless stand against abortion I admire, and Skye Jethani, a friend I respect greatly.
They argue that Christians who won’t participate in gay “weddings” are “applying Scripture selectively.” If you object to baking a cake, shooting photographs or playing music for a ceremony for two men or two women, they say, you should also object to serving anyone with an unbiblical lifestyle. But since no business owner can do a background check on every client’s personal life, Powers and Jethani conclude that any religious objections to doing business are illegitimate.
Plus, they say, baking a cake or providing floral arrangements doesn’t mean that a Christian is participating in or affirming gay “marriage.” They’re only conducting business.
Now before I reply, it’s important to understand how confused this whole conversation has become, especially with all the noise surrounding the anti-discrimination bills in Kansas and Arizona.
Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.
The Kansas bill was very problematic, and unfortunately created enough negative sentiment to defeat the Arizona bill, which did not give anyone the right to refuse to serve gays, members of other faiths or political parties, or even Yankees fans for that matter.
And neither the baker in Denver, nor the photographer in New Mexico, nor the florist in Washington refused to serve customers because they were gay. They refused participation in a same-sex wedding.
Every good baker and photographer I know who take their work seriously see themselves as participating in the ceremonies they service, especially weddings. Their cakes adorn the celebration and their pictures document the story. And that’s why they object to being forced to participate in same-sex weddings. It’s not something they can do in good conscience.
A baker friend of mine told me he turns down cake business all the time because of convictions that have nothing to do with same-sex weddings, like if they’re sexually explicit or crude. He wouldn’t bake a wedding cake if he knew the couple to be abusive. His faith has shaped his business for over 15 years, so why should he be forced to disconnect his faith from his business now?
Again, if he refused to serve a gay person a cupcake, he’s sinning. However, that’s not the same as baking a rainbow cake to celebrate gay marriage. It just isn’t.
Powers and Jethani are right that Jesus would serve, wash the feet of, and have dinner with a gay person. But that’s different than saying that Jesus, the carpenter, would carve an altar for a same-sex wedding with a rainbow on it in place of a cross. He spent time with tax collectors, but He didn’t help them steal more.
Theologian Russell Moore makes a strong case for avoiding any involvement with same-sex “weddings.” But I’m with Eric Teetsel, there’s much more to consider about what constitutes involvement and what doesn’t. And there’s also another question.
Even if we assume that Jesus would participate in a gay “wedding,” does that mean we should force everyone to do it? Stamping out the freedom of those whose consciences differ is still unthinkable. I’d never want a judge to order a bakery owned by someone who identifies as gay or lesbian to be forced to bake a “God hates gays” cake for Westboro Baptist Church. I would defend that baker’s right to say no every single time.
We can’t shrug off conscientious objections as if religious liberty doesn’t matter. As Os Guinness argues in his book “The Global Public Square,” religious freedom is essential, not only for Christians or for religious people, but in this deeply polarized society, it’s essential for maintaining peace, prosperity, maybe even civilization itself.
Why people don't want to trade; be it buying Obamacare, selling wedding cake, or paying for taxed imported Tea is irrelevant. After all, I thought we weren't supposed to judge others... Who are we to make the moral choices of why people should or shouldn't enter into trade?
...and a rod of iron:
Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
The basic question isn’t about cake, it’s about two sinners talking to God. Like, if they knew who they were talking to you they would have asked for living water.
That is exactly right.
“Your sins are forgiven. GO AND SIN NO MORE”
What he would NOT do is condone, support or promote homosexual weddings.
Heck he wasn’t real fond of divorced people remarrying.[Matt19:9]
Imagine the Carpentry Shoppe in Nazareth.
Two homosexuals approach the very pious Jewish Carpenter within and demand that He construct a ‘Chuppah” (Canopy) for a homosexual wedding.
Knowing Jewish Law, and bearing profound respect for the ritual objects involved, the Carpenter politely refuses and gives the homosexuals the address of a pagan carpenter who can accommodate them.
The homosexuals immediately accuse the Pious Jewish Carpenter of discrimination and make a direct appeal to the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate to Force the Pious Jewish Carpenter to fill their order or face the loss of his business and possible Jail Time.
What do you think He will do?
Ok, so lets take Christians out of the equation altogether. What about Muslims who won't participate in gay "weddings" they certainly aren't "applying Scripture selectively", in fact they could behead the gay customer just for revealing they are gay and still be well within the bounds of Islam.
He might have made the mold.
Carpenters are pretty good at radius’...
/S
/S
Now that I think of it, yeast was a bit in short supply back then as
Maybe a cake with hamotzi, on some flat bread, with olives to make a design ...like a smiley face...
(ducking!!!!.....)
Well it’s like this..Israel was under Roman law. Homosexuality happened in Rome at the time but “homosexual marriage” never happened. It would have been unheard of. Men got married for the sake of having children even if they were flaming queers. They knew they had to carry on the blood line of the family and if they had a few “women” or “men” on the side they were men they could do what they wanted as Roman citizens. So I figure Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate might have thought them mad (in the insane sense) or other wise wasting his time. They would have been sent to the jail and done away with.
Good analysis of the situation.
It would seem that Pontius Pilate had more common sense than some of our American Judges.
Huh?
I’m a little slow today.
Didn’t understand your summation. Got where you were going...maybe...but:
“Carry my stuff for a mile. That’s good. Now carry it another “
Say what????
Zactly ....
Contextually of course ...
I pull that out of deck of trick cards when dumb people pretend they understand Jesus call to “...turn the other cheek”.
Eeee...ya. Let’s flip everything over and destroy an edifice
I then say “So, Umm...about your call for peace. Splain Dat Lucy”
Course I don’t really care about their answer and rhwre usually isn’t one. Well, they do seem to change the subject...suddenly”.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
It seems to me that regardless of what you or I think, each individual baker, photographer, etc. should be free to make their own decision with regard to serving customers of their respective business. I view such decisions of "conscience" as "religion" and the free exercise thereof. If it's a bad business decision and one that the "community" in which the business resides disagrees with, the business owner will suffer in the marketplace. However, if we permit the strong arm of the government (Courts) to require such business owner to violate their conscience, we've lost. The perils are great and the terrible "slippery slope" is upon us:
There is an obvious grand strategy by the Gaystapo to LEGALLY REQUIRE all churches to perform "gay" marriages. So many articles have been written about the Arizona law which the Guv unfortunately vetoed. This law only intended to provide business owners protection from lawsuits brought due to the fact that they asserted their religious beliefs in their business. Even liberal icon Ted Kennedy strongly supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the model for the Arizona law which has been so controversial.
The religious freedom of Christians are under continual assault today and we must fight back or there will be no end to the persecution. Just ask the Romeikes. If not, we're next.
The term "Gay Pride" is prevalent nowadays.
Jesus would not have acceded to the demand to bake them a cake. He would have suffered the consequences. I find no proof that he went along with any sinner in the Bible. He would have gone to jail if need be, but they would have been afraid to prosecute because it would have brought a furor down upon them, the same as it would have in this case. This is wrong and the people pushing it know it is wrong. They are pushing it for political gain.
Suppose I hosted a festive celebration in honor of my lying, lust, or thievery. I wonder if Jesus would bake a cake for that?
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.