No he would not have! Jesus was a CARPENTER not a BAKER! Carpenters don't bake cakes.
Completely misses the point. If you aren’t free to choose what work you do you are not free.
Jesus would do better. He would forgive their sins and tell them to sin no more.
The article is drivel; playing with fake terms as if they are real.
I believe the question is “would Jesus change water into wine for a gay wedding”. /s
And Jesus wouldn’t have built a bed for a Sodomite couple either because the Jews would have stoned them.
RE: No he would not have! Jesus was a CARPENTER not a BAKER! Carpenters don’t bake cakes.
Would Jesus make a podium for a gay marriage?
Not sure what Jesus would do. If it were me, I would bake a cake unfit for presentation though perfectly safe for human consumption of course.
No it isn't.
Matthew 10:14
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.
He did not teach to accept a sinner while they continue in their sin. He taught repentance as well as love.
“Would Jesus bake cakes for gay weddings?”...I doubt Jesus would have a need to bake cakes for gay weddings.
Would he make them a table, then? :)
Irrelevant.
Here’s the pattern of the Master - the repentant got Grace, the unrepentant got The Law (to show they need to repent).
Any homosexuals intending to get married are inherently unrepentant sinners, so, no, they would not get Grace.
Jesus doesn’t bake cakes, he makes wine.
Businesses should be allowed to serve who they want and when they want. Period. The business would suffer or benefit as a result. Same with wages.
I also believe that some businesses are using religious belief as a way to not serve gays out of necessity. Religious belief or not, if I’m concerned that I’ll lose business because I’m making a giant penis cake with two plastic dudes making out on it, I’ll say what I have to say.
The public school system has always been on us to give my daughters all these BS shots. We always site religious beliefs and it works.
I won’t.
Ever.
And gays can shove it up their Obamaholes.
Oh, forgot.......
Because history shows that any inch you give them (no pun intended), the agenda at large will take a mile...or more. They go after the kids. Innocent, unassuming KIDS.
In addition, it's an abomination to God. I will not willingly participate in that any more than I wll participate in performing an abortion.
would mohammed?
as it appears our doj only gives a sh1t about their religious rights, perhaps that is how we should frame it.
the answer would be he’d chop their heads off.
Jesus said he would do his Father's will. God destroyed the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their immoral and perverted behavior. I am sure he would have no problem bringing down the same result on a homosexual wedding party.
The author comes closer to the issue when he cites a hypothetical about the Westboro Church. The issues isn’t religious but ethical or moral: Should an entity (person, company, government) be forced to provide services for an activity it considers morally or ethically wrong?
1. Should a gay baker be required to bake a cake to celebrate a man’s denouncement his homoxexuality with the script: “Back in God’s graces”?
2. Should a signmaker be required to produce signs for the next Westboro demonstration?
3. Should an animal rights activist photographer be required to photograph a deer hunt?
4. Should a store chain be forced to sell guns and ammunition?
5. Should a shop be forced to stay closed on Saturdays to accommodate certain faith sabbaths?
6. Should restaurants be forced to serve only Halal or kosher foods?
7. Should public conveyance companies be forced to use only natural gas vehicles?
8. Should naturists force all beaches to be opened to nude bathing?
Fact is, value judgments are made all the time by all types of entities. Religion is only one aspect. If groups can use the coercive power of government to force an entity to serve them, regardless of how the entity considers the activity, then we are indeed on the slippery slope of tyranny.
The power of the purse should be enough. If an entity refuses to serve me, for whatever reason, I have the right to take my money elsewhere and use my mouth and pen to affect that business. We see this preached all the time when there are complaints about immoral entertainment, that folks offended just need to go (look) elsewhere. But when the offended are of some specially-favored group, suddenly the groups and government believe they have the right to force compliance on everyone. When we get stuck in the notion that the issue is religious, it obscured the general principle of whether anyone ought to be forced to do business they find repugnant, for whatever reason.
Bunt cakes?