Kurieuo wrote:Question D220. If a "legalistic" Christian went into a cake shop, and ordered a cake with the message "Say NO to Gay Marriage". The baker just attended her daughter's ceremony where she vowed her love for another woman, and so the baker is really passionate about having laws passed that allow for and recognise "gay marriage". Should the baker make the cake for this Christian fellow?
If it was me, yes I would make it, but I would let them know that I don't support their idea and offer them a different perspective.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Kurieuo wrote:There is only one Gospel of Grace and Mercy and such applies to sinners who have no hope and deserve righteous condemnation, yet God finds a way via Grace for us to inherit righteousness via Christ so that God's Loving Mercy can abound rather than God's Righteous Condemnation.
Grace and mercy can only ever be found in that context, one of our being saved. However, loving one's neighbour as oneself wherein your argument could be better made, I don't see the gay person not being loved, and loves should ideally go both ways with both sides understanding each other rather than trying to force the other to agree.
The sword cuts both ways. Say there was a referendum on gay marriage. I needed a cake to support saying "no" to the bill. If I went into the cake store and the person behind the counter refused to make a cake with such a message, then I'd accept such in their strong belief, walk away a buy a cake somewhere else or ice my own message on top.
I'd not want to force the other person into doing something that's cause them pain going against their strongly held beliefs. They should be equally free to act according to their beliefs. That is love, not legalism.
Yet you are forcing the cake to be made without the writing and causing pain to the gay people, the sword surely does cut both ways.
And when I don't always get MacDonald's for my kids (like last Sunday), they get caused pain too and cry and get angry and upset. But, such doesn't mean I don't love them or am being legalistic.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Daniel220 wrote:
I think it fits the definition of legalism quite well, they are so concerned with following the letter of the law they have forgotten about the Gospel message of grace, mercy and the spirit of the law. If you are going to live by the law then you must be consistent with the application of it or else you will be a hypocrite, so that would mean no cakes for divorced people who are remarrying, no cakes for overweight and obese people, no other religious cakes or holidays etc.. etc.. But no, we just discriminate against gays in western Christian culture.
At first I didn't understand how someone who refused to make a gay wedding cake, fit legalism. But then I remembered Leviticus 20;28, which says, "Thou shalt not baketh a cake for homosexual offenders.
Good point Daniel.
Exactly there is no law against it, so then there should be no moral issue for the conscience to say don't bake it with that message!!
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Dan: what is the difference between a wedding cake with two names on it and a wedding cake with none, they are both being used for the same purpose! I think we can ignore this "It's only the writing on it" as that is not the issue.
The difference is, one need not police people. If they want to buy a cake, fine. And what they do with it - sinful or not - is between them and God. But if I oblige and decorate a cake which obviously is celebrating a gay union, then that is putting my APPARENT approval of that union, or at least contributing to it. Everyone should have the right to buy a cake, but they shouldn't have the right to force me to buy into or be supportive of beliefs I find immoral.
Let's say I'm a black baker, and a couple that are members of a white supremacy organization comes to my shop and wants me to put racist slogans on the cake, cover it in Confederate flags, and show a little plastic bride and groom all dressed in white - white SHEETS, that is, with "KKK" written on the front of each. As a baker, whose shop is open to the public, should that black baker have to do such a thing, so as to remain open, to not be fined, for standing up to something he finds exceptionally evil, or hate speech he finds immoral. What's the difference with the Christian baker who finds gay "marriage" an abomination? ZIP! In both cases, a cake should be sold, but without the writings each finds deplorable! We should not be held accountable for the sins of what others might do with a morally neutral thing, that could be sinfully used.
So would you say it is perfectly acceptable for me to refuse to bake a cake for people of a mixed race marriage, if I believed that the message on it was supportive of it and it goes against my beliefs? (I don't support this belief!!).
Acceptable? No. Should it be legal? Yes.
And then let them reap the repercussions of being racist. Same thing with refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. It should be legal, and if enough people disagree with their decision, then they lose business.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Kurieuo wrote:There is only one Gospel of Grace and Mercy and such applies to sinners who have no hope and deserve righteous condemnation, yet God finds a way via Grace for us to inherit righteousness via Christ so that God's Loving Mercy can abound rather than God's Righteous Condemnation.
Grace and mercy can only ever be found in that context, one of our being saved. However, loving one's neighbour as oneself wherein your argument could be better made, I don't see the gay person not being loved, and loves should ideally go both ways with both sides understanding each other rather than trying to force the other to agree.
The sword cuts both ways. Say there was a referendum on gay marriage. I needed a cake to support saying "no" to the bill. If I went into the cake store and the person behind the counter refused to make a cake with such a message, then I'd accept such in their strong belief, walk away a buy a cake somewhere else or ice my own message on top.
I'd not want to force the other person into doing something that's cause them pain going against their strongly held beliefs. They should be equally free to act according to their beliefs. That is love, not legalism.
Yet you are forcing the cake to be made without the writing and causing pain to the gay people, the sword surely does cut both ways.
And when I don't always get MacDonald's for my kids (like last Sunday), they get caused pain too and cry and get angry and upset. But, such doesn't mean I don't love them or am being legalistic.
Not comparable, these are adults capable of making decisions for themselves, whether you agree with them or not, love is to accept their decision and help them the best you can while not agreeing with them.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Dan: what is the difference between a wedding cake with two names on it and a wedding cake with none, they are both being used for the same purpose! I think we can ignore this "It's only the writing on it" as that is not the issue.
The difference is, one need not police people. If they want to buy a cake, fine. And what they do with it - sinful or not - is between them and God. But if I oblige and decorate a cake which obviously is celebrating a gay union, then that is putting my APPARENT approval of that union, or at least contributing to it. Everyone should have the right to buy a cake, but they shouldn't have the right to force me to buy into or be supportive of beliefs I find immoral.
Let's say I'm a black baker, and a couple that are members of a white supremacy organization comes to my shop and wants me to put racist slogans on the cake, cover it in Confederate flags, and show a little plastic bride and groom all dressed in white - white SHEETS, that is, with "KKK" written on the front of each. As a baker, whose shop is open to the public, should that black baker have to do such a thing, so as to remain open, to not be fined, for standing up to something he finds exceptionally evil, or hate speech he finds immoral. What's the difference with the Christian baker who finds gay "marriage" an abomination? ZIP! In both cases, a cake should be sold, but without the writings each finds deplorable! We should not be held accountable for the sins of what others might do with a morally neutral thing, that could be sinfully used.
So would you say it is perfectly acceptable for me to refuse to bake a cake for people of a mixed race marriage, if I believed that the message on it was supportive of it and it goes against my beliefs? (I don't support this belief!!).
Acceptable? No. Should it be legal? Yes.
And then let them reap the repercussions of being racist. Same thing with refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. It should be legal, and if enough people disagree with their decision, then they lose business.
I disagree, it is discrimination, which is illegal.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Daniel220 wrote:
I think it fits the definition of legalism quite well, they are so concerned with following the letter of the law they have forgotten about the Gospel message of grace, mercy and the spirit of the law. If you are going to live by the law then you must be consistent with the application of it or else you will be a hypocrite, so that would mean no cakes for divorced people who are remarrying, no cakes for overweight and obese people, no other religious cakes or holidays etc.. etc.. But no, we just discriminate against gays in western Christian culture.
At first I didn't understand how someone who refused to make a gay wedding cake, fit legalism. But then I remembered Leviticus 20;28, which says, "Thou shalt not baketh a cake for homosexual offenders.
Good point Daniel.
Exactly there is no law against it, so then there should be no moral issue for the conscience to say don't bake it with that message!!
Another great point Daniel! A couple more great points like this, and you may just have me switching my orientation on this issue.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Dan: what is the difference between a wedding cake with two names on it and a wedding cake with none, they are both being used for the same purpose! I think we can ignore this "It's only the writing on it" as that is not the issue.
The difference is, one need not police people. If they want to buy a cake, fine. And what they do with it - sinful or not - is between them and God. But if I oblige and decorate a cake which obviously is celebrating a gay union, then that is putting my APPARENT approval of that union, or at least contributing to it. Everyone should have the right to buy a cake, but they shouldn't have the right to force me to buy into or be supportive of beliefs I find immoral.
Let's say I'm a black baker, and a couple that are members of a white supremacy organization comes to my shop and wants me to put racist slogans on the cake, cover it in Confederate flags, and show a little plastic bride and groom all dressed in white - white SHEETS, that is, with "KKK" written on the front of each. As a baker, whose shop is open to the public, should that black baker have to do such a thing, so as to remain open, to not be fined, for standing up to something he finds exceptionally evil, or hate speech he finds immoral. What's the difference with the Christian baker who finds gay "marriage" an abomination? ZIP! In both cases, a cake should be sold, but without the writings each finds deplorable! We should not be held accountable for the sins of what others might do with a morally neutral thing, that could be sinfully used.
So would you say it is perfectly acceptable for me to refuse to bake a cake for people of a mixed race marriage, if I believed that the message on it was supportive of it and it goes against my beliefs? (I don't support this belief!!).
Acceptable? No. Should it be legal? Yes.
And then let them reap the repercussions of being racist. Same thing with refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. It should be legal, and if enough people disagree with their decision, then they lose business.
I disagree, it is discrimination, which is illegal.
Oh really? Show me which US anti-discrimination law is being violated.
Gotcha!
Check and mate!
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Daniel220 wrote:
I think it fits the definition of legalism quite well, they are so concerned with following the letter of the law they have forgotten about the Gospel message of grace, mercy and the spirit of the law. If you are going to live by the law then you must be consistent with the application of it or else you will be a hypocrite, so that would mean no cakes for divorced people who are remarrying, no cakes for overweight and obese people, no other religious cakes or holidays etc.. etc.. But no, we just discriminate against gays in western Christian culture.
At first I didn't understand how someone who refused to make a gay wedding cake, fit legalism. But then I remembered Leviticus 20;28, which says, "Thou shalt not baketh a cake for homosexual offenders.
Good point Daniel.
Exactly there is no law against it, so then there should be no moral issue for the conscience to say don't bake it with that message!!
Another great point Daniel! A couple more great points like this, and you may just have me switching my orientation on this issue.
It wasn't my point, it was actually yours, I just extrapolated from it.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Philip wrote:
The difference is, one need not police people. If they want to buy a cake, fine. And what they do with it - sinful or not - is between them and God. But if I oblige and decorate a cake which obviously is celebrating a gay union, then that is putting my APPARENT approval of that union, or at least contributing to it. Everyone should have the right to buy a cake, but they shouldn't have the right to force me to buy into or be supportive of beliefs I find immoral.
Let's say I'm a black baker, and a couple that are members of a white supremacy organization comes to my shop and wants me to put racist slogans on the cake, cover it in Confederate flags, and show a little plastic bride and groom all dressed in white - white SHEETS, that is, with "KKK" written on the front of each. As a baker, whose shop is open to the public, should that black baker have to do such a thing, so as to remain open, to not be fined, for standing up to something he finds exceptionally evil, or hate speech he finds immoral. What's the difference with the Christian baker who finds gay "marriage" an abomination? ZIP! In both cases, a cake should be sold, but without the writings each finds deplorable! We should not be held accountable for the sins of what others might do with a morally neutral thing, that could be sinfully used.
So would you say it is perfectly acceptable for me to refuse to bake a cake for people of a mixed race marriage, if I believed that the message on it was supportive of it and it goes against my beliefs? (I don't support this belief!!).
Acceptable? No. Should it be legal? Yes.
And then let them reap the repercussions of being racist. Same thing with refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. It should be legal, and if enough people disagree with their decision, then they lose business.
I disagree, it is discrimination, which is illegal.
Oh really? Show me which US anti-discrimination law is being violated.
Gotcha!
Check and mate!
I don't live in the US! The world doesn't revolve around Americans, you are not the centre of all happenings in the world.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
Not comparable, these are adults capable of making decisions for themselves, whether you agree with them or not, love is to accept their decision and help them the best you can while not agreeing with them.
So, lemme get this straight...
According to Daniel, loving someone means we should just accept someone's decision to do whatever they want to do, no matter how sinful or harmful it may be?
Yes Johnny, I know you're an alcoholic, and you drink and drive while drunk. I don't agree with you, but I accept your decision to drive drunk, because I love you.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Danieltwotwenty wrote:
So would you say it is perfectly acceptable for me to refuse to bake a cake for people of a mixed race marriage, if I believed that the message on it was supportive of it and it goes against my beliefs? (I don't support this belief!!).
Acceptable? No. Should it be legal? Yes.
And then let them reap the repercussions of being racist. Same thing with refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. It should be legal, and if enough people disagree with their decision, then they lose business.
I disagree, it is discrimination, which is illegal.
Oh really? Show me which US anti-discrimination law is being violated.
Gotcha!
Check and mate!
I don't live in the US! The world doesn't revolve around Americans, you are not the centre of all happenings in the world.
Sorry Daniel,
That's a cop out. The issue happened in the US. We are talking about US laws. Don't avoid the issue. What discrimination laws were violated?
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Kurieuo wrote:Question D220. If a "legalistic" Christian went into a cake shop, and ordered a cake with the message "Say NO to Gay Marriage". The baker just attended her daughter's ceremony where she vowed her love for another woman, and so the baker is really passionate about having laws passed that allow for and recognise "gay marriage". Should the baker make the cake for this Christian fellow?
If it was me, yes I would make it, but I would let them know that I don't support their idea and offer them a different perspective.
So I'm clear though, you would reject making a cake that supported ISIS killing gay people?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Not comparable, these are adults capable of making decisions for themselves, whether you agree with them or not, love is to accept their decision and help them the best you can while not agreeing with them.
So, lemme get this straight...
According to Daniel, loving someone means we should just accept someone's decision to do whatever they want to do, no matter how sinful or harmful it may be?
Yes Johnny, I know you're an alcoholic, and you drink and drive while drunk. I don't agree with you, but I accept your decision to drive drunk, because I love you.
Not a comparable situation, my comments were only in context to what we were discussing. Are you done taking cheap shots yet?
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
RickD wrote:
Acceptable? No. Should it be legal? Yes.
And then let them reap the repercussions of being racist. Same thing with refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. It should be legal, and if enough people disagree with their decision, then they lose business.
I disagree, it is discrimination, which is illegal.
Oh really? Show me which US anti-discrimination law is being violated.
Gotcha!
Check and mate!
I don't live in the US! The world doesn't revolve around Americans, you are not the centre of all happenings in the world.
Sorry Daniel,
That's a cop out. The issue happened in the US. We are talking about US laws. Don't avoid the issue. What discrimination laws were violated?
Actually this is not isolated to the US, similar situations have happened around the world. You are the master of the low blow.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
