Christian Pizzeria ATTACKED by gay lobby raises over $18k in 2 HOURS!

[Zaac]

I'll speak slowly.

Two heterosexual fornicators who get married will be fornicators no more. They need to repent of their fornication and their marriage bed will be undefiled.

Let me speak even slower for you. We weren't talking about the marriage bed. We were talking about refusing to bake a cake for them because somebody believed them to be committing the homosexual offense or sleeping together before said "gay wedding".

The heterosexual couple would have been committing the same fornication but there are no objections to baking them a cake before their wedding.

The marriage doesn't erase their need for repentance, but they will no longer be fornicators.

Them no longer being fornicators has nothing to do with what they were when they asked you to bake the cake. They are in the same position before their marriage as would be the gay fornicators who asked for a cake for their "wedding".

So again, Christians need to be consistent.

Two gay fornicators who get married will still be committing sexual sin.

Sure will. But they asked for the cake before they were "married" just as the fornicating heterosexual couple did. So why is it against religious beliefs to refuse to bake a cake for one group engaging in fornication but not the other?

I liken it to what I do with marriages. I'm not gonna perform a marriage ceremony for two fornicating people who don't know Jesus. And I'm likewise not gonna perform a marriage ceremony for two Christians who are fornicating together before marriage.

The marriage doesn't nothing to make their physical union acceptable.

Again. They are asking before their "marriage" just as the fornicating heterosexual couple is.

To be consistent, she shouldn't be baking a cake for either.

 

[Alcott]

Go see a doctor.:wavey:

I didn't know they could bake any good.

 

[Don]

Let me speak even slower for you. We weren't talking about the marriage bed. We were talking about refusing to bake a cake for them because somebody believed them to be committing the homosexual offense or sleeping together before said "gay wedding".

The heterosexual couple would have been committing the same fornication but there are no objections to baking them a cake before their wedding.



Them no longer being fornicators has nothing to do with what they were when they asked you to bake the cake. They are in the same position before their marriage as would be the gay fornicators who asked for a cake for their "wedding".

So again, Christians need to be consistent.



Sure will. But they asked for the cake before they were "married" just as the fornicating heterosexual couple did. So why is it against religious beliefs to refuse to bake a cake for one group engaging in fornication but not the other?

I liken it to what I do with marriages. I'm not gonna perform a marriage ceremony for two fornicating people who don't know Jesus. And I'm likewise not gonna perform a marriage ceremony for two Christians who are fornicating together before marriage.




Again. They are asking before their "marriage" just as the fornicating heterosexual couple is.

To be consistent, she shouldn't be baking a cake for either.

For your argument to be valid, one has to assume that both heterosexual and homosexual "engaged" couples are having pre-marital sex. To have such an assumption assumes the worst about people. Thus, the argument only truly works in regards to the future sleeping arrangements of the couples--which can only be determined by the vendor if the couples announce their intentions.

 

[InTheLight]

I didn't know they could bake any good.

I believe Zaac is alluding to CMG's unhealthy obsession with "Clinton rallies" and the need to seek professional help.

 

[church mouse guy]

There is an epidemic about. The sickest thing that you could force a person to do is to bake something for the Clintons.

What the Democrats want is to use the federal government, as you know, to force everyone to do whatever the Democrats want. The Democrats believe neither in freedom of conscience nor individual competence in religious matters.

The Democrats are about compulsion.

The Democrats can try to compel all of the exterior trappings of the normal onto their depraved agenda but putting Eric Holder, for example, in a wedding gown does not make him even the bride of Frankenstein.

The Democrats should not assume that other people share their sick agenda just because they themselves delight in their own personal bankruptcy. Not everyone wants Satan's money.

 

[Revmitchell]

....“As a member of the gay community, I would like to apologize for the mean spirited attacks on you and your business. I know many gay individuals who fully support your right to stand up for your beliefs and run your business according to those beliefs. We are outraged at the level of hate and intolerance that has been directed at you and I sincerely hope that you are able to rebuild.”

Kris Cruz, a radio host and producer of “The Jeff Adams Show,” was the first person to flag Hoffman’s donation. He then contacted her through Facebook and she agreed to join them on the air Monday.

Cruz started with the “big question” — Why did she do it?

“My girlfriend and I are small business owners, and we think there is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event,” she said. “Like, if we were asked to set up at an anti-gay marriage rally, I mean, we would have to decline.”


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ana-pizzeria-reveals-why-she-took-bold-stand/

 

[Zaac]

For your argument to be valid, one has to assume that both heterosexual and homosexual "engaged" couples are having pre-marital sex.

Yes, that is what I said.

To have such an assumption assumes the worst about people. Thus, the argument only truly works in regards to the future sleeping arrangements of the couples--which can only be determined by the vendor if the couples announce their intentions.

You've assumed the worst about the gay people and assumed they are sleeping together so why not do the same for the unmarried heterosexuals?

 

[Don]

Yes, that is what I said.



You've assumed the worst about the gay people and assumed they are sleeping together so why not do the same for the unmarried heterosexuals?

If you'd read correctly, I said we have to assume that about both couples. That's why we can only focus on the future sleeping arrangements, not the current.

 

[Zaac]

If you'd read correctly, I said we have to assume that about both couples. That's why we can only focus on the future sleeping arrangements, not the current.

I read correctly. Why would you be focusing on both couples FUTURE sleeping arrangements when as with the cake, you've already said:

Let's see: Christ is God in the flesh. God gave us the Bible. The bible says man lying man as he would a woman is abomination.

Guess Christ DID say something about it.

So you've said to not bake a cake because you've assumed that if they are gay, they've been having gay sex.

So why would the terms of the refusal for sleeping arrangements jump to the FUTURE now other than to accommodate what would be a male/female MARRIED couple having sex ?

You assumed in the PRESENT the gay couple was having sex and that was grounds for not providing a service.

Then assume the same thing for the unmarried heterosexual fornicating couple and disallow them the same future service based upon the same religious belief.

It is preposterous to say about the heterosexual couple "I'll give y'all a room in the future because you'll be married then" but say no to the gay couple based upon what you've alluded to them doing NOW.

 

[church mouse guy]

The Democrats won in Indiana. Our state is now subject to whatever a gay tourist might object to. Gov. Pence ran and hid and passed a law giving gays special rights. A school teacher threatened to commit arson on a mom and pop restaurant and now the place is closed forever but the teacher did not lose her job and I don't think that charges have even been filled against her.

The only good news is that the sodomite-preferring Disciples of Christ liberal denomination might well move out of Indiana.

 

[Don]

I read correctly. Why would you be focusing on both couples FUTURE sleeping arrangements when as with the cake, you've already said:



So you've said to not bake a cake because you've assumed that if they are gay, they've been having gay sex.

NOT WHAT I SAID AT ALL.

Their intent to marry (their future status) indicates they will have sexual relations; not necessarily that they are. THAT'S where you have to decide if you're going to support/endorse those future actions.

Please stop twisting my words, and trying to spin this. Be honest.

 

[Zaac]

NOT WHAT I SAID AT ALL.

Their intent to marry (their future status) indicates they will have sexual relations; not necessarily that they are. THAT'S where you have to decide if you're going to support/endorse those future actions.

AGAIN, you stated the Scripture that pertains to homosexual sex acts. The service wasn't provided for religious beliefs. You'd have to assue about their present in order to not want to provide the service because of religious beliefs. Otherwise you'd just give them what they're asking for just as any other customer.

Please stop twisting my words, and trying to spin this. Be honest.

I'm not twisting your words. You're being dishonest. You can't say God spoke to it if you don't know that they've done anything but still be okay discriminating against them because of what you think they've already done.

But then take the fornicating heterosexual couple about to get married and say we're gonna give you XYZ because you're getting ready to stop fornicating.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Considering the riseing verbal tempurature in ths thread, I am closing it.