SolaSaint
Well-Known Member
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-religious-freedom-christians-column/5588643/
Is Stanley correctly exegeting the word of God?
Is Stanley correctly exegeting the word of God?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-religious-freedom-christians-column/5588643/
Is Stanley correctly exegeting the word of God?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-religious-freedom-christians-column/5588643/
Is Stanley correctly exegeting the word of God?
I'm with Stanley on this one. If someone doesn't want to serve cake at a gay marriage, simply decline to take on the job, no reason need be given.
InTheLight said:Should the bill get passed, because of the way it was worded, business owners could post signs (or may be compelled?) on their doors, "We don't serve gays in this facility" similar to the "no guns allowed on these premises" signs you now see in some states that have conceal carry laws.
..............................
See this is number 1 wrong and number 2 where the problem lie. They tried that here in NM and the homosexuals sued and the photographer was given a judgment by the humans rights commission to do it.
It is just not as simple as refuse service.
I tend to agree with Stanley
One more time: This law was not about marriages. It was about discrimination. Gay marriage in Kansas is not recognized. This law would have done absolutely nothing that Kansas law doesn't already allow merchants and service companies to do with a simple sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." We didn't need this law in Kansas. ITL is right. Simply refuse the job, don't give a reason. End of story. There is no reason to codify blatant discrimination in the state statutes.Absolutely there are instances in which we need to discriminate. We will not marry them or accept their marriage as legitimate.
We will not participate in their marriages.
And if we put laws on the books allowing for the choice of conscience, given their political agenda, it is entirely appropriate.
One more time: This law was not about marriages. It was about discrimination...
There is no such thing as "good" discrimination.I agree its about discrimination - good discrimination