Featured Refusing Service II

I agree with this but I also say Christ made a distinction in the four gospels between the saved and lost by the word sinner.

 

He came to save sinners not the righteous.
He came to save the lost.
For doing so he was lumped in with the drunkards and the gluttonous and other sinners.
Where does Christ draw draw such a distinction?

 

Mt. 9:13, 26:45, Mark 14:41 Luke 6:32,13:2, 15:7, 18:13

 

This is one of the verses that I referred to in my previous posts:

Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The "righteous" here are not the "saved."
They are the "self-righteous" hypocrites, the Pharisees.
Christ is saying that he came to save "sinners" those willing to admit their sinfulness, not the self-righteous who can't be saved until they humble themselves and admit that they are sinners.

 

Notice your own contradictions here.

You are totally illogical; have contradicted yourself and have shown your bias and bigotry to others.

Look at the words you use:
1. An idolater is one who worships idols. Is it wrong?
2. A thief is one who steals. Is it wrong?
3. An adulterer is one who commits adultery. Is it wrong?

You use the above labels and readily identify them as such by the wrongful actions that they commit.
Then, you hypocritically say: "There is no such thing as a 'homosexual person.'"
What babble!!
If there is no such thing as a homosexual person, one who commits homosexual acts then there is no such thing as an idolater, one who commits idolatrous acts. Both are defined by the sinful acts that they do. Your bias blinds you to proper definitions and fair objectivity. It comes across as hatred of the person rather than the sin.

Perhaps you are thinking of joining Westboro??
I am not the one that has been conditioned by the world.
You have been conditioned, by what I am not sure.

 

Lay off the accusatory and crude language. It will only cause you trouble.

I use the word "homosexual" because it is an accurate term, as is "lesbian." But sodomy is not so accurate, unless the context is specific. We are not stuck in the 17th century bound to Shakespearan English. Grow up! The English language has many adjectives and synonyms which the writer can use to describe the ideas he needs to get across.

One does not need to use "Aaron-approved vocabulary" on this board.
And that is a good thing because I have had to edit some of its profanity.
Perhaps if you learn more about our language and how to use it you would be better off.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

So shouldn't the same diligence be applied to all sin?

 

Are we called to partake in their sin and dark deeds then? Again, NO PROBLEM servin a gay person in a business, but cannot go and do business to me at their marriage ceremony!

THAT would be partaking in their wicked ways and deeds of darkness!

 

We do, but when is accepting and partaking in sinful things like a gay wedding "judging/" is God there honoring that union between the husband/husband, or has he already made a jusgement call on that?

 

i would love them, but would NOT tolerant trying to base tolerance and acceptance upon IF I would attend a gay wedding, or would not stop talking with them about that sinful and destructive lifestyle!

Point is that the Chritianity in USA has gone too far to seeing this lifestyle as being OK, just get saved, and don't worry about even trying to change!

 

again, we are adressing this belief that many homosexuals have that they need not change, that can be daved and still acting out that, and adressing churches/pastors approvong that behavior as acceptable to God now!

 

Try Section I:

Quite obviously, your belief it provided only blacks with any heretofore unrealized rights is mistaken. Quite obviously, the affirmation of those rights include just about anything any citizen of the U.S. does, and that includes doing business on Main Street.

What? Women aren't "persons"? Read the second word in the amendment. I'm sure the females on this board would be amazed to hear you say that they aren't really "persons." That is precisely the reason so many opposed the ERA. It wasn't necessary. The Fourteenth Amendment already covered them. It covers everyone.

And again, your narrowness of interpretation fails to hold up in examining the actual wording of the amendment.

Again, not so.

Passed only because SCOTUS was unwilling to read the Fourteenth Amendment as covering women. A more reasonable court would have read the word "persons" as covering all, just as courts today have done.

Wrong. You've wasted a great deal of space here being wrong.

You tell me. I go into a bakery at the same time as another man of identical build, apparently of the same economic status, skin color, etc. He motions that I was in the door first, so I order a cake, and mention it is for my wife's and my anniversary, pay for it and will come back in three days to pick up the cake. I leave and the other gentleman orders a cake and mentions it is for he and his "significant other's" anniversary. The baker says, "Oh, how long have you been married?" The customer says, "Oh, about four years. He moved in with me after his divorce." And the baker stops, wads up the order form, throws it away, and says, "I'm sorry, but I can't bake this cake. I don't do business with people of your lifestyle as I'm a Christian and it goes against my beliefs." You don't think the man has a case, given that he has just witnessed me buy a cake for an anniversary? Isn't he going to wonder how he gets singled out? Maybe I'm an adulterer, but I didn't mention my mistress. Maybe I'm an active alcoholic, but I didn't mention going to the liquor store afterwards. Maybe I'm a liar and I don't even have a wife. Tell me, IJ, how does his sin set him apart for refusal of service whereas I was not even quizzed about my sin? It's a double standard, IJ, and it doesn't fly.

You say that's not discrimination? I say it is. Were the baker a pastor and the shop a church, and we both entered and asked the pastor to hold a ceremony for both couples to renew our vows, the pastor would have every right to refuse to do the second couple's "ceremony." The church does not have to be a party to sin. But a bakery is not a church, it is a business, and a business is open to serve the public. Not the heterosexual public, not the white public, not the Catholic public. Just the public. Opening a business implies doing business with that public -- all of that public, and the Fourteenth Amendment backs that concept. The bakery is not participating in the sin by baking a cake, but if the baker feels strongly about not baking the cake, he/she still has the right, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to refuse without giving grounds. That's his/her out. The laws proposed in Arizona and Kansas would have violated the Equal Protection clause, and as such should have been defeated, especially given that they were totally unnecessary, and that the courts would have tossed the law at the first challenge.

The force of law is already on the side of those Christians who feel so adamantly about serving homosexuals that they feel the need to refuse their business. They just can't blatantly say, "You're gay, I can't." If no reason is given, per the Civil Rights Act's "right to refuse service" clause, they can't sue. They have no grounds, even if they suspect the reason is they are gay. Suspicions aren't evidence.

Yes it is. Can't help it you don't see it, or refuse to see it, but that's the fact.

Fallacy of exclusion. You're attempting to paint my comment as meaning that homosexuals have refused service to Christians or heterosexuals. Utter nonsense, and you know it. If you don't know about discrimination against Christians from various facets of life in America, I suggest you acquaint yourself with them.

Straw man logical fallacy. Also, begging the question, reversing the argument, and a non sequitur. Very good! I don't think I've ever seen so many logical fallacies crammed into just two sentences before. Refer to the previous response in this post.

You grossly misunderstand my position, as you should realize from above. The bottom line is, there are already remedies for anyone, not just Christians, to refuse service to anyone they choose. The proposed laws were designed specifically to give Christians a route around the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. It could be argued that the propose laws allowed any religion those same rights for any particular behavior or lifestyle they find abhorrent, but the truth is, the Arizona and Kansas legislators who wrote the laws were doing so from a Christian perspective. You can rant and rave all you want about how Christians need this law, but the truth is they don't, and it's a bad idea. It is not a good witness, it is not Christlike, and it shouldn't be part of any state or federal law. I'm glad it is not.