Refusing Service II

[salzer mtn]

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

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.

 

[DHK]

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?

 

[salzer mtn]

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

 

[Aaron]

I read through the thread Aaron.

I don't think you did.

I read of your attitude. There is no need for the emotional response.

K.

Do you know what it means to "love the sinner and hate the sin"?

Of course.

What if God called you to have a ministry among the gay crowd. Would you obey him?

Well, that's not what is being talked about, is it. What is being talked about is yielding one's members of servants of their parades, e.g. baking cakes for their "weddings," etc.

That is not ministry, and, I'm finding it amazing that you can't see the difference.

But there are no "gay" crowds. There are no "homosexual" persons. There is sodomy, and there are those who wish to be identified by that perversion, and the church is, by and large, buying into the lie.

Does one discriminate against an idolater, or a thief or an adulterer because he refuses to commemorate their vices? How is it that one who refuses to commemorate sodomy is thusly indicted.

Because you have been conditioned by the politics and spirit of the age to think that way. My call to you is to yield to the sound mind of the Spirit of God, but my ministry to those who practice sodomy is to warn them to flee from the wrath to come.

And if they flee, I'll bake them a cake.

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, brother ... and I mean that sincerely --

As for your psychoanalysis of me, I assure you the most recent of the regular reviews of my sanity and personality required for my licensure have given me a clean bill of health. So while I appreciate your obvious concern, it is misplaced.

I'm not leading a "parade of sodomy." I'm advocating loving your neighbor, which as has been gently pointed out to you, is to this point a failing on your part. I've said repeatedly that I do not condone the sin, but neither, as so many, many do here -- far too many -- do I condemn the sinner. One has gone so far as to claim that those engaged in homosexual practice are beyond redemption. That is clearly an unbiblical, incorrect interpretation. It also spills over into attitude, which is even more unbiblical.

Note that throughout my discussions of this issue over the last several days, I've stated that we are free to refuse service to someone as long as we don't cite a specific aspect of their lifestyle, skin tone, faith (or lack thereof), national origin, or other facet of existence that can be even remotely construed as violating their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Anyone can refuse to serve anyone, just don't tell them it's because of something you don't personally like about them.

Gays are already protected by the U.S. Constitution from unreasonable treatment. There is no need to add the phrase "sexual orientation" to the Fourteenth for them to be covered by it. I would oppose such an effort. It is unnecessary. That does not mean they are not discriminated against, just as we are discriminated against for our faith. We seethe and cry out to God when it happens to us. Why would we expect them to react any differently when it happens to them? And why should we be the ones who place them in that position?

We shouldn't. The passages I've cited tell us that Paul didn't believe we should ever involve ourselves with making judgments about those outside the church. Inside the church regarding those living in any kind of sinful lifestyle, we most assuredly can deny the Lord's Supper, baptism, marriage rites, or even refuse to allow them to serve the church. Outside the church, we have a responsibility to be good witnesses, love our neighbor, speak the truth in love, and not act like the world.

Most of what I've seen on this thread today is "of the world." We should be ashamed.

There's a lot more of it in this post, but it's still just poop.

 

[DHK]

But there are no "gay" crowds. There are no "homosexual" persons. There is sodomy, and there are those who wish to be identified by that perversion, and the church is, by and large, buying into the lie.

Notice your own contradictions here.

Does one discriminate against an idolater, or a thief or an adulterer because he refuses to commemorate their vices? How is it that one who refuses to commemorate sodomy is thusly indicted.

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.

Because you have been conditioned by the politics and spirit of the age to think that way. My call to you is to yield to the sound mind of the Spirit of God, but my ministry to those who practice sodomy is to warn them to flee from the wrath to come.

And if they flee, I'll bake them a cake.

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.

 

[Aaron]

Notice your own contradictions here.

Notice your own. You keep saying homosexual like it's a nationality or a gender. There are homosexual acts. That's it. That's all it means. According to the Bible, there are no homosexuals. There is sodomy, and that is it.

When one calls himself a homosexual, there is only one thing he is saying, and you're trying to say that refusing to participate in the celebrations and parades of depravity and sodomy is "discrimination."

YOU are warped.

 

[DHK]

Notice your own. You keep saying homosexual like it's a nationality or a gender. There are homosexual acts. That's it. That's all it means. According to the Bible, there are no homosexuals. There is sodomy, and that is it.

When one calls himself a homosexual, there is only one thing he is saying, and you're trying to say that refusing to participate in the celebrations and parades of depravity and sodomy is "discrimination."

YOU are warped.

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Note that throughout my discussions of this issue over the last several days, I've stated that we are free to refuse service to someone as long as we don't cite a specific aspect of their lifestyle, skin tone, faith (or lack thereof), national origin, or other facet of existence that can be even remotely construed as violating their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Anyone can refuse to serve anyone, just don't tell them it's because of something you don't personally like about them.

The 14th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution forces American citizens under threat of punishment to engage in business contracts with someone with whom they do not desire to engage in a business association???

Interesting....

And here I thought it was designed to allow blacks and all other naturalized citizens to hold office and vote unless and except they be guilty of treason....and to be guaranteed due process irrespective of race.
I didn't know it demanded that persons engage in undesired business contractual obligations which violate their conscience.

Maybe I should read it again.

Gays are already protected by the U.S. Constitution from unreasonable treatment. There is no need to add the phrase "sexual orientation" to the Fourteenth for them to be covered by it. I would oppose such an effort.

Well....
It certainly didn't cover women at the time....so, no, I imagine you very much would have to add "homosexuals" to it in order for those who drafted the Ammendment to know it referrenced that particular class of persons. But, since we are not advocating refusing anyone who considers themselves a "homosexual" the opportunity to either vote or hold elected office; I fail to see the relevancy.

It is unnecessary.

Fully 50% of the U.S. citizenry was not covered by it, hence the 19th Ammendment. And, by extension I assume so-called "lesbians" as a subset. Remember, this Ammendment covers males aged 21 and over who are either Natural-born citizens or freedmen. It covers neither lesbians nor any female, nor any male under the age of 21 (until section one of the the 26th Ammendment).

That does not mean they are not discriminated against,

They are being discriminated against???

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about homosexuals using the force of law to destroy the businesses and livelihoods of heterosexual Christians who, (due to matters of conscience) refuse to engage in particular business contracts with them.

I didn't know that we were discussing Homosexuals being forced into un-desireable business associations.

We seethe and cry out to God when it happens to us. Why would we expect them to react any differently when it happens to them?

This isn't about it "happening to them".

I know of no scenario wherein a heterosexual couple has forced a homosexual to engage in business with them against their conscience or sued them and had the force of law ruin their livelihoods for their refusal.

And why should we be the ones who place them in that position?

What position???

Is Aaron, or anyone else here advocating forcing homosexuals to engage in business contracts irrespective of conscience?

Are you?
If you are....then, you are advocating tyranny and an abuse of basic human freedoms.
I would never force a homosexual to engage in a business contract which violates their conscience.

You, it seems (unless I misunderstand your point of view) would use the force of law to deny a heterosexual Christian that priviledge.
You advocate tyranny.

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Judith]

Continuing the thought from another post:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2093303&postcount=137

[Isa 3:9 NIV] . . . they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves . . .

Contrary to the false accusations of discrimination, what is being resisted is the parade of sodomy. That is the only way one who calls himself a homosexual can express himself as one. He parades his sodomy. That's what it means to "come out."

But far from resisting a person, what is being resisted is a behavior.

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

 

[Aaron]

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

Of course not. Cakes for the mayor's fifth wedding, George Tiller's birthday (if he had lived to see another one, but alas, he went the way of his victims), and Lady Gaga's profanity are perfectly acceptable.

What kind of question is that?

 

[Yeshua1]

And who was he writing to when he said that?
To the Corinthian believers
In application then? Are you going to marry a lesbian anytime soon? How about recommend such a marriage to your children?
If not, why the verse of being unequally yoked?

The other application of the verse could be going into business, making that person your business partner. Are you planning on starting a business with someone who is gay? If not, why are you bringing 2Cor.6:14 into this conversation? What relevance does it have?
It is simply a red herring that has nothing to do with anyone here.

Paul distinguished between those inside the church and those without. I suggest you do the same. Those within the church assembly were to be judged that the church body remain pure. "For what have I to do with those that are without."
Those "on the outside of the church body," are those that we are to be reaching with the gospel. Paul mentions them:

1 Corinthians 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

These are the ones that you are to go to and to witness to. God has given to each of us "the ministry of reconciliation. Each of these need to be reconciled with God. It is our duty to give them the gospel that they might be reconciled to God. If you don't do it, who will?

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

Who was the woman in John chapter four that Jesus went to?
What kind of reputation did she have?
Jesus deliberately went through Samaria, deliberately sat at Jacob's well, deliberately went out of his way to talk to this woman.

He said (because he was God, and knows all things) "You have five husbands and the one you have is not your own."
But Christ was patient with her.
It seems as if you have no patience with any sinner.

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

I read through the thread Aaron. I read of your attitude. There is no need for the emotional response.
Do you know what it means to "love the sinner and hate the sin"?
What if God called you to have a ministry among the gay crowd. Would you obey him?

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

Aaron, brother ... and I mean that sincerely --

NOT beyong salvation, butalso NOT to have us accepting that lifestyle as being able to retain when they become saved, and no way to saying its legitmate lifestyle, nor ordaining pastors, gay weddings etc!

problem not with gay persons per say, but with attitude that we MUST service them right at where their evil behaviour happens, and that we cannot have that lifestylr creep into church, and seen as OK now saved, so carry on!

 

[Yeshua1]

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

The 14th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution forces American citizens under threat of punishment to engage in business contracts with someone with whom they do not desire to engage in a business association???

Interesting....

And here I thought it was designed to allow blacks and all other naturalized citizens to hold office and vote unless and except they be guilty of treason....and to be guaranteed due process irrespective of race.
I didn't know it demanded that persons engage in undesired business contractual obligations which violate their conscience.

Maybe I should read it again.

Well....
It certainly didn't cover women at the time....so, no, I imagine you very much would have to add "homosexuals" to it in order for those who drafted the Ammendment to know it referrenced that particular class of persons. But, since we are not advocating refusing anyone who considers themselves a "homosexual" the opportunity to either vote or hold elected office; I fail to see the relevancy.

Fully 50% of the U.S. citizenry was not covered by it, hence the 19th Ammendment. And, by extension I assume so-called "lesbians" as a subset. Remember, this Ammendment covers males aged 21 and over who are either Natural-born citizens or freedmen. It covers neither lesbians nor any female, nor any male under the age of 21 (until section one of the the 26th Ammendment).

They are being discriminated against???

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about homosexuals using the force of law to destroy the businesses and livelihoods of heterosexual Christians who, (due to matters of conscience) refuse to engage in particular business contracts with them.

I didn't know that we were discussing Homosexuals being forced into un-desireable business associations.

This isn't about it "happening to them".

I know of no scenario wherein a heterosexual couple has forced a homosexual to engage in business with them against their conscience or sued them and had the force of law ruin their livelihoods for their refusal.

What position???

Is Aaron, or anyone else here advocating forcing homosexuals to engage in business contracts irrespective of conscience?

Are you?
If you are....then, you are advocating tyranny and an abuse of basic human freedoms.
I would never force a homosexual to engage in a business contract which violates their conscience.

You, it seems (unless I misunderstand your point of view) would use the force of law to deny a heterosexual Christian that priviledge.
You advocate tyranny.

Post of the year here on BB!

exactly as the founding fathers themselves would have addressed this situation!

Are you a attorney by chance?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The 14th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution forces American citizens under threat of punishment to engage in business contracts with someone with whom they do not desire to engage in a business association???

Interesting....

And here I thought it was designed to allow blacks and all other naturalized citizens to hold office and vote unless and except they be guilty of treason....and to be guaranteed due process irrespective of race.
I didn't know it demanded that persons engage in undesired business contractual obligations which violate their conscience.

Maybe I should read it again.

Try Section I:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [Emphasis added]

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.

Well....
It certainly didn't cover women at the time....

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.

But, since we are not advocating refusing anyone who considers themselves a "homosexual" the opportunity to either vote or hold elected office; I fail to see the relevancy.

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

Fully 50% of the U.S. citizenry was not covered by it ...

Again, not so.

... hence the 19th Ammendment.

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.

Remember, this Ammendment covers males aged 21 and over who are either Natural-born citizens or freedmen.

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

They are being discriminated against???

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.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about homosexuals using the force of law to destroy the businesses and livelihoods of heterosexual Christians who, (due to matters of conscience) refuse to engage in particular business contracts with them.

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.

I didn't know that we were discussing Homosexuals being forced into un-desireable business associations.This isn't about it "happening to them".

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

I know of no scenario wherein a heterosexual couple has forced a homosexual to engage in business with them against their conscience or sued them and had the force of law ruin their livelihoods for their refusal.

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.

What position???

Is Aaron, or anyone else here advocating forcing homosexuals to engage in business contracts irrespective of conscience?

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, it seems (unless I misunderstand your point of view) would use the force of law to deny a heterosexual Christian that priviledge. You advocate tyranny.

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.