Refusing service

[Yeshua1]

Some of the Christians in these jobs or businesses are solving things one of two ways. Some are clearly advertising they will do the job BUT that they consider gay marriage a sin and no real marriage. If you put that on your card, truck, whatever, it might hurt your business monetarily. Those folks feel admitting they are doing the job only to comply with the law clears their conscience.

Others are choosing simply not to do any weddings, period. It is a huge financial hit, but not discrimination. I'm told in NM even the JP's in two counties have quit doing all weddings on this basis.

My hats are off to the latter group. I wouldn't do a gay wedding--would not shake my fist at Almighty God that way--even if it meant closing up shop.

Let's face it: having photographers and cakes and florists are not necessary to weddings.

But let's face this also: if pastors in a given area, and judges in a given area, simply opt out of doing all weddings so as not to be forced to do a gay wedding, the hetero community which is still the vast majority will step up to the plate to change things.

That may mean allowing folks to opt out of doing what they do not believe in. It may mean losing your job if you won't do the thing. It may mean finding some way to do things without pastors and judges, such as just signing and submitting a piece of paper. Or it could mean the end of government marriage. Who knows?

All I know is that there is actually no way to force a person to do that which they believe is a sin. You can jail them for not doing it, or even kill them for refusing, but folks that don't want to do a given deed CAN absolutely refuse.

That is, if they are willing to stand the price.

Good post on this, sad to see many bethren have bought into the liberal media's spin on this issue!

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

That's exactly what you are doing... or were doing, until the Arizona law got vetoed...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=92232

You called for people to sign a petition to support the Arizona law being signed by the Governor. If that's not promoting then promoting does not exist. You are promoting legalizing sin if you continuing stating it allows for people to do things against Christ.

No you miss represent me and the failed Arizona Law. Neither promoted sin. What the law would have done, and what I do support is allowing people to exercise their freedom to worship as they see fit, even when I disagree with it. What I would like, but apparently can not longer get in the United States is the same consideration in return.

 

[Judith]

So based upon you logic, a pastor MUST marry a gay couple if they profess jesus as Lord then?

Afterall, he cannot refuse on "religious grounds", as that would make him a homophob right?

Like any liberal you have to add to what another says because you have no biblical reply.

 

[Judith]

He already had judged certain behavious, sins, as being against the natural order of creation, as even worthy of death forthose who attitude is to not only enjoy doing them, but get even more into doing them, but why don't you agrre with Him on this?

What are you talking about?

 

[Judith]

Jesus would have met the gay people anywhere, he would have told them that God loved them, but he also would have told them 'go, and sin no more in this area", and NO WAY would he have done a gay wedding in the temple!

You need to stay off the wine. This has nothing to do with performing a wedding.

 

[Aaron]

Actually, it speaks of your misunderstanding of God's love and forgiveness. If you believe God has a special hatred for homosexual acts and practitioners over and above all other sin, they you really don't have an understanding of God's word.

This is your defense? Do you still assert "God says that about all sin," when He clearly does not?

We are to love the homosexual sinner just as we love all other sinners and bring them the gospel for the purpose of their salvation.

Yes, and the rapist and the pimp and the pedophile and the murder and human trafficker, etc., etc.

This is entirely beside the point. Funny you should equate the refusal of some to contract with Sodom as hatred for their fellow man.

*snip remaining irrelevant drivel*

 

[Yeshua1]

You need to stay off the wine. This has nothing to do with performing a wedding.

iam not drunk on any wine, never drank, just striving to stay "drunk on the Holy Spirit!"

And weddings gave everything to do with this, as next stage will be to force Pastors to saunction same sex weddings, or else either get defroked, or in jail for refusal to do them!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This is your defense? Do you still assert "God says that about all sin," when He clearly does not?

Solomon wrote of wisdom speaking for God, having been "with Him" from the beginning:

Proverbs 8, NASB
7 "For my mouth will utter truth;
And wickedness is an abomination to my lips."​

Explain that one. Wickedness is the Hebrew 'resha, meaning "wrong." All sin is wrong, here Wisdom, speaking for God, calls wrong "an abomination." "Haughty eyes, a lying tongue ... hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness ... one who spreads strife among brothers" (6:17-19), "a false balance" (11:1), "the perverse in heart" (11:20), "lying lips" (12:22), "the sacrifice of the wicked" (15:8), "the ways of the wicked" (15:9), "evil plans" (15:26), the "proud in heart (16:5), "kings [who] commit wicked acts" (16:12), "he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous" (17:15), "the scoffer" (24:9), "he who turns from listening to the law ... and even his prayer" (28:9) -- all are called "an abomination." Find me a sin that those don't cover, and I'll admit you're right, that He doesn't call all sin an abomination. You're playing words with God's word. Not a smart thing to do.

Yes, and the rapist and the pimp and the pedophile and the murder and human trafficker, etc., etc.

Yes. Your point?

This is entirely beside the point.

So it isn't our job to take the gospel to the sinner? Is that what you're saying, because from my front porch, that is entirely the point.

Funny you should equate the refusal of some to contract with Sodom as hatred for their fellow man.

Straw man. I didn't say that, and you know it. It is faulty reasoning at best, and outright disingenuousness at worst. So tell me, Aaron, which are you guilty of?

]*snip remaining irrelevant drivel*

That's what you should have done to your entire post.

 

[Revmitchell]

Virtually ever Southern Baptist church I know of holds to a similar view. The ones that need to reconsider where they stand are the IFBs and some other minor denominations of Baptists.[/FONT][/SIZE]

None that I now of hold to that view, and I now of no SBC church that would support serving homosexual weddings. That include Fla, NM, TX, and AL. I can assure you your view is few and far between.

 

[Aaron]

Find me a sin that those don't cover, and I'll admit you're right, that He doesn't call all sin an abomination.

In the very chapter you used:

Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry
​

The term abomination is reserved for especially destructive sins like paganism and sexual perversion. The Lord sought to kill Moses because he hadn't circumcised his son, but He did not seek to kill Moses because he spoke unadvisedly with his lips at the Waters of Strife.

Generally, those sins for which the law prescribed the death penalty are abominations, and those for which restitution was prescribed are not thusly classified.

And, the lives of Christians, fraught with sin, are not abominable. On the contrary, they are the salt of the earth. But Sodom is abominable, a direct opposition to nature and nature's God.

 

[Jerome]

SBC Chief Ethicist Russell Moore takes a 'just don't ask' approach:

Moore to the Point: Should a Christian Photographer Work at a Same-Sex Wedding Ceremony?

"I would say that the decisions you’ll make, generally, as a wedding photographer will correspond often with the Corinthian dilemma of whether to eat meat that had been offered to idols (1 Cor. 8).

The Apostle Paul says, first of all, that the idols don’t represent real gods (1 Cor. 8:4), in the same way that you would argue that a wedding without a bride or a groom isn’t really a marriage. If something’s put before you, the apostle writes, eat it to the glory of God, no questions asked.

But, the apostle says, if the food is advertised as sacrificed to idols abstain from it for the sake of the consciences of those around you (1 Cor. 8:7-9). This is the difference between investigating a doughnut shop owner’s buying habits before eating there and stopping in for doughnuts when the sign out front flashes: “Eat here and support our owner’s cocaine and prostitutes habit.”

You need not investigate as a wedding photographer whether the wedding you are photographing is Christ-honoring. But when there is an obvious deviation from the biblical reality, sacrifice the business for conscience, your own and those of the ones in your orbit who would be confused.

That said, don’t be mean."

 

[Zaac]

So God was WRONG to Judge Sodom, and should have showered down on them flowers and manna from heaven?

What on earth are you talking about?

God is wrong based upon your reasoning on this area, right?

???

Would you attend a church that accepted and had pastor perform a gay wedding, or if he refused to do that on 'religious grounds", are you saying he should be forced into doing that, as to "show the love of Christ?"

As I've said countless times before, God has defined what marriage is over in Genesis 2. There is no gay marriage for Christ following pastors to perform.Get back on point.

 

[Salty]

May I change course here just a bit - suppose a photograper refuse to take a job because there was alcholic being served at the reception?

 

[convicted1]

Laws that forcibly segregate are one thing. Laws that force me to sign a contract with another are something else. That is tyranny. So, yes, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 that does more than take racist laws off the book, but forces private groups and individuals to contract with someone with whom they don't want to for any reason is tyranny.

There is another fallacy in this thread, and that is the identity of one based upon his erotic desires. Are the men (or women) going to kiss romantically? Is that good or is that sodomy?

You're saying one should be forced to photograph sodomy?

Based solely upon my christianity, no one should be forced to perform gay marriages, make floral arrangements/bake wedding cakes for gay marriages, etc.

And this "christians lapsing into homosexual erocticism" is quite distrubing...

 

[Zaac]

May I change course here just a bit - suppose a photograper refuse to take a job because there was alcholic being served at the reception?

You don't have to say anything about the why. Just say I don't want the job.

 

[OldRegular]

My personal opinion is that if "an individual" owns a business he has the right to refuse service to anyone. The person might not stay in business long but not because of a lawsuit!
I might not like being refused but that is also my right.

 

[OldRegular]

We are to love the homosexual sinner just as we love all other sinners

I did a search but could not find it. Just where in Scripture does it say we are to "love the sinner"? I know some sinners that I love, one of thin is me!

 

[Aaron]

There you go. Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[Aaron]

Based solely upon my christianity, no one should be forced to perform gay marriages, make floral arrangements/bake wedding cakes for gay marriages, etc.

Christianity is the standard and pillar of the truth.

 

[convicted1]

For all:

Okay, you're a baker and have some cakes made just to sell. They're in a display, and are plain, with a few flowers designed on them.

A gay couple comes in a wants one of these cakes, seeing they don't want anything extragivant(sp?). Now what would you do?