|
LadyPact -> RE: An American dialogue (12/18/2017 12:13:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
... and here is where you move the goal posts. Yes, there is no sin in feeding a sinner, but homosexuality (the action) is a sin.
I know this quote was in reply to Butch but there are things in it that are interesting to talk about.
I understand that you and some of the other forum posters believe this to be true. It's not my attempt to convince you to change your personal beliefs. At the same time, I'm sure you understand that not all Christians agree with it, even if it seems like most do. A person also has to ask themselves if homosexuality is a sin, and if we believe God creates all of us, why would God create gay people?
There are also areas like the bible being written by men (humans) and all men are fallible (make mistakes), are we really sure this text has been translated properly over all these years and languages, and other questions of that type.
quote:
If a homosexual couple came into a catering service that I owned and told me they were out of work and hungry, I'd offer them a meal (or pack a "care package" to last them a week or so) and a job (at least for the day) if I could afford to add new help.
To me, this is something that would be what any Christian should say or at least should be. Feeding the hungry, helping the sick, and all of the things that Christ did say that relate to our concept of charity is what we're supposed to be doing. So we agree on this part.
quote:
If they want me to cater their wedding reception, I'd have to turn them down.
We're not talking about sustenance. We're talking about a desert (or a diabetic coma, waiting to happen).
Here's where we disagree. When this case is decided and becomes precedent, it's not going to be written with a disclaimer that says that it only applies to cake. Even if we think that the decision will be written specifically about weddings/receptions, that means it will also be florists, photographers, caterers, reception halls, tuxedo rentals, and anything that could be associated with such occasions. It started with a cake but I think we're fooling ourselves if we think it ends with cake.
quote:
Leviticus 18:22 --------> Matthew 5:17-20 --------> John 8:7 --------> I Timothy 5:22 --------> Romans 14:13
I get that you posted these particular lines of scripture to support why you believe the way you do. My hang up about it is the way I've seen this scriptures used before when it came very specifically to passing Colorado law that said gay people were not a protected class. It was done in a rather sneaky way back then because when all the neat political ads were calling for people to vote for (then) Amendment Two, the people of Colorado were being told it was so that gays wouldn't have "special" rights. It was really about equal rights in things like employment, housing, etc. When it became law, gay people didn't have a legal redress if their landlord chose to no longer rent to them or their boss fired them based on sexual orientation. It took four years for this thing to get to SCOTUS and be struck down on the basis that it was unconstitutional.
Something else that I want to add. A few pages back, JVoV asked questions about how the case impacts people if their 'side' doesn't win. Taken literally, it would mean just how many of you really are bakers (or similar) that would be 'forced' (cause that word comes up a lot) to do something that you feel violates your religious beliefs. For lots of you, it's probably not a direct thing. You're really just putting yourself in the baker's shoes in a proverbial sense thinking how you would feel about it *if* you were in that position. It's a common thing that people do.
Me? I'm in the same position. It's unlikely that I'll ever be discriminated against over wedding cake based on my sexual orientation. It could happen over me being divorced prior or if for some reason a baker knew I was kinky but not over who I was marrying. So again, not directly.
The last question was about how does this affect the people you love. He could have meant the people you love in the romantic sense but that's not the only way to take it. "Love" is also friends, family, and all of the other categories of people that we have affection for. When those people are affected, we are indirectly affected, meaning the discrimination touches more than just the people being discriminated against and that turns out to be a heck of a lot of people.
Except for the link that WaywardSoul posted earlier of what could have possibly worked before it got this far, we are in a position that both sides can't win. Or, if they can, I'd sure like somebody to explain it to me, because I'm not seeing it.
|
|
|
|
