I would argue homosexuality predates religion.
Not interested. Don’t see the relevance.
I think this belongs in the stupid thread…
1 Like
No I’m not. Is the baker Christian? Does the baker not refer to the Bible?
And you just highlighted the problem. Can a nation that is founded on the principles of equal rights for all citizens, or at least evolved to that point, allow its citizens to be limited by the personal beliefs of others when it comes to public interaction? Because, I believe it would be safe to say that this baker does not apply his lithmus test to every customer. It’s safe to say that we all benefit from the sins of others. We benefit from slave labor in other countries. We benefit from war. How many christians have money invested in things that could be considered sinful enterprises? When a Christian buys gas how much of that money ends up helping to prop up an infidel in the middle east.
You brought up ubiquity.
Not sure how “predates” changes that. It doesn’t. It isn’t relevant.
Bingo. The concept of associative sin has a long history in Christian thought, and some passages within the New Testament itself have been interpreted along those lines (1 Tim 5:17-22, Jude 1:22-23). You can argue about the legitimacy of the interpretations, but this concept is not new or unique to the baker.
While I agree that the headline ‘kiss the right to vote goodbye’ is over the top, a ruling that the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional could have a profound effect on voting patterns in this country.
1 Like
But how it is practiced is not consistent. As the Bible says, it’s all or nothing. Does the baker ask where his customers get their money from?
Homosexuality is more natural than religion. God made gays before he made religion.
You aren’t reasoning like an evangelical, and the only way you could legitimately question the rationale for his actions is from within his religious perspective. That’s how freedom of conscience works. You can argue that his interpretations are invalid; you can argue that his reasoning is incongruent with the teachings of Jesus about love for the other; but your argument that “not all Christians seem to me to apply this principle equally across the board” is irrelevant.
This isn’t relevant to the what I said.
Not consistent in your mind. Again, within many Christian circles (and again, within the Bible) there is a distinction between intentional and unintentional sin. If someone knowingly supports and facilitates actions deemed unethical, they are in the wrong, but according to this perspective, God does not judge that person in the same way when they are ignorant.
And because of that, we as a nation can say it’s BS to discriminate based on pure whim.
You mean unintentional as in pretend to not know.
Again, its not based on pure whim. That’s a massive oversimplification.
What you said isn’t relevant at all.
It seems that you’ve already decided what his motives are.
Of course it is. It’s cherry picking what rules you agree to follow and which you don’t.
That’s silly. Nobody is talking about background checks. He could be selling home repair supplies and assume the duct tape being purchased is for repairing. Not for what turns out to be restraints in a kidnapping. Now if it becomes reasonable to believe it will be used in such manner, the nature of the customer’s actions, words, how they are presenting himself. Of course.