Featured Refusing service

This strikes me a bit odd. If you think it is wrong to not serve them, hurts the cause of Christ, causes harm to their testimony, one would most likely call that sin. You are calling for the passing of a law to allow people to sin. Is that not what homosexuals are seeking? A law that allows them to sin? You know it's sin, and are promoting it. They do not believe it is sin and are promoting it. Who is more wrong?

 

I am not promoting it, I am allowing it and there is a key difference. Our laws allow all kinds of things that I believe to be sin, yet people still have a right to do them under the law.

The solution to sin is not to pass another law, the solution is Christ.

I believe in the freedom of religion and the freedom to exercise that religion, even if I believe that religion to be false. We cannot ensure our own religious liberty without also ensuring the liberty of all religions.

If we seek to force our faith under penalty of law then we are no better than the Muslims seeking to advance theirs through terrorism and war.

 

Best post I've read on this board in years. It needs to be pinned to the top and emailed out to SB churches all over America! :applause: :applause: :applause:

 

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?

 

I agree. TND had the proper, God honouring perspective here.

 

That is not true. You are either ignorant or lying. Either way, it doesn't speak well of your qualification to judge the matter.

 

This, is disturbing.

 

Would say that we CANNOT service gay persons in the shop/resturant if they came in to get a cake, have dinner, get photoes,but should be able to refie to have my business used for wedding dinner, or to cater their wedding, or do flowers there...

TAHt is real core of Az decion, do we have right to refuse to do business outside the shop for religious reasons/convictions?

 

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.

 

As Reformed (I think) noted, though Jesus met, talked, ate with sinners, healed sinners, He never facilitated their sin.

While selling cookies or cookware (Reformed's retail/transactional) doesn't seem to aid and abet, I could easily understand how a photographerer asked to work a gay wedding could view that participation as facilitating a sinful relationship and a ceremony that could be considered to mock Godly marriage. On the other hand, one might conclude that the sinful physical intimacy was probably active already, and that one's providing that photo service would neither increase nor decrease the immorality.

To add to HAMel's provocative hypotheticals, should an African-American signmaker be forced to create advertising for a Klan rally?

 

can a jewish couple be forced to take pictures at the annual Nazi pride march?

 

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

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?"

 

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. 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. The hero of so many on this board, John MacArthur, says so himself:

Because God calls the sin of homosexuality "an abomination" does not mean He will not forgive that sin. As I said, He calls all sin an abomination. Christians err greatly in applying the word only to homosexual sin.

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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!