Is Andy Stanley right or wrong?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-religious-freedom-christians-column/5588643/

Is Stanley correctly exegeting the word of God?

 

First of all, I wouldn't trust Stanley to exegete a stop sign.

That having been said, I believe he's confusing his personal opinion with "what Jesus would do".

The Bible neither says "bake a cake" or "don't bake a cake". It's a matter of conscience and if someone is of the opinion that baking a cake for a gay "wedding" would violate their conscience, then there's not a thing in the world wrong with that.

 

I think you missed a "not". I agree Andy is pretty loose in his exegesis.

 

I tend to agree with Stanley

 

..............................

 

I will commend anyone who so-called bashes anyone who tries to put words in Jesus mouth, especially when the words do not match the person of Christ.

 

Serving a homosexual couple for their homosexual wedding is a matter of conscience. If Stanley does not see that this would and should raise concerns for Christians then he has issues.

 

I live in Kansas. I'm as conservative and biblically based as they come. But this law should not have passed the House. It was discriminatory in the worst sense of the word. It was designed to treat gays as second-class citizens. And furthermore, it is not necessary. Kansas already allows store owners, service companies and other firms that deal with the public to post "We reserve the right" signs that essentially state that they can refuse service to anyone.

This bill did not cover gay marriages by pastors in Kansas for one simple reason: Gay marriage are not recognized in Kansas. So that part of the discussion is moot, and has nothing to do with this archaic law that never should have been conceived. I'm glad the Senate voted it down. The last thing was as Christians should do, and certain the last thing a state wants to do, is be discriminatory toward a segment of the population. This would have indeed been exactly what Powers calls it, a "Jim Crow" law, and it was a bad idea. As Powers quoted Stanley, "Jesus taught that if a person is divorced and gets remarried, it's adultery. So if (Christians) don't have a problem doing business with people getting remarried, why refuse to do business with gays and lesbians."

We don't need to demonize, discriminate against, or hate gays. We need to love them enough to give them the gospel.

 

Absolutely there are instances in which we need to discriminate. We will not marry them or accept their marriage as legitimate.



We will not participate in their marriages.

And if we put laws on the books allowing for the choice of conscience, given their political agenda, it is entirely appropriate.

 

I'm with Stanley on this one. If someone doesn't want to serve cake at a gay marriage, simply decline to take on the job, no reason need be given.

Should the bill get passed, because of the way it was worded, business owners could post signs (or may be compelled?) on their doors, "We don't serve gays in this facility" similar to the "no guns allowed on these premises" signs you now see in some states that have conceal carry laws.

 

See this is number 1 wrong and number 2 where the problem lie. They tried that here in NM and the homosexuals sued and the photographer was given a judgment by the humans rights commission to do it.


It is just not as simple as refuse service.

 

"Evangelical pastor Andy Stanley leads North Point Ministries, the second largest church in the U.S. He told me he finds it "offensive that Christians would leverage faith to support the Kansas law." He said, "Serving people we don't see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity. Jesus died for a world with which he didn't see eye to eye. If a bakery doesn't want to sell its products to a gay couple, it's their business. Literally. But leave Jesus out of it."

Rome, A.D. 64: “Hey it’s just a pinch of incense, it isn’t a big thing and you should be willing to serve those who are worshipers of the Emperor. You can refuse if you want, but don’t bring Jesus into it. And by the way, if you refuse to do it bad things will happen to you.”

 

Good. Business owners should have the liberty to decide who they want to do business with.

 

Why do I get the feeling this was originally directed at me?

 

IIRC, the photographer actually stated that he didn't want to take part in a gay marriage because it violated his constitutionally protected religious beliefs. Why not simply refuse the job with no reason given?

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

One more time: This law was not about marriages. It was about discrimination. Gay marriage in Kansas is not recognized. This law would have done absolutely nothing that Kansas law doesn't already allow merchants and service companies to do with a simple sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." We didn't need this law in Kansas. ITL is right. Simply refuse the job, don't give a reason. End of story. There is no reason to codify blatant discrimination in the state statutes.

 

There is no such thing as "good" discrimination.