Why do Bakers have to Bake Cakes they don't Agree with but Google etc. can discriminate? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14869032
Pants-of-dog wrote:I was obviously referring to the fact that Jesus never condemned it or mentioned it or even seemed to care about it at all.


To the extent he addressed it, he was pretty liberal on the issue of gay people. He appears to refer to gays as "eunuchs who have been so from birth".

As a reasonably informed person of his time, Jesus would have been aware of this common view of eunuchs. Yet he very matter-of-factly asserts that some people are simply born that way. The implication of his statement is profound — God created gay people the way they are! Jesus says so.


“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)


The son/representative of God himself says that gay people like me MUST be accepted by those with an open, civilised mind. So no offense honey, are you DONE being mean and judgemental? And aren't you commanded not to judge others, with God being the only judge? And AFTER death?

Also the 'sin of Sodom' was about God opposing lack of Sodom's hospitality to strangers and opposing rape;. Not outright opposition to same-gender sex act/orientation.
#14869038
No that was a verse about Celibacy and people not able to procreate.

It does not talk about homosexuality or transsexualism. You are wrong and Your exegesis is extreamly flawed.

"Eunuchs who have made themselves Eunuchs for the Kimgdom of heaven" = people who have removed their Penis for the sake of being celibate. Judgement is not passed by Jesus on their religious mutilation of their body because he is talking in past tense, as in "they did this before and can't reverse it".

"Eunuchs who have been so from birth" = People born infertile and/or born with genital defects which prohibit the person from procreating.

Eunuch = Person without functioning genitalia.

You are just plain wrong.

Eunuch does not mean Gay, it means a person that cannot have children.

Also the 'sin of Sodom' was about God opposing lack of Sodom's hospitality to strangers and opposing rape;. Not outright opposition to same-gender sex act/orientation.


The Torah was traditionally written by the same individual, Moses, therefore the correct tradition is that the same individual which wrote that narrative in which the sins were described as Abominable as also wrote "It is abomination" when discussing the sin of Homosexuality in I think Leviticus(correct me if I'm wrong, you know the verse im talking about).

One describes "Abominable sins" and the other states "Homosexuality is the sin of Abomination"(paraphrasing as it actually says something like "men sleeping in the same bed like they would with a woman"). Same Author traditionally wrote both.

So yeah, even if you magically think Sodom wasn't about homosexuality(even though there is an obvious link), it's explicitly stated anyway elsewhere that two men "lying down together" is the "Abomination sin".
#14869160
redcarpet wrote:To the extent he addressed it, he was pretty liberal on the issue of gay people. He appears to refer to gays as "eunuchs who have been so from birth".


Can you demonstrate how this would imply homosexuality from the Greek text; especially in light of the Law of God condemning homosexuality?

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (Leviticus 20:13) and the fact that Christ said that anyone who teaches otherwise than the Law and the Prophets, shall be least in the Kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 5:17-20)?

Christ also gave his authority to his apostles: "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 18:8)

and the Apostle Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans 1:

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.....and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
(Romans 1:26-28, 32)

as well as in a list of those who will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Now, when it comes to "judging others"

redcarpet wrote: The son/representative of God himself says that gay people like me MUST be accepted by those with an open, civilised mind. So no offense honey, are you DONE being mean and judgemental? And aren't you commanded not to judge others, with God being the only judge? And AFTER death?


The primary texts used by liberals who do not know what they are talking about is Matthew 7 which is a warning about hypocrisy, not judging in general. For Christ commands his people to judge disputes one with the other (Matthew 18). It is not "judging" that is the point of this verse, but using your hypocrisy to judge those who are guilty of the same specific sin you are guilty of. You know, like Al Franken judging conservatives guilty of groping. :lol:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(Matthew 7:1-3)

The fact is, Jesus Christ did not approve of anything that was condemned by the Law. Being Theanthropos, It was HIS LAW. Both the Law of Moses which He upheld and the Apostles whom He authorized are fully consistent with this principle. Homosexuality is a damnable crime if not repented from and discarded, and is a capital crime for any government that seeks to govern by that same Holy Law. The texts are quite plain.

Attempting to argue that when Christ said that men who are born as "eunuchs" can serve in the Kingdom (which at most can be said to be referring to men who cannot have a normal sex life because of issues with their genitalia) is somehow the same as Christ approving of homosexual relationships (in contradiction is His own teaching and the whole bible) is about the most asinine and absurd conclusion to draw from a plain reading that I have ever read (and I have seen a lot of bad textual work in my day). You cannot conform the text to your own bias.

All Christ said was that men who are born without developed testicles are no longer bound by the ceremonial restrictions of the Temple system in the post-temple Christian era from serving God (which is in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament regarding Eunuchs).
#14869173
Well, I can say that I used to be a customer of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in question. It is located on Jewell in Lakewood, a suburb of Denver, Colorado and they are a family run business and have been in business for many years. I stopped patronizing them because of this issue. I won't give my money to a business that is so ignorant as to say 'no'to a couple ordering a wedding cake because the couple are not a conventional one man and one woman marriage. They are not the Roman Catholic Church and a priest marrying them, they are only the people selling the cake. When I work as a translator or as a teacher or professor I don't say, "I am only going to teach people who are socialists. I am only going to translate for people who are Puerto Rican or this or that." That is for stupid ass people in today's world. You might want to create your own micro world but you can't. You live in a very large and diverse human society. If you can't cope with diversity in your business or your job or even in your neighborhood? You are going to be isolated and basically punished for it. Punished for being narrow and being unrealistic.

At the same time, I know the owners, they are a very nice hard working couple and they sincerely take their religion seriously. The problem is exactly what Redcarpet discussed. They are running a business for profit. Not a religious institution....they can choose not to make cakes for Blacks, or Latinos, or gays or Chinese....and eventually they can close their doors hoping to only make cakes for white people who are married by a Christian church only, and who follow their beliefs to the letter. They will find running a for profit business very difficult. They have lost the business of many people like me who don't like discrimination of any sort. There are great businesses who are very open minded. There is a woman who owns a frozen yogurt shop who is pro gay and treats me and my husband with a lot of respect, give me free frozen yogurts and is the epitome of courtesy and good business practices. The next time I need a frozen cake made from yogurt I will buy it from her. She is making money hand over fist because she doesn't sincerely believe in discrimination.
#14869177
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, do you also kill disrespectful teenagers?

I mean, if you are arguing that we need to follow the rules in Leviticus, then you ought to be consistent.


I am.

I believe that the civil magistrate, if theocratic and enforcing the Word of God, is absolutely authorized to put to death teenagers who are convicted of cursing the family patriarch and rebelling against the head either of his direct family unit or his clan. Unequivocally.

This Law is stated in two places, first, in Leviticus 20:9

“‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.


second, It is also stated in Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.


these texts are clear, The father as long as he is living has a unique and divinely-vested authority in the family. Cursing one's father is akin the blasphemy against God, and for a grown son to continuously rebel against his own father is as if rebelling against the authority of God Himself. It is this familial principle that also informs my views on monarchy as it likewise did for the political theorist who fought with John Locke in his work Patriarcha, Robert Filmer.

The distinction between children and adult-children (teenagers) is when Scripture recognizes adulthood in children, which is technically at sexual maturity when they can no longer (generally) be directly restrained via discipline with rod.

I hold to Patriarchy, mafia-style don kinda familial structures. I also believe that the first-born son is to get double the inheritance and daughters are to get none unless their are no male relatives to inherit and is already specified in my own will (as also taught in the Law). The heir of the father, via primogeniture and patrilineal descent, is the head of the ENTIRE family and replaces the original father as the overriding patriarch of the entire "family-clan."
#14869186
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you cannot handle a little disrespect as a father, perhaps you should not be one.


If you think "a little" disrespect is what these texts are talking about, than your powers of reading comprehension are as a shallow as your intellectual reserves.
#14869191
Pants-of-dog wrote:Even of it was a lot of disrespect, it is still antiquated, violent, and more immoral than forcing a bakery to make cakes for gay weddings.

Also, try to attack the argument and not the person making it.


Pantalones, the reality is that you are coping with someone with insecurities and who has delusions of grandeur and lack of substance.

Anyone who is willing to be kicked out of a job that is feeding their family or helping maintain their family because they need to be 'right' has a totally skewed reality of what working people have to go through in capitalism and have no concept of what sacrificing for others is about. If you love your family you sacrifice for them. That means if you disagree with someone at work and they have the power to fire you and you have to weigh your family going hungry or you keeping your beliefs to yourself and having to give up your free speech? You have to do so. People who work really don't have 'democracy' at work. They don't. We are still primitive in the sense that not all human relationships have equal power weight in capitalism. Until there is a major shift in capitalism Pants? We can't be thinking we are living in isolation.

It doesn't matter that we might believe in patriarchy and discrimination and x, y or z. The law might not agree and who has power over your ass in a nation ruled by law and a government? The law and the government. If the government and the law backing it says your farm in Michigan is in the damn way of their right to build a new highway and you are impeding the gov't's plans to build it to improve the transportation of many thousands of commuters in Michigan? Your 'belief' that your little part of the world and the farm is your own personal kingdom is blown to bits. You will be forced to sell and take your personal fiefdom, divorced from reality in the great Capitalist system of the USA and go and scratch your displaced self somewhere else.

That is realism. If one studies what is realism vs what is fantasy? You might be able to distinguish....some unnamed people in this thread can't do that. To their own peril. It is going to hit them in the pocket, in the job prospects, in the family life, in life in general.

Unless they are as rich and crazy and powerful in a bad way as Donald Trump seems to be? They better realize if they are poor and don't have that much cash in the world? They are going to have to be more realistic about how much they control in reality and not in their own fantasyland.

Ave Maria, @Pants-of-dog the things some say amazes me.
#14869202
Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, try to attack the argument and not the person making it.


How did saying that I shouldn't be a father not count as an Ad-Hominem?

Tainari88 wrote: the reality is that you are coping with someone with insecurities and who has delusions of grandeur and lack of substance.


What gives you that opinion about my character?

Tainari88 wrote:Anyone who is willing to be kicked out of a job that is feeding their family or helping maintain their family because they need to be 'right' has a totally skewed reality of what working people have to go through in capitalism and have no concept of what sacrificing for others is about.


You fail to make the proper distinction, I am not willing to kicked out of my job because I am so insistent of being right, but because I know the truth and have been commanded to sacrifice for it, This is called martyrdom.

Tainari88 wrote: Your 'belief' that your little part of the world and the farm is your own personal kingdom is blown to bits. You will be forced to sell and take your personal fiefdom, divorced from reality in the great Capitalist system of the USA and go and scratch your displaced self somewhere else.


quite possibly, and a risk worth taking.

Tainari88 wrote:To their own peril. It is going to hit them in the pocket, in the job prospects, in the family life, in life in general.


It has and will do so more in the future, but suffering for His namesake is what I am called to do in life.

Tainari88 wrote:They are going to have to be more realistic about how much they control in reality and not in their own fantasyland.


I don't have control, I'm along for the ride and do what I can, but I am resolute in my convictions, even unto death. You are free to sneer and insult this, but I remain committed nonetheless.
#14869206
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How did saying that I shouldn't be a father not count as an Ad-Hominem?


It was a conditional statement aimed at people in general. If you want, next time I can word it differently so that you do not mistakenly think it was directed at you specifically.

Here:

If a person cannot handle disrespect, then parenting is not a good idea for this particular person.

You fail to make the proper distinction, I am not willing to kicked out of my job because I am so insistent of being right, but because I know the truth and have been commanded to sacrifice for it, This is called martyrdom.


If someone loses a job because that person is a bigot and feels that they have a religious justification for bigotry, it is not martyrdom.

When archbishop Romero was killed by capitalists for daring to care about the poor, that was martyrdom.

Please note that the first situation is one about the feelings of the Christian. The second is about actual sacrifice in the struggle to help others.
#14869207
Pants-of-dog wrote:When archbishop Romero was killed by capitalists for daring to care about the poor, that was martyrdom.


Yes, I am confident that you believe the only legitimate form of martyrdom is dying for the international struggle to liberate the proletariat, but that is not the historic conception of martyrdom in Christendom. Christian martyrdom is suffering for one's faith and the teachings of that faith, for the sake of Christ.

Dying instead of worshipping before a false idol is martyrdom.

Becoming paralyzed from disease during a mission trip to feed starving Bengalis, is martyrdom.

Being fired because you refuse to work on the Lord's day is martyrdom.

Refusing to support an abominable moral practice and having your family threatened and hurt as a consequence, is martyrdom.

Martyrdom is bearing the cross of Christ and following Him. It is standing on the Word of God in spite of whatever consequences may come.
#14869211
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Yes, I am confident that you believe the only legitimate form of martyrdom is dying for the international struggle to liberate the proletariat, but that is not the historic conception of martyrdom in Christendom. Christian martyrdom is suffering for one's faith and the teachings of that faith, for the sake of Christ.

Dying instead of worshipping before a false idol is martyrdom.

Becoming paralyzed from disease during a mission trip to feed starving Bengalis, is martyrdom.

Being fired because you refuse to work on the Lord's day is martyrdom.

Refusing to support an abominable moral practice and having your family threatened and hurt as a consequence, is martyrdom.

Martyrdom is bearing the cross of Christ and following Him. It is standing on the Word of God in spite of whatever consequences may come.


Sure, let us stretch the term this way.

Now, can we agree that there ar significant differences between: a person being killed for helping the poor, and a person who loses their job because they are a bigot and they have an interpretation of Christianity that supports said bigotry?

In the first case, the person is killed, and on the second, the person suffers a momentary economic loss.

In the first case, the martyr is helping others, and in the second case, the martyr is trying to hurt others.

In the first case, the martyr is helping the poor which is probably Jesus’ most imoortant theme (if we judge importance by how often He mentioned it) while in the second case, the martyr is hurting LGBT people, whom Jesus never mentions at all.
#14869213
@Pants-of-dog,

I will agree that suffering for one's faith varies by degree. Losing one's job is not the same as being locked in a dungeon for ten years with your eyes plucked out before being boiled to death.

Also, helping the poor and homosexuality being an abominable and death-worthy sin, are both explicitly taught in Scripture, they are either both interpretations, or they are both teachings. The same Christians who give their lives in the mission field helping the poor and giving them food and clothing are often the same ones that would say that living in unrepentant sin, such as homosexual sin, is damnable.

You cannot pick and choose which part of the Scriptures you like and call the ones you like: "teachings" and the ones you don't like "interpretations." It does not work that way.

Christianity commands for believers to care for the poor, and it commands them to flee from wickedness such as homosexuality. Same Book.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls Why do you think that? If you wer[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]