Matthew 25, "deeply Held Religious Beliefs", And Discrimination

[pogi]

You sound like one of those people who does something just because that is your job without realizing that doesn't have to be your job. You choose to do whatever you do and that includes agreeing to do whatever you do as a job.

I can hear you whimpering now as you explain to a gay couple that you don't like doing your job when it involves marrying gay people because you don't think they should be getting married while you go ahead and wed them anyway.

How pathetic. Would you at least not smile as you wed them or would you still try to act as if you didn't approve while you did it for them anyway.

 

 

[california boy]

Any particular kind of business that you want me to stay away from? And you do realize that I can do some kind of business from home, don't you?... without needing another place to do business. My wife and I asked someone else to bake our wedding cake for us, when we got married, and she did it in her own home and brought it to where we got married, civilly, before our temple sealing. And she was able to bake that cake almost as well as we could have made it. It was just nice to have somebody else willing to do that for us, as you would probably want someone else to do something like that for you. So would you like us to not do that for any other couple, just because we wouldn't want to do it for you or any other gay wedding? You know you and your gay friends are a minority in our overall society, don't you? Think about all of the other people that we would be willing to bake wedding cakes for. Are you really going to kick up a big fuss and report us to the State authorities if we refuse to bake any cakes for gay people? Is that the way you really want to be? Really?

 

You have a seriously short attention span. How could you possibly forget that I had just said that you can refuse to bake a cake for whoever you want.  It certainly is not up to me to decide for you.  I have also pointed out that if you are selling to the public you could be found to break the law, fined and possibly sent to jail.  Those would be all YOUR choices by you choosing to break the law.  We all have free agency.  You are free to exercise yours.  But just don't cry "religious persecution" when it is you that choose to break the law.

 

And while you are sitting there in jail, perhaps you will have some time thinking about what the Savior might have done.  Can you really see HIm refusing any help to anyone just because they are a sinner?  You are out on your own on this one.  But hey, like I said, this is not my decision, it is completely up to you.  I am only pointing out both the legal issues you might be up against and the religious principles you might be violating.  

 

In answer of your question directed at me, I don't have any plans to marry.  There is no point.  The church tells me it is evil to marry the man I choose to share my life with.  So I am choosing not to.  It is a message many are considering unfortunately.

[california boy]

Because, of course, Christians and, especially, Mormons are not only not welcome in the public square of politics, they're likewise not welcome in the public square of commerce.

 

Nice to have clarity.

 

CFR where I have EVER said that Mormons are not welcome in the public square of politics.  You have over 3000 posts to find me saying that even once.  Now get busy or retract your statement.

 

I have always said the the church has every right to have a say in political issues.  But they also have to be willing to take the heat from those that disagree with their position.  I just think it was a dumb idea.  I never said they should be prohibited from having a voice in the public square.

 

And just so you know, this is one CFR that I am going to pursue because you KEEP making this accusation against me.  It is just not true.  I have never had that position.  If you don't follow through and answer my CFR or withdraw your statement, I will ask the moderators to resolve the issue.  Yeah I am pretty fed up with you repeatedly saying I support something that I have never have.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see where Jesus said don't feed sinners.

 

Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeding_the_multitude

 

The Feeding of the 5,000 is also known as the "miracle of the five loaves and two fish" given that the Gospel of John reports that five barley loaves and two small fish supplied by a boy were used by Jesus to feed a multitude. According to the Gospels, when Jesus heard that John the Baptist had been killed, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place near Bethsaida. The crowds followed Jesus on foot from the towns. When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick. As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food."

Jesus said they do not need to go away therefore the disciples were to give them something to eat. They said they only had five loaves of bread and two fish then Jesus asked them to bring what they had to him. Jesus directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve baskets full of broken pieces that were left over. The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, beside women and children.

[USU78]

So, it's your belief that Latter-day Saints should simply exercise their religious freedom by choosing to avoid professions that would otherwise require them to violate their religious conscience.

I agree.

I think we just solved the thread.

:thumbs up:

 

Not at all.  There is no answer when there cannot ever be enough.  If we Saints were to leave every profession but one, the likes of thee would hound us even there.

 

Nope.  Better to stand up and say, "No cake for you!"  There is no safer ground upon which to stand.

[USU78]

CFR where I have EVER said that Mormons are not welcome in the public square of politics.  You have over 3000 posts to find me saying that even once.  Now get busy or retract your statement.

 

I have always said the the church has every right to have a say in political issues.  But they also have to be willing to take the heat from those that disagree with their position.  I just think it was a dumb idea.  I never said they should be prohibited from having a voice in the public square.

 

And just so you know, this is one CFR that I am going to pursue because you KEEP making this accusation against me.  It is just not true.  I have never had that position.  If you don't follow through and answer my CFR or withdraw your statement, I will ask the moderators to resolve the issue.  Yeah I am pretty fed up with you repeatedly saying I support something that I have never have.

 

You stated on more than one occasion that the LDS Church was wrong to be involved in the Prop 8 fray.  Please don't make me track down your multiple posts on the subject.  You objected then and you, presumably, object now.  I will not shut up.  I will continue to be involved.  I will continue to fight against the obscenity.

[thesometimesaint]

IIRC CB didn't say the Church was wrong only that it didn't get the results that were wanted when the issue was taken to court. But I haven't gone back and checked all of his posts. So I could be wrong. 

[tonie]

You stated on more than one occasion that the LDS Church was wrong to be involved in the Prop 8 fray. Please don't make me track down your multiple posts on the subject. You objected then and you, presumably, object now. I will not shut up. I will continue to be involved. I will continue to fight against the obscenity.

perhaps you should try again.

CB's CFR is specifically about individuals.

Your non-responsive remark is about the Church. (Unless you want us to presume you regard yourself as "the Church").

Just because the IRS has not charged the Church with prohibited political/legislative conduct; does not mean the Church did not violate the law by actively pushing for the passage of a Constitutional Amendment.

It would seem to me that CFR remains unresolved.

Edited February 14, 2015 by tonie

[california boy]

You stated on more than one occasion that the LDS Church was wrong to be involved in the Prop 8 fray.  Please don't make me track down your multiple posts on the subject.  You objected then and you, presumably, object now.  I will not shut up.  I will continue to be involved.  I will continue to fight against the obscenity.

 

Yes I have repeatedly said that it was a big mistake for the church to get involved in Prop 8.  I am not the only one that feel like this thing was a complete disaster for the church.  Because of the church's involvement in a proposition that took away the civil rights of gay couples, the church will forever be linked to a campaign that took away the civil rights that are guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution.  An issue that the courts have repeatedly affirmed.

 

But Tonie is right.  That is not what you falsely accused me of stating.  And that is not what the CFR is about.  This is what you actually said.

 

Because, of course, Christians and, especially, Mormons are not only not welcome in the public square of politics, they're likewise not welcome in the public square of commerce.

 

Nice to have clarity.

 

 

I have never said that Mormons or any other religion is not welcome in the public square of politics.  In fact, I have repeatedly stated that the church had every right to get involved in Prop 8.  

 

The CFR is still in place

 

CFR where I have EVER said that Mormons are not welcome in the public square of politics.  You have over 3000 posts to find me saying that even once.  Now get busy or retract your statement.

 

 

I am not going to accept you bringing up red herring to avoid answering the CFR.  So show some integrity and answer it, or withdraw the false accusation.  Yeah I am pretty tied of you making these statements against me, and I will not just let this go.  

[Ahab]

Can you really see HIm (our Savior) refusing any help to anyone just because they are a sinner?

No, but helping people doesn't involve doing something to show you approve of a sin, like doing something to show you approve of a gay wedding. To help them you would try to show them why a gay wedding isn't good, that it isn't something gay people should do.

Done with potty break now. Carry on.

[Pahoran]

I will bring it up in our next "gay agenda" meeting.  I don't want to see you going to jail.  In the mean time, it would be helpful if you would keep from owning a business that serves the public.

Understand, Ahab? If you don't want to actively support "gay marriage," you don't deserve to keep your chosen livelihood.

The "gay" jihad expects you to not only accept your dhimmi status, but rejoice in it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BCSpace]

What is interesting about the demand for evidence, is that those demanding the evidence wish to maintain the status quo of discrimination.

 

There is nothing wrong with discriminating between good and bad, right and wrong, etc.

[california boy]

There is nothing wrong with discriminating between good and bad, right and wrong, etc.

And there is also nothing wrong with serving someone who is a sinner.  An example Christ set while here on earth.

[Daniel2]

Understand, Ahab? If you don't want to actively support "gay marriage," you don't deserve to keep your chosen livelihood.

The same is true for those that would deny service based on religion. That's what American anti-discrimination laws are for.

The "gay" jihad expects you to not only accept your dhimmi status, but rejoice in it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Funny how when gays expect the same anti-discrimination that is afforded to religions, it's "gay jihadists," but when it's anti-discrimination protecting religions, it's preserving religious freedom.

It's the epitome of hypocrisy to accept civil protections against discrimination in public services based on religion, but refuse to equally extend it to those based on sexual orientation. When you campaign with equal zeal to erase anti-discrimination laws protecting religion, then you'd gain some credibility and cease being a hypocrite.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

No, but helping people doesn't involve doing something to show you approve of a sin, like doing something to show you approve of a gay wedding. To help them you would try to show them why a gay wedding isn't good, that it isn't something gay people should do.

Done with potty break now. Carry on.

 

He fed Saint and sinner alike.

[Tacenda]

No, but helping people doesn't involve doing something to show you approve of a sin, like doing something to show you approve of a gay wedding. To help them you would try to show them why a gay wedding isn't good, that it isn't something gay

Done with potty break now. Carry on.

forget it Edited February 15, 2015 by Tacenda

[Ahab]

And there is also nothing wrong with serving someone who is a sinner. An example Christ set while here on earth.

There is only so much a righteous person will do to "serve a sinner" though, and a sinner should not expect a righteous person to become complicit in a sinner's sins. Surely you can understand that, even if you don't like the idea.

[Ahab]

He fed Saint and sinner alike.

This is not about srrving food, per se, but about what the food represents.

[california boy]

This is not about srrving food, per se, but about what the food represents.

 

Caring for others even if they are sinners???  Showing love to all?  Charity?  Just what does serving others reperesent?  O yeah.  GAY MARRIAGE, the worst sin yet invented by the devil himself.  Don't those gay couples know it is better if they just shack up?

[tonie]

This is not about srrving food, per se, but about what the food represents.

 

And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all [; and he said unto them that were with him "Give not unto the sinners".]

Edited February 15, 2015 by tonie

[Calm]

And the people at the time were there listening to him, not off participating in adultery, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

This is not about srrving food, per se, but about what the food represents.

 

What does serving food represent? I fed my kids even when they were being naughty or nice. Do you use food as a weapon?

 

It is the US law that when in government or business you can't you can't legally discriminate on the bases of race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex, and increasing sexual orientation. Judge Roy Moore of Alabama got himself into legal trouble before and he is trying to do it again because of putting his religion ahead of the law.

SEE Roy Moore: If Supreme Court changes God’s ‘organic law’ on marriage ‘I would not be bound thereby’.

Edited February 15, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

And the people at the time were there listening to him, not off participating in adultery, etc.

 

Maybe not at that particular moment. But it is more than likely some were in an adulterous relationship.

[Ahab]

Caring for others even if they are sinners??? Showing love to all? Charity? Just what does serving others reperesent? O yeah. GAY MARRIAGE, the worst sin yet invented by the devil himself. Don't those gay couples know it is better if they just shack up?

You've had this explained to you several times now but you still don't seem to get it. Oh well. At least it has been explained to you. Maybe if you keep thinking about it you will eventually understand how and why someone would not want to do something that goes against their conscience because they would not want to be complicit in someone's sin.

[Ahab]

Maybe not at that particular moment. But it is more than likely some were in an adulterous relationship.

If he knew 2 men were having sexual relations with each other I can guarantee that he would not have offered to officiate in their wedding ceremony or bake them a wedding cake or do anything else to give them the impression that he approved of them having sexual relations with each other, for any reason, at all. Whether "married" or not, gay sexual relations are a big No No. Not kosher. Not good. Not something our Lord approves of, or has ever approved of, or ever will approve of.

And if you don't believe me you can at least now, hopefully, or eventually understand how I feel on this issue and the reason why, while believing as I do, I would never ever ever bake any gosh durn wedding cake for any gay wedding.