ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Visiting a brothel is not a sin. Showing charity and service to a prostitute is not a sin. It is an example the Savior set on more than one occasion. Only sex outside of marriage is a sin. I have never been to a gay wedding where guests were required to have sex with the couple celebrating their wedding. Again as stated above, with the same goal as the savior, to lead them to repentance.
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 That person should engage the public, they might write letters, they might go on TV and make anouncements, they might talk to other bakers, they could start their own bakery, They could start their own church, they could encourage boycotts, they could talk to the owner. What I don't think they should be able to do, is use the police powers of the government. People should be good because they want to, not because they are forced to. If you think the anti-discrimination laws are evil, then you should work on repealing those laws. But don't blame a gay person for calling upon the government to enforce the very laws of this country that were designed to prevent such discrimination. This is the approach Elder Oaks is advocating. He is calling on the members of the church to repeal the anti-discrimination laws. Perhaps he will be successful. But if the church members are successful in tearing down the discrimination laws of this country that were specifically designed to prevent discrimination against blacks, Jews, Mormons, the disabled and in most cases gays, then the church will forever be further branded as that racist bigoted church that believes in discrimination. And that is if the church succeeds in repealing those discrimination laws. If the church is not successful in repealing those anti-discrimination laws, then the church will still be branded as that racist, bigoted church that believes in discrimination. Either way the church will be the big looser just like it was on the Prop 8 fiasco. Only this is even worse. Why not have a message of service to others even if they are sinners. Why not encourage bakers to bake cakes for those sinning gays. Is serving even the sinner a unChrist like idea? Why not be the church that follows the example of Christ.
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 If you think the anti-discrimination laws are evil, then you should work on repealing those laws. But don't blame a gay person for calling upon the government to enforce the very laws of this country that were designed to prevent such discrimination. This is the approach Elder Oaks is advocating. He is calling on the members of the church to repeal the anti-discrimination laws. Perhaps he will be successful. But if the church members are successful in tearing down the discrimination laws of this country that were specifically designed to prevent discrimination against blacks, Jews, Mormons, the disabled and in most cases gays, then the church will forever be further branded as that racist bigoted church that believes in discrimination. And that is if the church succeeds in repealing those discrimination laws. If the church is not successful in repealing those anti-discrimination laws, then the church will still be branded as that racist, bigoted church that believes in discrimination. Either way the church will be the big looser just like it was on the Prop 8 fiasco. Only this is even worse. Why not have a message of service to others even if they are sinners. Why not encourage bakers to bake cakes for those sinning gays. Is serving even the sinner a unChrist like idea? Why not be the church that follows the example of Christ. Please point me to where he called for the repeal of anti-discrimination laws. I did find this but I can't get a call for repeal from thisWe claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others.We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they so choose.We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values.We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstances or differences in gender or sexual orientation.
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 When one attends a wedding it is tacit approval for what is taking place so unless you really do approve one ought not lend tacit approval. One ought to serve ones neighbor with the same goal that was the saviors goal, namely to lead them to repentance. If a person visits a person in jail, is he tacitly approving of murder? If Christ sits with a prostitute, is he tacitly approving of prostitution? I think you have no doctrinal support for this idea. Read Matthew 25. There is no sin in administering to a sinner. I have been to many a wedding where two sinners were choosing to wed. I don't think I even know anyone who is without sin. I wasn't endorsing their sins by attending. You can not lead someone to repentance if you don't go to the sinner. No commandment is broken by attending a gay wedding. No commandment is broken by attending a brothel and administering to a prostitute. Christ lead by example. He went to where the sinners were and served them despite their sins. I choose that path. I choose to serve all of God's children, even the ones that are sinners. I choose to eat with sinners and share a meal with them. Are we not all sinners? Are we not all beggars? What path will you choose?
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Again as stated above, with the same goal as the savior, to lead them to repentance. Then next gay wedding you are invited to, show them how the Savior taught you to live. Show them the love, charity, and compassion they deserve even in their sins. Be engaged in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Only by doing this can you lead them back to Christ. Be the example, not the one judging. Leave the judging to God.
rockpond Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 As long as I don't have to consent or agree that any 2 people of the same sex should "marry" each other. They would be doing it, if they did it, over my objections. Do you see now how people don't necessarily have to agree?Uh, yeah. But I'm a bit thrown off by your question... Did it seems as if I was suggesting that everyone "have to agree"?
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Please point me to where he called for the repeal of anti-discrimination laws. I did find this but I can't get a call for repeal from thisWe claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others.We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they so choose.We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values.We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstances or differences in gender or sexual orientation. The only way a baker can discriminate against a gay couple is to break the anti-discrimination laws. Elder Oaks is putting forth the idea that a baker should be allowed to break those laws. So either Elder Oaks is advocating breaking the laws of this country or he is advocating repealing those anti-discrimination laws. Which is it?
Pahoran Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Elder Oaks is starting a campaign to use religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against those that sin.And so the lie continues.Elder Oaks is doing no such thing, and you know it.Elder Oaks is arguing that religious beliefs are a very valid reason to abstain from directly supporting sinful activities. Not people. Activities.To misrepresent this as "discriminate against those that sin" is a reluctant -- but undeniable -- admission that you have no valid argument against what he is really saying.Regards,Pahoran 2
Pahoran Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Pogi wrote: Gay marriage is a religious practice, like it or not. So in the absence of a valid argument, you resort to proof by bare assertion? I see. Regards, Pahoran 2
Daniel2 Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Yes, it can be. Muslim selling bacon?Book store selling porn?photographer making porn?All of these can be violation of ones religious principles. For the state to force someone to do it would be immoral.Strawman argument.Those are all examples of people who would be forced to carry and sell something different than what they already routinely carry in stock and sell to the general public.Gay couples asking for wedding cakes or dresses or flowers or photographs are asking for the same goods and services that such businesses already sell to the general public.I have yet to read any Biblical or LDS scripture saying that Christ taught that his followers shouldn't sell their products to sinners of ANY persuasion--so how can such be "against their religion"?!Ironically, no one seems to be seriously advocating to repeal anti-discrimination laws allowing business owners to refuse business to minorities because of differences of race, religion, gender, marital/divorce/shaking-up-in-sin, convicted felon, or other social statuses---the objection is only about providing services to gays and lebians, or abortions.Even the abortion example is absurd once you start thinking about it... Is there a Christian doctor or an LDS doctor or some Doctor who routinely performed regular abortions but became mortified when he found out that the abortions he was being forced to perform an abortion that violated his religion?!Let's repeat that... its just "doing business with gays and lesbians" and "killing or aborting fetuses." Kinda tells you what Elder Oaks REALLY thinks about gays, eh? Edited January 30, 2015 by Daniel2 1
Pahoran Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Baking a cake for a sinner is not a sin. Of course not. Everyone is a sinner. But baking a cake explicitly for a sinful purpose violates the conscience of a decent person. I realise you have difficulty understanding that. Attending a wedding of a sinner is not a sin. Of course not. Everyone is a sinner. But attending something that calls itself a wedding but is undertaken explicitly for a sinful purpose violates the conscience of a decent person. I realise you have difficulty understanding that. If either of those were true, no baker would bake a cake for anyone. No person would attend a wedding for anyone. We are all sinners. We are all beggars. We are all asked to serve others by the Savior. I choose that path. I choose to serve both saints and sinners. I choose not to discriminate against those that sin. I am compelled to show charity compassion and service to all by Him who I follow. You are free to choose a different path. And, as you know, it is not a question of "discriminating against those that sin." As you know, because it has been pointed out to you many times, and you resolutely refuse to acknowledge it, it is a question of being forced to actively support explicitly sinful deeds. I know that not one of you can begin to understand why that would bother anyone's conscience. But it does. Regards, Pahoran 2
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 And so the lie continues.Elder Oaks is doing no such thing, and you know it.Elder Oaks is arguing that religious beliefs are a very valid reason to abstain from directly supporting sinful activities. Not people. Activities.To misrepresent this as "discriminate against those that sin" is a reluctant -- but undeniable -- admission that you have no valid argument against what he is really saying.Regards,PahoranIt is against the law to discriminate against who a baker does business with. The baker broke that law. The courts found the baker guilty of breaking the law. Elder Oaks is arguing that religious beliefs are valid reasons for breaking the law. Either he believes the anti discrimination laws should be appealed or he believes anti discrimination laws should be disregarded. Which one is it? At no time in Elder Oaks talk did he encourage the baker to bake a cake even if the gay couple is committing a sin. At no time did anyone from the church suggest that perhaps the better course is to serve all of God's children and leave the judgement of others to God. So I am making that plea. I am suggesting a better way than breaking the law or repealing the anti discrimination laws. I am suggesting following Christ. Administer to the sinners. Serve all of God's children. Leave the judgement of sin to God. Are you with me? Will you follow the path that the Savior taught? Or will you follow Elder Oak's approach to break the discrimination laws of this country. Or to repeal the discrimination laws using religion as the justification. The choice is yours. I choose to follow the example of Christ.
Mystery Meat Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Elder Oaks is starting a campaign to use religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against those that sin. I am starting a campaign to use religious beliefs as an excuse to serve others. Instead of denying someone a cake for their wedding, I am saying to bake the very best cake you possibly could bake even if the couple is sinning. We are all sinners. We are all beggars. It is God's job to judge us all. It is our job to worry about our own salvation. I don't support discriminating against anyone for any reason, and especially for the reason that they might be a sinner. You can join me and others to pledge to serve others even if they are sinning. Or you can join Elder Oaks in his campaign to break the anti-discrimination laws of this country by using religion as a weapon. The choice is yours. You have to be trolling, right? I mean no one is this self-righteous. 2
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Of course not. Everyone is a sinner.But baking a cake explicitly for a sinful purpose violates the conscience of a decent person.I realise you have difficulty understanding that.Of course not. Everyone is a sinner.But attending something that calls itself a wedding but is undertaken explicitly for a sinful purpose violates the conscience of a decent person.I realise you have difficulty understanding that.And, as you know, it is not a question of "discriminating against those that sin."As you know, because it has been pointed out to you many times, and you resolutely refuse to acknowledge it, it is a question of being forced to actively support explicitly sinful deeds.I know that not one of you can begin to understand why that would bother anyone's conscience.But it does.Regards,PahoranThen what do you advocate the baker do? Bake the cake or break the law? Or repeal the anti discrimination laws? You tell me.
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 You have to be trolling, right? I mean no one is this self-righteous.Is it hard to believe that there is anyone who believes they should do all they can to follow the Savior? I may fall short, but that doesn't mean I am willing to choose a different path to follow.
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I think the church makes too big a deal on dress. What's in the news is a girl in Utah who the school made her wear a coat over her dress for a dance because she was exposing her shoulder. The dress looked modest to me. Now why do you think the Utah school made this decision? It's probably because the church had an influence over the rules and embarrassed this poor 15 year old girl.
Mystery Meat Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 It is against the law to discriminate against who a baker does business with. The baker broke that law. The courts found the baker guilty of breaking the law. Elder Oaks is arguing that religious beliefs are valid reasons for breaking the law. Either he believes the anti discrimination laws should be appealed or he believes anti discrimination laws should be disregarded. Which one is it? At no time in Elder Oaks talk did he encourage the baker to bake a cake even if the gay couple is committing a sin. At no time did anyone from the church suggest that perhaps the better course is to serve all of God's children and leave the judgement of others to God. So I am making that plea. I am suggesting a better way than breaking the law or repealing the anti discrimination laws. I am suggesting following Christ. Administer to the sinners. Serve all of God's children. Leave the judgement of sin to God. Are you with me? Will you follow the path that the Savior taught? Or will you follow Elder Oak's approach to break the discrimination laws of this country. Or to repeal the discrimination laws using religion as the justification. The choice is yours. I choose to follow the example of Christ. I am starting a campaign to bring people closer to Christ. The Lord said he would be His church on a foundation of Prophets and Apostles. We have such a foundation on Earth today. Next time you are tempted to participate in actions which the Lord Jesus Christ as deemed an abomination, namely homosexual activity, I invite and encourage you to decide you want to be closer to Father in Heaven and the Spirit and reject sin. I invite you to choose to follow the example of Christ and reject homosexuality. See how that feels? Kinda over the top, no? 1
pogi Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) But baking a cake explicitly for a sinful purpose violates the conscience of a decent person. Is baking a cake for a gay wedding "explicitly" supporting a sinful purpose any more than serving food at a restaurant to a gay wedding party is? Even better/worse, renting a hotel room to a gay couple on their honey moon? You guys need to understand that providing a public accommodation non-discrimitorily is not "explicitly" supporting sinful activity. If you do so non-discrimitorily, how could it be explicit? I ask because the nondiscrimination legislation which the church supports "...protects gays against inequity in employment, housing and places of public accommodation..." according to the desert news. Notice the term "public accommodations". "Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most businesses or buildings that are open to, or offer services to, the general public" See more at: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html#sthash.iRbbTI0N.dpuf I think a bakery open to the public fits under the category of "public accommodations" If you guys disagree with the church's stance that is fine, but at least acknowledge it. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620483/LDS-leaders-reemphasize-protection-of-religious-freedoms-support-for-LGBT-nondiscrimination-laws.html Edited January 30, 2015 by pogi
Rob Osborn Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Elder Oaks is starting a campaign to use religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against those that sin. I am starting a campaign to use religious beliefs as an excuse to serve others. Instead of denying someone a cake for their wedding, I am saying to bake the very best cake you possibly could bake even if the couple is sinning. We are all sinners. We are all beggars. It is God's job to judge us all. It is our job to worry about our own salvation. I don't support discriminating against anyone for any reason, and especially for the reason that they might be a sinner. You can join me and others to pledge to serve others even if they are sinning. Or you can join Elder Oaks in his campaign to break the anti-discrimination laws of this country by using religion as a weapon. The choice is yours. So, its your idea (much of which we agree on anyway with being inclusive to others) versus Elder Oaks? You have it wrong on the most important part. Its not that we are going or wanting to discriminate towards everyone who is gay and everything they want of do. Did you even hear Elder Oaks and the statements released by the Church?
Pahoran Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Then what do you advocate the baker do? Bake the cake or break the law? Or repeal the anti discrimination laws? You tell me. I think the baker should act according to his conscience. And given that he offered up front to sell the "gay" couple anything already on the shelves in his store, I think you should give up the lie that he was "discriminating" against people. What he was objecting to was not "who," it was "what." Not "gay people," but "same sex marriage." The two things are not the same. And continuing to conflate them is an admission that you can't deal with the truth. So maybe you'd like to make an effort to get it "straight," to coin a phrase. And while we're on the subject of what I think: I think the "gay" couple in question ought to get over their vast sense of "gay" entitlement and self-importance, and accept the fact that not everyone wants to support an immoral act. And realise that they would probably get better service from a baker who does. It isn't as if the food industry is exactly a "straight" monopoly after all, is it? However, what's the likelihood that that will never happen? Two "gays" actually admitting that what they want isn't the highest law in the universe? Regards, Pahoran 3
Mystery Meat Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 So, its your idea (much of which we agree on anyway with being inclusive to others) versus Elder Oaks?You have it wrong on the most important part. Its not that we are going or wanting to discriminate towards everyone who is gay and everything they want of do. Did you even hear Elder Oaks and the statements released by the Church? Based on his comments, no he did not. He is more interested in vilifying. 1
Pahoran Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 It is against the law to discriminate against who a baker does business with. The baker broke that law. Given (and it is a given) that he offered to sell them anything already on the shelves of his store, it is a typically "gay" lie to claim that he was trying to "discriminate against who a baker does business with." The courts found the baker guilty of breaking the law. A clear miscarriage of justice. Elder Oaks is arguing that religious beliefs are valid reasons for breaking the law. Either he believes the anti discrimination laws should be appealed or he believes anti discrimination laws should be disregarded. Which one is it? You'll have to ask him. But of course, as you perfectly well know, because it's what you intended, your two alternatives don't exhaust the possibilities. As such, you are arguing a false dilemma. At no time in Elder Oaks talk did he encourage the baker to bake a cake even if the gay couple is committing a sin. At no time did anyone from the church suggest that perhaps the better course is to serve all of God's children and leave the judgement of others to God. So I am making that plea. I am suggesting a better way than breaking the law or repealing the anti discrimination laws. I am suggesting following Christ. Administer to the sinners. Serve all of God's children. Leave the judgement of sin to God. Are you with me? Will you follow the path that the Savior taught? Your chutzpah -- of truly "gay" proportions -- is as astounding as it is offensive. The Saviour's example in such cases can be summed up in just seven words: "Go thy way and sin no more." You and yours are utterly deaf to His call to repentance, but it is absolutely consistent. Following the Saviour means following his anointed servants. "Whether by mine own voice, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." Or will you follow Elder Oak's approach to break the discrimination laws of this country. Or to repeal the discrimination laws using religion as the justification. The choice is yours. I choose to follow the example of Christ. No. You don't. And I'm sorry you can't see that. I choose to follow the example of Christ and his apostles, which necessarily entails rejecting your self-serving, manipulative misrepresentations. Just so you know. Regards, Pahoran 2
Mystery Meat Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Claiming homosexuality is not a violation of God's word is NO different to claiming adultery is not a sin.
Calm Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I think the church makes too big a deal on dress. What's in the news is a girl in Utah who the school made her wear a coat over her dress for a dance because she was exposing her shoulder. The dress looked modest to me. Now why do you think the Utah school made this decision? It's probably because the church had an influence over the rules and embarrassed this poor 15 year old girl.Or it is because the school had a dress code and the girl violated it. Should it have had a dress code in the first place or was the dress code too rigid is another question besides should the school have a right to enforce a dress code the kids knew about before choosing their clothing? There are a lot of church members who think that such dress codes are inappropriate and that enforcing them in such a way is going too far. OTOH there are church members who have much more rigid rules about dress than what the Church recommends in the For the Strength of the Youth booklet. Assuming that such behaviour must be because of the Church's influence rather than the parents' or teachers' own positions is assuming too much, imo. 1
Ahab Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Uh, yeah. But I'm a bit thrown off by your question... Did it seems as if I was suggesting that everyone "have to agree"?Just making it clear that agreement isn't necessary for either baking a cake or saying 2 people of the same sex should marryIt can get to the point where it's just silly to expect consensus with opposing parties, except that we can all agree in some basic way.
Recommended Posts