Pahoran Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 The gospel of Jesus Christ is truly a gospel of repentance. I fully acknowledge that I still have sins I need to repent of. But since you chastise me for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, are you claiming that only those who have fully repented of their sins can talk about the gospel of Jesus Christ? Seriously? Do you really know where I am in the repentance process of my sins? Seriously? Is it your job to judge me and my sins? Is the criteria for posting here you have to have to have repented of all of your sins?As you perfectly well know: No, of course not.You are clearly and intentionally trying to misrepresent my position.If you claim to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then you are either making a genuine, good-faith effort to follow His Gospel, or you are practising hypocrisy.So, are you making a genuine, good-faith effort to turn away from your sins and follow Him? What do you mean "have no skin in the game?" Do you have to be a member of the church to follow Christ?No, but you do have to be a sincere believer. As far as the CFR, have you not argued throughout this thread that you support the baker to not bake a wedding cake to a gay couple because the couple is doing something you and the baker believe is sinful?No. I have not.I have consistently, throughout the thread, held that the baker has a right not to actively support an event or activity which he holds to be sinful in itself.All the while you and yours have blithely ignored this plain fact and pretended that I've argued that he shouldn't have to serve SINNAHS!In the which, you have borne false witness.Maliciously. Intentionally.And apparently with the utmost enjoyment.Regards,Pahoran
Stone holm Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I agree but does that also include those who would force another to bake and decorate a cake for an event they find personally distasteful?White Southerners found serving blacks at the same lunch counters as whites, and swimming at the same swimming pools, and drinking at the same drinking fountains distasteful. They, or at least most of them, got over it.
Stone holm Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I agree but does that also include those who would force another to bake and decorate a cake for an event they find personally distasteful?To me the more difficult question is what to do about the "flames" who could be either gay or straight, the man who displays all the mannerisms and behaviours that are stereotypically associated with gays which may be funny to watch a comedian do, but make others feel uncomfortable, the lisping speech, the prissy behavior, the over emphasis on grooming, the gushing over people and things. Are. We required to hire them? Associate with them? Have our children taught by them? Who really gives a rip about cakes, gay couples can probably find better decorated cakes in their own community, but what about the male youth leader who walks like Marilyn Monroe? Isn't that a bigger issue?
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I agree but does that also include those who would force another to bake and decorate a cake for an event they find personally distasteful? Clearly if one is in the business of baking cakes to sell to the public. Then whatever personal distaste the seller has is of limited justification in law. IE; Jim Crow laws
Stone holm Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 So if the "deeply held religious belief" doctrine gains sway, would that nullify say a baker being required to bake a Wedding Cake for what he/she believes to be a miscegenation wedding? How about a bar mitzvah cake (don't know if they eat cakes at those) or a Jewish baker making a Christmas cake?
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Or refusing to get his kids vaccinated?SEE http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/nutty-anti-vaxxers-launch-insane-petition-drive-asking-obama-to-ban-mandatory-vaccinations/ "No human being should be FORCED to be vaccinated against their will and/or personal/religious beliefs. I petition against making vaccinations of any kind mandatory. This includes forcing children to be vaccinated to attend public schools, activities, and daycare centers. This also includes adults working in the public or private sector.”
Ahab Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Or refusing to get his kids vaccinated?SEE http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/nutty-anti-vaxxers-launch-insane-petition-drive-asking-obama-to-ban-mandatory-vaccinations/"No human being should be FORCED to be vaccinated against their will and/or personal/religious beliefs. I petition against making vaccinations of any kind mandatory. This includes forcing children to be vaccinated to attend public schools, activities, and daycare centers. This also includes adults working in the public or private sector.”Saw something interesting the other day when I went with my wife to the clinic to have some medical tests done. There were nurses and clinical technicians walking around with masks over their mouth and nose, and after I asked was told it was because they hadn't had a flu shot/vaccine, so the mask was required while at work. They just didn't want the shot, with plenty of it available. I thought, I know there can be some bad side effects but the pros overweigh the cons, and yet these medics seem to think the cons of the shots are just not worth the risk even though they would supposedly at least mitigate against the flu. And I also thought it was kinda neat that there was no law or clinic rule saying they MUST have the vaccination, even though it might cause others to not want to get the flu shot too.I know measles can be even worse than the flu, at least for some people, and generally I'm in favor of all people getting vaccinated, but I think it's good that people can opt out of things that they'd rather not do with nobody trying to force or coerce or intimidate them into compliance. Edited February 9, 2015 by Ahab
Pahoran Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Stone Holm wrote: So if the "deeply held religious belief" doctrine gains sway, would that nullify say a baker being required to bake a Wedding Cake for what he/she believes to be a miscegenation wedding? How about a bar mitzvah cake (don't know if they eat cakes at those) or a Jewish baker making a Christmas cake? Well, let's turn this one around: if a Yankee elitist like yourself walked into a Jewish bakery and ordered a Christmas cake, and they refused to bake it, would s/he then proceed to try to sue the baker into financial oblivion? Regards, Pahoran
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Saw something interesting the other day when I went with my wife to the clinic to have some medical tests done. There were nurses and clinical technicians walking around with masks over their mouth and nose, and after I asked was told it was because they hadn't had a flu shot/vaccine, so the mask was required while at work. They just didn't want the shot, with plenty of it available. I thought, I know there can be some bad side effects but the pros overweigh the cons, and yet these medics seem to think the cons of the shots are just not worth the risk even though they would supposedly at least mitigate against the flu. And I also thought it was kinda neat that there was no law or clinic rule saying they MUST have the vaccination, even though it might cause others to not want to get the flu shot too.I know measles can be even worse than the flu, at least for some people, and generally I'm in favor of all people getting vaccinated, but I think it's good that people can opt out of things that they'd rather not do with nobody trying to force or coerce or intimidate them into compliance. The young, old, or those in ill health should be mandated by the state to get vaccinated against the flu, or stay out of the public sphere. For the vast majority of people the worst side effect is a sore injections site for a day or so. BTW Influenza kills more Americans each year than Ebola. Measles is a very different disease from the flu and is nothing to be taken lightly. It can result in internal damage, disability including blindness, and death. If 1(one) person with measles walks into a room with 100 people in it 90 will get the measles. How any one but a misanthrope would find such a place as satisfactory is beyond me. Then go live on a deserted island out in the ocean with no body but yourself. Then no one else will be subject to your diseases. 1
Ahab Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 The young, old, or those in ill health should be mandated by the state to get vaccinated against the flu, or stay out of the public sphere....or wear a mask, as some in the healthcare profession do as I illustrated in my example. Show some flexibility, pal.For the vast majority of people the worst side effect is a sore injections site for a day or so. BTW Influenza kills more Americans each year than Ebola. Measles is a very different disease from the flu and is nothing to be taken lightly. It can result in internal damage, disability including blindness, and death. If 1(one) person with measles walks into a room with 100 people in it 90 will get the measles.Yeah I know there are some bad bugs and as I said I am in favor of vaccinations and preventative measures. But even some people in the health care industry don't want to get vaccinated and have come up with some acceptable compromises rather than trying to force or coerce or intimidate people to get vaccinated. How any one but a misanthrope would find such a place as satisfactory is beyond me. Then go live on a deserted island out in the ocean with no body but yourself. Then no one else will be subject to your diseases.Are you having a crabby moment?
Pahoran Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 The young, old, or those in ill health should be mandated by the state to get vaccinated against the flu, or stay out of the public sphere. For the vast majority of people the worst side effect is a sore injections site for a day or so. BTW Influenza kills more Americans each year than Ebola. Measles is a very different disease from the flu and is nothing to be taken lightly. It can result in internal damage, disability including blindness, and death. If 1(one) person with measles walks into a room with 100 people in it 90 will get the measles. How any one but a misanthrope would find such a place as satisfactory is beyond me. Then go live on a deserted island out in the ocean with no body but yourself. Then no one else will be subject to your diseases. While this is wandering way off topic, it is still a valid parallel. I am in favour of vaccinations. I get the flu jab every year. I've had the measles and chicken pox, so no vaccinations necessary. But to me there is a fairly vast gulf between approving of vaccinations, and trying to compel everyone else to get vaccinated. A similarly vast gulf exists between being willing to serve people regardless of "sexual orientation," and compelling everyone to actively support practices they validly regard as wicked. Which is, perhaps, why the "gay" lobby refuses to address what is really being objected to, and try to pretend that it's just a matter of blanket discrimination against a class of people. Which pretence is a big, brazen lie. Regards, Pahoran
pogi Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 A similarly vast gulf exists between being willing to serve people regardless of "sexual orientation," and compelling everyone to actively support practices they validly regard as wicked.Which is, perhaps, why the "gay" lobby refuses to address what is really being objected to, and try to pretend that it's just a matter of blanket discrimination against a class of people.Which pretence is a big, brazen lie.Regards,Pahoran I think the pretense that non-discrimination is in any way explicit support or tacit approval of wicked practices, is the big brazen lie. 2
Stone holm Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Stone Holm wrote: Well, let's turn this one around: if a Yankee elitist like yourself walked into a Jewish bakery and ordered a Christmas cake, and they refused to bake it, would s/he then proceed to try to sue the baker into financial oblivion?Regards,PahoranProbably not, unless Jews had been persecuting me because I don't wear a hat and telling me I had to get married under a canopy or not at all. And if they persisted in that long enough, yeah then I might consider it.
Ahab Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I think the pretense that non-discrimination is in any way explicit support or tacit approval of wicked practices, is the big brazen lie.I think the pretense that you don't understand that it's a good thing when someone doesn't want to do something they feel would be a bad thing to do a big brazen lie.Please stop pretending to believe that people should do what they don't feel right about doing.
Daniel2 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Please stop pretending to believe that people should do what they don't feel right about doing.Surprising to see such New Age feel-good philosophies being advocated here.Laws compel people to do things they don't feel right about doing ALL the time.People may "not feel right" about paying taxes, but we have to. Can I say it's against my religion to pay taxes and get away with it?People may not "feel right" about complying with policies they believe are misguided that were implemented by officials they didn't vote for, but they have to (at least, until they follow the necessary procedures to have them changed). Can I say it's against my religion to comply with any laws enacted by Democrats and get away with it?People may not "feel right" about any number of court custody orders regarding their own children or criminal rulings or judicial sanctions against them for disobeying the law, but they must comply with them. Can someone say they refuse to follow a restraining order limiting their contact with their kids or other parenting schedule because their religious beliefs dictate that they are personally responsible for raising their children...?! This idea that we must only do things which we "feel right" about is severely flawed. Edited February 10, 2015 by Daniel2
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 While this is wandering way off topic, it is still a valid parallel.I am in favour of vaccinations. I get the flu jab every year. I've had the measles and chicken pox, so no vaccinations necessary.But to me there is a fairly vast gulf between approving of vaccinations, and trying to compel everyone else to get vaccinated.A similarly vast gulf exists between being willing to serve people regardless of "sexual orientation," and compelling everyone to actively support practices they validly regard as wicked.Which is, perhaps, why the "gay" lobby refuses to address what is really being objected to, and try to pretend that it's just a matter of blanket discrimination against a class of people.Which pretence is a big, brazen lie.Regards,Pahoran True. Me too, but that is irrelevant of the fact that measles is a highly contagious disease that can and does maim and kill. Public health is a serious issue. It takes upwards of 90% immunization rates for group immunity to start to play in. You might be fine with half a million NZRDS sick, maimed or dead from the easily prevented disease of measles but I'm not. That game of if I don't like it you shouldn't force me to do it is as old as mankind. and has been played by the righteous and unrighteous for as long of time. We live in a society of men(women) who owes everyone else a debt of safety, and in obeying the law. Just substitute the term "gay" with the term Maori, and see how well that floats in New Zealand.
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Surprising to see such New Age feel-good philosophies being advocated here.Laws compel people to do things they don't feel good about doing ALL the time.People may "not feel" good about paying taxes, but we have to. Can I say it's against my religion to pay taxes and get away with it?People may not "feel good" complying with policies they believe are misguided thst were implemented by officials they didn't vote for, but they have to. Can I say it's against my religion to comply with any laws enacted by Democrats and get away with it?People may not "feel good" about any number of court custody orders regarding their own children or criminal rulings or judicial sanctions against them for disobeying the law, but they must comply with them. Can someone say they refuse to follow a restraining order limiting their contact with their kids or other parenting schedule because their religious beliefs dictate that they are personally responsible for raising their children...?!This idea that we must only do things which we "feel good" about is severely flawed. Agreed. :good:
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 I think the pretense that you don't understand that it's a good thing when someone doesn't want to do something they feel would be a bad thing to do a big brazen lie.Please stop pretending to believe that people should do what they don't feel right about doing.
Recommended Posts