Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christian Bakers and Remarriages

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 8:29:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay, so I've seen this argument being used a lot in the comments sections of online news articles. Then the other day my older sister used this argument. Then somebody on DDO said it. So, I think it's time I responded to this.

The Liberal argument goes as following:
"If those Christian bakers are ACTUALLY refusing to bake gay wedding cakes because of what the Bible says and not out of pure homophobia, then why do they fix cakes for the weddings of two people who divorced their spouses and are now marrying each other? After all, God does say that divorcing your wife and marrying someone else is adultery, right?"

Well, there are several things for me to say about this:
1. First of all, while divorcing your spouse and then later marrying someone else is considered wrong, it's generally considered a lesser sin to homosexuality. Thus, Christians might perhaps neglect to think about what the Bible says on this because they're more focused on stuff like homosexuality. In fact, they might be so Biblically illiterate that they literally don't know what the Bible says about it (unfortunate but true).
2. They may know, but at the same time they might be a tad cowardly. They may desire to live out their faith and stand up for their beliefs but not want to lose their livelihood. Gay marriage isn't all that terribly common as of right now, but probably 50% of marriages are remarriages that the Bible denounces. One could afford to lose the business of gays, but not all those remarrying people. So, you see two people in their forties entering your establishment wanting to get married. You don't want to endorse a remarriage, but at the same time you don't know for sure what's going on. After all, they might be two people who never married but now are. Or, their spouses may have died. Or, they may have divorced their spouses after their spouses cheated on them (the Bible calls that acceptable). Or, they may have formerly been married and then divorced, and now they're getting back together. You don't know their story, and you don't want to cause an issue that would make you lose business. So, you just don't ask. Like the military up until Obama. Don't ask, don't tell.

I do think that it's a problem, but in no way does it negate the sincerity of Christian Bakers who stand by their principles in regards to the definition of marriage.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 10:21:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 9:27:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, how do you know for sure gay sex is involved? You are willing to give adulterers the benefit of bias....

Huh wut?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 10:22:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 9:25:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Ok, so your idea is that divorce is a lesser sin than gay sex, and gays are a lesser consumer than adulterers.

Sounds moral.

I'm not saying that adultery isn't worth condemning or taking a stand against. Adulterous remarriages should be up there with gay marriage. People just don't really think about it that much.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 9:24:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 8:29:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, so I've seen this argument being used a lot in the comments sections of online news articles. Then the other day my older sister used this argument. Then somebody on DDO said it. So, I think it's time I responded to this.

The Liberal argument goes as following:
"If those Christian bakers are ACTUALLY refusing to bake gay wedding cakes because of what the Bible says and not out of pure homophobia, then why do they fix cakes for the weddings of two people who divorced their spouses and are now marrying each other? After all, God does say that divorcing your wife and marrying someone else is adultery, right?"

Well, there are several things for me to say about this:
1. First of all, while divorcing your spouse and then later marrying someone else is considered wrong, it's generally considered a lesser sin to homosexuality. Thus, Christians might perhaps neglect to think about what the Bible says on this because they're more focused on stuff like homosexuality. In fact, they might be so Biblically illiterate that they literally don't know what the Bible says about it (unfortunate but true).
2. They may know, but at the same time they might be a tad cowardly. They may desire to live out their faith and stand up for their beliefs but not want to lose their livelihood. Gay marriage isn't all that terribly common as of right now, but probably 50% of marriages are remarriages that the Bible denounces. One could afford to lose the business of gays, but not all those remarrying people. So, you see two people in their forties entering your establishment wanting to get married. You don't want to endorse a remarriage, but at the same time you don't know for sure what's going on. After all, they might be two people who never married but now are. Or, their spouses may have died. Or, they may have divorced their spouses after their spouses cheated on them (the Bible calls that acceptable). Or, they may have formerly been married and then divorced, and now they're getting back together. You don't know their story, and you don't want to cause an issue that would make you lose business. So, you just don't ask. Like the military up until Obama. Don't ask, don't tell.

I do think that it's a problem, but in no way does it negate the sincerity of Christian Bakers who stand by their principles in regards to the definition of marriage.

First, as you describe it, that wholly negates their sincerity. Turning a blind eye to sin for profit while refusing to turn a blind eye to other sin is directly in conflict with being sincere, if you believe they are equally sinful, which may not be the case. Second, why wouldn't the defense to this charge be: I don't think remarriage is a sin? Catholics believe this, but not all Christians. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is exactly why Protestants came into being - to allow divorce and remarriage for Henry VIII. So, not only are the critics holding these people to a potentially false standard, but so are you.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:11:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 9:24:53 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/15/2015 8:29:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, so I've seen this argument being used a lot in the comments sections of online news articles. Then the other day my older sister used this argument. Then somebody on DDO said it. So, I think it's time I responded to this.

The Liberal argument goes as following:
"If those Christian bakers are ACTUALLY refusing to bake gay wedding cakes because of what the Bible says and not out of pure homophobia, then why do they fix cakes for the weddings of two people who divorced their spouses and are now marrying each other? After all, God does say that divorcing your wife and marrying someone else is adultery, right?"

Well, there are several things for me to say about this:
1. First of all, while divorcing your spouse and then later marrying someone else is considered wrong, it's generally considered a lesser sin to homosexuality. Thus, Christians might perhaps neglect to think about what the Bible says on this because they're more focused on stuff like homosexuality. In fact, they might be so Biblically illiterate that they literally don't know what the Bible says about it (unfortunate but true).
2. They may know, but at the same time they might be a tad cowardly. They may desire to live out their faith and stand up for their beliefs but not want to lose their livelihood. Gay marriage isn't all that terribly common as of right now, but probably 50% of marriages are remarriages that the Bible denounces. One could afford to lose the business of gays, but not all those remarrying people. So, you see two people in their forties entering your establishment wanting to get married. You don't want to endorse a remarriage, but at the same time you don't know for sure what's going on. After all, they might be two people who never married but now are. Or, their spouses may have died. Or, they may have divorced their spouses after their spouses cheated on them (the Bible calls that acceptable). Or, they may have formerly been married and then divorced, and now they're getting back together. You don't know their story, and you don't want to cause an issue that would make you lose business. So, you just don't ask. Like the military up until Obama. Don't ask, don't tell.

I do think that it's a problem, but in no way does it negate the sincerity of Christian Bakers who stand by their principles in regards to the definition of marriage.

First, as you describe it, that wholly negates their sincerity. Turning a blind eye to sin for profit while refusing to turn a blind eye to other sin is directly in conflict with being sincere, if you believe they are equally sinful, which may not be the case. Second, why wouldn't the defense to this charge be: I don't think remarriage is a sin? Catholics believe this, but not all Christians. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is exactly why Protestants came into being - to allow divorce and remarriage for Henry VIII. So, not only are the critics holding these people to a potentially false standard, but so are you.

Not in the slightest. Their stance on adulterous remarriage may be inaccurate while at the same time they're completely sincere about homosexuality.
As for them "sacrificing their principles for profit", it's called not losing so much business that you go bankrupt within 3 months. Were adulterous remarriages not extremely common they could afford to take a strong stand against it. If anything, them having to violate their principles on adulterous remarriage is the fault of secular society.
And to be fair, there probably are plenty of Christian bakers who would refuse to bake a cake for what they know is an adulterous remarriage.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:24:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 10:11:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:24:53 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/15/2015 8:29:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, so I've seen this argument being used a lot in the comments sections of online news articles. Then the other day my older sister used this argument. Then somebody on DDO said it. So, I think it's time I responded to this.

The Liberal argument goes as following:
"If those Christian bakers are ACTUALLY refusing to bake gay wedding cakes because of what the Bible says and not out of pure homophobia, then why do they fix cakes for the weddings of two people who divorced their spouses and are now marrying each other? After all, God does say that divorcing your wife and marrying someone else is adultery, right?"

Well, there are several things for me to say about this:
1. First of all, while divorcing your spouse and then later marrying someone else is considered wrong, it's generally considered a lesser sin to homosexuality. Thus, Christians might perhaps neglect to think about what the Bible says on this because they're more focused on stuff like homosexuality. In fact, they might be so Biblically illiterate that they literally don't know what the Bible says about it (unfortunate but true).
2. They may know, but at the same time they might be a tad cowardly. They may desire to live out their faith and stand up for their beliefs but not want to lose their livelihood. Gay marriage isn't all that terribly common as of right now, but probably 50% of marriages are remarriages that the Bible denounces. One could afford to lose the business of gays, but not all those remarrying people. So, you see two people in their forties entering your establishment wanting to get married. You don't want to endorse a remarriage, but at the same time you don't know for sure what's going on. After all, they might be two people who never married but now are. Or, their spouses may have died. Or, they may have divorced their spouses after their spouses cheated on them (the Bible calls that acceptable). Or, they may have formerly been married and then divorced, and now they're getting back together. You don't know their story, and you don't want to cause an issue that would make you lose business. So, you just don't ask. Like the military up until Obama. Don't ask, don't tell.

I do think that it's a problem, but in no way does it negate the sincerity of Christian Bakers who stand by their principles in regards to the definition of marriage.

First, as you describe it, that wholly negates their sincerity. Turning a blind eye to sin for profit while refusing to turn a blind eye to other sin is directly in conflict with being sincere, if you believe they are equally sinful, which may not be the case. Second, why wouldn't the defense to this charge be: I don't think remarriage is a sin? Catholics believe this, but not all Christians. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is exactly why Protestants came into being - to allow divorce and remarriage for Henry VIII. So, not only are the critics holding these people to a potentially false standard, but so are you.

Not in the slightest. Their stance on adulterous remarriage may be inaccurate while at the same time they're completely sincere about homosexuality.
As for them "sacrificing their principles for profit", it's called not losing so much business that you go bankrupt within 3 months. Were adulterous remarriages not extremely common they could afford to take a strong stand against it. If anything, them having to violate their principles on adulterous remarriage is the fault of secular society.
And to be fair, there probably are plenty of Christian bakers who would refuse to bake a cake for what they know is an adulterous remarriage.

Turning a blind eye to an equally repulsive act, sin, in one case and not another for the only reason of making a sale is completely 100% sacrificing their principles. By your logic, it is not sacrificing their principles to deny gay weddings services if in the next year the town becomes a gay hot spot, since you'd go out of business. The only way this is not selling out is if you sincerely believe that remarriage is not a sin, which you do not allow for in your defense, or that it is less of a sin, but, I don't understand how it can be, since a commandment is to not covet, and a remarriage is clearly coveting.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:23:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 10:24:09 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:11:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:24:53 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/15/2015 8:29:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, so I've seen this argument being used a lot in the comments sections of online news articles. Then the other day my older sister used this argument. Then somebody on DDO said it. So, I think it's time I responded to this.

The Liberal argument goes as following:
"If those Christian bakers are ACTUALLY refusing to bake gay wedding cakes because of what the Bible says and not out of pure homophobia, then why do they fix cakes for the weddings of two people who divorced their spouses and are now marrying each other? After all, God does say that divorcing your wife and marrying someone else is adultery, right?"

Well, there are several things for me to say about this:
1. First of all, while divorcing your spouse and then later marrying someone else is considered wrong, it's generally considered a lesser sin to homosexuality. Thus, Christians might perhaps neglect to think about what the Bible says on this because they're more focused on stuff like homosexuality. In fact, they might be so Biblically illiterate that they literally don't know what the Bible says about it (unfortunate but true).
2. They may know, but at the same time they might be a tad cowardly. They may desire to live out their faith and stand up for their beliefs but not want to lose their livelihood. Gay marriage isn't all that terribly common as of right now, but probably 50% of marriages are remarriages that the Bible denounces. One could afford to lose the business of gays, but not all those remarrying people. So, you see two people in their forties entering your establishment wanting to get married. You don't want to endorse a remarriage, but at the same time you don't know for sure what's going on. After all, they might be two people who never married but now are. Or, their spouses may have died. Or, they may have divorced their spouses after their spouses cheated on them (the Bible calls that acceptable). Or, they may have formerly been married and then divorced, and now they're getting back together. You don't know their story, and you don't want to cause an issue that would make you lose business. So, you just don't ask. Like the military up until Obama. Don't ask, don't tell.

I do think that it's a problem, but in no way does it negate the sincerity of Christian Bakers who stand by their principles in regards to the definition of marriage.

First, as you describe it, that wholly negates their sincerity. Turning a blind eye to sin for profit while refusing to turn a blind eye to other sin is directly in conflict with being sincere, if you believe they are equally sinful, which may not be the case. Second, why wouldn't the defense to this charge be: I don't think remarriage is a sin? Catholics believe this, but not all Christians. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is exactly why Protestants came into being - to allow divorce and remarriage for Henry VIII. So, not only are the critics holding these people to a potentially false standard, but so are you.

Not in the slightest. Their stance on adulterous remarriage may be inaccurate while at the same time they're completely sincere about homosexuality.
As for them "sacrificing their principles for profit", it's called not losing so much business that you go bankrupt within 3 months. Were adulterous remarriages not extremely common they could afford to take a strong stand against it. If anything, them having to violate their principles on adulterous remarriage is the fault of secular society.
And to be fair, there probably are plenty of Christian bakers who would refuse to bake a cake for what they know is an adulterous remarriage.

Turning a blind eye to an equally repulsive act, sin, in one case and not another for the only reason of making a sale is completely 100% sacrificing their principles. By your logic, it is not sacrificing their principles to deny gay weddings services if in the next year the town becomes a gay hot spot, since you'd go out of business. The only way this is not selling out is if you sincerely believe that remarriage is not a sin, which you do not allow for in your defense, or that it is less of a sin, but, I don't understand how it can be, since a commandment is to not covet, and a remarriage is clearly coveting.

I already explained that they don't generally know the couple's story. They simply don't ask. It's a bit cowardly, but that they have to resort to this is the culture's fault. People treat you like s**t and you're sued for $100,000+ (true story) if word gets out that you refused to bake a cake for somebody's wedding. Human beings normally do not like being treated like s**t, so they bake the stupid cake and hope that the couple isn't doing anything sinful. Virtually anybody would do the same in this kind of situation.
American culture is putting Evangelicals in these tough spots and it has been for some time. If you don't like it that they're caving like this, blame secular culture first. They wouldn't have to cave in a culture that adhered to Christian morals. Gay wedding cakes are probably next.
As I also explained before, there probably are bakeries that suck it up, refuse to do the cake, and deal with the ensuing s**t that happens.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:24:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Besides, "equally repulsive" is a bit inaccurate.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:25:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's easy to condemn, but would YOU like the thought of losing your business?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:56:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 11:24:13 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Besides, "equally repulsive" is a bit inaccurate.

What is inaccurate about it? Isn't your argument that they find sin repulsive? Of course, it is only that which is selectively and rationally enforced. And I am flabbergasted that you think one is not selling out by not sticking to their principles; that is the definition of selling out.
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:01:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 11:25:22 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's easy to condemn, but would YOU like the thought of losing your business?

If it meant I stood up for my beliefs, then yes. I'd rather have a failed business run my way than have a successful business where I can't look myself in the mirror. Again, the very definition of selling out. Clearly, these people will risk losing their business to stand up for their beliefs on certain things like gay marriage, which suggest they do not sincerely hold the belief that remarriage is wrong. Picking and choosing when and where and which beliefs you stand for is not being sincere, and if you can swallow the pill over remarriage, then you can swallow it over gay marriage.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:10:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 11:56:43 AM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 11:24:13 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Besides, "equally repulsive" is a bit inaccurate.

What is inaccurate about it? Isn't your argument that they find sin repulsive? Of course, it is only that which is selectively and rationally enforced. And I am flabbergasted that you think one is not selling out by not sticking to their principles; that is the definition of selling out.

Both are selling out. However, they have less of a choice on adulterous remarriage as it stands right now, whereas they have more of a choice on gay marriage.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:10:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:01:05 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 11:25:22 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's easy to condemn, but would YOU like the thought of losing your business?

If it meant I stood up for my beliefs, then yes. I'd rather have a failed business run my way than have a successful business where I can't look myself in the mirror. Again, the very definition of selling out. Clearly, these people will risk losing their business to stand up for their beliefs on certain things like gay marriage, which suggest they do not sincerely hold the belief that remarriage is wrong. Picking and choosing when and where and which beliefs you stand for is not being sincere, and if you can swallow the pill over remarriage, then you can swallow it over gay marriage.

Brave words, coming from a man who isn't about to lose his bakery.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:15:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:10:51 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:01:05 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 11:25:22 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's easy to condemn, but would YOU like the thought of losing your business?

If it meant I stood up for my beliefs, then yes. I'd rather have a failed business run my way than have a successful business where I can't look myself in the mirror. Again, the very definition of selling out. Clearly, these people will risk losing their business to stand up for their beliefs on certain things like gay marriage, which suggest they do not sincerely hold the belief that remarriage is wrong. Picking and choosing when and where and which beliefs you stand for is not being sincere, and if you can swallow the pill over remarriage, then you can swallow it over gay marriage.

Brave words, coming from a man who isn't about to lose his bakery.

Cowardly rationale coming from someone who opens a bakery with intent on discrimination. Oh, and you have no idea who I am or what I have done with my life, but I'll have you know this, we have had to close a business due to us standing our ground on a matter which cost us business. We did it our way, and sleep well knowing we didn't cave.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:17:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:15:09 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:10:51 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:01:05 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 11:25:22 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's easy to condemn, but would YOU like the thought of losing your business?

If it meant I stood up for my beliefs, then yes. I'd rather have a failed business run my way than have a successful business where I can't look myself in the mirror. Again, the very definition of selling out. Clearly, these people will risk losing their business to stand up for their beliefs on certain things like gay marriage, which suggest they do not sincerely hold the belief that remarriage is wrong. Picking and choosing when and where and which beliefs you stand for is not being sincere, and if you can swallow the pill over remarriage, then you can swallow it over gay marriage.

Brave words, coming from a man who isn't about to lose his bakery.

Cowardly rationale coming from someone who opens a bakery with intent on discrimination. Oh, and you have no idea who I am or what I have done with my life, but I'll have you know this, we have had to close a business due to us standing our ground on a matter which cost us business. We did it our way, and sleep well knowing we didn't cave.

The Baker simply doesn't want to violate his principles. His intent is not generally to "discriminate".
What exactly is your story? Sounds intriguing.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:20:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just be aware, though, that in the United States an Evangelical Christian who opens a bakery that bakes wedding cakes and sticks to his principles completely won't receive enough business to stay open, and he'd likely get sued a lot for the duration that his business was open. It's pretty much equivalent to saying "an Evangelical Christian shouldn't own a bakery". What if his lifelong dream has been to open a bakery that makes wedding cakes?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:29:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:17:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:15:09 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:10:51 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:01:05 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/16/2015 11:25:22 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
It's easy to condemn, but would YOU like the thought of losing your business?

If it meant I stood up for my beliefs, then yes. I'd rather have a failed business run my way than have a successful business where I can't look myself in the mirror. Again, the very definition of selling out. Clearly, these people will risk losing their business to stand up for their beliefs on certain things like gay marriage, which suggest they do not sincerely hold the belief that remarriage is wrong. Picking and choosing when and where and which beliefs you stand for is not being sincere, and if you can swallow the pill over remarriage, then you can swallow it over gay marriage.

Brave words, coming from a man who isn't about to lose his bakery.

Cowardly rationale coming from someone who opens a bakery with intent on discrimination. Oh, and you have no idea who I am or what I have done with my life, but I'll have you know this, we have had to close a business due to us standing our ground on a matter which cost us business. We did it our way, and sleep well knowing we didn't cave.

The Baker simply doesn't want to violate his principles. His intent is not generally to "discriminate".
What exactly is your story? Sounds intriguing.

I have no inclination to share my story as it is irrelevant, and definitely not to someone who dismisses my logic with an ad hominem attack. I am not here to entertain you with my personal stories but to have sensible and logical discussions.
In your OP, the baker is violating his principles, he just rationalizes the violation of them. He values profit over some sin but not others. By your logic, if the area turned gay overnight, he would very much abandon his principles on gay weddings, since that becomes the brunt of his business. That means his utmost principle is profit, not morality, and as such, he is only refusing business because he can, not because it is just or the right thing to do. It is discrimination, even if he didn't go into the business with the intent to discriminate against gays as he may never have thought of the issue, he clearly has decided to continue his business with this intent and is rationalizing his selective moral outrage and subsequent refusal.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 3:48:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.

That's nowhere in the Bible.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 3:53:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.

I didn't know being gay was in the ten commandments.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 4:17:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 3:48:32 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.

That's nowhere in the Bible.

"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immortality, makes her commit adultery."
-Mathew 5:31-32, English Standard Version

This fairly reliable source on the Bible agrees (though most of the article describes spouses who were cheated on).
http://www.gotquestions.org...

It's apparent, therefore, that divorcing for an insufficient reason and marrying someone else is either adultery or morally equivalent to adultery.
If the Bible does not actually have a problem with this (unlikely), then this topic would be irrelevant and this argument against Evangelicals would be negated.

If that's not the issue and instead you're questioning why I say gay marriage is worse than adulterous remarriage, well, God did not have David divorce Bathsheba (though that's definitely not to say that what he did wasn't wrong), whereas there are no cases in the Bible where God tolerated a homosexual relationship.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 4:18:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 3:53:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.

I didn't know being gay was in the ten commandments.

So what you're saying is that adultery's worse because it's in the Ten Commandments.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 4:28:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 4:18:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 3:53:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.

I didn't know being gay was in the ten commandments.

So what you're saying is that adultery's worse because it's in the Ten Commandments.

Yes. The ten commandments came *directly* from God in the Bible. Therefore, those laws must've been a bit more important than some of the other perceived laws.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 4:50:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 4:28:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/16/2015 4:18:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 3:53:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.

I didn't know being gay was in the ten commandments.

So what you're saying is that adultery's worse because it's in the Ten Commandments.

Yes. The ten commandments came *directly* from God in the Bible. Therefore, those laws must've been a bit more important than some of the other perceived laws.

Not necessarily. For instance, one of the Ten Commandments was "Thou shalt not covet". However, I haven't seen a single passage in the Bible where somebody got stoned simply for coveting, whereas people got stoned for plenty of things which weren't included in the Ten Commandments (such as bestiality). Also, "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" was was not covered in the Ten Commandments as far as I know, and yet the Bible has deemed it an unforgivable sin, whatever it is.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 5:01:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 4:50:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 4:28:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/16/2015 4:18:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 3:53:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.

I didn't know being gay was in the ten commandments.

So what you're saying is that adultery's worse because it's in the Ten Commandments.

Yes. The ten commandments came *directly* from God in the Bible. Therefore, those laws must've been a bit more important than some of the other perceived laws.

Not necessarily. For instance, one of the Ten Commandments was "Thou shalt not covet". However, I haven't seen a single passage in the Bible where somebody got stoned simply for coveting, whereas people got stoned for plenty of things which weren't included in the Ten Commandments (such as bestiality). Also, "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" was was not covered in the Ten Commandments as far as I know, and yet the Bible has deemed it an unforgivable sin, whatever it is.

No sin is greater than another. The only sin that has ever been singled out as worse than another is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. - James 2:10

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. - Matthew 12:30
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 5:05:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 5:01:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/16/2015 4:50:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 4:28:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/16/2015 4:18:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 3:53:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.

I didn't know being gay was in the ten commandments.

So what you're saying is that adultery's worse because it's in the Ten Commandments.

Yes. The ten commandments came *directly* from God in the Bible. Therefore, those laws must've been a bit more important than some of the other perceived laws.

Not necessarily. For instance, one of the Ten Commandments was "Thou shalt not covet". However, I haven't seen a single passage in the Bible where somebody got stoned simply for coveting, whereas people got stoned for plenty of things which weren't included in the Ten Commandments (such as bestiality). Also, "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" was was not covered in the Ten Commandments as far as I know, and yet the Bible has deemed it an unforgivable sin, whatever it is.

No sin is greater than another. The only sin that has ever been singled out as worse than another is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. - James 2:10

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. - Matthew 12:30

All sin is bad, and all sin can be forgiven, but to say that "no sin is greater than another" is a little bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 5:06:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 5:05:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 5:01:55 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/16/2015 4:50:13 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 4:28:28 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/16/2015 4:18:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 3:53:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.

I didn't know being gay was in the ten commandments.

So what you're saying is that adultery's worse because it's in the Ten Commandments.

Yes. The ten commandments came *directly* from God in the Bible. Therefore, those laws must've been a bit more important than some of the other perceived laws.

Not necessarily. For instance, one of the Ten Commandments was "Thou shalt not covet". However, I haven't seen a single passage in the Bible where somebody got stoned simply for coveting, whereas people got stoned for plenty of things which weren't included in the Ten Commandments (such as bestiality). Also, "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" was was not covered in the Ten Commandments as far as I know, and yet the Bible has deemed it an unforgivable sin, whatever it is.

No sin is greater than another. The only sin that has ever been singled out as worse than another is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. - James 2:10

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. - Matthew 12:30

All sin is bad, and all sin can be forgiven, but to say that "no sin is greater than another" is a little bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?

No not at all. Not in the eyes of God. If everything is equally forgivable, everything must be of equal value. You're thinking of it in legalist terms rather than religious terms.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 5:07:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 4:17:00 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/16/2015 3:48:32 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 7/16/2015 12:15:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And yes, adulterous remarriage is considered sin, but a lesser sin than gay marriage.

That's nowhere in the Bible.

"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immortality, makes her commit adultery."
-Mathew 5:31-32, English Standard Version

This fairly reliable source on the Bible agrees (though most of the article describes spouses who were cheated on).
http://www.gotquestions.org...

It's apparent, therefore, that divorcing for an insufficient reason and marrying someone else is either adultery or morally equivalent to adultery.
If the Bible does not actually have a problem with this (unlikely), then this topic would be irrelevant and this argument against Evangelicals would be negated.

If that's not the issue and instead you're questioning why I say gay marriage is worse than adulterous remarriage, well, God did not have David divorce Bathsheba (though that's definitely not to say that what he did wasn't wrong), whereas there are no cases in the Bible where God tolerated a homosexual relationship.

There are no cases in the Bible where God condemned one either.
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." James 2:10. Now, I reject the idea that the Bible even condemns homosexuality, but let's assume it does for this purpose.