And so it begins in the ultra conservative State of South Carolina

[Billy]

It's 1964 and a black man walks into a 5 and dime store and orders a coke...but is sent away because he is black...we all agree it was wrong and laws were passed to make it illegal for that store to reject customers on the basis of color...

2015 and I own a mom and pop burger joint in Columbia, SC and two men walk in holding hands (or two women) sit at one of my booths and places an order for 2 cokes and two burgers, do I have the right as a business owner to refuse service based on sexual orientation?

If you believe I do can you please explain the difference between the two situations.

Thanks

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It's 1964 and a black man walks into a 5 and dime store and orders a coke...but is sent away because he is black...we all agree it was wrong and laws were passed to make it illegal for that store to reject customers on the basis of color...

2015 and I own a mom and pop burger joint in Columbia, SC and two men walk in holding hands (or two women) sit at one of my booths and places an order for 2 cokes and two burgers, do I have the right as a business owner to refuse service based on sexual orientation?

If you believe I do can you please explain the difference between the two situations.

Thanks

Who thinks that you do?
That's a long way from being forced to host their wedding reception in the burger joint!

 

[Ransom]

What would the answers to 3 & 4 be if we took out gay and inserted black?

That's a category error. No one denies that a marriage can exist between a man and a woman of two different ethnicities. The issue with miscegenation laws was whether such marriages ought to be lawful. They were already taking place, and were criminalized.

On the other hand, whether the very definition of "marriage" can include a union of two men or two women, is the very issue at hand in the question of same-sex mirage.

 

[JrChurch]

To re-emphasize some Scriptures that have been quoted:

Rom 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

The Lord's opinion is all that matters.  When we become the Creator, then we can have our own rules.  Until then....it is God and God alone who determines moral law.  Therefore, uncleanness, dishonor, lies, vile affections, against nature are the clear definitions set forth by the Creator of the creatures. 

According to the Bible, marriage is between a man and a woman.  Husband, wife, bride, bridegroom, and marriage are all Bible words. "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." Not. Rocket. Science.

 

[Billy]

To re-emphasize some Scriptures that have been quoted:

Rom 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

The Lord's opinion is all that matters.  When we become the Creator, then we can have our own rules.  Until then....it is God and God alone who determines moral law.  Therefore, uncleanness, dishonor, lies, vile affections, against nature are the clear definitions set forth by the Creator of the creatures. 

According to the Bible, marriage is between a man and a woman.  Husband, wife, bride, bridegroom, and marriage are all Bible words. "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." Not. Rocket. Science.

Completely agree....but we don't live in Theocracy.

Now that same sex marriage is legal, its interesting to me how Christians including myself will handle it.  I have worked side by side with many wonderful gay folks, both in the military and in the private sector. Ten years from now I wonder if the church will have just "moved on".

Thanks

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

To re-emphasize some Scriptures that have been quoted:

Rom 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

The Lord's opinion is all that matters.  When we become the Creator, then we can have our own rules.  Until then....it is God and God alone who determines moral law.  Therefore, uncleanness, dishonor, lies, vile affections, against nature are the clear definitions set forth by the Creator of the creatures. 

According to the Bible, marriage is between a man and a woman.  Husband, wife, bride, bridegroom, and marriage are all Bible words. "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." Not. Rocket. Science.

Completely agree....but we don't live in Theocracy.

Now that same sex marriage is legal, its interesting to me how Christians including myself will handle it.  I have worked side by side with many wonderful gay folks, both in the military and in the private sector. Ten years from now I wonder if the church will have just "moved on".

Thanks

The church can't 'move on' from the Biblical position that homosexuality is sin.
What the church will have to do is clean up her act on marriage and relationships, among other things. How much do we value marriage when adultery and divorce are rampant in the church?

My thinking is that we are in for increased persecution over this and other issues.
Historically, persecution has served to lessen the membership, cleanse and, therefore strengthen the church.

 

[Billy]

What would the answers to 3 & 4 be if we took out gay and inserted black?

That's a category error. No one denies that a marriage can exist between a man and a woman of two different ethnicities. The issue with miscegenation laws was whether such marriages ought to be lawful. They were already taking place, and were criminalized.

On the other hand, whether the very definition of "marriage" can include a union of two men or two women, is the very issue at hand in the question of same-sex mirage.

I think Ransom I was thinking along the lines of federal discrimination laws and how those laws will effect questions 3 and 4.

 

[Billy]

To re-emphasize some Scriptures that have been quoted:

Rom 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

The Lord's opinion is all that matters.  When we become the Creator, then we can have our own rules.  Until then....it is God and God alone who determines moral law.  Therefore, uncleanness, dishonor, lies, vile affections, against nature are the clear definitions set forth by the Creator of the creatures. 

According to the Bible, marriage is between a man and a woman.  Husband, wife, bride, bridegroom, and marriage are all Bible words. "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." Not. Rocket. Science.

Completely agree....but we don't live in Theocracy.

Now that same sex marriage is legal, its interesting to me how Christians including myself will handle it.  I have worked side by side with many wonderful gay folks, both in the military and in the private sector. Ten years from now I wonder if the church will have just "moved on".

Thanks

The church can't 'move on' from the Biblical position that homosexuality is sin.
What the church will have to do is clean up her act on marriage and relationships, among other things. How much do we value marriage when adultery and divorce are rampant in the church?

My thinking is that we are in for increased persecution over this and other issues.
Historically, persecution has served to lessen the membership, cleanse and, therefore strengthen the church.
[/quote


I agree that the stand of the evangelical church will remain and should remain constant, but how will the church handle the openness of gay marriages?  Will we become and excuse the comparison....Westboro in how we are perceived, or will we try and find ways to reach these folks.

Do you think there is any common ground between the church and homosexuals?

I have a friend that we kinda grew up together in our christian school...he lives in Arizona.  He is openly gay and openly conservative republican and openly fundamental in his "christian faith"  i.e. He does not deny any of the fundamental of the faith....
He has some very interesting views on how gays and the christian church can reach out to each other.

Interesting discussion....

Maybe we can stir the pot even further and talk about people that we might have know from the age of 10 and under that we knew were gay but didn't discussion it until they  became adults.

Thanks,

 

[subllibrm]

It's 1964 and a black man walks into a 5 and dime store and orders a coke...but is sent away because he is black...we all agree it was wrong and laws were passed to make it illegal for that store to reject customers on the basis of color...

2015 and I own a mom and pop burger joint in Columbia, SC and two men walk in holding hands (or two women) sit at one of my booths and places an order for 2 cokes and two burgers, do I have the right as a business owner to refuse service based on sexual orientation?

If you believe I do can you please explain the difference between the two situations.

Thanks

Does serving them a meal make you complicit to or in agreement with their relationship?

 

[Billy]

It's 1964 and a black man walks into a 5 and dime store and orders a coke...but is sent away because he is black...we all agree it was wrong and laws were passed to make it illegal for that store to reject customers on the basis of color...

2015 and I own a mom and pop burger joint in Columbia, SC and two men walk in holding hands (or two women) sit at one of my booths and places an order for 2 cokes and two burgers, do I have the right as a business owner to refuse service based on sexual orientation?

If you believe I do can you please explain the difference between the two situations.

Thanks

Does serving them a meal make you complicit to or in agreement with their relationship?

To some it might...

I don't see how baking a wedding cake would make you complicit but it seems that baker thought so.

 

[subllibrm]

The church can't 'move on' from the Biblical position that homosexuality is sin.
What the church will have to do is clean up her act on marriage and relationships, among other things. How much do we value marriage when adultery and divorce are rampant in the church?

^this^

The church has made her bed and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

BTW Rush Limbaugh is a terrible spokesman for traditional marriage. Unless your tradition includes serial divorce and remarriage. ;-)

 

[subllibrm]

It's 1964 and a black man walks into a 5 and dime store and orders a coke...but is sent away because he is black...we all agree it was wrong and laws were passed to make it illegal for that store to reject customers on the basis of color...

2015 and I own a mom and pop burger joint in Columbia, SC and two men walk in holding hands (or two women) sit at one of my booths and places an order for 2 cokes and two burgers, do I have the right as a business owner to refuse service based on sexual orientation?

If you believe I do can you please explain the difference between the two situations.

Thanks

Does serving them a meal make you complicit to or in agreement with their relationship?

To some it might...

I don't see how baking a wedding cake would make you complicit but it seems that baker thought so.

The wedding is an event that is making a statement. The cake is part of the event. By participating in the event and making money off of it he is approving the statement.

When you get married you invite people to participate as guests and witnesses. Their attendance conveys their approval of the union. Declining the invitation or not showing up also can send a message of disapproval. Does anyone expect the government to force attendance at gay "weddings" to prevent discrimination? Aunt Tillie's absence may indicate disapproval but is it a crime to disapprove?

Back to a point I made earlier, there is no need to force this issue. There are plenty of bakers who will do the job. These are planned "offenses" designed to harm (shame?) the baker, not prevent harm to the intendeds. If the service is readily available elsewhere, what is the government's interest in forcing participation?

If society has "progressed" to the point where gay "marriage" is a normal event, then neanderthal bakers will go out of business on their own as the market refuses to utilize their services. If the social ethos goes that way then the situation will be self correcting. Why the need to punish them?

 

[Billy]

It's 1964 and a black man walks into a 5 and dime store and orders a coke...but is sent away because he is black...we all agree it was wrong and laws were passed to make it illegal for that store to reject customers on the basis of color...

2015 and I own a mom and pop burger joint in Columbia, SC and two men walk in holding hands (or two women) sit at one of my booths and places an order for 2 cokes and two burgers, do I have the right as a business owner to refuse service based on sexual orientation?

If you believe I do can you please explain the difference between the two situations.

Thanks

Does serving them a meal make you complicit to or in agreement with their relationship?

To some it might...

I don't see how baking a wedding cake would make you complicit but it seems that baker thought so.

The wedding is an event that is making a statement. The cake is part of the event. By participating in the event and making money off of it he is approving the statement.

When you get married you invite people to participate as guests and witnesses. Their attendance conveys their approval of the union. Declining the invitation or not showing up also can send a message of disapproval. Does anyone expect the government to force attendance at gay "weddings" to prevent discrimination? Aunt Tillie's absence may indicate disapproval but is it a crime to disapprove?

Back to a point I made earlier, there is no need to force this issue. There are plenty of bakers who will do the job. These are planned "offenses" designed to harm (shame?) the baker, not prevent harm to the intendeds. If the service is readily available elsewhere, what is the government's interest in forcing participation?

If society has "progressed" to the point where gay "marriage" is a normal event, then neanderthal bakers will go out of business on their own as the market refuses to utilize their services. If the social ethos goes that way then the situation will be self correcting. Why the need to punish them?

We shall see...

BTW: If a EEOC complaint is filed...even against a small bakery, and if the commission rules against that individual or company, the complainant may have the right to seek montary compensation.

 

[subllibrm]

It's 1964 and a black man walks into a 5 and dime store and orders a coke...but is sent away because he is black...we all agree it was wrong and laws were passed to make it illegal for that store to reject customers on the basis of color...

2015 and I own a mom and pop burger joint in Columbia, SC and two men walk in holding hands (or two women) sit at one of my booths and places an order for 2 cokes and two burgers, do I have the right as a business owner to refuse service based on sexual orientation?

If you believe I do can you please explain the difference between the two situations.

Thanks

Does serving them a meal make you complicit to or in agreement with their relationship?

To some it might...

I don't see how baking a wedding cake would make you complicit but it seems that baker thought so.

The wedding is an event that is making a statement. The cake is part of the event. By participating in the event and making money off of it he is approving the statement.

When you get married you invite people to participate as guests and witnesses. Their attendance conveys their approval of the union. Declining the invitation or not showing up also can send a message of disapproval. Does anyone expect the government to force attendance at gay "weddings" to prevent discrimination? Aunt Tillie's absence may indicate disapproval but is it a crime to disapprove?

Back to a point I made earlier, there is no need to force this issue. There are plenty of bakers who will do the job. These are planned "offenses" designed to harm (shame?) the baker, not prevent harm to the intendeds. If the service is readily available elsewhere, what is the government's interest in forcing participation?

If society has "progressed" to the point where gay "marriage" is a normal event, then neanderthal bakers will go out of business on their own as the market refuses to utilize their services. If the social ethos goes that way then the situation will be self correcting. Why the need to punish them?

We shall see...

BTW: If a EEOC complaint is filed...even against a small bakery, and if the commission rules against that individual or company, the complainant may have the right to seek montary compensation.

Even more motivation to take it to those hateful bakers.  :-\

 

[Ransom]

I think Ransom I was thinking along the lines of federal discrimination laws and how those laws will effect questions 3 and 4.

Whether business X can be compelled to provide services that violate the proprietor's conscience? All Business X has to do is lie and claim they're already booked, or on vacation, or something.

Incidentally, my answer to this question is that the gays' money is as green as anyone else's. If I were a wedding photographer, for example, I wouldn't refuse their business, but I would also make sure that my company stationery, forms, portfolio, cardboard frames, marketing materials, etc. displayed loving heterosexual couples in public displays of affection and prominently included certain Bible verses about how awesome it is for men to love women.

 

[Billy]

I think Ransom I was thinking along the lines of federal discrimination laws and how those laws will effect questions 3 and 4.

Whether business X can be compelled to provide services that violate the proprietor's conscience? All Business X has to do is lie and claim they're already booked, or on vacation, or something.

Incidentally, my answer to this question is that the gays' money is as green as anyone else's. If I were a wedding photographer, for example, I wouldn't refuse their business, but I would also make sure that my company stationery, forms, portfolio, cardboard frames, marketing materials, etc. displayed loving heterosexual couples in public displays of affection and prominently included certain Bible verses about how awesome it is for men to love women.

Completely agree....legal ways to get around it.

 

[Reformed Guy]

What would the answers to 3 & 4 be if we took out gay and inserted black?

It's no abomination to be black.

 

[subllibrm]

What would the answers to 3 & 4 be if we took out gay and inserted black?

It's no abomination to be black.

There are some who believe that Obama is an abomination and he happens to be (half) black.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

What would the answers to 3 & 4 be if we took out gay and inserted black?

It's no abomination to be black.

No, but it is to eat shellfish.

 

[subllibrm]

I think Ransom I was thinking along the lines of federal discrimination laws and how those laws will effect questions 3 and 4.

Whether business X can be compelled to provide services that violate the proprietor's conscience? All Business X has to do is lie and claim they're already booked, or on vacation, or something.

Incidentally, my answer to this question is that the gays' money is as green as anyone else's. If I were a wedding photographer, for example, I wouldn't refuse their business, but I would also make sure that my company stationery, forms, portfolio, cardboard frames, marketing materials, etc. displayed loving heterosexual couples in public displays of affection and prominently included certain Bible verses about how awesome it is for men to love women.

Completely agree....legal ways to get around it.

Legal ways to get around it include lying! That is sad on so many levels.