Baker Forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Seriously ? Semantics in it's purist form.

a reply to: Christian Voice

No it's not, his whole reason for not making it was because them marrying was against his religion.
All i am pointing out is that marriage in the bible takes many forms as I mentioned in previous posts and anyone could take those definitions and refuse people based on them.
That's why I gave the example from Ezra that marriage is defined between 2 Israelites anything else is null. So do you believe that even though it is part of canon it is true? Because that could mean 2 men or women as long as they were Israelites could marry.
And a baker in Israel could refuse to serve some tourist couple because they weren't Israelites.
Do you see how ridiculous it becomes?

a reply to: mclarenmp4

No

a reply to: Christian Voice

So you think that a pedophile who rapes a child and caught in the act should be forced to marry her for the rest of his existence? It says so clearly in the bible so it must be the law. Bet the parents would be happy about that.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

The word for rape was not used in the original Hebrew texts. There are actually two words here in the Hebrew: "taphas," meaning "to lay hold of, wield, sieze" according to Strong's, and shakab, meaning "to lie down, sleep." A more literal translations would be "takes hold of and sleeps with her" and most translations say something like this. But what about the word violated in verse twenty-nine? The Hebrew word used is "anah" which means "defile" according to Strong's. Defiling her is most likely just sleeping with her while not married. Apologists and commentaries often say that the "taking hold of" is not against the person's will. According to them, this passage is really talking about what must be done if a man sleeps with a woman who was a virgin, thus defiling her and making her less attractive to suitors. He must marry her because in those days, it would be almost impossible for a woman who was not a virgin to find a husband, thus it is best for everybody if they get married.

It also never ever insinuates that the man is a pedophile. Virgins were virgins on up into their later years if never married. You assume pedophilia due to the word virgin. I dated a woman before my wife that was 24 and a virgin. Still is to this day I would imagine. She never married and rarely dates.

This is why I always insist on reading the contexts and wording. Even reading a commentary on the topic.

a reply to: Christian Voice

But that interpretation means that they have already sinned by having sex out of wedlock. So god does agree that having sex out of wedlock is ok as long as she was a virgin and not going to be married? So long as they marry afterwards then they're ok to have sex pre marriage.
That's my interpretation of the passage you have quoted.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Again, you are reaching and trying to pervert things. Nowhere does it say God is ok with sex out of wedlock. He gives instructions for how to redeam yourself afterward. Through Jesus dying on the cross we can be saved from our sins. By marrying we leave behing that sin and are not indulging in it anymore. The homosexual can walk away from the sin and have redemption as well.

I love how some of you try and throw religious texts back into people's faces. What about my beliefs? I believe nature created a male and a female for the species to procreate and continue, anything other than that and you're going against your most basic nature. If males and males, or females and females were meant to be together they would be able to procreate to continue their species, they obviously can't, so they weren't meant to be together, who are any of you to question your basic nature?

a reply to: Christian Voice

It's not me that's perverting it, it was perverted a long long time ago.

But the passage you quoted you implied that the verse was saying that "takes hold of and sleeps with her" and "defile's" her, which in your sanitised version means just sleeps with her while not married.
Not defile in it's literal sense which from the dictionary defile means "rape or sexually assault (a woman)." Which is what defile meant in babylonian times, so more than likely means the same thing seeing as the region is so close.

A lot of assumptions in your interpretation I'm afraid.

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
I love how some of you try and throw religious texts back into people's faces. What about my beliefs? I believe nature created a male and a female for the species to procreate and continue, anything other than that and you're going against your most basic nature. If males and males, or females and females were meant to be together they would be able to procreate to continue their species, they obviously can't, so they weren't meant to be together, who are any of you to question your basic nature?

Yes, and if we were meant to fly, God would have given us wings. That's what some said when planes were first invented. What's your point?

a reply to: kaylaluv

So you are saying homosexuality was invented ?

originally posted by: Christian Voice
a reply to: kaylaluv

So you are saying homosexuality was invented ?

Try to keep up. Basic nature. We don't have to worry about the small percentage of homosexuals "going against basic nature" of male/female. It ain't a big deal. If we fly in a plane or walk using our "God given" feet. What does it matter?

And gay people have been throughout history so it's not a recent thing and genetically we must carry it within us because obviously it's heterosexuals that create gay babies. Obviously I don't believe it's environment that causes it but is something genetic that the person has no choice over and as such should be treated with the same respect as any human being.

a reply to: Christian Voice

You still haven't responded to my post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was great debating with all of you today.I truly hope there are no hard feelings and I am going to call it a night. May God Bless each of you.

a reply to: Christian Voice

Likewise good night and god bless you.

a reply to: Annee

You just said it yourself:

if you bake a specific type of cake for one customer, you bake it for all customers

He will not bake a cake for same-sex ceremony/wedding for ALL customers, no matter who they are.

So again, how did the baker break the law?

a reply to: Annee

And that restaurant owner who kicked my disabled mom (and 3 kids) out of his restaurant because her disability made him uncomfortable, politely offered to make "something to go".

That isn't the same. What happened to your mother is blatant discrimination.

The baker didn't kick the gay couple out. He didn't refuse the service to them.

a reply to: Annee

I'm still waiting for you to explain your mother's situation so we can all understand how your disabled mother's situation is the same as gays wanting a wedding cake.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: Christian Voice

You still haven't responded to my post.

Nor mine... selective 'debating' I suspect.