you've just agreed with the person you quoted who also pointed out that the fact the customer was gay isn't important
Yes, I was agreeing with this persons post and I have edited my post to reflect that more clearly.
you've just agreed with the person you quoted who also pointed out that the fact the customer was gay isn't important
Also just for some biblical backing:
Dave 3:20 - Red Dwarf
Dave 7:25 - Ice Road Truckers
Dave 10:30 - Storage Hunters
Dave 11:40 - Mock the Week
And that is something I think should be allowed.
Shouldn't a baker, printer, t-shirt maker etc.. be able to decide which political messages they're going to support and object/refuse business from those they don't support.
Ashers are happy to make wedding cakes, just not ones with the word gay on them. The courts decided (rightfully) that doing so was not a discrimination against the gay community.
Yes it did.
You're trying to argue that homosexuals are not responsible for their own sins. That God is responsible instead.
No I am not, I am asking why God makes it much harder for some people to avoid sin than others.
Not if doing so violates the UK anti-discrimination laws. The issue here is that making a "support gay marriage" emblem does not violate the rights of the baker/t-shirt maker/printer. Refusing to provide a service to one demographic while happily providing that service to others is discrimination.
Ashers are happy to make wedding cakes, just not ones with the word gay on them. The courts decided (rightfully) that doing so was a direct discrimination against the gay community.
He doesn't.
Well they could have a sign saying that they don't promote political views, it is not unheard of to have something state what your business doesn't allow... Plus was it really they didn't want to promote that, because it was a political view or it promoted accepting gays? BTW, I don't think Jesus taught hate, so all these people that hate others have no right to call themselves Christian...
they're not refusing to provide a service in a general sense to that demographic - it is the political message they're opposed to
The court disagreed with you.
It certainly seems like he does.
Being heterosexual. Only have sex with your spouse.
Being homosexual. Cannot have sex or have to have sex with someone you are not sexually attracted to.
no it didn't
the court ruled that the political message was an intrinsic part of their identity
it didn't state that the bakers refused to serve gay people in a general sense
Then you're not understanding that your responsibility is to follow God, not question God.
He knows better than you what is right and wrong.
You are making it sound like this is the only thing we are called on to do. As if avoiding sin is not difficult for everyone. If that were the case we would see lots of people who were perfect and free of sin. But everyone is sinful. Because avoiding sin is hard -- for everyone.
The difference with open, proud homosexuals is they are unrepentant sinners. Being unrepentant makes it impossible for you to hear God, and thus to follow God. You are hurting yourself by doing this. But it is your choice, not anyone else's, and certainly not God's. He doesn't want you to be that way.
Lots of men are attracted to women other than their wives. It is still sinful to indulge in this sinful desire. That includes jacking off to pornography, something many men seem to have problems avoiding. If they openly proclaim that pornography isn't a problem, and that they can look at pornography happily and unrepentently and still be a Christian, they are not following God, they are instead worshipping pornography, and so are not saved by Christ.
It's simple really. You can choose to follow God or reject him. It's your decision. Not God's. You can't blame him for your bad choice and the consequences of that bad choice.
Yes it did. You're trying to argue that homosexuals are not responsible for their own sins. That God is responsible instead. This is false. God wants us to make the right moral choices and to follow His teachings. This means not giving into sinful desires but instead resisting them. Sometimes we fail in this endeavour. Even "the best" Christians.
We all have sinful desires. It's our responsibility to try to resist them. The problem homosexuals have -- at least the open, proud ones that are trying to claim that it is a moral lifestyle choice -- is that not only are they sinning, they are unrepentant and are in fact espousing immoral opinions and advocating immoral actions. This is incompatible with being a Christian.
Your idea of cause and effect is flawed, it is not coherent with your stance.
Speaking from a viewpoint that God even exists, then he must be responsible for every sin ever. The fact that homosexuality is even a potentiality of life on earth surely boils down to God, that's before you even consider what has been defined as sin.
If you really think god made humanity capable of being homosexual just to create some people who are more or less destined for hell then that sounds more like something Satan would do.
It's simple really. You can choose to follow God or reject him. It's your decision. Not God's. You can't blame him for your bad choice and the consequences of that bad choice.
Pretty much this.
God is all powerful, all knowing. He has known since the creation of time itself who will and won't sin. Not just that, but he created those people knowing their fate.
Our lives on earth are actually moot. While we don't know what we will do with or life, God does, so it's set in stone, there is no free will, only an illusion.
The sick part of all this is God created countless millions (so far) of souls, who are then forced to sin, cause others to suffer and are then destined for an eternity in Hell as punishment for committing the sins they had no choice but to give in to.
It's simple really. You can choose to follow God or reject him. It's your decision. Not God's. You can't blame him for your bad choice and the consequences of that bad choice.