Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

Evangelion said:
It makes no sense at all.



'I am a male, therefore I'm offended by males.'
'I am gay, therefore I'm offended by gays.'
'I am not religious, therefore I'm offended by people who are not religious.'

wut.



Social/cultural conditioning is just one of many reasons.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your middle bit means. Perhaps the missing step is the idea that someone may have an internal struggle with homosexual feelings - self loathing projected on to those openly embracing it. A form of jealousy, perhaps.

I'm not knowledgeable in the appropriate fields to make sound judgement, but it seems to me that it's reasonable to think there might be something in the idea.
 
Thekwango said:
nope, you're not apparently. But it seems only certain demographics are allowed to have a view point these days. personally I don't agree with your viewpoint but as far as I'm concerned your entitled to it, as long as it doesn't harm me or anyone else
Click to expand...
Quite.
dalehitchy1 said:
It would be ironic for you to go to hospital and get refused treatment because the doctor is gay and doesn't believe in religion. I bet you would have a different viewpoint then.
Click to expand...

Except that doctor would be breaking the Hippocratic oath, and violating their contract..
 
Evangelion said:
When compared to a superior, modern translation like the NET Bible, the KJV's shortcomings are quickly apparent:
Click to expand...

Satire again, Evangelion? In case not, the new translations, make the Bible as flat as Denmark and as dreary as the plains of Karaganda. Others are mere paraphrases of the 1611 translation. What's more, AKJV tends, in fact, to use good hard, earthy English words.

*thee*, *thou* and *ye*, these remind the reader or listener that they are in a poetic and eternal context, not reading Harry Potter or listening to the radio news.

Every major religion uses special language for worship, to separate the temporal from the eternal.

And isn't 'Would God I had died for thee' immediately more poignant than 'Would God I had died for you'? *Thee*(as any Yorkshireman knows) can refer only to one person. 'You' can refer to a whole roomful.
 
Last edited:
platypus said:
The language in the KJV is more beautiful for sure.
Click to expand...

Because the AKJV is poetic, written to be read out loud to people in large buildings without loudspeakers, to be remembered, to lodge in the mind and to disturb the temporal with the haunting sound of the eternal

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn

Vs

You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain

No contest.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible to make a gay cake?

Not awkward at all.

The point I am making is to say I am not making a cake for a gay couple because I am an evangelical Christian fails to appreciate the fact that the historical evidence (such as the Ryan report) supports the conclusion that the religious, Catholic priests who on one hand say sexual impropriety is bad abuse children and vulnerable adults.

You fall at the first hurdle if you are an anti-gay Christian evangelical baker because your teams morality is in tatters.

I notice the bakers wife is pregnant in the reports. The icing on the cake is that child, before the age of reason, will be indoctrinated into believing in a god with no evidence without their consent. This is abuse.
 
Tosno said:
Because the AKJV is poetic, written to be read out loud to people in large buildings without loudspeakers, to be remembered, to lodge in the mind and to disturb the temporal with the haunting sound of the eternal

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn

Vs

You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain

No contest.
Click to expand...

If I was going to be eating the grain later, I would be more bothered about Muzzling the other end! :p

But yes, The AKJV is far easier on the ear and would be far easier to read too. More modern translations might well be technically more correct from an academic point of view, but a word-for-word translation from Aramaic or ancient Hebrew is basically a translation from an alien language and is never going to be an easy read.
 
Jono said:
I think the Bakery should be free to refuse to do a cake they don't agree with, just as the gay couple are free to take their business elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I suspect this was more of a set up than anything. The guy who ordered the cake surely knew the bakery was going to refuse to make it, so rather than take his business elsewhere, he decides to stir the pot and have an example made out of them.

I'm not sure what reasons the bakery gave for refusing to do the cake, but going based on what i've heard in the news, it seems they straight out cited that something of that nature went against their beliefs. So personally i feel they could have handled the situation much better.

Edit: Just re-read, seems it was a slogan he wanted on the cake. They could have made up some BS saying unfortunately we can only do standardised greetings ("Happy Birthday", "Congratulations") because of the templates available to us. They could have offered to make just the cake, and let the guy write his own slogan on it.

You can't claim discrimination in that case.
 
Orionaut said:
More modern translations might well be technically more correct from an academic point of view, but a word-for-word translation from Aramaic or ancient Hebrew is basically a translation from an alien language and is never going to be an easy read.
Click to expand...

Modern translations are not word-for-word. They are dynamic, which makes them far easier to read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom