Caporegime
For the record, I was raised on the KJV so I find it easy to read. But I prefer the NET these days for its superior accuracy and clear modern language.
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
For the record, I was raised on the KJV so I find it easy to read. But I prefer the NET these days for its superior accuracy and clear modern language.
Soldato
Caporegime
If you insist on taking your lifes meaning from the bible, you should at least care about its accuracy to the original more than its colourful use of language.
Soldato
Shakespeare and Milton better watch out
The difference being that Milton and Shakespeare both wrote what is clearly fiction and purely for entertainment, whereas the Bible is used by many as a factual reference book. Surely the most important thing for a reference book to be is accurate and unambiguous?
You wouldn't expect LOTR to be written in technical language, with flowcharts and easy to follow bullet points, and you also wouldn't expect a Haynes manual to be full of flowery prose, e.g. "...and staring across the vast chasm of the engine bay, the mechanic began his arduous journey to replace the Spark Plugs of Akgzoth!"
Perhaps you're worried that by changing the language from persuasive and emotive, to detached and factual, people might actually start seeing what those facts really say?
Caporegime
You have a point there. Many people have come to question their traditional beliefs after reading superior translations of the Bible. The KJV was notorious for its doctrinal bias. Modern translations tend to be more objective.
It's no coincidence that there's been a sharp rise in the number of Christians who reject traditional teachings on hell, heaven, the Trinity, the atonement, and the immortality of the soul.
Soldato
The difference being that if progressives went through the National Gallery removing everything old, everything morally worrying or hard for the uneducated to understand, or if Shakespeare were put into modern idiom by the Royal Shakespeare Company, or the works of Milton were rewritten to suit 2016, there would be powerful and effective protest. Thats why these things don't happen.
The Bible is a collection of writings from various authors written sometimes 100s of years apart, with parables, advice and dreams, all collected together into one book. Whereas the Quran is only one book, written by one man in his own lifetime. It is meant to be taken literally, and it is not full of symbolism or vague analogies. It is mostly direct commands.
Last edited:
Soldato
I see my point went straight over your head.
If you're going to use the Bible as a reference book, it should be treated as a reference book, and therefore needs to be as accurate and unambiguous as possible.
If you're not going to treat it as a reference book, then don't be surprised if people don't put much faith in anything you say when you try to use what the Bible says to back up your point.
Trying to compare that to the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Homer, or any other "classical" fiction writer is a strawman, as I'm pretty sure no one has ever suggested that their works are anything but fiction - the only way the comparison would be accurate is if you're now stating that the Bible is a work of fiction?
Incidentally, there have been quite a few instances where "classical" works have been modernised/portrayed with a modern twist, and I have yet to see any uproar or protest about it?
Let's hope they don't abuse them some more with Santa Clause or the tooth fairy! Or the Easter bunny!!!
Soldato
Projecting. Actually my point went over your head. If I wanted to follow a major religion that is accurate and unambiguous as possible, I would follow Islam as that is accurate and unambiguous as possible. Once again the Bible is full of symbolism and vague analogies, open to interpretation.
And I agree with your strawman, more ordinary museums are, by contrast, subject to constant politically correct revision to keep them in line with egalitarian dogma of 2016.
Last edited:
Soldato
Why do we have a need for religious bakeries?
It isn't a religious bakery? it's a bakery, run by religious people.
It's not like they only bake cakes of the baby Jebus.
Soldato
Islam is as unambiguous as possible? 
Soldato
Islam is as unambiguous as possible?
Of course the Quran contains contradictory statements, just like the Bible, but the Quran itself provides the reader with a way to know what to do with the contradictions, unlike the Bible.
The Quran explains that if you have 2 passages that contradict each other, the one written later supersedes the one written earlier
Last edited:
Ah the old political correctness gone mad defence. We live in a society where individuals should not be refused service or EQUAL rights based on someones prejudices or outdated sense of morals.
Not true at all. This is a common misconception (or pure lie) from the poor oppressed/misunderstood majority. Minorities are protected because they are commonly denied equal rights, not because they demand "more" rights than us "normals". The fact that the law has deemed them protected is testament to this fact. At no fundamental level would law makers willfully give people "more" rights just cus.
No they are not the same thing but if an individual or service provider/company has to be forced not to discriminate then that is a fundamental issue within our society. In a perfect world individuals and minority groups would not need to "force" the issue of equal rights. It would just be a right.
Last edited:
It's not a religious bakery, the bakery is owned by religious people. The discrimination case arose because the religious owners of the bakery, incorrectly assumed that they were within their rights to deny services to someone who had a different sexual preference to what they perceived as "normal".
83 pages and still got it wrong. They didn't agree with the message to be placed on the Cake promoting Gay Marriage. Not because the customers were gay.
Right on all counts, it definitely seems like the gay guy with out to make an example of someone and they're the first ones to fall for it. He was a typical gay noisemaker that wanted to stir trouble, i've met many in the past and they're insufferable *****.
The shop should have been wise to the fact and danced around the excuse
No, you got it wrong. The summary of the case states the customer was discriminated against based on sexual preference. See the part bolded below.
From the summary
"Was I correct as a matter of law to hold that the appellants had discriminated against the respondent directly on grounds of sexual orientation contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2006 - Yes;"
There is zero ambiguity in that statement.
Soldato
I know... it's almost as bad as the RACIST! defence.
On a serious note: Where do you draw the line of your progressive EQUAL society? I mean for example if we pick a matter that the majority of religious and non religious people in 2016 find disgusting *incest* if it were to get good PR and we are told love is love, it's up to what two consenting adults do ect... should the Christian bakers make a make incest legal cake and not refuse service based on their prejudices or outdated sense of morals?
Last edited: