Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,139
- Location
- Woking
He spreads hatred; not the Christian message that I learned as a child.
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
He spreads hatred; not the Christian message that I learned as a child.
They are not my works they are the works/words from the God of the Bible.
Is up to God to decide.
Let's just look at something here shall we?, all queerspace had to do was to order a cake with bert and earnie on it then walk away, they could have added their own slogans themselves later, but they chose to stir up trouble with their childish demands that everyone should accept their worldview/behaviour or conduct. This could be viewed as a setup.
The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder.
The Bible is clear on such matters concerning homosexuality, if you see the Bible as a doctrine of hate then that is your prerogative. Perhaps as a child the true message of the Bible was hidden from you?.
They are your works dressed up and hidden behind the words of scripture.
I don't fancy your chances.
As I said, if that is your interpretation then that is what you will be judged upon, both here and in the hereafter.
The Holy Bible does not lie, the works are from the God of the Bible.
We shall see.
I let the Bible interpret its message and teachings. What bit of "man must not lie with man as he would with the woman" is so difficult for you to understand?.
I like what Ann Widdecombe said,
If the baker had refused merely to bake a cake because the customer was gay then that would indeed have been both unpleasant and illegal but the refusal was specific to the message requested for the cake. Surely it is an elementary feature of true democracy that nobody should be obliged by law to affirm that which he or she does not believe.
Yet Parliament was assured time and again that the introduction of gay marriage would not cause discrimination against those who believed it wrong. What price your assurances now, Mr Cameron?
If the baker had refused merely to bake a cake because the customer was gay then that would indeed have been both unpleasant and illegal but the refusal was specific to the message requested for the cake. Surely it is an elementary feature of true democracy that nobody should be obliged by law to affirm that which he or she does not believe.
Yet Parliament was assured time and again that the introduction of gay marriage would not cause discrimination against those who believed it wrong. What price your assurances now, Mr Cameron?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,139
- Location
- Woking
Perhaps in this thread you just condemn homosexuality, but I've read many things that you've written, and all they imply is hatred towards other human beings that aren't of your cult. The message of God is SUPPOSED to be one of love and tolerance, but you subvert it to a disgusting level. I know what it is to believe in God; I did when I was a child, and I can tell you for certain that it was never supposed to be a message of hatred.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,139
- Location
- Woking
She only cares because she's a bible bashing mentalist who opposed gay marriage laws. Whether parliament assured "everyone" or not, gay people should be treated with exactly the same rights and respect as everyone else on this earth.
If God didn't like it, he shouldn't have made gay people, eh.
I wasn't talking about the Bible, but your interpretation and use of it.
Indeed, or we won't...either way I think you are boiked.
It was explained earlier about the context of Sacred Prostitution as a form of worship. Not a judgement on everyone or everything.
If you truly allowed the Bible to interpret its teachings then you would know that, clearly you don't so you interpret it as a literal truism rather than within the context of the scripture itself.
Anne Widdecombe is a lot of things, but a mentalist isn't one of them..she does raise a good point, as much as I don't want to agree with something posted by Kedge, for me the point she makes about people should not be obliged by law to affirm something that they do not agree or believe in is a fundamental tenet of Democracy.
And that doesn't mean not having equal marriage laws, but it means that the Baker should not be forced to support Gay Marriage either directly or by association.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,139
- Location
- Woking
I can appreciate that, but I'm not quite sure they'd get away with it if they refused to make a cake supporting rights for black people, say. I do think that Anne Widdecombe is a mentalist, though. I'd consider her a religious extremist in this country. She is vehemently anti-homsexuality.
To paraphrase Voltaire "I may not agree with your opinion, but I will fight to defend your right to that opinion, unless I'm too busy sucking a willy".
Why did they not choose a baker who is into a little bum fun and save themselves all the hassle of trying to impose their lifestyle choice onto others.
Why did they not choose a baker who is into a little bum fun and save themselves all the hassle of trying to impose their lifestyle choice onto others.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,139
- Location
- Woking
What lifestyle choice is this?
Is being gay genetically pre-determined at birth?
I have seen his postings on many topics. Homosexuality, the disabled, atheists, Muslims, it is a long list.
I am atheist but went to a catholic school. At no point did anyone condemn any of these. Love thy neighbour and all that.
God love you Kedge, no bugger else will.
When did you choose to be straight? It just comes naturally to me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,139
- Location
- Woking
Did any gay person ever make a choice to be gay? Did any straight person ever make a choice to be straight? I think not. Whether or not people are born gay, no one ever makes a choice.
They should be free to refuse to make a cake that is supporting any change in the law or supporting a campaign to do so....the rights of Black People is a settled subject, however if there was a campaign to given them rights they do not currently have, then yes they should be free to choose to support or be associated with that campaign without prejudice or threat of punishment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,139
- Location
- Woking
I guess the problem them is that I've always accepted that homosexuality is a normal thing, so find it hard to comprehend that perspective. The rights of gay people should obviously unequivocally match anyone elses.