+
Artist free expression sculpture
Posted on 01/08/2014 10:12:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
How’s that iron-fisted homo-marriage law working out for you so-called Libertarians out there?
What they don’t seem to get is that with leftists, they might say “equality”,
but they mean “supremacy”.
>> That attitude only reinforces the “us vs. them” mentality that drives the movement
To digress from your point, the movement is driven by Leftism. Homosexuals are its pawns.
Sigh. Guess I am just stubborn or stupid, but if I were the cake shop owner I’d just close up and refuse to do it. I know, that’s extreme, but geez, the government forcing him to provide a service for someone that he prefers not to (for whatever the reason!), then it’s not too hard to picture the next step being that because he’s a Christian he now has to wear a cross in public so he can be easily identified (kinda like those Stars of David back when the Nazis started bullying those they disliked. Paranoid? Nope, just stunned that our nation is declining so quickly into this cesspool and so many folks are too dumb to say anything or even to realize it.
>> but they mean “supremacy”.
A clip on HBO showed a lesbian “comedian” claiming it’s not tolerance the LGBT community wants, it’s acceptance. Of course the latter requires modifying one’s principles where tolerance simply implies the agreement to get along.
I never said physiological cause. Just component. Twin studies won’t entirely rule that out. Identical DNA doesn’t mean that all other biological processes track exactly the same as the subjects advance in age.
It’s a continuum.
tolerance -> acceptance -> recognition of supremacy
I don't think so. I mean, yes, as individuals they can certainly fall into the useful idiots category, but they have their own motivations and a force of their own that leftism tends to nicely harmonize with. In pro-homosexual movement was making advances on its own apart from the creep of progressivism.
Oh well. I would be taking up space at a jail because no way would I ever be a participant in these peoples perversion.
Should have been “In recent decades, the pro-homosexual movement...”
+
Artist free expression sculpture
More than that, he should sue the State of Colorado for infringement of Constitutional Rights.
“...By simply pushing the topic away self-righteously, we’ve driven many into the activist camp who otherwise might have been persuaded by the decades of actual scientific research on the subject that has now been swept aside as hate literature...”
The point you seem not to want to engage is the aspect of sin. Two comments I would submit:
1. The whole reason for caring about the behavior is righteousness (as opposed to “self-righteousness”) Holy scripture is very clear that homosexual behavior is depraved and a magnet for God’s wrath (see Romans).
2. Homosexual feelings are not necessarily sinful. Homosexual behavior is what is sinful. There is discussion of this at length in some Catholic circles.
(This though becomes difficult like the stem cell research debate: Those who wish to argue for using the less promising fetal stem cell line falsely call it “stem cell research” which is too vague because it denies that adult stem cells are available for research without harming the donor while fetal stem cells aren’t.)
Nonetheless this is where people get confused.
Back to the homosexual discussion, God will condemn on the last day for illicit behavior and NOT for being tempted!
I'm not trying to avoid the topic of sin in this discussion; just acknowledging that it's not an approach that we have to rely on exclusively, and that it's not always useful in trying to communicate. As a Christian, I recognize the sinfulness of the behavior, as you so accurately distinguish it from the feelings. Simply put, while the behavior is sinful, the brokenness behind it is just human. But unless we plan to engage in dialogue only with those who recognize Biblical authority (usually known as preaching to the choir), we have to reach beyond the sin aspect to engage someone who doesn't already see things our way. That's my main point.
Probably not, but I see where you are going with this. The government can easily issue regulations that all restaurants must serve x.
The government would have to have a reason to mandate that all restaurants provide collard greens or a court would probably throw it out. But I could see the government mandating that all restaurants must serve water as a healthy alternative, and a restaurant that didn't historically serve water as an option would have to comply. And the courts would support it. They could do the same thing with Brawndo (idiocracy movie ref), if you can make a compelling case.
Wedding cakes are on his menu. Wedding cakes with 2 same sex figures are not. Not sure if they asked for 2 same sex figures or not. It may come down to whether the court feels he's really participating in the wedding or just selling a wedding cake. And/or whether the cake was any different than the cakes he normally sells.
Even so, some of the analogies earlier in the thread are appropriate. Could you make a black person sew KKK outfits.
They could care less about any religion that opposes their world-view.
Still super easy to refute homosexuality from a Darwinian / Evolution argument.
Meat is on the menu. But not ham.
Cakes are on the menu. But not gay wedding cakes.
In fact, I can see how it would be absolutely against one’s religion to place a male and a male wedding topper on such a cake or to write on it “Rob & Bob” or “Mary & Sherry”.
I’m being discriminated against if he’ll serve meat to others but not the meat I prefer.
That’s a pretty good idea. Almost makes me wish I lived in CO. Almost.
Period
“Charlie Craig and David Mullins”.....
Can we think of a more morally depraved, and spiritually “lost” demographic of people besides pedophiles, politicians, and priests?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.