And cannanites arent?No, Sodomy is Babylon!
You should have said yes!
And sodomy is also.
Why did you feel the need to correct me and say no?
was I wrong?
Thankyou for adding those thoughts to me anyway.
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!And cannanites arent?No, Sodomy is Babylon!
But what happens if you are lesbian?
Lol
If its a "Christian" court
Anyway we are not to swear
This made me so angry when I first read about it. Now the gag order....
I'm just curious, what would this judge do if a church asked a homosexual owned bakery to make a cake with the writing "Sodomy Is A Sin" ? Would the church be able to sue when the bakery would most likely refuse to make it ?
I am not an expert either, and I'll admit that my claim is only as strong as the veracity of my source; however, one must admit that stories sometimes get spun to meet an agenda. When this happens, we often find ourselves believing things that out-of-line with the true nature of events, and in-line with what we would have them be instead.
Consider the following excerpt from a recent article:
What is widely known is that the anti-gay Christian bakers discriminated against the same-sex couple by denying them full and equal access to a place of public accommodation, which is against the law in Oregon, and presumably anywhere else in the U.S. that includes sexual orientation as a protected class.
What is not widely known, is that after the lesbian couple filed their original complaint, the Christian bakers published the lesbian couple’s personal information on social media, with terrifying and heart-breaking consequences.
After the publication of their personal information, the couple received death threats from many “concerned Christians,” threats that terrorized the couple and nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children.
In its final order issued last week, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the Kleins liable for the threats made by others against the couple and awarded them to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.”
Now, consider the excerpt from the news source Reuters:
An Oregon judge has ruled that the owners of a Portland-area bakery who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple should pay the couple $135,000 in damages, state officials said Tuesday.
Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough issued a proposed order last week that could mean Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer, for emotional suffering.
No where does Reuters state that the owners of the bakery should pay $135,000 because they refused service. On the contrary, they were ordered to pay the amount for emotional suffering. One cannot simply jump to the conclusion that the bakery owners were ordered to pay such an inordinate amount because they refused service. That is a gigantically dangerous assumption conveniently in-line with the anti-gay agenda.
God bless.
And also, I will never call it being gay. Gay means happy. I call it homosexuality, for I will not sugar coat it as when people call abortion pro choice.
Brother-Paul, you are right, it is not our battle. :thumbsup:
But why would I be looking at a directory ? For a homosexual owned cake shop ?
I'm sure your joke was funny though...
I am not an expert either, and I'll admit that my claim is only as strong as the veracity of my source; however, one must admit that stories sometimes get spun to meet an agenda. When this happens, we often find ourselves believing things that out-of-line with the true nature of events, and in-line with what we would have them be instead.
Consider the following excerpt from a recent article:
What is widely known is that the anti-gay Christian bakers discriminated against the same-sex couple by denying them full and equal access to a place of public accommodation, which is against the law in Oregon, and presumably anywhere else in the U.S. that includes sexual orientation as a protected class.
What is not widely known, is that after the lesbian couple filed their original complaint, the Christian bakers published the lesbian couple’s personal information on social media, with terrifying and heart-breaking consequences.
After the publication of their personal information, the couple received death threats from many “concerned Christians,” threats that terrorized the couple and nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children.
In its final order issued last week, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the Kleins liable for the threats made by others against the couple and awarded them to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.”
Now, consider the excerpt from the news source Reuters:
An Oregon judge has ruled that the owners of a Portland-area bakery who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple should pay the couple $135,000 in damages, state officials said Tuesday.
Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough issued a proposed order last week that could mean Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer, for emotional suffering.
No where does Reuters state that the owners of the bakery should pay $135,000 because they refused service. On the contrary, they were ordered to pay the amount for emotional suffering. One cannot simply jump to the conclusion that the bakery owners were ordered to pay such an inordinate amount because they refused service. That is a gigantically dangerous assumption conveniently in-line with the anti-gay agenda.
God bless.
Very interesting, but what we do not know is whether the judge 'considered' the refusal to make the cake was included in his final consideration. It may have been, it may not have been, we do not know.
We know more than we did which tells us more about the massive sums of money but, Reuters news source may also not know the judges final considerations.
What we do know however is there is a warning here for others not to go down the same road.
We also know as stated earlier in this thread...
That in May this year a bakers in Northern Ireland was fined for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple. The fine imposed was very small but it was the start and we may see more and as we do we can be pretty sure, I think, the fines will get bigger.
'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery - BBC News 'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery - BBC News
Jesus is Lord
That is the problem with Liberal ideology, I never said anything about homosexual thoughts, now did I? We are talking about professing homosexuals. There is no such thing as a homosexual, claiming themselves a Christian, with Jesus Christ in them, and be non-repentant about their sin. A homosexual, struggling with their sin and possessing a repentant heart is a completely different situation.
Romans 1:26; For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Romans 1:27; and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Obviously this passage is about homosexuality,
Romans 1:28; And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
Romans 1:29; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
Romans 1:30; slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Romans 1:31; without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Romans 1:32; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
The Bible goes on to include these people with "haters of God".
Verse 32 goes on to say, not just who practice such things are worthy of death, but even those who give approval to those who do practice these things.