Christian baker vindicated by Supreme Court is back in court

[Brother Mark]

I wasn't dealing with the issue of the cake. I actually agree with you on that. I am against a LBGT militant agenda that would force a business man to do something that violates his conscience. Perhaps one day it will try to successfully force ministers to actually marry them.Something we cannot allow.

I was responding to how you said RK used a good example. He did not. He used it improperly and you said it was a good example. It was not.

I was trying to probe into a deeper area where often we as Christians will throw stones at others and ignore our own sin. I think it's the real reason we have this battle in the first place. We yielded to the the state and gave them the schools and the media which was used to indoctrinate our society. We were too busy building our own lives and careers and ignored the battle for the hearts and minds of our youth. Our little pet sins caused us to drift further and further from a true walk in the Spirit and we are losing the battle for the very reason this land was first settled. Freedom of religion.

A worthy discussion indeed!

I sometimes think that the abominations we see fill us with such anger and hatred that we strike out without really thinking. It is at this place I see room for improvement with God given wisdom.

The whole concept of the log in the eye and the speck in the eye is often misunderstood. God told us to deal with the log in our own eye first. We think that means "deal with your own sin completely". But that misses the point. The log is a greater sin. I asked the Lord one time about this passage. I couldn't understand how I could see the speck with a log in my eye. The Lord opened my understanding that the issue wasn't seeing the speck, but rather, being blind to the eye. When I was a boy, my mother was way less concerned with the speck, than she was with my eye. What Jesus was coming against all the time in his ministry was those that were more concerned about the speck, than they were the eye.

The log in the eye is representative of breaking the two great commands... loving God and loving our neighbor. If we love our neighbor, then we are concerned about the neighbor's eye far more than we are the speck. We want the speck gone because of what it does to the eye. Far too many times we are more concerned with what the speck does to us, or what it looks like, overlooking the cost to the eye which has the speck.

THIS is the true story of the Good Samartan. He loved the man left for dead. Never once did He participate in that man's sin. But in the end, it was the man He was concerned with. It was the man He wanted to help. When the speck of sin, and death, and the enemy had taken their toll, the Good Samaritan was there to help because He loved the man and was concerned with the eye.

The video of the woman I posted above is a FANTASTIC example of loving people in the midst of their sin without being involved in their sin. It is worth watching and is only a few minutes long.

[RabbiKnife]

If I wanted to take a case to SCOTUS, and win.... I'd sue a church for not doing a gay marriage.

Marriage licenses are state licenses...pastors who perform weddings and sign licenses are agents of the state.

Churches and pastors need to get out of that business.

Religious ceremonies only... not functioning to create legal marriage for the state

[Brother Mark]

If I wanted to take a case to SCOTUS, and win.... I'd sue a church for not doing a gay marriage.

Marriage licenses are state licenses...pastors who perform weddings and sign licenses are agents of the state.

Churches and pastors need to get out of that business.

Religious ceremonies only... not functioning to create legal marriage for the state

I think you have it backwards RK. The state needs to get out of religion, and that includes marriages. Marriage is a religious construct established in the beginning by God. The state has no business being involved in it. We should have never, as a country, allowed the state to be involved in marriage. If people want the protection of the state, then they can draw up contracts and have the state enforce them.

[shepherdsword]

If I wanted to take a case to SCOTUS, and win.... I'd sue a church for not doing a gay marriage.

Marriage licenses are state licenses...pastors who perform weddings and sign licenses are agents of the state.

Churches and pastors need to get out of that business.

Religious ceremonies only... not functioning to create legal marriage for the state

I don't think your victory would be as easy as you think. Forcing a minister to perform a gay marriage is a clear violation of religious liberty and it would be hotly debated. I work with gay people who don't even think should be forced.Also...by the time you get the case to there it will have be retaken by conservatives.

Maybe at that point we can reverse some of the damage the extreme left has done in the last 50 years.

[RabbiKnife]

You should read Scalias dissent. He's correct. Signing a license is done as an actor for the state, not the church. Just like the clerk in Kentucky

The state has a compelling state interest in social stability, the legitimacy of children, inheritance of property, etc. having civil union/marriage for anyone is a compelling interest.

Church should only perform religious ceremonies.

[shepherdsword]

You should read Scalias dissent. He's correct. Signing a license is done as an actor for the state, not the church. Just like the clerk in Kentucky

The state has a compelling state interest in social stability, the legitimacy of children, inheritance of property, etc. having civil union/marriage for anyone is a compelling interest.

Church should only perform religious ceremonies.

A state issued license should not compel a church to perform a gay marriage as a religious ceremony. The RCC has been successful in denying second marriages to same sex couples for centuries because of their position on divorce and remarriage. A gay religious ceremony should not fare any differently.

[TrustGzus]

This thread is getting away from the baker a bit and has gone a direction that allows me to ask questions.

What does the Scripture teach about who should officiate a wedding? It has historical recording of some weddings. I can’t think of where it ever says who officiated.

Would we discourage two atheists from getting married? They might be a little inconsistent in their world view by wanting marriage but would any of us discourage it?

I have a friend who is a lovely lady and an atheist who would like to get married and even take his name whoever he may be. I’m not sure why she thinks that way in light of her worldview.

Should her wedding be a religious ceremony since she is an atheist?

[RabbiKnife]

A state issued license should not compel a church to perform a gay marriage as a religious ceremony. The RCC has been successful in denying second marriages to same sex couples for centuries because of their position on divorce and remarriage. A gay religious ceremony should not fare any differently.

When a pastor signs a marriage license, he signs as an agent of the state. No license, no legal marriage.

A pastor does not have to sign marriage licenses. They choose to be agents of the state

[shepherdsword]

That sounds like the perfect solution! Obtain the marriage license from the court and have the religious ceremony separate. People will get the hang of it eventually...that big ceremony is what it is, a ceremony. They might have to leave out if anyone has objection to the union since they will already be legally married.

How is that a solution to compelling a minister to violate his beliefs and conscience? Why do they need religious recognition from a church that actually believes the bible when it states that homosexuality is a sin?

[RabbiKnife]

That's the points.

Legal marriage done by state. No religious ceremonies

Church religious ceremony separately without legal implications.

Done that way in Europe for decades

[Scooby_Snacks]

I think you misunderstood what I was agreeing with but I deleted that post because everyone has to obtain a marriage license from the county/state, and then everyone also has to have a ceremony to make the marriage legal. It is either a civil ceremony/justice of the peace or one performed by a licensed minister--

Being legally married is tied to the state, either way. That is why ministers are licensed.

So it won't really work to just have a courthouse wedding if you want a religious wedding.

[Scooby_Snacks]

That's the points.

Legal marriage done by state. No religious ceremonies

Church religious ceremony separately without legal implications.

Done that way in Europe for decades

I wonder do they have a ceremony in the court in Europe..and then an additional ceremony..

[RabbiKnife]

I wonder do they have a ceremony in the court in Europe..and then an additional ceremony..

Yes.

Legal marriage by judge or justice of the peace

Church ceremony later if wanyed

[Scooby_Snacks]

The taking of vows is one of the most traditional aspects of a marriage. Perhaps that is why we have licensed ministers to begin with. People want their vows connected to their understanding of God--for those who see Him as the One who is over their marriage.

[keck553]

Jesus went to a wedding where the clear implication is that people were drunk.
He ate with Roman agents and known porstitutes.
Do you believe that he was participating in their sin by his attendance at their dinners?

Can a Christian write a wedding song.... clearly artistic expression.... let's even make it a worship song....

Is he participating in homosexual sin if it is played at a gay wedding?

Isn't this just like Paul's discussion of meat offered to idols?

When you perform an act that is part of a celebration, you are part of the celebration. And you know it.

When we had our deli, we hired a gay man. We stood up for him when someone at an auto repair shop dehumanized him, we gave him shelter when his boyfriend beat the crap out of him, we helped him find a new place, we fed him, prayed with him and prayed for him. Of course we loved him. But we would never participate in his sin.

Clearly you can understand the distinction between love and sin.

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals...”