Final order: Sweet Cakes bakery must pay $135,000 to lesbian couple

[Luis Gonzalez]

The answer to your question is obvious, unless you want bakers to have customers fill out questionnaires regarding the circumstances of their divorces.  Did your ex-spouse commit adultery so that your divorce is Biblically supported?  Was your husband/wife abusive and your marriage ended because you were protecting yourself from harm?

Obviously there are many circumstances involved in a second heterosexual marriage that a baker is not privy to, and there is not necessarily sin involved in a second marriage....... Biblically, that is.

And perhaps this couple would refuse to bake a cake for someone whom they knew was a serial adulterer.  We don't know that because there's no heterosexual Gestapo out there targeting small business owners trying to force them to do things that violate their beliefs.  The reason this situation is known to us is because we are being bullied by homosexual activists.

At any rate, with a homosexual couple, for a Bible-following Christian, the violation of God's laws is evident, and forcing a Christian baker/florist/photographer to actively participate in something they find morally wrong is a violation of their religious liberty.

Or that they don't care about because it is socially accepted within the Christian community and the general population at large.

We all know what Jesus said, yet we embrace the law of no-fault divorce and remarry without giving a second thought to the Scriptures, we live together outside of marriage and bear an increasingly large amount of children that way, and premarital sex is the norm, not the exception in our society.

It isn't a lack of a heterosexual Gestapo that's at play here. It's an over abundance of heterosexual acceptance of sin as a way of life, so much so that the baker, even if they knew about the premarital sex, the cohabitation, the out of wedlock child, would probably bake the cake any way. And it's not even that they don't know, but rather that they don't care to know. You cannot claim ignorance of sins that are so prevalent in society that they've become the norm.

In fact, individuals with the sort of clear and strong set of Christian morals and values that these bakers have would probably not even be in the wedding cake business, because of the understanding that a good number of those cakes would have them participate and celebrate sinful behavior.

Unless of course, these bakers believe that every cake they've baked since 2007 has been for the wedding of a virgin bride and groom.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Matthew 7:3

[Luis Gonzalez]

"... and there is not necessarily sin involved in a second marriage....... Biblically, that is."

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." - Matthew 19:6

Sticky point there. How can there be a second marriage if the first one can only be dissolved by God?

Then there's this:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." - Matthew 19:9

Biblically, the only acceptable reason for divorce is fornication, and even that is questionable. So anyone whose marriage was dissolved for any reason other than that, then marries another, is committing adultery, just as anyone who marries someone whose previous marriage was dissolved, irrespective of whether it was for the sin of fornication or not, is also guilty of committing adultery.

[musiclady]

Or that they don't care about because it is socially accepted within the Christian community and the general population at large.

We all know what Jesus said, yet we embrace the law of no-fault divorce and remarry without giving a second thought to the Scriptures, we live together outside of marriage and bear an increasingly large amount of children that way, and premarital sex is the norm, not the exception in our society.

Not all of us, Luis.  There are many who still hold to Scriptural standards regarding marriage, and extra-marital sex.

It isn't a lack of a heterosexual Gestapo that's at play here. It's an over abundance of heterosexual acceptance of sin as a way of life, so much so that the baker, even if they knew about the premarital sex, the cohabitation, the out of wedlock child, would probably bake the cake any way. And it's not even that they don't know, but rather that they don't care to know. You cannot claim ignorance of sins that are so prevalent in society that they've become the norm.

You are stating things as though you know them to be true, when you don't.  Again, there are many of us who are consistent about sexual sin, and it includes both hetero and homosexual behavior.  It is the same agenda that pushed extramarital sex on this society ("free love," "sexual revolution") who are now pushing the homosexual agenda with ferocious bullying.

In fact, individuals with the sort of clear and strong set of Christian morals and values that these bakers have would probably not even be in the wedding cake business, because of the understanding that a good number of those cakes would have them participate and celebrate sinful behavior.

Unless of course, these bakers believe that every cake they've baked since 2007 has been for the wedding of a virgin bride and groom.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Matthew 7:3

Ridiculous application of your feelings onto the subject.  People who believe in marriage not making cakes for weddings?  Oy.

And your handy-dandy Bible quote doesn't apply at all because you have no idea what's in the eye of these bakers.

Stop being so judgmental, Luis.

[musiclady]

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." - Matthew 19:6

Sticky point there. How can there be a second marriage if the first one can only be dissolved by God?

Then there's this:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." - Matthew 19:9

Biblically, the only acceptable reason for divorce is fornication, and even that is questionable. So anyone whose marriage was dissolved for any reason other than that, then marries another, is committing adultery, just as anyone who marries someone whose previous marriage was dissolved, irrespective of whether it was for the sin of fornication or not, is also guilty of committing adultery.

The exception is infidelity.

And your interpretation of Scripture is harsh and denies forgiveness.

[mountaineer]

Biblically, the only acceptable reason for divorce is fornication, and even that is questionable. So anyone whose marriage was dissolved for any reason other than that, then marries another, is committing adultery, just as anyone who marries someone whose previous marriage was dissolved, irrespective of whether it was for the sin of fornication or not, is also guilty of committing adultery.

Bible scholars might - and would - disagree. I once worked for a Christian attorney who also had an M.Div. degree from a respected Presbyterian seminary, and he concluded from his study of Scripture that the only biblical grounds for divorce were adultery and abandonment. (The latter encompasses more than just packing up and leaving, however). If someone went to this lawyer seeking a divorce for some other reason, he would not take that person as a client.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Bible scholars might - and would - disagree. I once worked for a Christian attorney who also had an M.Div. degree from a respected Presbyterian seminary, and he concluded from his study of Scripture that the only biblical grounds for divorce were adultery and abandonment. (The latter encompasses more than just packing up and leaving, however). If someone went to this lawyer seeking a divorce for some other reason, he would not take that person as a client.

In the New Testament, "fornication" comes from the Greek word porneia, which includes adultery and incest.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Stop being so judgmental, Luis.

You'll probably never see the irony in that statement as it relates to this discussion.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The exception is infidelity.

But anyone who marries someone who committed infidelity and became divorced as a result of it, is committing adultery.

And your interpretation of Scripture is harsh and denies forgiveness.

More irony.

[musiclady]

You'll probably never see the irony in that statement as it relates to this discussion.

Oh, I do, dear Luis.  The irony was quite deliberate.

I'm taking the argument of the left and turning it on you.

You accuse others of hypocrisy and being judgmental while you are doing the exact thing from the other side.

[musiclady]

But anyone who marries someone who committed infidelity and became divorced as a result of it, is committing adultery.

Correct.

More irony.

And again, deliberate.

Using irony to accuse the accuser of committing the very thing he accuses others of doing.

Because that's what you've done here.

But in reality, I am not being harsh and unforgiving here.  And you are.

I am merely standing up for religious liberty, and am completely consistent in my positions on the subject.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Correct.

And again, deliberate.

Using irony to accuse the accuser of committing the very thing he accuses others of doing.

Because that's what you've done here.

But in reality, I am not being harsh and unforgiving here.  And you are.

I am merely standing up for religious liberty, and am completely consistent in my positions on the subject.

So, on a topic where most are judging homosexuals and in this specific thread where people are defending those who judge homosexuals while I point out all our inconsistencies regarding sinful behavior and that just as we judge, we shall be judged (Matthew 7:1), I am the one being harsh and inconsistent?

Yes... irony.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Oh, I do, dear Luis.  The irony was quite deliberate.

I'm taking the argument of the left and turning it on you.

You accuse others of hypocrisy and being judgmental while you are doing the exact thing from the other side.

So my quoting Biblical scripture is now arguing from the left?

Oh, the irony.

[musiclady]

So my quoting Biblical scripture is now arguing from the left?

Oh, the irony.

No.  Your selective quoting of Scripture to defend a very un-Biblical position is problematic, but your unceasing advocacy of homosexual marriage, as the left has done, is even more problematic.

[musiclady]

So, on a topic where most are judging homosexuals and in this specific thread where people are defending those who judge homosexuals while I point out all our inconsistencies regarding sinful behavior and that just as we judge, we shall be judged (Matthew 7:1), I am the one being harsh and inconsistent?

Yes... irony.

Yes.  You are.

You do not allow for the possibility of repentance and forgiveness of past sin.  For the Lord, sins that are confessed are washed completely away, and you, as a mortal man, have no idea as to what has happened in the hearts of those who have been divorced, or even if they have been victims of adultery or abuse.

Unless a baker/photographer/florist uses the aforementioned questionnaire asking about past sins, they cannot possibly know what's in the hearts of those they serve.  They may have repented and been forgiven.

On the other hand, the very fact that a lesbian couple is getting married is a clear indication that they have not repented of their sin, as there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that supports homosexuality, and multiple passages that condemn it.

The position I am taking, within Scripture, is completely consistent.

It is you who are saying that heterosexuals who get divorced cannot be forgiven.

[EC]

Not according to the Catholic Church they can't. Once you are married, that's it until death. With no divorce, any separation and remarriage (or co-habiting, or casual sex) is adultery and fornication, no excuses accepted. There are simply no loopholes. Been looking into that for reasons.

[musiclady]

Not according to the Catholic Church they can't. Once you are married, that's it until death. With no divorce, any separation and remarriage (or co-habiting, or casual sex) is adultery and fornication, no excuses accepted. There are simply no loopholes. Been looking into that for reasons.

In the Protestant world, that is a valid interpretation of Scripture, albeit the one coming from fundamentalists.

But arguing that divorce is an unforgiveable sin and that homosexual marriage is to be supported is inconsistent at best.

Protestant fundamentalists oppose both.  Most Protestants, even Evangelicals, allow for re-marriage if one has been the victim of an adulterous spouse, or an abusive spouse.

It's not crystal clear, Scripturally, though many who are serious scholars allow for exceptions.

That homosexual behavior is sin, however, is overwhelmingly clear.

[truth_seeker]

We have had equal housing legislation and regulations for decades. Every real estate office must display information.

My first time showing properties to a black woman, made me uncomfortable, but I dealt with it.

She asked me questions, which led me to wonder if she was undercover, checking out how she was dealt with.

My area has some Hispanic concentrations, and some Asian concentrations, but too few blacks to be able to even find a distinct neighborhood, where they might be concentrated.

Anyway she asked about racial segregation and I told her it was largely economic, which it is to some extent.

If I had been in a position to say to her, "sorry--you don't need to look there because they won't sell to you since you are black," it would be precisely the same as me saying to her, "sorry they won't sell to you because you are openly homosexual."

I would lose my real estate license in no time, if I told a prospective client that I refused to work with them because they were black, openly homosexual, etc.

That is reality in the real world I live in.

Our civil laws are NOT guided so as to conform to religious beliefs, fortunately.

We don't cut off hands, even though muslims have that in their book, supposedly. In fact we recoil at the thought of sharia law.

The same Christians that believe the earth is 6,000 years old, believe in literal interpretation of the Bible.

Moral of the story: If you won' serve all customers who come your way, don't hold yourself as if open to "the public."

Apparently the Oregon law since at least 2007 has reflected this.