Following on from my discussion with Paul Williams about baking cakes, the KKK and false dilemmas, comes the next part of this particular article. As mentioned, the discussion with Paul ended up involving other people, and some of the details I post here. The original article can be found here.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this discussion can easily morph into a wider theme – the theme of religious liberty, versus gay rights. Paul’s site attracts not only Muslim posters but several Christian posters as well, and one of that number, Ken Temple, made it very clear where he stands on this issue. His comments are in pink, mine are in blue, and any additional commentary is in black.
If it was a plain cake and the gay person was not flaunting their immorality in our faces, then there would be no problem.
The problem is that they force the bakers to put two plastic men on top and write in food coloring paste, “John and Larry, Love forever” and also forcing florists and photographers to go to their ceremonies.
Liberalism today promotes sexual perversion, and has deep hatred against Christians and all who hold that homosexuality is a sin and so called “same sex marriage” is not even marriage.
So am I to take it Ken, that you agree with Paul, in that anyone should be free to arbitrarily discriminate, flouting the law in the process?
Do you understand what I wrote above? The new laws are wrong, and the lesbians and gays that took people to court and destroyed their businesses are evil. (bakers, florists, photographers) The could have found another place to do business at. The law is evil that forces Christians or other conservatives to celebrate their immoral weddings and evil lusts. It is the gay agenda that is full of malice and evil. Refusing to go to a homosexual wedding is a righteous act. Refusing to put two plastic men on top of a cake and refusing to write “Bill and Steve, love forever” is a righteous act.
but if they just walk into a shop and buy something already made without any agenda, no problem.
the gays that destroyed this lady’s life, they are the evil and unjust ones. period. https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/a-great-injustice-done-against-a-christian-by-the-gay-agenda/
You’re bringing in bigoted dogma, hidden behind your beliefs. You would support discrimination, yet expecting equal treatment in the eyes of the law is evil?
I’m not sure I can take your posts seriously if this is your stance.
Nope; the current Leftist agenda to destroy Judea-Christian values is the most extreme form of bigotry.
Not wanting to go and celebrate at a so called “gay wedding” is not a wrong kind of discrimination. To discriminate is to think and judge something as wrong, based on evidence and fruit. The homosexuals already have the freedom to do what they do in the privacy of their own homes. they had no right to bring out their disgusting behavior into the public square and seek to get the government to enforce their perversions. The gun to the head by the gays in the meme that Paul W. put up is right – that is what that homosexual agenda is – force and evil. The transgender agenda also. They are the new KKK and neo-Nazis.
No one is being forced to celebrate at gay weddings who doesn’t want to be there. This is complete rubbish. On the other hand, you can not only be refused service for being gay, but in parts of America you can denied a job (or sacked if later found to be) for being gay. There are parts of the world where being gay carries prison sentences and even the death sentence. Yet in the meantime, the zealots on the reactionary right complain about being expected to treat people equally…
I’m not sure where this argument about being forced to attend gay weddings comes from. The attempt to justify discrimination as something based on evidence is not only wrong, it can be turned both ways. I’ve placed in bold a sentence I feel is worth greater examination than I gave it at the time. It can just as easily be argued that people don’t want religion shoved in their faces, and that government enforcement of religious institutions should be opposed. Indeed, religious institutions are everywhere – but how many gay churches, synagogues and mosques are there? Do homosexuals canvas people on the streets or door-to-door to convert others to their belief system? Obviously they don’t, as homosexuality isn’t a belief system being forced upon others.
It seems that both Paul and Ken wish to have their cake and eat it too. They decry the idea that a business – which is a public institution, and as such subject to the laws which cover such institution – cannot discriminate at will, whilst Ken wants to deny homosexuals rights! I wonder if they will see the irony in their positions?