Property Rights - Conscience

[Mountaineer]

No, it's not twisted logic to differentiate between justifiable killing and murder, from the Bible.  The word "kill" in "thou shalt not kill" is better translated as "murder."  See this link:
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what ... -mean.html

I agree, the correct translation is "murder", not "kill".

My definition of murder: killing that's is pre-meditated and not done in self-defense.

Ergo, to me, killing in wartime, for capital punishment, and by a police officer to prevent a suspect from fleeing are actually murder and Christians should not participate in those activities. Right?

A looser definition of murder that includes things like killing in war and executing convicted criminals seems to me to be a totally hollow definition that allows the government to label any killing as "justifiable," putting us in the silly situation where God is prohibiting something that gets to be defined by man. There must be a Godly definition of murder that we should follow, right?

Besides, why bother to even follow the ten commandments anyway? We're all sinners and can't possibly hope to live up to God's standard of perfection, right? Isn't the only thing that really matters that we admit our sinfulness, accept Jesus as our lord and savior, and then breathe easy and stop wasting our lives trying to stop sinning? Given this "accept jesus and everything's fine" explanation that I very frequently hear, I don't really get what's so bad about sinning anyway. Go ahead and do that gay wedding. Jesus died for your sins. God doesn't mind.

Right?

Adding to what Xan and Desert have said.  Your statement is a common one from my perspective, except for the part about God doesn't mind which I can't buy.  If one goes too far in thinking their sins "don't matter" and just keep on unrepentantly sinning and feel secure just because they are believers, one falls into the area of "cheap grace" - fundamentally one is saying they know better than God's Word (i.e. they are worshiping themselves or their logic).  In essence, they are choosing to spit in God's face - I don't think that is a good idea, but that is really up to God to judge and meet out the consequences, not me.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a book titled "Cheap Grace" if you wish to pursue in detail sometime.

Your statements really boil down to the Lutheran "Two Kingdoms" understanding of Scripture.  Kingdom of the left deals with civic stuff, the right God stuff.  God says we have rulers/authorities in the kingdom of the left to provide for order and reduce chaos so that we are free to hear God's Word and we should obey the rulers unless their direction conflicts with God's Word.  God is in charge of both kingdoms.  Prime example of a conflict of the two kingdoms is homosexuality.  Our government says it is legal.  God says it is not.  Will an unrepentant man who has an ongoing ''homosexual relationship" go to hell if he is a believer?  I don't know, that is up to God, but I would tend to think that if he truly is a believer and tries to live by God's will, he probably will not choose to have or continue in that lifestyle in the first place.  If the government says he MUST marry another man (or MUST do things that are clearly forbidden in Scripture), I think he should say NO and be willing to fact the consequences of disobeying the government in order not to lose his salvation - however, my reasoning ability is not quite up there with God's mind.  So, I really don't know, that is God's business.  As for the guy with a pizza place having to serve at a gay wedding because the government says he must do so to comply with the law, I expect prison guards have to serve murderers and rapists and pedofiles and all sorts of perverts to comply with their authorities' rules?  What's the difference?  We all serve sinners all the time.  Churches are filled with nothing but sinners, even the pastors.  Hypocrites?  Yep, all of us are.  That is why I go to church with that rag tag bunch of sinning hypocrites - to know and reinforce and hear again and again that I am forgiven because of what Jesus did, not because of what I or they do or did.

... Mountaineer

As for the guy with a pizza place having to serve at a gay wedding because the government says he must do so to comply with the law, I expect prison guards have to serve murderers and rapists and pedofiles and all sorts of perverts to comply with their authorities' rules? What's the difference? We all serve sinners all the time. Churches are filled with nothing but sinners, even the pastors. Hypocrites? Yep, all of us are. That is why I go to church with that rag tag bunch of sinning hypocrites - to know and reinforce and hear again and again that I am forgiven because of what Jesus did, not because of what I or they do or did.

... Mountaineer

isn't there a difference between serving sinners and participating in the sin? i would bet those bakeries all happily serve gays and all other manner of sinners when its a birthday cake, the question is, is making a cake for a wedding participating in the sin? and is a gay wedding even a sin? its not sodomy or lying with men, its just a ceremony that the people who are into that stuff are having to celebrate a legal contract (and sometimes their own understanding of a union before god), so how is serving that celebration a sin for the server?

seems to me like not serving them is more of a political statement about government granting/recognizing that legal contract than it is a religious objection... they should have just fought for the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason and left religion out of it... its their business, they should be able to choose whom they do business with no explanations or religious exceptions required..

[Pointedstick]

Here's the deal. I'm told that salvation is a get-out-of-hell-free card. Once you're saved, you can do whatever the heck you want and not worry about your place in Heaven. This much is apparently not in dispute. Now I'm being told that flaunting this by continuing to knowingly and unashamedly sin is a distasteful thing to do, that maybe it's evidence that you're not really saved, and that this probably wouldn't happen anyway since after you're saved you want to do the right thing. Okay. Sure. I would argue that most people want to do the right thing anyway before they're saved, and even if they never get saved, but apparently this is too radical a concept.

So here's my question. For the secure evangelical Christian who has accepted Jesus into his heart and is saved, is serving homosexuals any different from serving murderers? No, really. Christians do all kinds of ministry work with criminals. I know some who do. I don't know of any Christian who would decline to serve any convicted murderers they recognized if they were manning a soup kitchen or selling tacos or something. We're all sinners, right? Aren't the most sinny ones of us in need or more compassion rather than shunning? So what's the big deal with (apparently hypothetically) serving gay people? Taking their money and providing them services doesn't mean you condone their existence or life choices. It doesn't bring you into their world or turn you gay. It doesn't taint you with whatever it is about them that makes God unhappy with them. I mean, God didn't say that you were a bad person if you simply associated with homosexuals, did he? So what's the big deal?

If it wouldn't bring God's ire to knowingly provide services to a murderer, why would it provoke God's ire to provide services to a homosexual? And even if it does, who cares? We all constantly sin, apparently, and are constantly earning God's ire for all sorts of things. I though being saved was all that mattered.

Honestly, I feel like this whole thing is simply a religiously-themed cover-up for people who feel like gays are icky and don't want to be near them, not any kind of actual genuinely religious reason. Show me where in the Bible that it tells us to avoid and shun homosexuals. Where's that passage?

[madbean]

Honestly, I feel like this whole thing is simply a religiously-themed cover-up for people who feel like gays are icky and don't want to be near them, not any kind of actual genuinely religious reason. Show me where in the Bible that it tells us to avoid and shun homosexuals. Where's that passage?

Actually, it says pretty much the opposite....

From Paul in 1 Corinthian 5:10:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.…

So I guess he's saying that sinners should only be shunned if they are claiming to be Christians.

[Xan]

PS,

It's not necessarily that Christians are afraid for their salvation, and that's why they don't want to participate in a gay wedding.  It's that they see it as a sin, and that they don't want to sin.  The "stick" of damnation isn't required.

Also, when you talk about refusing to server murderers at a soup kitchen, you're missing the point entirely.  I'm sure everyone would be glad to server homosexuals at a soup kitchen too.  Nobody is talking about not providing service to people simply because they're homosexual.  We're talking about events that celebrate and affirm that particular aspect of their lives.

Would a Christian serve a homosexual (or a murderer) at a soup kitchen?  Absolutely.  Would he minister to one in prison or wherever?  Sure.

But suppose the murderer were having a murderer's party where he and other murderers, and people who thought murder was A-OK, were getting together to celebrate murder, and then wanted the Christian to come and bake a cake for the event.  That's more analogous to what we're talking about here.

(I am not equating homosexuality with murder; just responding to PS's point.)

[Pointedstick]

I think I see the disconnect, Xan. Here seems to be your logical train of thought:

1. A wedding between homosexuals is a celebration of homosexuality. (your words: "We're talking about [gay marriages] that celebrate and affirm that particular aspect of their lives." and "But suppose the murderer were having a murderer's party where he and other murderers, and people who thought murder was A-OK, were getting together to celebrate murder")
2. Providing services that will be used to celebrate a wedding is an implicit participation in the wedding, the manner of celebrating it, their people's choices, and the bride and groom's sexuality. (your words: "It's that they see it as a sin, and that they don't want to sin.")
3. Ergo, a devout Christian who caters a wedding between homosexuals is actively participating in homosexuality, which is forbidden by God.

I think the conclusion incorrect because the two assumptions are incorrect. Allow me to explain.

1. A wedding between homosexuals is a celebration of homosexuality.

I disagree. When my wife and I got married, were we celebrating heterosexuality? Were we having a big party celebrating the fact that we were going to screw like rabbits that night and for many more nights to come? That's certainly not how we saw it. I don't know anyone who's been married who saw their wedding as a celebration of heterosexuality, either in general, or their own. We saw our weddings as our celebrations of personal commitments we'd made to those who we've decided to spend our lives with. Nothing less, nothing more.

Now, maybe you see it differently. Maybe to you, a conventional wedding is a celebration of heterosexuality, reproduction, hot male-dom-fem-sub sex, and the heternormative man-woman-children family (see "Red Family, Blue Family"). But whose opinion is the one that matters? If two gays who want to get married see their own wedding as a celebration of their commitments to one another and desire to live together until death, and someone elsewhere sees their wedding as a celebration of homosexuality, whose opinion more accurately describes the true nature of their wedding? I think the answer is obvious--the people who are the focus of the wedding and who are its organizers! You don't get to point to two gays who love each other and are preparing to make a lifetime commitment to one another and say, "No, I think you're just having a big party celebrating butt-sex and scissoring." I mean, some gay marriages may be like that, but some straight marriages might be, too!

2. Providing services that will be used to celebrate a wedding is an implicit participation in the wedding, the manner of celebrating it, their people's choices, and the bride and groom's sexuality.

Let's say that I'm wrong about #1 and that a gay wedding actually is little more than a big party celebrating sodomy--an explicitly prohibited activity. Okay. How does it follow that a Christian who bakes a nice big cake for those flagrant sodomites is him or herself sinning for doing so? He or she isn't homosexual, isn't engaging in homosexual activity, isn't doing any of that. Again, is the prohibition on homosexuality also a broader prohibition on associating with homosexuals? If so, then wouldn't any Christian DJs, or limousine drivers, or tuxedo rental store owners for this hypothetical butt-sex party gay wedding also be sharing in the sin of homosexuality?

Moreover, if providing services to someone's celebration constitutes implicit or an explicit endorsement of their activities and sharing any concomitant moral burden, then what does this say about Christians who cater a bachelor party? A Hindu wedding (lots of idolatry going on there...)? A Christian gun store owner? A Christian bar owner? A Christian banker or payday lender? The implications of this are enormous: that Christians should be constantly worried about sharing the "sin burden" of everyone they associate with or how their activities may aid and abet others' sinning. This seems not only ridiculous, but theologically unsupported; as Madbean pointed out by quoting the Bible--and this is consistent with my impression as well as--Christians are not supposed to become clannish and only associate with people just like them who are also saved; they're supposed to go out into their communities and interact with the rest of us sinners and love us even as they may hate our sins, and they're supposed to help guide us back toward the path of Christ, not avoid us because they might be tainted by our sins by providing us with commercial services that may be used to commit sin.

And in any event, all of this is irrelevant in light of the fact that being saved by Christ being the only thing that really matters.

[Mountaineer]

Here is some information that may help the conundrum of whether or not a Christian should "participate" in a homosexual wedding.  Pardon the use of some Latin, you can google what it means:

One key to the conundrum of our New Testament relationship to the Old Testament Law is Galatians 3:21-29: "Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.  But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.  Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.  So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.  But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."

Old Testament as well as New Testament, salvation was by faith in the salvation promised by God and fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.  The law was a guardian to help get the people ready for the coming Messiah.  The Law prepared God's people in a number of ways.  But now that salvation has come we no longer need the prep work of the Law.  That was fulfilled in Christ.

So we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus and not by works.  So, now what?  Our relationship to the Law relates to the Gospel only in our continued need for reminders that we have not yet become what we shall be in the eschaton - after death in heaven or in the resurrection after the end of this age.  It is a reminder (2nd Use) that we are not yet completely what we shall be, simul justus et peccator.  With the Old Adam clinging to us we still need to repent and continually receive God's forgiveness.

But God has not yet removed us from this world, nor has the Old Adam been completely removed from us, so we need to live in this in between stage of our lives.  It's like being continually teenagers throughout of life.  Here the Law is a guide.  As it is a guide to living in society (civil righteousness, 1st Use) it can help guide us not to salvation (already done) but toward denying the Old Adam and his works and living into the New Man (according to some again the 1st Use, civil righteousness, which I can't see as being much different from the traditional 3rd Use).

As Paul wrote: Romans 13:8-10: "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,”? and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”?  Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."  All the Law is summed up in the two commandments, Love God, Love your neighbor.  But what does loving your neighbor look like?  It is not always that obvious.  In Romans there, Paul used the second table of the Ten Commandments to help describe love.  The dirty secret is that even Christians who are saved are in this world still sinners.  We still struggle against the Old Adam and are still tempted.  Part of that temptation includes rationalizing what we want as part of God’s will.  As Robert Heinlein observed, "Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal."

In his ground breaking book, Situation Ethics, Joseph Fletcher advocated that all we really need to do is to consider what the loving thing to do would be in that situation and do it, even if it means breaking the rules. (All we need is love, catchy phrase, someone should make a song of it.)  One illustration that it gives is that of a therapist seducing his client to demonstrate to her that she is desirable and worthy of affection.  Few now would see that as a wise or even actually loving solution for low self-esteem issues.  We no longer need to look to the law as a way to make us more acceptable to God.  But it does give us good general advice as to what loving God and our neighbor actually looks like.  A guard, if you will, to protect us from our Old Adam sneaking one over us and promoting something as loving that is really unloving, selfish and sinful.

The classic division of Old Testament Law into moral, civil and ceremonial recognizes the various purposes and uses of the Law.  Some of the written Law is clearly there to set up the Old Testament worship system.  This was fulfilled in Jesus and being fulfilled is no longer binding, as witnessed by Peter’s vision in Acts 10, and Paul setting aside the designation of certain days as especially holy and mandatory for worship in Romans 14:5.  This was in part preparation for God’s people to receive the Savior.  Other Laws set up rules for their society and governance.  We can learn good principles from them but they may not apply directly to our current situation.  Moral principles (laws) give guidance for what loving God and our neighbor, and living a good life looks like.  Even if some Jews looked to the Law as a means to get right with God, that was not nearly the only attitude toward God’s Law in the Old Testament.  Read Psalm 119.  The Psalmist praises God’s Law because it is good for the people, not because it is a way to satisfy God.

Even today, law can serve a number of purposes at the same time.  Take the commandment against stealing.  It serves 1st Use to help guide society and help people to live together in society.  Especially as we look at the broader implications (think Luther’s explanation in the Small Catechism) it reminds us of our lack of perfection and continuing need for forgiveness, 2nd Use.  It also guides us as attempt to live a Christian life, not to gain salvation but to please God, serve our neighbor, and seek to live a good life on this earth, 3rd Use (or 1st Use for Christians if you are deathly allergic to 3rd Use of the Law).  Lex semper accusat but it doesn’t only accusat.

Text copied from one smarter and more eloquent than I am, Pr. D. Fienen. 

Definitions that may help understand the above:  1st use of the Law - curb evil and sinful desires.  2nd use - a mirror to show us our sin.  3rd use - a guide for Christians that shows God's will for our lives.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

I think I see the disconnect, Xan. Here seems to be your logical train of thought:

1. A wedding between homosexuals is a celebration of homosexuality. (your words: "We're talking about [gay marriages] that celebrate and affirm that particular aspect of their lives." and "But suppose the murderer were having a murderer's party where he and other murderers, and people who thought murder was A-OK, were getting together to celebrate murder")
2. Providing services that will be used to celebrate a wedding is an implicit participation in the wedding, the manner of celebrating it, their people's choices, and the bride and groom's sexuality. (your words: "It's that they see it as a sin, and that they don't want to sin.")
3. Ergo, a devout Christian who caters a wedding between homosexuals is actively participating in homosexuality, which is forbidden by God.

I think the conclusion incorrect because the two assumptions are incorrect. Allow me to explain.

1. A wedding between homosexuals is a celebration of homosexuality.

I disagree. When My wife and I got married, were we celebrating heterosexuality? Were we having a big party celebrating the fact that we were going to screw like rabbits that night and for many more nights to come? That's certainly not how we saw it. I don't know anyone who's been married who saw their wedding as a celebration of heterosexuality, either in general, or their own. We saw our weddings as our celebrations of personal commitments we'd made to those who we've decided to spend our lives with. Nothing less, nothing more.

Now, maybe you see it differently. Maybe to you, a conventional wedding is a celebration of heterosexuality, reproduction, hot male-dom-fem-sub sex, and the heternormative man-woman-children family (see "Red Family, Blue Family"). But whose opinion is the one that's the one that matters? If two gays who want to get married see their own wedding as a celebration of their commitments to one another and desire to live together until death, and someone elsewhere sees their wedding as a celebration of homosexuality, whose opinion more accurately describes the true nature of their wedding? I think the answer is obvious--the people who are the focus of the wedding and who are its organizers! You don't get to point to two gays who love each other and are preparing to make a lifetime commitment to one another and say, "No, I think you're just having a big party celebrating butt-sex and scissoring." I mean, some gay marriages may be like that, but some straight marriages might be, too!

2. Providing services that will be used to celebrate a wedding is an implicit participation in the wedding, the manner of celebrating it, their people's choices, and the bride and groom's sexuality.

Let's say that I'm wrong about #1 and that a gay wedding actually is little more than a big party celebrating sodomy--an explicitly prohibited activity. Okay. How does it follow that a Christian who bakes a nice big cake for those flagrant sodomites is him or herself sinning for doing so? He or she isn't homosexual, isn't engaging in homosexual activity, isn't doing any of that. Again, is the prohibition on homosexuality also a broader prohibition on associating with homosexuals? If so, then wouldn't any Christian DJs, or limousine drivers, or tuxedo rental store owners for this hypothetical butt-sex party gay wedding also be sharing in the sin of homosexuality?

Moreover, if providing services to someone's celebration constitutes implicit or an explicit endorsement of their activities and sharing any moral burden, then what does this say about Christians who cater a bachelor party? A Hindu wedding (lots of idolatry going on there...)? A Christian gun store owner? A Christian bar owner? A Christian banker or payday lender? The implications of this are enormous: that Christians should be constantly worried about sharing the "sin burden" of everyone they associate with or how their activities may aid and abet others' sinning. This seems not only ridiculous, but theologically unsupported; as Madbean pointed out by quoting the Bible--and this is consistent with my impression as well as--Christians are not supposed to become clannish and only associate with people just like them who are also saved; they're supposed to go out into their communities and interact with the rest of us sinners and love us even as they may hate our sins, and they're supposed to help guide us back toward the path of Christ, not avoid us because they might be tainted by our sins by providing us with commercial services that we may be used to commit sin.

And in any event, all of this is irrelevant in light of the fact that being saved by Christ being the only thing that really matters.

This is all why the "religious exception" is such a sloppy public policy standard.  Sure, we should try to be as respectful as we can be to non-intrusive religious customs when developing laws, and if someone TRULY feels that they don't want to do something, I can't hold it against them, as I go over the speed limit and scheme on some tax deductions.  But for our government to actually acknowledge it as a public policy enforcement decision?

What a mess that would turn into...

You'd have liberals giving special "exceptions" to Muslim, and conservatives giving special exceptions to Christians.  It would be a huge mess.  I'm open to the conversation of specific religious exceptions in certain areas of law/enforcement, but it would be by no means an automatic stamp.

Like I said, this should have nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with freedom of association.  Not to say our creator's preferences aren't more important than our will to be autonomous in our lives (at least to some degree), but the latter is a human preference that can be repeatedly inductively proven.  The former is not, and is rife with subjective preferences and personal bias.

[Pointedstick]

Mountaineer, that passage seems to reinforce my conclusion: that universal love towards others is the most important thing after you've been saved, not shunning or avoiding sinners because you don't like their sins.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer, that passage seems to reinforce my conclusion: that universal love towards others is the most important thing after you've been saved, not shunning or avoiding sinners because you don't like their sins.

I would say, Love God and love neighbor, not just love toward others.  There are some paradox passages however, like madbean quoted that on the surface can look wacky or contradictory - note I said on the surface.  The tricky part of Scipture interpretation is to always use clearer parts to help determine the meaning of the more unclear parts - Scripture interprets Scripture, and when there is something that appears wacky, to realize it is probably my lack of understanding, not a fault of God.  And, when something is repeated many times (like love God and love neighbor) in various Books of the Bible and in various terminologies, it is more important than the parts that are only mentioned once.  Sinful man, me included, has a tendency to cherry pick verses to fit his agenda.  What can I say, I'm a sinner. 

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Okay, so love God and love neighbor. I still don't see how this in any way should make a saved Christian uncomfortable for genuinely for religious reasons about catering a gay wedding. If anything, I would think that overcoming your religiously-imparted distaste of what you view as other people's sin and your potential culturally-imparted visceral disgust of sodomy would be practically required under this super-lovey idea. So they're sinners… so what! Aren't we all? Aren't you?

I can understand it on the basis of simple homophobia, but the New Testament seems to be practically begging people to act towards one another with more charity, more love, more tolerance and understanding and forgiveness.

[moda0306]

Mountaineer, that passage seems to reinforce my conclusion: that universal love towards others is the most important thing after you've been saved, not shunning or avoiding sinners because you don't like their sins.

I would say, Love God and love neighbor, not just love toward others.  There are some paradox passages however, like madbean quoted that on the surface can look wacky or contradictory - note I said on the surface.  The tricky part of Scipture interpretation is to always use clearer parts to help determine the meaning of the more unclear parts - Scripture interprets Scripture, and when there is something that appears wacky, to realize it is probably my lack of understanding, not a fault of God.  And, when something is repeated many times (like love God and love neighbor) in various Books of the Bible and in various terminologies, it is more important than the parts that are only mentioned once.  Sinful man, me included, has a tendency to cherry pick verses to fit his agenda.  What can I say, I'm a sinner. 

... Mountaineer

Understanding = interpretation

Perhaps there are certain parts of the Bible that clarify other parts, but in the absence of 100% complete clarity, some additional interpretation is required, so I think it's woefully incorrect to say that there isn't interpretation going on.

Not that you can't MIS-interpret scripture, if it truly is the Word of God.  But to the degree that it requires certain UNDERSTANDING that can't be confirmed as to its accuracy, then there is subjective interpretation going on.

[Mountaineer]

Okay, so love God and love neighbor. I still don't see how this in any way should make a saved Christian uncomfortable for genuinely for religious reasons about catering a gay wedding. If anything, I would think that overcoming your religiously-imparted distaste of what you view as other people's sin and your potential culturally-imparted visceral disgust of sodomy would be practically required under this super-lovey idea. So they're sinners… so what! Aren't we all? Aren't you?

I can understand it on the basis of simple homophobia, but the New Testament seems to be practically begging people to act towards one another with more charity, more love, more tolerance and understanding and forgiveness.

PS, I'm not sure if you are addressing me or the group in general, but if it is me, I thought my posts were relatively clear about what my thoughts are: "take the darn job and do your best work at it", (Lutheran doctrine of vocation) but if you feel the you are being used for some nefarious purpose by the people seeking your service , tell them they are free to take their business elsewhere - regardless of the issue - just like you would for anyone else, but be ready to suffer the consequences, like the potential customer telling their friends you are a schmuck.  I'm sure if the owner of a business just did not want to serve a customer for whatever reason, they could think of some creative, legal way to do it - unless they are really bozos.    "Oh kind sir, I'm honored you want the best cake shop in town to make that wedding cake and cater your party, but the cake will have to be custom made and it takes 12 months of planning to make it because some of the ingredients come from a freshly inseminated Peruvian llama ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llama ), and by the way, the cake will cost $25,000 plus transportation of the llama from Peru to here, but we will deliver the finished cake free within a 5 mile radius." 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer, that passage seems to reinforce my conclusion: that universal love towards others is the most important thing after you've been saved, not shunning or avoiding sinners because you don't like their sins.

I would say, Love God and love neighbor, not just love toward others.  There are some paradox passages however, like madbean quoted that on the surface can look wacky or contradictory - note I said on the surface.  The tricky part of Scipture interpretation is to always use clearer parts to help determine the meaning of the more unclear parts - Scripture interprets Scripture, and when there is something that appears wacky, to realize it is probably my lack of understanding, not a fault of God.  And, when something is repeated many times (like love God and love neighbor) in various Books of the Bible and in various terminologies, it is more important than the parts that are only mentioned once.  Sinful man, me included, has a tendency to cherry pick verses to fit his agenda.  What can I say, I'm a sinner. 

... Mountaineer

Understanding = interpretation

Perhaps there are certain parts of the Bible that clarify other parts, but in the absence of 100% complete clarity, some additional interpretation is required, so I think it's woefully incorrect to say that there isn't interpretation going on.

Not that you can't MIS-interpret scripture, if it truly is the Word of God.  But to the degree that it requires certain UNDERSTANDING that can't be confirmed as to its accuracy, then there is subjective interpretation going on.

Sure you can, an individual can easily misinterpret Scripture, particularly if his method of understanding Scripture is to sit alone in the closet while reading without the benefit of those theologically trained and a body of fellow believers that have decades, if not a thousand plus years going back to the early church Fathers, of what the passage means.  We are simultaneously saint and sinner.  People have been misinterpreting Scripture for thousands of years going all the way back to when it was first written down.  The words may be exactly what God wants them to be, but as I said, we are simultaneously saint and sinner.  Sinners sin.  Sinners make mistakes.  The inspired inerrant Word of God does not make mistakes.  This is why the word "faith" exists - because we sinners are incapable of coming to an understanding everything of we would like to know.  We are inherently bound to rebel against God since Genesis Chapter 3.  My opinion of course, others may see it differently.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Okay, so love God and love neighbor. I still don't see how this in any way should make a saved Christian uncomfortable for genuinely for religious reasons about catering a gay wedding. If anything, I would think that overcoming your religiously-imparted distaste of what you view as other people's sin and your potential culturally-imparted visceral disgust of sodomy would be practically required under this super-lovey idea. So they're sinners… so what! Aren't we all? Aren't you?

I can understand it on the basis of simple homophobia, but the New Testament seems to be practically begging people to act towards one another with more charity, more love, more tolerance and understanding and forgiveness.

PS, I'm not sure if you are addressing me or the group in general, but if it is me, I thought my posts were relatively clear about what my thoughts are: "take the darn job and do your best work at it", (Lutheran doctrine of vocation) but if you feel the you are being used for some nefarious purpose by the people seeking your service , tell them they are free to take their business elsewhere - regardless of the issue - just like you would for anyone else, but be ready to suffer the consequences, like the potential customer telling their friends you are a schmuck.  I'm sure if the owner of a business just did not want to serve a customer for whatever reason, they could think of some creative, legal way to do it - unless they are really bozos.    "Oh kind sir, I'm honored you want the best cake shop in town to make that wedding cake and cater your party, but the cake will have to be custom made and it takes 12 months of planning to make it because some of the ingredients come from a freshly inseminated Peruvian llama ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llama ), and by the way, the cake will cost $25,000 plus transportation of the llama from Peru to here, but we will deliver the finished cake free within a 5 mile radius." 

... Mountaineer

While I agree with all of this, I still don't feel like I've seen a serious, theologically-valid reason why a saved Christian might feel uncomfortable catering a gay wedding.

but if you feel the you are being used for some nefarious purpose by the people seeking your service , tell them they are free to take their business elsewhere - regardless of the issue - just like you would for anyone else, but be ready to suffer the consequences, like the potential customer telling their friends you are a schmuck. I'm sure if the owner of a business just did not want to serve a customer for whatever reason, they could think of some creative, legal way to do it - unless they are really bozos. "
... Mountaineer

this seems to reinforce my hunch that the Christians don't think its a sin to serve cake to gay weddings, that they mostly just object to government granting/recognizing that legal contract, and consider the gays wanting a wedding to be a nefarious purpose. its kinda sad that they are using religion as their (less than) creative legal way to avoid doing it.

+1 to pointed sticks deconstruction of serving a gay wedding being a sin further up thread http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/other-discussions/property-rights-conscience/60/?action-post;quote=117677;last_msg=117679#postmodifythat was the same thought i was having when i asked the question

is making a cake for a wedding participating in the sin? and is a gay wedding even a sin? its not sodomy or lying with men, its just a ceremony that the people who are into that stuff are having to celebrate a legal contract (and sometimes their own understanding of a union before god), so how is serving that celebration a sin for the server?

[Mountaineer]

Okay, so love God and love neighbor. I still don't see how this in any way should make a saved Christian uncomfortable for genuinely for religious reasons about catering a gay wedding. If anything, I would think that overcoming your religiously-imparted distaste of what you view as other people's sin and your potential culturally-imparted visceral disgust of sodomy would be practically required under this super-lovey idea. So they're sinners… so what! Aren't we all? Aren't you?

I can understand it on the basis of simple homophobia, but the New Testament seems to be practically begging people to act towards one another with more charity, more love, more tolerance and understanding and forgiveness.

PS, I'm not sure if you are addressing me or the group in general, but if it is me, I thought my posts were relatively clear about what my thoughts are: "take the darn job and do your best work at it", (Lutheran doctrine of vocation) but if you feel the you are being used for some nefarious purpose by the people seeking your service , tell them they are free to take their business elsewhere - regardless of the issue - just like you would for anyone else, but be ready to suffer the consequences, like the potential customer telling their friends you are a schmuck.  I'm sure if the owner of a business just did not want to serve a customer for whatever reason, they could think of some creative, legal way to do it - unless they are really bozos.    "Oh kind sir, I'm honored you want the best cake shop in town to make that wedding cake and cater your party, but the cake will have to be custom made and it takes 12 months of planning to make it because some of the ingredients come from a freshly inseminated Peruvian llama ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llama ), and by the way, the cake will cost $25,000 plus transportation of the llama from Peru to here, but we will deliver the finished cake free within a 5 mile radius." 

... Mountaineer

While I agree with all of this, I still don't feel like I've seen a serious, theologically-valid reason why a saved Christian might feel uncomfortable catering a gay wedding.

PS, as much as I'd like to address your question, I can't.  I'm a saved Christian but I don't think I'd be really uncomfortable catering the gay wedding for the reason I gave (Lutheran understanding of vocation) ... but I'm not of an Evangelical (in the commonly understood today's definition) or Fundamental (who have a very literal understanding of Scripture verse by verse and don't understand the difference between Law and Gospel in my opinion) denomination and I'm not a caterer by vocation .......  This really isn't of the same category, but I have Evangelical friends that think drinking alcohol is wrong and won't drink ... even though the Bible does not say "don't drink", Scripture just says don't get drunk.  So called Christians in the past burned people at the stake for what they thought were good reasons.  So called Christians today still do abhorrent things just like unbelievers and other religions.  Jews killed Christ.  Pagans killed Jews and Christians.  Muslims kill Christians and each other.  Hindus kill Muslims.  Etc.  People somehow invent their own reasons for things and claim they are Scripturally or God based (this has been going on for a long long time) .... I would have a different take on the drinking thing, but as I said, we are all sinners and sinners sin and sinners do not always see eye to eye, even though the Christian Scriptures are truth regardless of who is reading them.  Just like a dog barks, just because it is a dog and that is what dogs do.  Perhaps someone else can address your questions much better than I can.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

I appreciate your honesty, Mountaineer. I can also respect the (apparently) theological consistency of your answer--we're all sinners, gays are sinners too, catering for a gay wedding doesn't make you a sinner, etc. I just find it interesting that this whole manufactured brouhaha concerns something that supposedly is this big burden for Christians to do, yet so far I don't believe I've heard a real theologically consistent reason why this is true.

And let me reinforce that I think that Christians should be able to decide they don't want to provide such services. I just have yet to hear a reason that is a valid Christian reason, as opposed to using Christianity to mask homophobia or blind adherence to homophobic social traditions.

[moda0306]

PS, as much as I'd like to address your question, I can't.  I'm a saved Christian but I don't think I'd be really uncomfortable catering the gay wedding for the reason I gave (Lutheran understanding of vocation) ... but I'm not of an Evangelical (in the commonly understood today's definition) or Fundamental (who have a very literal understanding of Scripture verse by verse and don't understand the difference between Law and Gospel in my opinion) denomination and I'm not a caterer by vocation .......  This really isn't of the same category, but I have Evangelical friends that think drinking alcohol is wrong and won't drink ... even though the Bible does not say "don't drink", Scripture just says don't get drunk.  So called Christians in the past burned people at the stake for what they thought were good reasons.  So called Christians today still do abhorrent things just like unbelievers and other religions.  Jews killed Christ.  Pagans killed Jews and Christians.  Muslims kill Christians and each other.  Hindus kill Muslims.  Etc.  People somehow invent their own reasons for things and claim they are Scripturally or God based (this has been going on for a long long time) .... I would have a different take on the drinking thing, but as I said, we are all sinners and sinners sin and sinners do not always see eye to eye, even though the Christian Scriptures are truth regardless of who is reading them.  Just like a dog barks, just because it is a dog and that is what dogs do.  Perhaps someone else can address your questions much better than I can.

... Mountaineer

I agree with all that.

It seems like both "sides" are a bit ridiculous in this particular conflict in Indiana.  The LGBT folks seem to have went out of their way to find someone to make them feel victimized.  And then both sides in the resulting fray seem to be having a biggest-douchebag contest in their outrage.  The religious right are up in arms, because queers are much more sinful than they are (and they're gross).  And the LGBT/Liberal folks are trying to paint the state of Indiana as a gay-hating hell hole.  I guess I find both sides pretty stupid in the argument.

This.

It's just an annoying debate.  Namby-pamby libs vs preachy conservatives, while the libertarian (and most reasonable, IMO) position gets lost in the fray of two sides who want special treatment of an annoying, intrusive, inconsistent nature.