Concerns for Freedom of Religion and Conscience

 

Concerns for Freedom of Religion and Conscience

 

Dear Readers,

I am a member of one of the hated kinds of Christians. Specifically, I am a born-again, biblically based believer in Jesus Christ who supports the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA].  If this causes me backlash and hatred, from any person, business or group, then so be it.  In all of the hub-bub of criticism and animus, there is one question that would never be asked by the media of mass deception (as well as the kinder, gentler stations like Fox News) because it would take a while to explain it.  I will attempt to do so here, however, it will not be a very detailed explanation.  You will need to see former writings of mine in order to get a clearer picture.

First, for those who haven’t been paying attention to the news, here is a link to the text of the bill. The following commentary, links, and arguments help to explain the controversy.

This first one will not be a direct link. You will need to type in “Huffington Post Gay Voices” into a search engine to find the article. It is entitled, “Barronelle Stutzman, Arlene’s Flower Shop Florist, Refuses Washington Gay Wedding Job Because Of Religion.” It was written on March 7, 2015.

Excerpt (without including hyperlinks):

A Richland, Wash. couple is still trying to make sense of what they say were the hurtful, discriminatory actions by their favorite florist.

For nearly a decade, Robert Ingersoll and his partner, Curt Freed, had bought bouquets from local business Arlene’s Flower Shop, owned by Barronelle Stutzman, reports the Tri-City Herald. So it was Stutzman the men sought out when they recently decided to get married. (Same-sex weddings became legal in Washington State in December 2012.)

But when Ingersoll asked Stutzman last Friday to arrange the flowers for his September nuptials, he got a shock.

He said he decided to get married, and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told KEPR. This is the only wedding Stutzman has turned down in 37 years.

“It really hurt because it was somebody I knew,” Ingersoll told the Herald. “We laid awake all night Saturday. It was eating at our souls. There was never a question she’d be the one to do our flowers. She does amazing work.”

The couple decided to take the issue to Facebook, where reactions were heated — but mixed, according to NBC affiliate KNDO 23. Some people countered that Stutzman doesn’t have the right to refuse a gay couple, others applauded her for sticking up for her values and a few threatened violence against her little shop.

KNDO 23 points out that the florist’s actions may indeed violate the state’s freedom from discrimination law. RCW 49.60.030 stipulates that Washington State citizens have the “right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination.”

The majority of states do not have similarly tough anti-discrimination statutes, according to the ACLU.

It is interesting to see the first comment there:

NancyMarie

26 Fans

Christians believe that marriage between one man and one woman forever was designed by God from the beginning. See the book of Genesis, confirmed also by Jesus Christ: The two shall become one flesh and of that union there will be new life and the future is born – our children. Unless a gay couple can pull that one off without technological intervention, Christians cannot equate same-sex marriage to the sacramental marriage commanded by the Creator. For the florist to take the job would be to provide public support to an event she believes is unnatural, immoral and harmful both to the individuals involved and to the family unit in our society. She exercised freedom of conscience, and for that is being made a national example by her “tolerant” gay friends, complete with threats of violence. When the same-sex marriage law came up for a vote, Christians were promised they would not have to violate their consciences. As a matter of fact, the way the law was presented on the ballot was deceptive in that it sounded as if it was a law specifically to protect Christians. When the alarm was sounded by those with concerns for freedom of religion and conscience, we were accused of bigotry. But here goes… our freedom.

8 Mar 2013 9:49 AM

Another comment was meant to counter what Nancy Marie wrote:

Jeffrey_Haywood
24
22 Fans

“Treat everyone, without exception, the way you want anyone to treat you. That is the law of the prophets.”

Jesus of Nazareth, Matt. 7:12

Is it any wonder that so many people are rejecting Christianity, a religious cult that refuses to obey the words of it’s supposed founder?

7 Mar 2013 12:48 PM

Hmmm…interesting how Jeffrey Haywood got even less “fans” (22) than Nancy Marie (26).

Maybe readers were looking up that chapter and discovering all of the verses surrounding Matthew 7:12 for context.

Matthew 7 NKJV

Matthew 7:12 in the NKJV says:


Mat 7:12

“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Hmmm…that’s very different from the version shared by Jeffrey Haywood.

Before we examine the meaning of the “Law and the Prophets” in context with the homosexual marriage question, here are a few more links to read regarding this controversy:

1. LifeNews: Why Pro-Life Should Support Indiana’s New Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Excerpt:

What’s the real truth, and why does Indiana Right to Life support RFRA?

The short answer is that Indiana’s RFRA provides much-needed protection to prevent pro-life persons, businesses or ministries from being forced by state or local laws to support abortion.

In a landmark 2014 ruling, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the federal Religious Freedom  Restoration Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, gave the Hobby Lobby corporation protection against being forced to provide abortion-inducing drugs under Obamacare in violation of the company’s faith-principles that oppose abortion.  Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) The federal RFRA applicable to Hobby Lobby pertains strictly to federal law, not to state law.  The result is that prior to the enactment of Indiana’s state RFRA, pro-life persons, businesses and ministries in Indiana did not enjoy the same religious freedom protection against state or local laws that might force them into supporting abortion in violation of faith principles.

We see in the above instance, the RFRA has more to it than the homosexual marriage issue.

2. First Things: Stand with Barronelle Stutzman.

Excerpt from Barronelle Stutzman’s letter to a lawyer who wanted her to “settle” against her beliefs:

Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.

Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.

Excerpt from the column author:

Ms. Stutzman isn’t complying. She’s refusing to settle. Not only is she not complying, she has responded in defiance, and rightfully so. She’s called their bluff. She’s said to the state: “Bring it on.” She has counted the cost and determined that the sacredness of her conscience cannot be exchanged for handouts from the state.

For her stand, she’s been vilified on social media and called a discriminatory bigot by institutions such as Think Progress, one of whose activists insisted that her failure to comply means she “didn’t learn her lesson.”

She is also threatened with the loss of her personal assets, not just her business. Here’s a seventy-year-old grandmother with less money, less cultural capital, than many who would be unwilling to take such a stand.

The gay rights lobby in America has had much success, but it is overreaching by insisting upon ideological conformity, by overturning the centrality of the natural family, by paving-over conscience, by instilling fear of reprisal, by elevating sexual orientation above competing considerations, by subjugating the Christian religion whose anthropology helped shape our constitutional order. They overreach by castigating fellow Americans whose belief—that marriage turns on the male–female difference—has been held since the beginning of recorded history.

Those who want to live in a free society—whether they oppose or support gay marriage—should condemn the push to turn innocent grandmothers like Barronelle Stutzman into lawbreakers. I stand with Barronelle Stutzman. Do you?

3. Alliance Defending Freedom: The Story of Barronelle Stutzman Owner of Arlene’s Flower Shop who was sued by the government for her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

After viewing the video, you will notice the update:

BREAKING NEWS: A Washington court has ruled against Barronelle Stutzman, the lovable grandmother and long-time florist, for acting consistent with her Christian faith. Barronelle referred a longstanding customer to nearby florists because she could not in good conscience create custom arrangements and provide wedding support for his same-sex wedding. This ruling prevents Barronelle’s case from going to trial and makes her personally responsible for paying any damages and attorney’s fees incurred by the same-sex couple and the State of Washington. Everything she’s worked to build, including her home, her family business, and her life savings are now at risk. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys will appeal.

We now see why states are taking action to protect pro-life businesses like Hobby Lobby and individual business owners who believe in traditional marriage from lawsuits that are meant to take away their freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of commerce rights through targeted lawsuits meant to destroy them.

Let’s look at some other verses in Matthew 7. [Remember – this is Jesus speaking!]

Mat 7:6

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Here is a commentary by David Brown on this verse:

Prostitution of Holy Things ( Mat 7:6 ). The opposite extreme to that of censoriousness is here condemned–want of discrimination of character.

6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs–savage or snarling haters of truth and righteousness.
neither cast ye your pearls before swine–the impure or coarse, who are incapable of appreciating the priceless jewels of Christianity. In the East, dogs are wilder and more gregarious, and, feeding on carrion and garbage, are coarser and fiercer than the same animals in the West. Dogs and swine, besides being ceremonially unclean, were peculiarly repulsive to the Jews, and indeed to the ancients generally.
lest they trample them under their feet–as swine do.
and turn again and rend you–as dogs do. Religion is brought into contempt, and its professors insulted, when it is forced upon those who cannot value it and will not have it. But while the indiscriminately zealous have need of this caution, let us be on our guard against too readily setting our neighbors down as dogs and swine, and excusing ourselves from endeavoring to do them good on this poor plea.

Florist Barronelle Stutzman served a same-sex couple for almost a decade. Then, she was sued by the government for not participating in their wedding. Her religious beliefs prohibited her from participating in a homosexual wedding because of her relationship with Jesus Christ and her desire to adhere to “The Law and the Prophets” of the Bible.

Yet, when you view the video (link above) we see that she has “endeavor[ed] to do them good on this poor plea.”

I could end this post right here. However, “the question” that people in the media won’t ask any Christian is the tenet that,  “Marriage represents the relationship of Christ and His church.”

Coercing someone to engage in something that is against their religious convictions is, unfortunately, the goal of homosexual activists. What’s more, they will go so far as to destroy the business of the individual(s) in order to get their way.

Matthew 7:12b….lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Hat tips to all links.

*******

More on what the Bible says about the homosexual agenda, standing firm on your faith, and the statement that “”Marriage represents the relationship of Christ and His church.”

The Ten Declarations for Protecting Biblical Marriage

Days of Noah [Seven blog posts]

Excerpt:

Folger recounts how what we are seeing happen now before our very eyes is the beginning fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen before his return. Moreover, the people had sunken into such a perpetually degenerative moral condition these things were celebrated and viewed as normal.

 

As I wrote about in my book, “The Criminalization of Christianity,” Jeffrey Satinover, who holds an M.D. from Princeton and doctorates from Yale, MIT and Harvard, was on my radio program one day and I asked him about where we are in history. He explained that according to the “Babylonian Talmud” – the book of rabbis’ interpretation of the scriptures 1,000 years before Christ, there was only one time in history that reflects where we are right now. There was only one time in history, according to these writings, where men were given in marriage to men, and women given in marriage to women.

Want to venture a guess as to when? No, it wasn’t in Sodom and Gomorrah, although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course, but according to the Talmud, not homosexual “marriage.” What about ancient Greece? Rome? No. Babylon? No again. The one time in history when homosexual “marriage” was practiced was … during the days of Noah. And according to Satinover, that’s what the “Babylonian Talmud” attributes as the final straw that led to the Flood.

No Compromise: Standing Firm On Your Faith.

Excerpt:

There are dozens of blogposts that I could cite from Talk Wisdom about this subject. However, if I had to pick just one, I would recommend viewing the video of Pastor Miles McPherson – Marriage, The Image of God.

That message was given in February, 2008. It was given approximately 90 days before the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22 which simply stated, “Marriage in California is recognized as the union of one man and one woman.”

In November of 2008, Proposition 8 passed by a majority of 52% of Californians (remember – most people in this state are very liberal) to place marriage as being recognized as the union of one man and one woman into the California Constitution.

Pastor Miles goes through the reasons why the passage of Proposition 8 is so very crucial for religious freedoms today.

Keys to Unlocking the Future.

Excerpt:

Chapters 6 – 19 reveal a series of catastrophic judgments on the earth. However, these judgments result in the final triumph and return of Christ and the establishment of His kingdom on earth for one thousand years (see 19:11-20:6).

6. Marriage of Christ and the Church. The Church’s absence from chapter 4 through chapter 18 is best explained by the fact that she has already been raptured to heaven to participate in the marriage supper of the Lamb (19:7-9). Here she receives her rewards, crowns, and robes of righteousness prior to her procession back to earth with the Savior.

 

*******

How To Know God Personally [Click on link to discover the principles!]

What does it take to begin a relationship with God? Devote yourself to unselfish religious deeds? Become a better person so that God will accept you?

You may be surprised that none of those things will work. But God has made it very clear in the Bible how we can know Him.

The following principles will explain how you can personally begin a relationship with God, right now, through Jesus Christ…

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

19 Responses to “Concerns for Freedom of Religion and Conscience”

  1. Father Paul Lemmen Says:

    Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man and commented:
    Join the group my friend! I am a Priest of the Orthodox Church, the original Church founded by Jesus Himself with his disciples. As such, I am classed as a religious zealot because I not only adhere to the ancient faith and belief, I teach and preach it, direct from the writings of the Apostles and the desert fathers of the first three centuries of the Church, all viewed through the truth of the Bible, God’s very Word. I am, to the ruling class, a terrorist of Christian fundamentalism, a religious kook who lives his faith and belief in our Triune God and the salvation of Jesus Christ as well as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
    May God bless us in our tribulation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • christinewjc Says:

      Dear Father Paul!
      Thank you for sharing and God bless you for being a Priest of the Orthodox Church! Yes, we were told by Jesus Himself that “they hated Me [Jesus] first” and so we would be hated as well.

      You might enjoy this. When someone labels me a “BIGOT” I now say, “thank you!” Why? Because BIGOT is an acronym for:

      Bible
      Is
      God’s
      Only
      Truth

      God bless!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. GMpilot Says:

    CJW: “Coercing someone to engage in something that is against their religious convictions is, unfortunately, the goal of homosexual activists. What’s more, they will go so far as to destroy the business of the individual(s) in order to get their way.”
    In your entire argument, you never cited Leviticus 20 and what it declares believers should do regarding homosexuals. That is also part of ‘the Law and the Prophets’. If you and your brethren decide you want to be free to practice that religious belief, you would find that the laws would not permit it.
    Other states with similar laws treat gays as a minority to be protected. The Indiana law in fact does almost exactly the opposite of this; racial and religious minorities are safeguarded by the law, but gays and other sexual minorities are not. They are specifically excluded from the language of the bill. Nor do they have any legal recourse, as the law currently exists.
    I suspect the whole point of the drafted law has this as an undercurrent—we don’t like sexual deviants. Whatever happens to them be it upon their own heads; we have no obligation to protect them.

    The bill’s newly-revised language attempts to say that

    …the new “religious freedom” law does not authorize a provider — including businesses or individuals — to refuse to offer or provide its services, facilities, goods or public accommodation to any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex or military service.

    If I ran a business and refused to serve you because I’m an atheist and you’re a Christian, I would also be violating someone’s rights. That is covered by the original wording of the bill, but “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” is not. If they’re not mentioned in the bill, they don’t exist—which I and many others feel was precisely the point of wording it that way.

    Bottom line: Gov. Pence would not now be attempting to “clarify the bill” if its language wasn’t murky to start with. Last Sunday he sounded really sure of himself, but five days later he’s backpedaling like a clown on a unicycle.

    You know of course that ‘biblical marriage’ has sometimes included a man and his multiple wives (David’s 300), or a man and his wife and his wife and his concubine and his concubine (Jacob). None of these were ever condemned by god, nor did he rebuke the men who practiced them—yet many centuries later, men who practiced these forms of marriage were forced to forsake them in order that the land of Utah could become part of our sacred Union. You don’t seem to care that they were forbidden to follow their religious convictions.
    Hypocrite.

    Like

    • christinewjc Says:

      Oh yes…here we go again. The resident atheist [hmm…isn’t that the name of a video game? Oops no…that would be “Resident Evil.” – my bad!]

      Since you disapproved of what I wrote, perhaps another Christian organization can explain why certain politicians would bend over [no pun intended, of course] backwards in order to keep their “jobs” and thus allow homosexual fascism to run rampant; ignoring the fact that they are not being pushed into trumping religious freedom issues.

      From Capitol Resource Institute:

      Tolerance Bait and Switch
      “Live and let live.” “Tolerate.” “Promote diversity.”

      When it comes to same sex marriage, the nation has embraced these ideas at a quick pace in recent years. Just a half a dozen years ago, it was hard to find a nationally known politician that supported same sex marriage.

      Even President 0bama was not yet a supporter.

      But with more than a little help from judges that replaced voter preferences with their own, and schools that indoctrinate on sexual orientation from Kindergarten forward, the definition of marriage has been expanded in many states to include unions between two men or two women.

      Now it appears that the call of co-existence of opposing views on marriage is being replaced with an intolerance for religious based beliefs contrary to same sex marriage.

      As lawmakers in Indiana and Arkansas race to assure that laws protecting religious freedom do not allow “discrimination” it is argued that new rights to marry trump the free exercise of religion.

      The cases of a Colorado baker that declined to provide a cake for a same sex celebration and a Washington florist that did the same, both citing religious beliefs, are just the most cited examples that “live and let live” is no longer the controlling principle in the national divide over same sex marriage.

      It is time that proponents of same sex marriage admit what is obvious. They are no longer asking others to tolerate. They are asking them to participate. And in many cases they want them to celebrate and even advocate.

      And it is time that supporter of religious freedom decide if they will take a stand.

      Individuals are often afraid to share their deeply held religious convictions on this issue as well as many others. Why? Because they don’t like to be called a “BIGOT” so many Christians would rather stay silent on the issue. That is up to them, of course. But when their religious freedoms end up completely disappearing, they will one day wake up, get a good whiff of the smell and reality of tyranny and wonder what happened!

      Bible
      Is
      God’s
      Only
      Truth

      Thank you Father Paul for commenting and swo8 for “liking” this post as you decide to take a stand of this important religious freedom issue of our time!

      Anyone else reading here ready to express support?

      Like

      • GMpilot Says:

        You haven’t bothered with the fact that Indiana’s law is different (not just differently-worded) from the federal RFFA and those of the other 20 states that have adopted their own. I suppose this means you’ll continue to scream about ‘oppression’ when it’s actually about error. Gov. Pence seems to have an agenda as great as the gays he opposes, but he and the state legislature are less open about it.

        ”Individuals are often afraid to share their deeply held religious convictions on this issue as well as many others. Why?”
        Why indeed, when the Lord of the Universe is on their side and the laws allow it? That is something each individual must address.
        ”…perhaps another Christian organization can explain why certain politicians would bend over [no pun intended, of course] backwards in order to keep their “job”…”
        Only ‘certain politicians’, ma’am? Surely other people in other professions have learned not to voice their opinions due to possible repercussions in their own circles. How many times has religious conviction tried to sneak into the science curricula in the past forty years?

        You haven’t used that B.I.G.O.T. acronym on these pages in years! I’m glad to see that you’ve finally embraced the term again. Of course, if you proclaim yourself to be a bigot, you should expect that some people will misinterpret your words…they can’t hear the periods in-between, you know.

        Yes, I disagreed with what you wrote. As if this was the first time I’ve ever done that! Oh, boo hoo hoo! You’re in full persecution mode, so you need someone like me to help make things look ominous. As your designated favorite nemesis, that’s part of my job, and I do it for free, so you know I’m sincere.

        Like

  3. Frannie Says:

    “Coercing someone to engage in something that is against their religious convictions is, unfortunately, the goal of homosexual activists. ”

    I don’t know a single gay man or woman who would agree with you. Gay people want equal protection under the law.

    I also don’t know any gay people who really care about a religious ceremony…they just want a civil marriage to protect their rights under the constitution.

    As far as that florist goes, she broke the law. Would it have been OK if she refused to serve a Jewish couple because of her religious beliefs, or a muslim couple? If she can’t comply with the law, and serve all of her customers without prejudice, than I don’t care how “sweet and lovable” she is, she needs to get out of the business.

    The same arguments were used to push against interracial marriage as well, and even now, some so-called Christians still think it’s wrong!

    You want religious freedom, which you most certainly already have, yet you want to be able to discriminate as well! Thankfully, most Americans are sick to death of discrimination and prejudice, and just want equality…for everyone!

    Like

    • christinewjc Says:

      Hi Frannie,

      Thank you for stopping by and sharing your views.

      Maybe you do not personally know of any homosexual activists who would use the excuse of citing “anti-discrimination” in order to coerce someone to engage in something that is against their religious convictions, but they are out there and are the ones who are driving this issue.

      Note this excerpt from the Capitol Resource Institute essay:

      Now it appears that the call of co-existence of opposing views on marriage is being replaced with an intolerance for religious based beliefs contrary to same sex marriage.

      As lawmakers in Indiana and Arkansas race to assure that laws protecting religious freedom do not allow “discrimination” it is argued that new rights to marry trump the free exercise of religion.

      That last sentence is the crux of the argument. “New rights to marry trump the free exercise of religion.”

      May I ask you, did you view the video of Baronelle Stutzman? If you did, you would know that she provided flowers to the homosexual men who came into her flower shop for at least a decade. They had a very friendly business relationship. But Baronelle’s religious convictions would not allow her to sell her relationship with Jesus Christ as Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver – by participating in a ceremony that goes against her Christian beliefs.

      You mentioned interracial marriage. That’s not the same kind of fight. The color of one’s skin does not equate with sexual orientation in that one is born with their skin color while sexual orientation is not. No one is “born homosexual.” Years ago, scientists were being urged to find a “gay gene.” Shortly after this, the fear of homosexuals being aborted in the womb because a “gay gene” might be found and present in unborn children made many homosexual advocates consider pro-life advocacy!

      Speaking of “equality for everyone.” You mentioned servicing a “muslim couple.” Since you brought it up, why aren’t homosexual activists challenging the Muslim and Sharia laws in other nations that kill homosexuals in their lands?

      I would encourage readers to watch this brief video discussion:

      Hannity: Dinesh D’Souza provides insight into religious freedom law.

      Also, see Video: Tammy on Fox About Religious Freedom vs. Liberal Bullies.

      Like

  4. GMpilot Says:

    CJW: ”No one is “born homosexual.” Years ago, scientists were being urged to find a “gay gene.” Shortly after this, the fear of homosexuals being aborted in the womb because a “gay gene” might be found and present in unborn children made many homosexual advocates consider pro-life advocacy!”
    Statistically, gay parents (yes, they do exist) do not usually have gay children, any more than children of criminals become criminals themselves. That was obvious decades ago, when attempts were made to find a genetic link for criminality…and with just as much success. There may have been prospective parents who would rather have seen their spawn dead and straight than alive and gay (‘pro-life’ advocacy often stops at that point), but I suspect the vast majority of those people were themselves not gay.
    Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice, despite Ben Carson’s description of prison as a gay processing factory.

    ”Speaking of “equality for everyone.” You mentioned servicing a “muslim couple.” Since you brought it up, why aren’t homosexual activists challenging the Muslim and Sharia laws in other nations that kill homosexuals in their lands?”
    I won’t presume to answer for Frannie, but this is what I think:
    Refer to your sacred scrolls, specifically Matthew 7:5.
    Anyway, isn’t that what you want—to turn us into an Iran-like state? You’ve been shrieking this week about how laws are supposedly being used to minimize Christians—tell them what they can’t do, diminish their presence in public life, and eventually take away their livelihoods, their property, their freedom, and ultimately their lives.
    Well, they already do much of that in some Muslim nations. Do you really want us to move in that direction, where the imams, rather than legislators, decide the law? No, you simply want to do that to a group much smaller than yourselves, who until quite recently were shunned, whispered about, and excluded. You want them to have no protections under the law, just as Christians elsewhere suffer likewise.
    If it should happen here, to you…well, your god is in control, right? Then he must want it that way.

    Like

    • christinewjc Says:

      GM,

      I see that you posted the above comment twice. Yesterday was Good Friday. I turned off my computer early and attended an evening service. Patience is a virtue, you know…

      There is no need to get into a sexual orientation argument here. Homosexual sin (as well as heterosexual sin) is recorded in the Bible. God’s idea of proper sexual behavior is just that – His idea. People can run circles all around that fact and make up excuses for their aberrant behaviors over the centuries, but thousands of years ago we were told how avoiding such behaviors would be good for our health in many, many ways. No one wants to talk about the diseases that have run rampant and we don’t even need to do that here. It is a given. However, those who confess (agree with God and admit that they are sinners) and repent of (turn away from) their sins (any type); agree that Christ died for their sins so that they can be reconciled back unto God the Father, and invite Christ into their hearts as Lord and Savior of their lives will be saved. This has never been a popular message for those who are perishing. But to us who are saved it is the grace and mercy of God through Christ who paid the price on that cross of Calvary 2,000 years ago.

      After over 10 years of commenting at my blogs, you STILL want to compare what Christians believe with what tyrannical Iran mullahs believe and inflict upon their people? C’mon GM – you know that you are perpetuating a lie.

      The Judeo-Christian ethics, values and laws upon which our Founders based the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution enable us to be a nation of freedom – freedoms that are seldom achieved in other nations across the world.

      As the links I gave in a reply to Frannie demonstrate, freedom is something that should be valued by all people, regardless of their race, gender, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. One of the links includes an interview with conservative talk radio host Tammy Bruce, who is also a lesbian. She warned members of the LGBT community not to turn to the bullying that, unfortunately, many themselves have had to face in their lives.

      The crux of the matter is this. If one group of Americans can lose their freedom of conscience based on the law, then all Americans can.

      Like

      • GMpilot Says:

        Yes, patience is a virtue, and so is a working internet connection. Mine broke just as I made the original post. Since I had no way to know if it got through, I re-posted. I’m sure you know how to remove posts you consider unnecessary.

        ”There is no need to get into a sexual orientation argument here.”
        Then why did you spend another 187 words trying to argue it?
        It’s also interesting that this whole fooferaw has been happening in the week before Easter. If I were a cynic I might suspect it was Gov. Pence’s way of giving god a gift. I won’t argue with you, since you seem to feel it’s unnecessary.

        ”After over 10 years of commenting at my blogs, you STILL want to compare what Christians believe with what tyrannical Iran mullahs believe and inflict upon their people? C’mon GM – you know that you are perpetuating a lie.”
        ALL religions are, by their very nature, absolute. They all claim that their way is the One True Way, and therefore any other way is false. The mullahs in Iran believe that, the pastors in San Diego believe that, the cardinals in Rome believe that, the maha-thera in Rangoon believe that. All of them ‘inflict’ (nice choice of a word, ma’am) upon their people. I assume you mean “those beliefs” although you weren’t clear about that.
        When you move such absolutist thinking into politics, which by its nature has to include other thoughts and beliefs, trouble always ensues. That is why theocracies are, to the religious, the best form of government, and it is also why our founders made no mention of any religion or any god in the Constitution of the United States. The one exception is Article Six, and we both both know it explicitly forbids any “religious test” to hold political office.
        A true Christian conservative like yourself knows that the concepts of republicanism or democracy don’t even exist in the Bible.

        I happen to think that Tammy Bruce is right. I also think that very few Christians in this country have been bullied just because they are Christian. For that, one would have to go somewhere else.

        ”The crux of the matter is this. If one group of Americans can lose their freedom of conscience based on the law, then all Americans can.”
        ”The crux of the matter is this. If one group of Americans can lose their freedom based on the law, then all Americans can.”
        There, fixed that for you.

        Like

  5. Cry and Howl Says:

    Hello Christine! I notice some of the folks who routinely comment here have zero understanding of the differing cultures, ie … Middle East culture vs. modern Western culture. You seem to get bombarded with examples of the Old Testament regarding the gay life-style. They just can’t seem to pull themselves out of the Dark Ages I suppose. Odd that Muslims, particularly those living in the Middle Eastern countries are about the only group of people who practice administering the death sentence on homosexuals, yet it’s Christians who are continually attacked for something they aren’t doing … killing gays.
    I find this statement pretty funny (“funny” as in absurd, not humorous) “I also think that very few Christians in this country have been bullied just because they are Christian.” I see you getting “bullied” in the comments section of nearly every article you post.
    Anyway here’s a link to something you’ll never see liberals commenting on …

    http://cryandhowl.com/2015/04/06/the-left-wont-mention-gay-bakers-refusing-service-to-christians/

    One final note. The Christian owned pizza place didn’t deny service to anyone. They simply stated in a nut shell that they wouldn’t partake in a celebration of marriage in which it consists of two people of the same sex. It was a hypothetical situation presented to them by a local news outfit. They did say they serve everyone who enters the little restaurant … gay and straight alike.
    Beyond the constant faux history lessons I see the speaking (writing in this case) in circles is prevalent with some of your commenters.
    Have a good weekend dear lady!

    Liked by 1 person

    • christinewjc Says:

      Thank you Steve! Been away from blogging all week but wanted to come on here and tell you how much I appreciate your input on this thorny topic.

      This entire gay bashing against Christians and lawsuits against Christian businesses may be winning politically for the moment, but many people are seeing them for what they are…namely bullies. So the tide is turning against the gay gestapo now. Going over to read your post!

      IMO, They have gone too far and even people who used to support gay “rights” are re-thinking their position on it.

      Like

  6. GMpilot Says:

    Not surprisingly, the paladin gets it wrong again. It is not those like me who bombard this blog with examples of the Old Testament regarding the gay life-style. No one here has been planting pictures of “God’s Plan for Marriage” except yourself. I merely pointed out that that Plan included some variants that many people these days frown upon.

    I’ve noticed that if a religiously-fueled law succeeds it is always trumpeted as “God’s will”, but if it fails, no one ever concludes that maybe it’s not what God really wanted.

    Yes, there are Muslim-majority nations where gays are executed, but that’s because just by existing, they’re breaking the law, according to them. It also means they execute only the ones they can catch. Yes, that sort of thing concerns me, and since I live in a nation where people don’t kill other people just for being gay, I would like us to continue that. Discrimination is often the first step toward mass murder, and it can be done as easily by Christians as against them.
    Again, Matthew 7:5 is relevant on that subject: remove the mote from our eyes first, and then talk about the beam in the other guy’s eye.

    One more thing: in the ’60s and after, those who didn’t wish to deal with undesirable ‘others’ would simply hang a sign which often said. “We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone”. That would allow them not to serve the local bad boy another drink, or not to serve ‘those people’ whom the manager didn’t want in his establishment. Wrapping such feelings in a cloak of piety is something new.
    In any case, I agree that the pizza house refused to cater only to gay weddings. Wrong: it should be either all weddings or none. I wouldn’t want to associate with anyone who serves pizza at a wedding, but I’m not in that business.
    Your paladin may not like my history lessons, but you can’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been. If he has a better compass, perhaps he’ll deign to show it to us.

    Like

  7. Cry and Howl Says:

    Ah yes Mr. Pilot, I can see that in a battle of wit, I’m unarmed. Declaring that homosexual activity is wrong has nothing to do with beams and motes. It’s either wrong or not. I’m just wondering why a gay couple determined to “marry” would even walk into a Christian owned establishment? Personally I would never venture into a place where I thought it would be contrary to my own standards. But then I’m not a liberal homo looking to shut a business down.
    Oh, I wouldn’t mind factual history lessons when used in the proper context.

    Like

    • GMpilot Says:

      You humility does you credit, steve.
      You are correct that such activity is either wrong or not, but you are shy about declaring which.
      Why would a gay couple determined to “marry” even walk into a Christian owned establishment? Possibly because they didn’t know that it was? Maybe said establishment didn’t display the secret sign on the door, or in its advertising. Many do, but some don’t.
      As for not venturing into a place that might be contrary to your own standards: that is not an activity exclusive to ‘liberal homos’. I’ve heard that your hero did it himself a time or two, and no one ever speaks of it in a snarky manner.

      Like

      • Cry and Howl Says:

        The problem with the “secrete sign” is the establishment in question was visited by a local news crew, chosen because the establishment was known to be owned by Christians … they actually didn’t refuse service. They were presented a hypothetical situation and responded accordingly.
        One final thing, my “hero” did it for a completely different reason …. not for a set to close them down.
        I appreciate your patience and time.

        Like

      • GMpilot Says:

        The problem with the “secrete sign” is the establishment in question was visited by a local news crew, chosen because the establishment was known to be owned by Christians … they actually didn’t refuse service. They were presented a hypothetical situation and responded accordingly.
        That is why I said “possibly”. I didn’t claim to know, any more than you did. It was your question, after all. The protesters must have been asked that same question. If you can find out their answer, then we’ll both know.
        “Secrete sign”? I said nothing about an oozing sign! Just for the record, was any such sign displayed?

        One final thing, my “hero” did it for a completely different reason …. not for a set to close them down.
        Did it succeed? I’ve heard a crowdfunding effort got their business tens of thousands of dollars to keep them open…or was I misinformed?
        As for your hero: he acted against undesirable actions, not undesirable people. And he did shut that down!

        I appreciate your patience and time.
        Same here.

        Like

      • Cry and Howl Says:

        Mr. Pilot, please don’t get your panties in a wad. I detect a little hostility. I’ll give you this much … at least you recognize that God doesn’t approve of the homosexual lifestyle but He does love the people.
        I surely hope you and your loved ones have a great weekend.

        Like

      • GMpilot Says:

        Hostility from me, steve?
        When you’re the one who says ‘panties’ rather than boxers? You must have mistaken me for some other Huckabee.
        I recognize that god’s fan club says this and that about him, but not that I endorse it.
        May your weekend be as good as you wish mine to be.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: