So when does it stop being a private company who can do what they want, to becoming a company that can be forced to comply?

They ruled he could refuse because Colorado failed to take his personal Religious beliefs into account.

And He moved states and is happy so the moral of the story is.....segregate based on our beliefs now I suppose.

The point is that one of those parties had to get to the Supreme Court to exercise that right.

That's not really equitable.

Pretty sure though, they weren't asking for a cake topper of two barbies getting it on or anything.

20f68v.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

Dude when you got on the website you had to sign a legally binding document to follow their rules without those rules every website have tons of bad stuff like child porn.

Did you read ALL of it?

When they start banning you on a grand scale, don't complain about it then.

Everyone has no problem with it and thinks it's funny when it happens to others and doesn't affect them. Just wait.

When these sites began, they adhered to their terms. They changed the terms since then. I joined Facebook in '07, YouTube in '07 and it was different.

And if they're going to delete one user's content, they need to delete everyone else's with the same content. But they aren't doing that. They ban one user and leave the other user up. They're hypocrites.

They're censoring us and people like you who aren't being affected by it don't care because it hasn't happened to them... YET. Just wait.

Start your own platforms. Parler, GAB etc are waiting for you. Go there.

We DID start our own and you leftist pricks took one down and are coming after the others. How dense can someone be? We started our own and got taken down!

TRY HARDER YA LAZY CUCKS!

Please shut the f**k up and you can go f**k yourself in every direction(Horizontally,Vertically,Diagonally). We tried harder than you can get you lazy f**ker.

Lol

lol what trash

Not hard enough apparently.

LOSERS!

ur still talking fat ass bitch

Quit supporting anti constitution agendas, dumbass.

Start reading the constitution COMMIE!

But you just answered your own raging anger. They updated their terms. Just for this reason. You don't get it. You are playing with tiddly winks and they have checkmated your King.

Yes I in fact did read all of it nonsense about gay wedding cakes and suing.

Oh you were reading the CAKE site agreement. Now read 230 and see what you see.

That was what it said in the meme.

When the cake boss gets a 230 enacted by REPUBLICANS (It was passed under BUSH Presidency) and propped up by special interests they too can have a special standing. If 230 is ever repealed social media will die because they will have to screen every post they would be responsible for anything posted. Including meme sites. Poof. Gone. forever. Maybe that is good. maybe not. Who knows but It will probably never be repealed.

That is a dumb law but websites need a TOS and the reason reactionaries keep getting banned is because they can't not do a brake TOS

Twitters already doing that

After reading this comment i can see exactly what you are talking about thx.

And that's good so you don't go around posting calls for violence and child porn.

Then what is the point if your not complaining about the existence of TOS.

TOS apply to online services. The bakery is a brick and mortar business. So, it’s like you having to agree to the TOS of every brick and mortar store you shop at.

Most shops have some kind of what can perceived as TOS like they won't serve if you aren't wearing a shirt or something like that.

Exactly. What ever happened to the notion of “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?

Are you agreeing with me?

Sort of, but the difference is, you usually aren’t required to agree to any TOS when you use services of a brick and mortar business.

Except you are they can decide to just not serve you they usually don't because they want money but if anyone that owns a business wants to not serve you for whatever reason they legally can and I personally think that's good.

That’s how anti-discrimination laws work.

And yet they discriminate against Christians. 🤔

If taking away your right to discriminate is an infringement on your religious liberties, then f**k your religious liberties.

Who's discriminating?

I believe that is a mischaracterization of the situation. The couple said they had no problem selling to gay people. The issue they had was participating in a gay wedding ceremony by providing a cake.

Stop miss characterizing and misrepresenting facts.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162

The issue was tied to the fact that the bakers were Christians and would not participate in a same-sex marriage on a creative basis. It has nothing to do with blanket discrimination because they were a same-sex couple

WTF is the difference? Whether they tried to pass their bigotry off as being about their religious feelings toward gay marriage or gays in general? Are we supposed to believe their discrimination ONLY applies to what their cakes are being used for, but aside from that, they're totally cool with gays in general? GMAFB.

Dude, I don't have to make something for you. It's my skill, my life, you have not right to tell me what I do with that skill.

You sound like you want a return to the days when stores had signs on the doors listing the type of people they refused entry to.

The thing that was so bad about that, is that black people were usually the victims. BUT, you should not be able to force me to do business with you. It is a bad thing that was done to black people, but only a change of heart can make a difference.

"Discrimination is discrimination.

A business refusing service to an individual for a legitimate reason is not the same as them refusing service to a whole demographic of society based their dislike of an innate characteristic that demographic shares."

This is not discrimination. The owner has a religious belief that he could not silence. You can't override something like that. You can't force someone to complete a service for you.

The fact that there is an LGBTQ+ Christian community demonstrates that the issue was that one person's feelings, not the doctrine of the religion the baker follows.

The Bible that Christians take their guidance from does not condem homosexuality, there was a well documented mistranslation.

You know nothing, really, of the Bible. The bible completely condemns homosexuality, in every way, in multiple verses. It goes directly against God's creation.

No it doesn't.
There is no word in Biblical Greek or Hebrew that is the equivalent of homosexual.

How do you know?

Scholars with knowledge of the language say so, do you think you know better than them?

Do you understand Biblical Greek or Hebrew?

Who invested in the study? What kind of viewpoints? Which scholars?

Ah, you're misinformed.

You know the Bible wasn't originally written in English, right? You're aware that it was translated and that when translating a text, people have to find equivalent words and that any bias they have will impact that?

"There are seven texts often cited by Christians to condemn homosexuality: Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20–27), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1–11), Levitical laws condemning same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), two words in two Second Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and Paul's letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26–27). The author believes that these do not refer to homosexual relationships between two free, adult, and loving individuals. They describe rape or attempted rape (Genesis 9:20–27, 19:1–11), cultic prostitution (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), male prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and the Isis cult in Rome (Romans 1:26–27). If the biblical authors did assume homosexuality was evil, we do not theologize off of their cultural assumptions, we theologize off of the texts we have in the canon. The author attempts to introduce some new arguments into this long-standing and passionate debate." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146107915577097?journalCode=btba

That article did not explain anything. All it said is these are the most common verses used...If you have read the entire Bible, there is no question about it. God condemns homosexuality.

"Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality..."
1 Corinthians 6:9 OBVIOUS

"He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them "Mankind" when they were created."
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

What is striking is that all of these ends can be met by homosexual marriages, even the procreative end when the procreative end is understood as raising children for the Kingdom of God and not primarily as a function of nature [a biological function]. On these grounds, it is appropriate for gay and lesbian Christians to be married in the church, and it is not in violation of Scripture or tradition.

"Homosexual: The English word homosexual is a compound word made from the Greek word homo, meaning “the same”, and the Latin term sexualis, meaning sex. The term “homosexual” is of modern origin, and it wasn’t until about a hundred years ago that it was first used. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is equivalent to the English word homosexual. The 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible was the first translation to use the word homosexual.

Sodomite: There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew for “sodomy.” A Sodomite was simply an inhabitant of Sodom, just as a Moabite was an inhabitant of Moab. Any translation of the New Testament making use of the words “sodomy” or “sodomite” are clear interpretations and not faithful translations."

There does not have to be a word that is exactly the same in both languages, in fact, it is usually impossible. The meaning stands the same. It is clearly stated, in many verses. Whether you like to listen to them or not is your decision, but the consequences are the same.

pornoi,arseodistai,andrapodistai
& w**remonger. Them that defile themselves with mankind, men-stealers
NIV: adulterers perverts slave traders
NKJ: fornicators sodomites kidnappers
RSV: immoral persons sodomites kidnappers
NEB: fornicators sodomites kidnappers
As we see there is no clear-cut agreement as to what these words mean, though the above translations agree on the general sense of such words. To determine the precise meanings, a lexicon will be used. A lexicon is a scholarly dictionary used to determine the meaning of biblical words. A search through the online Greek lexicon available at searchgodsword.org gives the following information on the Greek term pornos, which is the stem of the word pornoi, the first of the three words:

Pornos derives from the verb pernemi meaning “to sell” and the following three definitions are given:

a male who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
a male prostitute
a male who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator
Andrapodistes, the stem of the word Andrapodistai, the third word, returns the following definitions:

slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
of one who unjustly reduces free males to slavery
of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them.
Arsenokoitai, as previously indicated, is made up of the Greek words for male (arseno-) and beds (koitai). In Greek, the word koitai, literally meaning beds, is commonly used as a euphemism for one who has sex. Arseno- is an adjectival prefix, thus literally we could translate this as “male bedder.”

We should now be able to derive an exact understanding of the word arsenokoitai based on the two words that surround it. We have, first of all, the enslaved male prostitute, the “male-bedder” (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. The New American Bible offers a footnote that might shed some light on the historical context of the time:

“The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for the purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamus…” (NAB)

There was a common practice in which men of Paul’s time would have slave “pet” boys whom they sexually exploited. These boys were prepubescent and without beards so they seemed like females. Today, this practice is referred to as pederasty. Regardless, however, the pornos is clearly a prostitute.

Would you stop copying other peoples work, and debate for yourself? You didn't even make a single point, your entire short essay.

Keeping this in mind, let’s look back at what we have so far: the enslaved male prostitute, the “male-bedder” (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. This contextual dynamic leads one to understand arsenokoitai as being the one who sleeps with the prostitute, the man who literally lies on the bed with him. It is as if Paul were saying, “male prostitutes, men who sleep with them, and slave dealers who procure them…” Not only does the syntactical and historical context point to this understanding, but also the very literal sense of the word arsenokoitai itself.

If this translation of arsenokoitai is correct, it should also make logical sense where it is also used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, either confirming or refuting our understanding of this word.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (RSV)

The term translated “sexual perverts” in RSV is actually two different words. The first word is malakos, which is the singular form of the word malakoi, and the second term is arsenokoitai.

Some commonly read translations include…

malakos arsenokoitai
KJV: effeminate abusers of themselves with mankind
NIV: male prostitutes homosexual offenders
NKJ: homosexuals sodomites
RSV1952: homosexuals
RSV1977: sexual perverts
RSV1989: male prostitutes sodomites
Jerusalem Bible: catamites sodomites
The term malakoi, as an adjective, literally means “soft.” In Matthew 11:8 it has been used as an adjective in reference to clothing. In this text, however, it is used as a noun and its meaning is debated. Does our understanding of arsenokoitai as revealed in 1 Timothy 1:10 as “men who sleep with male-prostitutes” make sense next to this word malakos which is translated by both NIV and RSV as male prostitutes? The Jerusalem Bible even translates the term malakos as catamites, those young softprepubescent “pet” boys mentioned earlier. The syntactical and historical context of 1 Timothy 1:10 reveals the meaning of the word arsenokoitai as men who sleep with prostitutes, and the fact this also fits the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9 seems to confirm that we have found the meaning of these obscure words. It makes perfect sense that Paul would rebuke not only the prostitute, but also the “male-bedder” or the man who sleeps with that prostitute.

As we see, these two verses are about this practice of prostitution and possibly pederasty, but what about Romans 1:27. It clearly says, “…and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Isn’t this clear enough? There are no obscure Greek words. How are we to understand this?

ROMANS 1:24-27
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (RSV)

To understand what Paul is writing about we must look at the event as a whole and not isolate a single portion of it. Each verse in this story gives us a glimpse into the situation.

Verse 24: “Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity.” If we are painting a picture, it begins with the image of LUST.
Verse 25: “…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Now there is a FALSEHOOD as well as IDOLATRY involved (i.e. worshipping something other than God).
Verse 26: “God gave them up to dishonorable passions…” Now DISHONORABLE PASSIONS are presented. Looking back at this now we see this as a situation of lust, falsehood, idolatry, and dishonorable passions.
Verse 26 and 27 continue: “Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another…”
Looking at the men first will help to clarify the passage: “The men likewise gave up natural relations with women…” Stop. Did you see that? They gave up natural relations with women, which implies that these men were heterosexuals by nature. The phrase translated as “gave up” is the Greek word aphente (afenteV) meaning to leave behind, forsake, neglect, or divorce. These men, therefore, divorced themselves from their own nature, that of heterosexuality, and were consumed with passion for one another. Women did likewise. As we see, Paul is talking about heterosexual individuals engaging in homosexual sex, which is contrary to their nature.

Why would men do that? As any biblical scholar will tell you: “Context is everything.” This is a situation of lust, falsehood, idolatry, and dishonorable passions. In this account there are a number or men and a number of women, both plurals.

This would most definitely be an orgy…everyone filled with lust and “dishonorable passions” having sex with whomever however. But why would Paul be talking about orgies? A little research uncovers the pagan practice of “sacred sexual orgies.” Baal was the Canaanite deity that was worshipped with sexual orgies on Mount Peor in Moab, with which Paul would have been familiar. With this contextual understanding let us read this story again:

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Anyone who isolates the phrase “natural relations” to declare homosexual relations unnatural is interjecting their own prejudice and reading entirely outside of context. Even if we were to isolate that phrase it could only be used to condemn heterosexuals who go against their own heterosexual nature and engage in homosexual activity. As Peter J. Gomes, preacher to Harvard University, further clarifies in his book The Good Book, “It is not clear that Saint Paul distinguished, as we must, between homosexual persons and heterosexual persons who behave like homosexuals, but what is clear is that what is ‘unnatural’ is the one behaving after the manner of the other”

"Anyone who isolates the phrase “natural relations” to declare homosexual relations unnatural is interjecting their own prejudice and reading entirely outside of context. Even if we were to isolate that phrase it could only be used to condemn heterosexuals who go against their own heterosexual nature and engage in homosexual activity. As Peter J. Gomes, preacher to Harvard University, further clarifies in his book The Good Book, “It is not clear that Saint Paul distinguished, as we must, between homosexual persons and heterosexual persons who behave like homosexuals, but what is clear is that what is ‘unnatural’ is the one behaving after the manner of the other”

You're crazy. Natural relations mean something!! It has a meaning! Unnatural meaning aside from the origin! The origin is man and woman!!

That leaves us with two other scriptures that are mentioned when this topic is brought up: The Creation Narrative (Genesis 1-2) and Leviticus 18:22 (& parallel verse 20:13).

THE CREATION NARRATIVE (GENESIS 1-2)
This is a story about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!! We’ve all probably heard that somewhere. The fact is, it was Adam and Eve. In The Good Book, Gomes writes the following pertaining to the creation narrative:

“…the authors of Genesis were intent upon answering the question ‘Where do we come from?’ Then, as now, the only plausible answer is from the union of a man and a woman…The creation story in Genesis does not pretend to be a history of anthropology or of every social relationship. It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem” (pages 49-50).1

In other words, Adam and Eve is the only relationship for this specific account that makes sense. It is a story about creation, and only a procreative (i.e. hetero-sexual) relationship would be appropriate for this particular story. If someone, in spite of this, were to base his or her opinion of homosexuality on the Creation story alone, their stance would not only be out of context, but also based on a weak argument.

That leaves us with two Leviticus laws: Leviticus 18:22 & parallel verse 20:13.

LEVITICUS 18:22
Let us look at a few different translations of Leviticus 18:22…

KJV: “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
NIV: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Living Bible: “Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.”

The questions we should ask are, “What does this really say, and what is the context of this law?” Leviticus is the book of the law. It contains everything from commandments for men not to shave the edges of their beards; orders not to have intercourse during menstruation; not to harvest different crops in the same field; as well as strict dietary laws. The Holiness Code, as it is called, was written to distinguish the Hebrews, morally and ritually, from the Babylonians and Canaanites. They are often referred to as the purity laws. Now let us look at what the New Testament says about the law:

“Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (RSV Romans 7:4-6).

“Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian [i.e. The Law]. For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (RSV Galatians 3:23-26).

Other New Testament Scriptures on the Law include: 2 Corinthians 3:6; Colossians 2:13-15; Hebrews 8:8-13, Romans 10:1-4.

If we are “not under the law” does that mean we can lie, cheat, steal, etc.? In Romans 6:15 Paul answers this question himself, “By no means!” Didn’t Christ himself in Matthew 5:17 say that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it? So what is the law? Jesus was once asked, “Rabbi, which is the greatest commandment in the law?” Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (RSV Matthew 22:36-40)

Paul would later echo this idea in Romans as he wrote

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (RSV Romans 13:8-10)

Christian tradition has distinguished Old Testament laws that pertain to “purity” and those that pertain to “morality,” the latter of which still apply. If love is the true fulfillment of the law, then for Christians should not love be the measuring stick for determining by which laws we are to abide (i.e. which are “moral laws”)?

Now let’s look back at the verse. Literally translated from Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 reads: “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman.”

First of all “lay lyings” has no clear interpretation. The only way of making sense of this is to insert something to produce a smoother, more commonsense English translation. For example, one can insert “as the” or “in the” after the first lay as showed below:

“And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman.”
“And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman.”
Even if we accept the NIV or KJV translations, (KJV: “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”) we still must understand the historical context of how a man laid with a women, for this is the qualifier of the phrase. Rabbi Arthur Waskow explains, “The whole structure of sexuality in the Torah assumes a dominant male and a subordinate female.” 2 The status of women in that time was much lower than that of men, and women were even considered property of the men. This belief regarding gender relations is rejected by most of the Christian church today, but in order to make sense of this specific Jewish law we must keep in mind this context in which it was written. We simply cannot ignore the second half of the phrase, “as with a woman” as most interpretations tend to do.

For one of the men in the sexual encounter to be treated as one would treat a woman, the man would have been taking a lower status.

To do so would have been reducing him to property and in effect defiling the image of God, which man was considered. To fully understand this law, we must consider the historical context in which it was written.

The Old Testament was initially a part of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jewish people. The Septuagint was an ancient translation of the Old Testament from its original Hebrew into Greek. It was the “version” of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers quoted from when they cited Old Testament scriptures. The Hebrew word in this specific law we are looking at that was translated into English as “abomination” was translated in the Septuagint into the Greek word bdelugma. A quick search through a lexicon for the word bdelugma brings up the following definition:

a foul thing, a detestable thing
of idols and things pertaining to idolatry
This seems to point to the idea that this specific law has more to do with a matter of ritual purity and with the Hebrews not being like the idolatrous Babylonians or Canaanites. As we see, this law isn’t as simple as it appears. First of all we have a very unclear law (“And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman.”). Second of all, we must consider the historical context of how men treated women in sexual encounters. Thirdly, as revealed through Christ, the fulfillment of the law is truly love. Rape, stealing, hating, etc. are immoral because they are not in line with the Law of Love, which Christ frames so perfectly when questioned about the law. Is a committed homosexual relationship in violation of this law? We could become like the Pharisees and Sadducees trying to pick apart this law forever, but if we look closely, Christ’s life truly reveals the Spirit of the Law. Surely this is what Paul meant when he wrote, “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (RSV Romans 7:4-6).

SCRIPTURE STUDY CONCLUSION
As we see, the Bible really does not fully address the topic of homosexuality. Jesus never talked about it. The prophets never talked about it. In Sodom homosexual activity is mentioned within the context of rape (raping angels nonetheless), and in Romans 1:24-27 we find it mentioned within the context of idolatry (Baal worship) involving lust and dishonorable passions.

Nor does the Bible talk about porn. But we know its wrong because the Bible talks a ton about integrity and sexual honor. DUH

Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 talk about homosexual activity in the context of prostitution and possibly pederasty. Nowhere does the Bible talk about a loving and committed homosexual relationship. The only thing the authors of the Bible knew about homosexuality was that which they saw expressed in the pagan worship of Baal, the temple prostitution, et cetera. To use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, as we see, involves a projection of ones own bias and a stretching of the Biblical text beyond that of which the scriptures speak. Historically, however, the Bible has been taken out of context and twisted to oppress almost every minority one could imagine including women, African Americans, children, slaves, Jews, and the list goes on. Do we truly understand the greatest commandments? “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (RSV Mat. 22:36-40)
CHURCH TRADITION
Tradition, however, has held that marriage is a sacrament designed for a very specific purpose. The following is taken from the article Homosexual Marriage by United Methodist clergyman Tex Sample:

“To address Christian homosexual marriage, attention must be turned to the tradition of the church, and here I am indebted to the work of Daniel M. Bell Jr. St. Augustine is the major figure in the teaching of the church on marriage. For him marriage is an office, a duty in which one serves the church and the larger society. This office serves three ends. First is the procreative end, which is understood by Augustine as raising children for the Kingdom of God. It is not primarily having children of one’s own in a biological sense. The second end is the unitive end in which couples learn faithfulness to each other and to God and become thereby witnesses to an ‘order of charity.’ The third is the sacramental end, which for Augustine relates more often to the indissolubility of marriage.

These three ends are sustained in the later Middle Ages. While Augustine sees marriage as serving to restrain lust, in the later Middle Ages a more positive view develops in which marriage contributes to growth in holiness…
The point is that marriage in the Christian tradition serves a number of ends: procreation, fidelity, sacrament/al, mutual support and companionship...

Dude, stop copying and pasting articles. Start incorporating sense into your life. Everything you are pasting confirms, full-heartedly, the perspective of the Bible.

"Nor does the Bible talk about porn. But we know its wrong because the Bible talks a ton about integrity and sexual honor. DUH"

We don't know it's wrong. You believe it's wrong because you look to dead people for your sense of morality.

So Isaac Newton, Plato, Mark Twain, Tolkien, are all idiots and did not know what they were talking about? Stupid idea.

"You're crazy. Natural relations mean something!! It has a meaning! Unnatural meaning aside from the origin! The origin is man and woman"

That is the bias it is talking about! Stop pushing your own prejudices onto other people and trying to dictate how they live their lives, it's fascistic.

That's also stupid. "Stop pushing your own prejudices onto other people and trying to dictate how they live their lives, it's fascistic."
I have a prejudice against murderers, I believe I should impose on them the law. BUT, BUT, I have no right to tell people what to do with their own bodies.

"Would you stop copying other peoples work, and debate for yourself? You didn't even make a single point, your entire short essay."

Don't a) whine that you haven't been given enough information then and b) be too lazy to do your own research.

I'm not having someone debate for me I am sharing evidence.

Every time you quote from the Bible you are using someone else's words to make your argument. The difference is that the meaning of what you share is either ambiguous, figurative or has been lost in translation.

Does this mean you'll never quote the Bible again or are you a raging hypocrite?

Copying someone else's work entirely is different from research. No, I am using a quote to add a premise to my argument.

"You didn't even make a single point, your entire short essay."

You not being either smart enough or open-minded enough to understand any of the points doesn't mean that they weren't there.

YOU DIDN't MAKE ANY. YOU COPIED OFF OF SOMEONE ELSE AND WROTE NO MORE THAN A PARAGRAPH ABOUT THIS. YOUR QUOTES PROVED YOUR ARGUMENT WRONG. IT CLEARLY EXPOSES THE VERSES IN THE BIBLE WHERE HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE PERVERSION OF GOOD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Discrimination is discrimination.

A business refusing service to an individual for a legitimate reason is not the same as them refusing service to a whole demographic of society based their dislike of an innate characteristic that demographic shares.

No it isn’t, you can’t deny service to gay people because they are gay. You can refuse to put dicks on a cake because it’s against your personal religious beliefs. You have to show your involvement on Religion to claim it.

If the restaurant is saying they won’t serve you because you are gay then I contend that that restaurant in Texas is violating the constitution. If they want that restaurant to cater a gay rights meeting then they may have rights which may negate the requirement for fair accommodation. Such as religious beliefs as in the case of the Colorado baker who won the Supreme Court case. You may not say we won’t sell a side of ribs to gay people. I don’t even now how that subject even comes up when you are ordering food. A business that is in the public domain may not discriminate on that basis legally. But hey the left is all about private companies rights to do whatever they want so have at it every business owner should list signs of who they will refuse service to.

After checking it appears some states do not have protected status for sexual orientation. In California where I live, what you say happened in Texas is illegal under state law. This is true in California and about 20 more states. Some local Jurisdictions in the states that don’t have the law also prohibit that discrimination in their local laws. So in Texas it may be ok except in Austin that prohibits it.

You mean COMMIEFornia?!?

No thanks libturd!

It’s the model of failure you propose for the nation lefty.

The 5th largest economy in the world? I don’t think Lord Trump would call that a failure!

Get a brain snowflake! MAGA!

And this is what it’s major cities look like lefty. Coming to all America soon. Long live the Oligarchs and their control! Sheeple rejoice!

If you have say a Religious reason I suppose but yes it is still bigoted.

On this I agree with Octavia_Melody 100%. It is 100% protected Bigotry.