The Reason Files
  • Home
  • About
  • The Gospel
    • The Gospel Blog
  • Blog
    • Christian Persecution in America
  • Encyclopedia
  • Extras!
    • Free Downloads
    • Meme Gallery >
      • Meme Gallery Page 2
      • Meme Gallery Page 3
    • Links

A Frontal Assault on Christianity

4/22/2015

 
Picture
(Photo courtesy of MEMRI JTTM)
From Gary Randall's Faith and Freedom Blog:

New York Times On Bigotry And The Bible
by Gary Randall, Thursday, April 16, 2015

The "truths," the New York Times' article explains, is "homosexuality and Christianity don't have to be in conflict in any church anywhere."

Many leaders in the mainline Christian denominations are cheering.

Hopefully leaders in the evangelical community are not exhaling, believing their silence has gotten them off the hook.

The oracle of progressive "truths" continues: "That many Christians understand them as incompatible is understandable, an example of not so much of hatred's pull, as of tradition's sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren't easily shaken," The New York Times publishes.

The Time's article explains that continuing to hold these "ossified" beliefs and teachings is "a choice" some Christians and their churches make because they are choosing to "prioritize scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since---as if time had stood still, as if advances of science and knowledge meant nothing."

We've evolved.

The Bible and those who believe it "disregard the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their author, culture and eras" we are told.

The Bible, they say, is neither "inspired" or "infallible." It's merely notions from the past.

Welcome to the Brave New World, relative and evolving "truth," and the shifting definition of religious freedom.

Frank Brurni, witting in the New York Times says holding to old biblical teachings "ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable."

"Therefore," he concludes "our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn't cling to and can indeed jettison..." while "rightly bowing down to the enlightenments of modernity."

In the mind of the secularist, this is about freeing the Bible believing Christian from the bondage of biblical teaching.

He quotes David Gushee, a so-called evangelical Christian who teaches Christian ethics at Mercer University, who says, "Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time."

Gushee teaches his Christian ethics students that "many Christians thought slavery wasn't sinful, until we finally concluded it was. People thought contraception was sinful when it began to be developed."

Dr. Gushee says, "Conservative Christian religion is the last bulwark against full acceptance of LGBT people."

Bruni also quotes Matthew Vines, another “evangelical” author, who wrote the best selling book "God and the Gay Christian" and who explains that Paul's rejection of same-sex relations in Romans I "is akin to his rejection of drunkenness or his rejection of gluttony."

"Vines," Bruni says, explains "that the New Testament, like the Old Testament, outlines bad and good behaviors that almost everyone deems archaic and irrelevant today. Why deem the descriptions of homosexual behavior any differently?"

Bruni shares a conversation he recently had with Mitchell Gold, a prominent and wealthy furniture maker and homosexual activist.

Bruni says, "Gold told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list'."

The shifting definition of religious freedom, in the minds of the activists and their allies, now includes a list of acceptable and non acceptable beliefs we are free to believe.



To continue reading the entire article by Gary Randall, and I would encourage you to do so, please click here: http://blog.faithandfreedom.us/2015/04/new-york-times-on-bigotry-and-bible.html#.VTVY0PB709k

Interview with a Christian - Part Two

4/8/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
Interview with a Christian – Part 2

Here we pick up where we left off yesterday with our reporter friend stating that people to live in whatever manner they choose, and complaining about the Indiana pizzeria denying service to same-sex couples. Here is my answer:

Me: Actually, that isn't true. In fact there was not one single complaint, nor denial of service to anyone ever. However, because of their religious beliefs, because the owners are Christians, the WBND reporter who “broke” the story, actually made the entire thing up. It was a total fabrication. In spite of that, however, the militant homosexual faction of malcontents in this country went ballistic and began threatening to kill the owners and burn the store to the ground. All because of a lie perpetuated by a reporter. A reporter, I might add, who has yet to apologize for her actions. Actions that could have easily gotten someone killed. Actions that forced a family to go into hiding in fear of their lives.

Reporter: Be that as it may, I still don't understand why Christians think the law shouldn't apply to them. “It contradicts our faith” they say, but what they are really saying is, “we are intolerant and we should be allowed to be intolerant.”

Me: I'm not sure how you might think Christians would feel the RFRA shouldn't apply to them. Of course they want it to apply to them! Are you saying Christians do not want equality for themselves? I fond it interesting that there are homosexuals out there who are specifically targeting Christians and Christian owned businesses and manipulating the RFRA in order to use it to discriminate against Christians. Are there bakeries and florists and printers, etcetera who willingly and cheerfully support same-sex marriages and who willingly and cheerfully participate in such? Of course there are. And if these homosexual activists were truly and sincerely interested in having baked goods, floral arraignments and wedding invitations for their ceremony, then they would avoid businesses that choose to not participate in their ceremony. Unless they want the drama created by purposely seeking out Christians and Christian businesses, knowing they will choose to not participate, and then going through the whole litigation process. If they were to choose the former, then their wedding is foremost in their mind and that is what they are working toward. If they choose the latter, however, then it is intolerance, bigotry and hatred that is spurring them on. So yes, Christians are interested in keeping the RFRA alive for their own protection. Unfortunately, the militant homosexual faction in our society is able to manipulate the RFRA and the government is more than willing to allow it to be manipulated, and all for the singular purpose of persecuting Christians.

Reporter: “Militant homosexual faction of our society”? Really? That sounds rather intolerant on your part, don't you think? I thought your God was all about love. Love your neighbor and so on. How can you claim to be a Christian and yet be so intolerant about a group of people who express their love in a manner different than your own? I would submit that it is actually you who are intolerant and narrow minded.

I will say, I respect people of faith, and I salute the extraordinary works of compassion and social justice that many of them do, and I will admit that sometimes we in the news media tend to focus on the shortcomings of religious institutions rather than on their positive contributions. And I fully support the right of religious people to believe what they want and say what they wish, but, only in their pews, in their homes and in their hearts. Those are the only places where those views are appropriate. If you bring them outside and into the public arena, then I have a responsibility to put you back in your place, because if I don't, if you are allowed to single out one group of supposed sinners, then who is to say you will stop with that group? No, you must be stopped and put Christianity back where it belongs, out of the public arena.

Me: It sounds to me like you are the one being intolerant here, being oh so ready and willing to restrict the free exercise of my religious beliefs, beliefs, I might add, that you have shown yourself to be completely ignorant of. You are, and have been, accusing Christians of actions that are not conducive to Christianity. Actions that I have agreed are not Christian – actions that the Bible says are not Christian and cannot be engaged in by Christians. To use an example you have previously brought up – the Westboro Baptist Church, proves that just because someone presents themselves as a Christian doesn't mean they actually are. If you understood the Bible, then you would understand what I am saying here. The Bible very clearly points out what is and what isn't a sin, and in fact very clearly says that we are all sinners and there is nothing we can do to change that fact. It is who we are, it is what we all are, and the Bible tells us that because of our sin we are all destined to an eternity in hell, apart from God. However, because Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified on the cross, dying as an atoning sacrifice for our sins – for all of our sins, because of this we have the opportunity to turn to Him in prayer, seek forgiveness for our sins and repent of our sins. This will ensure us an eternal life in heaven with God and not an eternal life in hell apart from God.

Reporter: You know, you tell a good story, but the fact is, if you people are left unchecked you would eventually institute a theocracy here in America, a theocracy no different than the one in Iran. We are not all intolerant totalitarian Cro-Magnon's like you, and the cold hard fact is that we have all, in many ways, been a victim of the Scriptures and theology that have been used to keep us as slaves. It's been ingrained in us, and now you are using it against the LBGT community. And to you and those like you I say just shut the [expletive] up! I am sick and tired of all this “Jesus talk” and I find it disgraceful! You people do not seem to understand that it is not for the public arena! Keep your religious beliefs to yourself, no one wants to hear it!

Me: What I have been trying to explain to you is that our faith teaches us to be concerned for the spiritual welfare of others. We are to tell others about Jesus and the love He has for all of us, and to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world. We do not want to enslave anyone, in fact, the reverse it true. We want to see those who are still enslaved to sin be set free. Free to love and worship God, their creator. Something they are unable to do while chained and enslaved to sin.

Reporter: Sheesh! You are starting to sound like Franklin Graham! “Oh the evil! Oh the sin!” You know, somebody ought to lock that guy up and give him a bag of cocaine and just let him blow his brains out. I mean, it's common knowledge that he is a cokehead of the worst kind.”

Me: I'm not sure where you get your information, and I am not sure your information is even accurate or remotely true. But I will say that Jesus died for your sins just as He died for the sins of all mankind. He can cleanse you of your sin and He can break the shackles that bind you and enslave you to sin. He is just waiting to hear from you. For you to come to Him with a repentant heart seeking forgiveness.

Reporter: He just might have a long, long wait.

Me: I hope and pray not.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Note: As I mentioned at the beginning of this “interview,” it is imaginary. At least in the sense that I have not sat down and been interviewed by anyone in the media. That does not change the fact, however, that the words “spoken” by the reporter are actual words spoken by actual news and media personalities. They have been lifted from several online sources where the actual words of these personalities were recorded, and they have been edited only to keep the flow of the conversation going. The intent of their words remains intact here. This is not to say that every media personality is anti-Christian, because clearly, they are not. But there are some, and some of them, many of them in fact, are nationally known. There is a war going on in this country, a war against Christians and Christianity.

SOURCES:

Religious Freedom vs. Individual Equality http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/opinion/charles-blow-religious-freedom-vs-individual-equality.html (accessed April 6, 2015)

Why does the government consider this grandmother public enemy No. 1? http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/19/why-does-government-consider-this-grandmother-public-enemy-no-1/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation – definition. http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html (accessed April 6, 2015)

TV Reporter’s Cheap ‘Gotcha’ Story Incites Hate Mob Against Indiana Pizza Shop http://theothermccain.com/2015/04/01/tv-reporters-cheap-gotcha-story-incites-hate-mob-against-indiana-pizza-shop/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

Liberal Media Attacking Conservative Christians To Promote And Protect Vulgar, Anti-Christian Bigots http://www.mrc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/pdf/Watchdog/2012/MRC-WatchdogJune2012lr.pdf (accessed April 6, 2015)

Bill Maher: Christians have neurological disorder http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/28970/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

America Tolerates Anti-Christian Double Standard http://www.rense.com/general87/drt.htm (accessed April 6, 2015)

Your God and My Dignity-Religious Liberty, Bigotry and Gays http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-religious-liberty-bigotry-and-gays.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=0 (accessed April 6, 2015)

Time and Newsweek blatantly attack Christian doctrine http://creation.com/time-and-newsweek-blatantly-attack-christian-doctrine#virgin (accessed April 6, 2015)

Anti-Christian Bias in our Society http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/AntiXtian.htm (accessed April 6, 2015)

Does the American News Media Have an Anti-Christian Bias? http://dailysignal.com/2013/12/26/media-anti-christian-bias/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

Media Matters' Anti-Christian Agenda Exposed http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/April/Media-Matters-Anti-Christian-Agenda-Exposed/ (accessed April 6, 2015)

Fox News Martyrs Tim Tebow With Claims of Anti-Christian Media Bias http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12/03/tim-tebow-fox-news.html?utm_medium=twitter (accessed April 6, 2015)

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples
http://www.westernjournalism.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/ (accessed April 6, 2015)
0 Comments

Interview with a Christian - Part One

4/7/2015

 
Picture
Interview with a Christian – Part 1

Over the past few weeks there has been quite a bit of debate in the news and in social media over religious freedom and the rights of homosexuals to be free from discrimination. Most recently, the states of Indiana and Arkansas implemented state versions of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton during his first year in office. It has been claimed that the law allows business owners who disagree with homosexuality to discriminate against homosexuals by refusing to serve them. In their representation of Christian business owners, the media has been less than kind; an attitude that has sparked angry protests among the homosexual community, both in the street (as was the case in Indiana and other places) and online in various social media venues. Recently, an opinion piece titled “Interview with a Christian” appeared in the New York Times. It appeared that the author was attempting to somehow smooth the ruffled feathers of angry homosexuals by presenting the view of a politically correct gay affirming inclusive “Christian.” Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Scripture should recognize the oxymoronic aspect of the label.

Therefore, I decided to take it upon myself to present a more Biblical view of the Christian stand on homosexuality and other topics by subjecting myself to (as the NYTimes piece put it) “an interview by an imaginary –– but representative –– member of the press.” Here is how it went:

Reporter: I understand you have some opinions on the RFRA bills recently passed in Indiana and Arkansas.

Me: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

Reporter: I trust you realize that these so-called “religious freedom” bills are actually nothing more than a license for bigoted fundamentalist Christians to use their “faith” to discriminate against people whose only “crime” is to be in love with someone.

Me: That seems like a rather biased statement. You have automatically assumed that one, Christians are bigoted fundamentalists, two, that Christians either have or will use their faith to discriminate against homosexuals, and three, that Christians somehow think homosexuality is a crime. So let me answer each of these three topics for you if I may.

Reporter: By all means. I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

Me: First, your statement that Christians are bigoted fundamentalists seems to be based on personal opinion rather than fact, since bigotry is not conducive to Christianity, and fundamentalism simply means that we believe the Bible to be the factual inerrant word of God – which the Bible itself says about itself, and leaving the Bible open to personal interpretation without regard to what the Bible actually says is also not conducive to Christianity.

Reporter: Are you saying that a Christian can't be a bigot? What about groups like the Westboro Baptist Church? They're a Christian church! And I've rarely seen a bigger bunch of hypocritical bigots in my life! And you can't possibly believe everything in the Bible to be literal or even literally true? That just doesn't make any sense!

Me: I agree that the Westboro Baptist Church engages in hatefilled rhetoric, but just because they might call themselves “Christian” does not necessarily mean they really are. The Bible, which we view as the literal word of God Himself, is very clear about this when it says in 1 John 1:5-6, “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” and in chapter 2, verse 11 God says, “But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.” and in chapter 4, verse 20, “If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?” Even Jesus Himself said, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” (Matthew 5:21-22) So, while I will not say that those people are not Christian's, since that is God's responsibility and not mine, I will say what the Bible says, and it clearly says that Christian's will not behave that way. Fortunately, those types of groups are few and far between, so it really is unfair to paint with such a broad brush.

As for taking the Bible to be the literal word of God and literally true, yes, I do. All Christians do as there is no reason to believe otherwise. There is plenty of evidence, including extra-biblical evidence, to support the veracity of the Bible. Do we take it all literally? Only the literal parts. Sections that are prophetic or analogous are clearly marked as such so as to avoid any confusion. Plus, as Scripture says, true believers have the Spirit of God to guide them through the Scriptures.

Reporter: I still don't see how you can say that Christians will not use their faith to discriminate against gays who happen to be in love with one another. Or do you believe that gays should be stoned to death as your so-called literal Bible says.

Me: Not only are there no cases of religious people refusing to serve homosexuals, but only cases where those homosexuals wanted to force Christians to participate in activities that strictly violate Christian beliefs; but ff you read the bill, even the original bill before any revisions, you will see that there is no clause in it, nor in any of the other RFRA bills in any other state, nor even in the federal RFRA law that protects religious people or businesses owned by religious people from being targeted by homosexuals for the express purpose of prosecuting those Christians and Christian owned businesses. And I specifically say Christian since Muslim owned businesses have refused to participate in those activities, and they are not prosecuted. In fact, when multiple homosexual owned bakeries were asked to make custom cakes celebrating traditional marriage or that bear the message that homosexuality is a sin, and they refused, there were no prosecutions. Only Christians are being prosecuted for these so-called crimes.

As for homosexuals being stoned to death, that would be a specific law for a specific time, a specific place and for a specific people. It is no longer in effect, so no, I do not believe homosexuals should be stoned or physically harmed in any way. In fact, today, it is only certain Islamic terrorist groups and certain Islamic governments that actually murder people simply because they are homosexuals, and they consider homosexuality to be a crime. Christians do not. We believe homosexuality is a sin, and like any sin, if it is not repented of, and the person does not turn to Christ for forgiveness of their sins, then sadly, very sadly, they will be condemned to hell for eternity.

Reporter: Aren't you really just trying to sound pious and non-confrontational while actually trying to maintain some perceived right or responsibility to hate and discriminate? You have to know that Americans have really lost their appetite for that kind of nonsense, and as a country we are trying to move forward as a beacon of tolerance while retaining a form of religiosity that is inclusive and affirming for all, just as other progressive wealthy countries.

Me: Seriously? Would those “progressive wealthy countries” include say, any in the Middle East? Maybe Saudi Arabia, or Iran (whom are government is currently negotiating treaties with)? Countries that express their tolerance by killing homosexuals and beating women and children while denying their human rights?

And your insistence that Christian's are holding fast to their hate and discriminatory attitudes shows that not only have you not been listening to me, but that you actually do not have a clear understanding of what a Christian is, and perhaps do not want a clear understanding due to some sort of preconceived bias against Christianity or God or Jesus. You seem to be saying that Christians are automatically guilty of hate and discrimination simply because they are Christian.

Reporter: I would say that when you enter into the world of commerce here in America, regardless of your “deeply held religious beliefs,” then you have entered into a nondiscriminatory zone and your personal beliefs are checked at the door. Each customer, regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, nationality or political beliefs must be treated equally. No exceptions.

Me: So you are saying that a Christian business owner must participate in a homosexual activity even if it violates their faith, and in effect, is the same as saying deny your faith or face prosecution?

Reporter: I am saying they cannot discriminate against gays.

Me: So, following your logic, Muslim business owners must also participate as well?

Reporter: Yes.

Me: And Jewish bakeries can be forced to bake Nazi themed cakes, and Black owned bakeries can be forced to bake anti-Black cakes for a Ku Klux Klan rally …

Reporter: I didn't say that.

Me: … And clearly, a gay baker must be required to bake cakes for Christians that say “Just say no to same sex marriage”? Because when bakeries owned by gays were asked to bakes those cakes they simply refused, and they were not prosecuted at all. In fact, some would say that this idea of tolerance you are promoting is really a double standard that protects homosexuals, but targets Christians.

Reporter: There is no double standard when Christians are using a book like the Bible, a book full of hate, to justify their hate and discrimination against gays. If it were up to me the Bible would be illegal!

Me: You mean like in Colorado?

Reporter: Oh, get real! Now you are really grasping at straws. But go ahead and spout your conspiracy theory. It will show people just how loony you people are.

Me: As of November 2014, Colorado Revised Statutes, 24-34-701 stated that the publishing of discriminative matter was forbidden. It went on to say that, no person, whether owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation –– and “place of public accommodation” is defined as, “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor.” In fact, it quite literally means anyplace the public uses, with the exception of “churches, synagogues, mosques, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.” –– may not “publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method” … “any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description that is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against any … sexual orientation … or against any of the members thereof … that the patronage, … presence, … at such place by any person or class of persons belonging to or purporting to be of any particular … sexual orientation … is … objectionable or not … desired … .”

This law effectively bans the publishing, issuing, circulating, sending, distributing, giving away, or displaying any Christian Bible because it clearly states that homosexuality is objectionable. This means that it is illegal to have a Bible in a public library in Colorado. It is illegal for a chaplain in a convalescent home to hand out a Bible in Colorado. It is illegal for the owner of a barbershop to leave their personal Bible out in plain view in their own shop in Colorado, or, for that matter, any employee of any business to carry a pocket New Testament in their shirt pocket while working. In any public place in Colorado, other than a house of worship, the Bible is illegal.

Reporter: I don't believe you.

Me: Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. The law stands as I have said. Look it up yourself. Colorado Revised Statutes, C.R.S. 24-34-701. It is readily accessible online.

Reporter: This still doesn't answer the question of, why should Christians be allowed to discriminate against gays?

Me: Actually, I have already answered that question. Repeatedly. Christians are not discriminating against gays. For example, take Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman for example. She owns Arlene's Flowers …

Reporter: I know who she is. She refused to sell flowers to two men simply because they are gay.

Me: Well, that's not exactly true. In fact, one of those men, Robert Ingersoll, was a long time customer of Miss Stutzman. The simple fact that she had sold him flowers for an extended period of time proves that she was not discriminating against him. The issue of his wedding to his male partner Curt Freed came up during a conversation, and Miss Stutzman simply said that she could not participate in that wedding by designing custom arraignments for it. This was not a case of a Christian refusing to sell flowers to someone because they are gay, especially since she had been doing that exact thing for some time. Rather it is a case of she did not want to participate in that wedding, because doing so would be a violation of the Christian faith by giving tacit approval of sin. Scripture is clear that a person cannot do this and be a Christian, and doing so is a grievous sin in itself and indicates a deep seated wickedness (Matthew 18:6; Romans 14:19-23; I Corinthians 8:9-13). To force a Christian to do this is tantamount to forcing them to deny their faith – and, in effect, to deny Christ Himself. A Christian cannot do that. And yet, this is exactly what the state Attorney General is attempting to do by requiring Miss Stutzman to participate in homosexual wedding ceremonies.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any government law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. This is exactly what the Washington court has done.

Reporter: Your argument for the First Amendment doesn't wash. It just doesn't hold up anymore, at least not in today's society. While the First Amendment was originally intended to protect individual freedom of religion, America is shifting away from the individual rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment. This shift may be recent, but it is here and these sorts of cases are becoming more and more frequent. You might as well get used to the idea that your personal religious opinion doesn't matter in America anymore, and it will never usurp another person's personal liberty.

Too many people in this country have an unhealthy obsession with what other people do in the their bedrooms. You Christians need to mind your own faith and your own business and allow other people to define their own relationships with a god, if such a thing exists, or another person regardless of their sexual preference.

Me: You mean, allow people to sin, and don't warn them about the spiritual consequences of that sin. Isn't that what you really mean?

Reporter: Call it whatever you want, but if people want to sin, that's their business and none of yours. In fact, it is exactly that same kind of self-righteousness that is causing the problem in Indiana right now with that pizza joint. They are flat out denying services to same-sex couples! Outright!

[Tomorrow the remainder of this "interview" will be posted.]

Refusing to Serve Individuals vs Refusing to Participate in Events

4/2/2015

 
Picture
There is an important distinction being made in the following article, one which is also being ignored by not only the dominant liberal media propaganda machine but also by the militant homosexual faction of malcontents that is loudly and vehemently casting fiction based aspersions on both Christians and Christianity. It would seem that they are simply not content with the "in-your-face" homosexuality that has become such a mainstay of their public advocacy, that they are now intent upon forcing those who may disagree with them to participate in their events against their will -- and they want the federal government to be their enforcers.

From the Stand to Reason blog …

April 02, 2015
Refusing to Serve Individuals vs. Refusing to Participate in Events

When people say Christians want to “refuse service to gays,” the implication is that Christians don’t want to engage in economic transactions with people because of their sexual orientation—as if they’re turning people away with, “We don’t serve your kind here.”

This is not the case, and it hasn’t been the case in any of the well-known incidents involving photographers, bakers, etc. that I’m aware of. Consider the story of Barronelle Stutzman, the florist in Washington:
Robert Ingersoll and his husband, Curt Freed, said they had spent thousands of dollars and had been buying flowers from Arlene’s for nearly a decade when Ingersoll asked Stutzman to provide flowers for their wedding in 2013.

Stutzman declined, writing in a Facebook post later that it was because of "my relationship with Jesus Christ."

“I believe, biblically, that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Stutzman wrote. “That is my conviction, yours may be different.”

Stutzman said Ingersoll gave her a hug, said he "respected my opinion," and left.

[The Washington Times adds that she “referred the men to several other local florists.”]
Does that sound like “We don’t serve your kind here”? Please note that a gay couple “spent thousands of dollars and had been buying flowers from Arlene’s for nearly a decade.” That’s absolute proof that Stutzman was not discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. She merely didn’t want to participate in a same-sex wedding.

Why is there no room in our society for this?

I strongly encourage you to read this article in its entirety by clicking here: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2015/04/refusing-to-serve-individuals-vs-refusing-to-participate-in-events.html
    Picture

    Archives

    April 2025
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    July 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    July 2014

    Categories

    All
    2 Corinthians 6:14-18
    5 Solas
    95 Theses
    Aaron Thompson
    Abuse
    Agnosticism
    Alistair Begg
    Alleged Contradictions
    Amber Guyger
    A Mighty Fortress Is Our God
    Angelic Revelations
    Angels
    Anne Graham Lotz
    An Open Letter To My Family And Friends
    Antinomianism
    Antiochian Orthodox
    Apocrypha
    Apologetics
    Apostasy
    Archibald Brown
    Armianism
    Arminian
    Atheism
    Atheist Arguments
    A.W. Pink
    Benjamin Knight
    Benjamin Naim
    Ben The Baptist
    Bethel Music
    Bible
    Bible Believer's Baptist Church
    Bible Contradictions
    Biblical Archaeology
    Biblical Interpretation
    Biblical Marriage
    Blasphemy
    Book Of Life
    Botham Jean
    Brandt Jean
    Calvinism
    Cannibalism
    Causa Finitum
    Challenge For Christians
    Charles Haddon Spurgeon
    Christianity
    Christian Life
    Christian Living
    Christian Love
    Church
    Church Of Almighty God
    Contemporary Christian Music
    Covid
    Covid 19
    Creeds
    Cults
    Death By Atheism
    Death By War
    Decisional Regeneration
    Denialism
    Dennis Grutzmacher
    Doctrines Of Demons
    Doctrines Of Grace
    Donald Trump
    Double Imputation
    Doubting
    Easter
    Eastern Lightning
    Edmund Sears
    Election 2016
    Elevation Music
    Ephesians 2:8 9
    Ephesians 2:8-9
    Erin M Harding
    Evangelizing
    Fall Of America
    False Christianity
    False Christians
    False Teachers
    Fatima
    FBQ's
    Fellowship With God
    Five Solas
    Free Ebook
    Friday Night Lectures
    Gaslighting
    Gay
    Genocide
    Gospel
    Hell
    Heresy
    Hermeneutics
    Hillsong Music
    Holiness
    Homosexual
    Homosexuality
    Husband Duties
    Hymns
    Idolatry
    Imputation
    Insanity
    Irresistible Grace
    Islam
    I Support Abuse Survivors
    Jackie Hill Perry
    James E Adams
    JC Ryle
    Jesus Culture
    John Calvin
    John MacArthur
    Jonathan Edwards
    Josh Buice
    Joshua Chavez
    Joy Reid
    Judging
    Julie Roys
    Justification
    Kenosis
    Kenotic
    Know Your Heresies
    Latter-Day Saints
    LDS Church
    Lesbian
    LGBT
    Liberalism
    Ligioner Ministries
    Ligonier Articles
    Limited Atonement
    Mark Batterson
    Martin Luther
    Martyn Lloyd-Jones
    Mary Worship
    Me Too
    Michael Servetus
    Mike Ratliff
    Monergism
    Moral Relativism
    Mormonism
    Mormons
    Mysticism
    Nancy Demoss Wogemuth
    Nauman Masih
    New IFB
    Old Testament
    Original Sin
    Penal Substitutionary Atonement
    Persecution
    Perseverance Of The Saints
    Philadelphia Church Of God
    Pinecreek Doug
    Politics
    Pope Francis
    Prayer Circles
    Presidential Election
    Protestant
    Protestantism
    Pseudo-Christian
    Pseudo Christianity
    Pseudo-Christianity
    Race
    Racialism
    Racism
    Ravi Zacharias
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reformed Theology
    Refuting The Bible
    Regeneration
    Religious Expression
    Religious Freedom Restoration Act
    Religious Pluralism
    Religious Wars
    Responding To Atheist Arguments
    Resurrection
    Resurrection Of Jesus
    Revoice
    Revoice Conference
    RFRA
    Roman Catholic
    Roman Catholic Church
    Roman Catholic False Teachings
    Roman Catholicism
    Romans 1 28 To 32
    Salvation
    Same Sex Marriage
    Saturday Night Movies
    Scripture Twisting
    Servus Christi
    Sin
    Southern Gospel
    Sovereignty Of God
    Steven Anderson
    Steven Furtick
    Sunday Morning Sermons
    Sure Foundation Baptist Church
    Swedenborgianism
    Synergism
    The Bible
    The Cathedrals
    The Christian Creed
    The Heart
    Theology
    The Trinity
    Ticky Tok Toddy Harding
    Todd Ferguson
    Tolerance
    Tom Ascol
    Tom Buck
    Total Depravity
    Traits Of A Debased Mind
    Trinity
    True Christianity
    True Christians
    TULIP
    Unconditional Election
    Unitarianism
    United Methodist Church
    Vaccine
    Voting
    Waldens
    Website Updates
    What Is A Christian
    What's The Difference
    Wheat And Tares
    William Lane Craig
    Wolf Alert
    Women Pastors


    Click here to read about the Persecution of Christians in America.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.