Where did it go?

[Youkilledkenny]

With the exception of the occasional "wedding cake issue" or the like, it seems that the 'Christian vs. Gay" argument has died down a lot in the USA since gay marriage has become legal.
Have Christians given up on the complaining about how bad gay people are, are Christians re-grouping, have Christians that complained about gay people gone on holiday or have Christians all of a sudden, become "OK" with gay people?
Or, perhaps, the media has found other causes to accost us with these days?
Or are there other reasons (sinister or benign)?

[Bust Nak]

No one's sexuality is written on their forehead. Why do they see it important to advertise it to the world what they are.

That's for the individuals to decide if their sexuality is important enough to advertise to the world. No one bats an eye when straight people advertise their sexuality. It's also kinda hard to organise a wedding without advertise one's sexuality.

More to the point, are you suggesting that it is okay to discriminate based on one's sexuality, if it was advertised?

I really do not care what they do but as a human being and not a herd of sheep, I have conscience and can refuse to like or not, love or not.

Refusing to like is one thing. Refusing to serve as a business is quite another, see "no blacks allowed" analogy again for an example.

Perhaps one day we can all be given a zombie to just go with a crowd without using our mind to think for ourselves.

Good idea, zombies won't discriminate based on gender, age, race, religion or sexuality, but I don't see why we'd stop using our mind just because we are given a zombie.

[JP Cusick]

If only that was true. Many Christians just can't help but keep giving witness and testimony even when it was clear that the message was heard but rejected - your duty is done, you can stop any time, now would be great.

I guess that is true that the witness and testimony is done, except for new comers.

Next what any person being religious or otherwise would need to do would be to offer help to any lost person to repent and to stop living in self destructive sin.

It often takes a while for rebellious people to acknowledge their sins and turn to repentance and making amends, so it will happen again as it has in the past histories of other societies going down a drain.

Many if not most people really must hit rock bottom before they can ever see the light of their own sins, and it truly is an awful thing to experience, and for that to happen on a massive scale will be a wonderful thing to watch as it happens.

We get to be a witness and a testimony before it happens - and then we get to again be a witness and a testimony after it happens too.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 27 by Bust Nak]


"The lower courts has established that the baker were happy to bake the same cake for another couple, without requiring them to select a different cake, thus demostrating that it was about the customers and not the cake. Does this information change your view on who is disciminating against whom? "

I think something does not add up.
The story (there may be dozens) that i heard is of a gay couple wanting a penis on top of their cake. If anyone else asked for the same they would be refused regardles of who they are.
I would like to know judge's ruling on this case.

[Bust Nak]

I hear you but because it does not make sense and can not imagine an intelligent person as a judge to be so stupid, not convinced until I read the report.

What exactly is it that doesn't make sense, what strikes you as stupidity on the judges part?

Doesn't the fact that the baker isn't challenging the narrative that he refuse to make the cake because it was to be used in a same-sex wedding, but whether he should be allowed to refuse to make the cake, whether his refusal is covered by free speech and free exercise of religion, enough to tell you that the narrative is accurate?

And how do you know the customer - hey i am gay make me a cake?
Something has to add up so far have not seen anything close.

It doesn't take much to gather that the customers in question are gay given two men is asking to buy a cake for their wedding.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 34 by Bust Nak]

I edited the whole post 33 (apparently while you were writing)

because all along we were talking about different case.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 35 by Monta]

Is this case what you are referring to? There is the case I was referring to, note that the article is satire, but the lawsuit is real.

Or perhaps this? It's just one guy's hypothetical of what could happen in the future.

I cannot find anything else about an actual case with homosexual penis cake.

[JP Cusick]

I think something does not add up.

That makes sense - and thanks to Monta for the info - as I did not know that before.

They want a pornographic cake depicting some homosex image - because otherwise they could buy a wedding cake anywhere that sells cakes, as like most grocery stores sell wedding cakes, but requesting and demanding a pornographic image of homosex on top of the cake would be a real reason to deny the request and to go to Court.

So again the Fake-News just reports lies and distortions which is why things fail to add up.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 37 by JP Cusick]

You call out fake news, yet you are ready to believe there is an actual case where a baker was sued for refusing to make a pornographic cake, based on nothing but a rumour you heard on a forum?

If there is a legitimate reason for denying the request, don't you think Fox news would be all over it?

[JP Cusick]

You call out fake news, yet you are ready to believe there is an actual case where a baker was sued for refusing to make a pornographic cake, based on nothing but a rumour you heard on a forum?

If there is a legitimate reason for denying the request, don't you think Fox news would be all over it?

It is the Courts which put out this particular kind of fake News, and then the fake News never reports the whole truth.

The Courts have long ago ordered the immorality that pornography is protected "free speech" and so the case can not argue against a pornographic cake, and so the fake News is that this is just a case of religion when it is not.

And I do not see her words as a rumor or unsound because I have dealt with legal cases in Court a few times and so what she said is perfectly sensible and realistic which explains the circumstances in clear simple terms.

So no - not even Fox News can safely report about a pornographic cake because legally it is not the issue, and I do believe that the reason for Fake News is because our Government has created laws and circumstances that empower fake News and can punish any source that reports otherwise.

[Bust Nak]

It is the Courts which put out this particular kind of fake News, and then the fake News never reports the whole truth.

Even if not one news channel can be trusted, that's still not a valid reason for believing an internet rumour.

The Courts have long ago ordered the immorality that pornography is protected "free speech" and so the case can not argue against a pornographic cake, and so the fake News is that this is just a case of religion when it is not.

Why would you think this isn't about religion in the first place? Why would pornography being protected "free speech" mean the case can not argue against a pornographic cake? You are not making any sense.

And I do not see her words as a rumor or unsound because I have dealt with legal cases in Court a few times and so what she said is perfectly sensible and realistic which explains the circumstances in clear simple terms.

This I want to hear, what exactly happened in these cases you are referring to that lead you to think there is anything remotely realistic with the penis cake story?

So no - not even Fox News can safely report about a pornographic cake because legally it is not the issue, and I do believe that the reason for Fake News is because our Government has created laws and circumstances that empower fake News and can punish any source that reports otherwise.

Then don't say it's a "pornographic cake" and stick to just the facts of the matter - a penis cake, if indeed it was a fact. Leave it to the views to decide if it is pornographic themselves. The government can't do anything for reporting the truth as long as it is not national security.