Gay Agenda Threatens Christian Business Owners and Employees

How the Gay Agenda is Systematically Discriminating Against Christians


The objective of the gay agenda is to completely stifle the Christian way of life in every way, shape and form. I believe it is the largest threat to Christianity in modern times. It is well funded and relentless and they will not stop until it is virtually impossible to practice fundamental Christian beliefs both in the marketplace and at home. Furthermore, their message of tolerance is a complete red herring. Tolerance is being used to prop open the door while at the same time intolerance is practiced towards anything that thwarts the gay agenda as can be witnessed by the following law suits.


Recently, a police officer in Utah refused to lead the Gay Pride Parade which was assigned to him as part of a policing activity. He asked to be reassigned rather than be put out in front of the parade which he felt would compromise his religious beliefs by giving the appearance of condoning the life-style. He was put on administrative leave and has since resigned due to the relentless harassment he has received.


Source

Previously, in Oregon a baker was sued when he refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding citing religious objections. The investigation concluded that the bakery was not a “religious” organization under the law, (thereby removing it from the protection of the 1st Amendment) and that the business' policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation prohibited by the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. The business was subject to vociferous protests outside their place of business as well as pickets and death threats against their children. So much for tolerance! The family has since closed their shop and are now working from their home. They no longer bake wedding cakes.


Another baker in Lakewood Colorado, Jack Phillips, refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple as well. The couple filed a complaint with the states civil rights commission and it found that Phillips had violated the law even though gay marriage is not recognized in the state of Colorado! After he lost his case he was forced to undergo “sensitivity” training or re-education as well as document each and every transaction in order to show that he had not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation. They are considering an appeal and have since stopped making wedding cakes. Meanwhile business is booming from support of the community.


A similar case was brought forth in New Mexico. Elaine Huguenin along with her husband refused to provide photography services for a gay wedding in New Mexico. They were sued. The high court of New Mexico ruled against them after they refused to photograph a gay wedding citing the New Mexico Human Rights Act which prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, gender and sexual orientation to name a but a few. While it is true that Elaine did break the law, the question that has to be asked in this case as well as in the other cases mentioned above is whether these laws are a violation of the 1st Amendment which prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a government redress of grievances.

There are many other cases like this and I fear there will be many more in the near future.


It seems obvious to me that these “laws” are impeding the free exercise of religion which would therefore make them unconstitutional and therefore void.



Furthermore, since when has a business owner ever been forced to serve people he didn't want to serve? I remember seeing signs in local businesses when I was a child that read “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” I guess those signs might be worth a pretty penny now that they no longer apply. And why is it that we are seeing all of these lawsuits against Christians and not one lawsuit against a Muslim business? Things that make you go hmmm.

In places like Great Britain it's even worse. Recently, a street preacher, Tony Miano was arrested for proclaiming the biblical message that homosexuality is a sin. He was released after spending several days in jail but has to appear before a judge to answer for his actions.


Moreover, a British boarding house owner and his wife were found guilty of discrimination when they refused to provide a room with a double bed to a gay couple in their home. They had offered to put them up in separate rooms but the couple declined.

Who knows, it may be that in the not to distant future, articles like these will be considered "hate speech" resulting in prosecution and fines. It is not that far fetched since we now have the precedent in which state laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation usurp the constitution. It's not unfathomable in light of the recent hoopla over comments made by Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson and Chrome's CEO Brendan Eich's resignation over a political contribution of $1000 to Proposition 8 which dared to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In fact just recently Chase Bank in New York has begun questioning their employees to ascertain whether they are an ally of homosexuality (see the link below). What will be done with this information I can only guess. It could lead to dismissals based on civil rights laws. It's coming and it's almost here. Mark my words the Gay Agenda is the biggest threat to Christianity in the United States in our time.


Personally, I believe that we are living in the End Times before Jesus Christ returns. The Bible clearly predicts that the world will become more and more evil as the Day approaches, therefore I don't think that there is much that can be done to stem the rising tide of discrimination against Christians. All that we can do is to refuse to comply in obedience to God and then rejoice as Jesus taught us because we have been allowed to suffer for the sake of the kingdom even if it is in a small way when compared to other believers in history who laid down their lives for the sake of the Gospel.

More by this Author


Comments 118 comments

aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 2 years ago from Malaga, Spain

Truth indeed Brie, personally I would make the worse wedding cake in history, so bad that no homosexual would ask again, and at a high cost as well.

They know that as believers we would not spit in their cake, which is what would happen in the world.

These cases are just designed to silence believers, so I am glad that those victimized had the faith to stand their ground.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Unfortunately I think these occurrences will happen more and more frequently. Funny but I the second comment I received was from someone suggesting that Hubpages block articles like these..so much for tolerance!


parrster profile image

parrster 2 years ago from Oz

You have presented the case well. It is one thing to expect Christians to act with tolerance towards those who practise sin; and for the most part Christians do. However, it is another thing all together to expect us to partake in activities connected with what we believe to be sin. That is asking us not just to be tolerant, but to abandon our conscience and faith.

Some groups will not be happy until they gain nothing short of across the board agreement for their activities.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks "Parrster". I think it's more nefarious than that, I think it springs from hatred.


Sarah Brittney profile image

Sarah Brittney 2 years ago from 518, New York

While I do not agree, I do think this was very interesting to read. You are very passionate and that definitely shows in your writing.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks for your thoughtful comment Sarah.


fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 2 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

Hello Brie....While I fully understand and appreciate the message you have presented here,I have to say that I don't quite see any of it from the same perspective.

There are so many "new" laws and to make it more unbearable, the States can differ in several ways from one another, in terms of what is labeled "discrimination."

In any case, I have an open question as well as a few concerns with the actions of the business owners you mention.

For instance, the bakers who would not accept an order for a wedding cake for a Gay couple....I have to wonder: Would they also refuse to make a birthday cake for the same couple? I think even more interesting would be their answer to : Would they refuse to make a Wedding cake for a couple who were vocal about being Atheists?

I really am just curious. Was anything of this nature discussed within these news stories?

If the answer would be"Yes, they would turn those customers away also..." these business owners certainly run a business-in-a-bubble and seriously limit their customer base.

The video of the couple with the B&B who actually has a posted, visible "Policy" about not allowing gay couples 1-room, 1-bed.....also does not allow the same for "unmarried" heterosexual couples. This is as they say, based upon their Christian beliefs. There have always been places that will not serve alcohol because perhaps the owners are Mormons or simply believe alcohol is evil......where is a line drawn? Can business owners really be FORCED to do anything they do not want done in their place of business? I don't know.....do many average people know the answers to these different issues? I would guess not.

It all becomes a very messy legal battle, so much ado ....and I personally feel it all seems to be causing more and more unrest and increasing the gap between people of different beliefs.

Very well-written hub, Brie.....Voted UP +++


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Hi FPHERJ48, Yes the first couple does make birthday cakes and they DO sell birthday cakes to gay couples (I don't think they ask what they are but in my research this was brought up). The difference being that in providing a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding it gives the appearance of acceptance of the ceremony or of homosexual behavior which the Bible prohibits. That's where they felt they needed to draw the line. It's their religious belief. I don't think they would refuse to make a cake for an atheist couple because that is still between a man and a woman but I am sure that they would refuse a polygamous couple or even a cake that was a ceremony between two unmarried people.

Thanks for the comments and votes up!


watergeek profile image

watergeek 2 years ago

I also appreciate your article Brie. The question that kept coming up for me with each of these court cases was, "Would they refuse their services to a black couple?" Because it used to be that businesses used religious reasons to discriminate against people of color too, not to mention interracial couples, and especially with regards to marriage.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Hello Watergeek. Nothing I read mentioned that. These people were located across the country in cities mostly. I think if that were the case the media would have pounced on that point.


Esenbee profile image

Esenbee 2 years ago from Jacksonville, Florida

Thanks for your article. It was very interesting as well as informational. I'm glad that you were bold enough to write about this subject because this was something that I was slowly but surely becoming aware of. I do agree that the gay agenda is threatening christian businesses and employees. I also believe that the gay agenda is threatening the so-called "just" laws of our country. I too believe that we are living in the end times where Christians will eventually have to fight to uphold what is pure...I also believe that America is reaping the bad seeds that it has sown in the past.

Not to turn the subject into a racial matter, but the same laws that America used to mistreat black people and Native Americans are the same laws that gays are using to threaten to destroy the seams of America's fabric, in a sense. Well, I should say that they (gays) are twisting the laws to honor their lifestyle just as whites did in the past to mistreat slaves and Native Americans.

All that being said, if America corrected the bad seed sown in its past, maybe our society would be a better and cleaner society.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks for your thoughtful comments Esenbee. I should write an article about the difference between the civil rights movement and the gay agenda because there is a big difference and that is one was based on race and the other is based on immoral activity. It's a huge difference really.


Esenbee profile image

Esenbee 2 years ago from Jacksonville, Florida

You're welcome! And please do, I'll be glad to read it! :-)


btrbell profile image

btrbell 2 years ago from Mesa, AZ

I am trying very hard to understand this article but it seems to me I am reading this incorrectly. I think you are saying that the gay community is breaking down Christian businesses, yet, had they been accepted when they ordered their wedding cakes, they would have actually helped to grow those busunesses. The Christian community is losing business because they are limiting their sales by discrimination.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

The Christian community is being forced or coerced into accepting the Gay agenda which is against what the Bible teaches. They are losing business because they choose to obey God rather than man. Maybe obeying a standard of morality is a difficult concept for you?


virazoza profile image

virazoza 2 years ago from Mumbai

Nice to read.......Thxs


btrbell profile image

btrbell 2 years ago from Mesa, AZ

Well, if you really want to go there....

First, morality is not a difficult concept to me. .Nor is acceptance and human kindness. I think your final comment was unnecessary. If you choose to write an article in an open forum, I would think that you should be open, maybe even gracious to more than one opinion

Second, please check your facts on the "Gay Agenda"


mbuggieh 2 years ago

Brie:

I must say that I did not realize how powerful we, a small minority in any community, have become---particularly in terms of the power to promote some imagined "agenda" which itself has the power to (finally and for once and for all) get religion out of the American public sphere!

We have come a long way since the 1970s when Anita Bryant and the so-called "Moral Majority" claimed that since we could not (apparently) reproduce we were left desperate to increase our numbers, and as such, resorted to the "recruitment" schoolchildren to our (apparently chosen) "lifestyle".

Now we are recruiting an entire culture and society! Wow!

I am going to ask you a question that I have asked many times before, Brie, and gotten no answer:

Why with all of the things your Bible---all of its admonitions and prohibitions, do you focus virtually entirely on homosexuality?


fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 2 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

Brie, Thank you so much for taking the time to share your response with me. It does help to understand an issue more clearly when we are able to look analytically into the reasons people take particular actions.

I always try to see both sides of a situation.

While I do not agree with discrimination, I am also against being "forced" by other individuals or any "law," which claims we MUST do and not do things that infringe upon our rights and freedoms.

This is what I mean by the divide. It's all very sad and disappointing that the human race likes nothing more than a fight.


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

If a black man isn't allowed sit on a bus because the bus company doesn't like black people? Is that the companies right to refuse him? The KKK has the belief system that thinks so. Flawed or not, is it their right? Just asking.


MizBejabbers profile image

MizBejabbers 2 years ago from Arkansas

I think that if a small business is within a community of like-minded people, it should serve whomever or refuse service to whomever it wants. (I own a couple of pieces of rental property, and I am not allowed do that.) Having said that, one must remember that most businesses are licensed to do business in a city or town, and that license is to serve the public. That is where people get into legal issues. It gets especially hairy when a person who gets a professional license tries to hide behind his or her religious beliefs to refuse service.

For instance, when a licensed pharmacist, on religious grounds, refuses to dispense birth control pills, he or she is violating an oath taken to serve the public. Their judgmental attitude based on their religion may be completely false because that woman may have been prescribed birth control pills for a medical condition, which is none of their business anyway. My point is, if a business or a professional person must have a city, county, or state license to operate, they in essence are serving the public, and under current civil rights laws they legally cannot cherry pick their customers.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Mbuggieh, the homosexual community is focusing on US, not the other way around. I am sure that there were other bakeries, photograph studios and boarding houses that those couples could have gone to but instead they chose the Christian ones. If another community tried to force it's immoral, unchristian life-style then we would stand up against that as well. My question to you is why don't they do this to Muslim businesses? I've never heard of that happening before. Hmm, I wonder why?


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

Didn't you just questions a business for not serving you. i.e you questioned a business for not advertising on your hub. Is that their choice or do you just target gay people?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

In case you haven't noticed the 1st Amendment gives Americans the right to free speech. It does NOT, however, force businesses to serve people who are flaunting an immoral lifestyle. Big difference!


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

It gives United States citizens the right to freedom of speech. Not Americans. The lifestyle is immoral in your opinion. That's an opinion. Business ethic has no relevance to the constitution in any respect, so yeah I'm not sure what you are rambling on about! That would be like me saying, "I have a pet dog, I also like swimming, therefore people who have dogs like swimming." There is no correlation.

My question was on your hypocrisy. You just blasted advertising companies for not advertising on your hub and working with you, yet you state that companies should not have to serve a gay person if they don't want to. Please explain.


mbuggieh 2 years ago

Brie:

Why is it NOT okay for Hubpages to disable ads on ANY hubs associated with ANY gay "stuff", but okay for businesses to not serve gay and lesbian customers?

Hubpages is a business and its advertisers are businesses.

Do you not understand that the ads are disabled because they associated with businesses who do not want their products or services connected in ANY way to gay "stuff" whether pro-gay or anti-gay or whatever?

This is EXACTLY the reason why some self-described "Christian" businesses want to refuse service and products to gay and lesbian customers.

They do not want to be associated in any way with anything gay.


tirelesstraveler profile image

tirelesstraveler 2 years ago from California

I thought gays were the underdog. Every day they file more legal cases. Proof they are well funded .


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

"cfin" I NEVER said that companies should have the right to not serve gay people and these companies DO serve Gay people even now. What I am complaining about is that they should not be forced to make cakes or participate in Gay parades or weddings because it is against their religious beliefs. That is the difference.

"Mbuggieh" if that were the case then why is it that pro-gay articles have their ads up?


mbuggieh 2 years ago

I think hypocrisy is the order of the day.

I am almost---almost, amused that someone would be angry and feel discriminated against when a business (Hubpages) refuses to advertise on their hub ("Gay Agenda Threatens Christian Business Owners and Employees") because the business (Hubpages) takes exception to the content of their hub (gay stuff) about the right of businesses not to do business with those with whom they take exception.


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

Not baking a cake for a gay person IS refusing to serve them as they would serve someone else. The thing speaks for itself.

I believe your argument would also be stronger if you quoted the correct part of the 1st amendment i.e prohibiting impeding the free exercise of religion, although this would fail in any common law court across the western world as serving a gay customer is an action from the individual who is claiming to be the person being impeded in their right, yet they are the one who chooses to serve the public and is serving here and nowhere in the bible does it state that we should not serve gay people. This was made up in the last hundred years, as was the anti woman agenda, the anti single mother agenda and so on and so forth.

Educate yourself! West law and the internet in general is a great resource for factual based arguments. Done.

Thanks,

Cfin


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

That's because you do not understand the situation "Mbuggieh", the Christian businesses were not discriminating against gay people, they were objecting to gay marriage which is condemned in the Bible. The bakery's still sell birthday cakes, the boarding house tried to accommodate the couple by offering them separate rooms and the cop said he would work in administrative area (just not in front of the parade).


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

Show me where it's condemned in the bible. Again, please refrain from making statements when arguing a point, when you don't have a point of fact.

As I said, if the business is anti gay, then don't serve gay people. That's there right, but don't expect me and my wife to shop there or any of my family. That's our right to avoid a bigot.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

But yeah, Brie is more important than the bible and believes that she, and the cake server should show every gay person "the way to be perfect and without sin". I had kids out of wed lock, can I have cake please? :P


fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 2 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

For the record.....Just as we ALL find ourselves in a position of having someone to be obligated to or to report to...that person just above us (so to speak) in rank......Hubpages, if I am not mistaken follows "google rules."

I have 2 ad-disabled hubs, neither of which center on any aspect of $EX. Our hubs can be ad-disabled for several reasons.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

"cfin" it's very apparent..just google what does the bible say about homosexuality. You can do that right?


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

I want you to tell me where. I showed you where it tells us that we should treat all equally.

You never explained the hypocrisy either. Are you being discriminated against because a business refused to do business with you? You claimed as such.

Thanks,

Cfin.


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

Deleted my comment? Also, you only wrote this to make money, correct?


mbuggieh 2 years ago

Brie:

If one makes wedding cakes and one refuses to sell me a wedding cake because they do not like or approve of who I am marrying, then they are discriminating against me. End of story.

Why not just say (as I read somewhere else today) that the Bible does NOT embrace tolerance; that the Bible (and Christianity) embrace intolerance, and therefore, you have every right (through your First Amendment right of freedom of religious expression) to be intolerant?

What I will NEVER EVER EVER understand is why any self-respecting gay person would seek to do business with any anti-gay proprietors of any business.


mbuggieh 2 years ago

Brie:

Can you answer this question: Why do you cherry-pick the Bible for its admonitions related to conduct? Why focus on homosexuality? What about women cutting their hair?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

cfin: I deleted your comment because YOU PUT IN ON TWICE!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (NASB)

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (Rom. 1:26-27, NASB)


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

Brie - if a gay business owner decided that they did not wish to bake a cake/make invitations etc etc to a Christian celebration, would they be within their rights to say "sorry, but it's against my beliefs?" or would you cry discrimination? If you answer that it's discrimination, it bears thinking on as the other way around.

If the business is happy to produce cakes for divorce celebrations, the celebration of the birth of a child out of wedlock, the wedding of two previously divorced people (straight), or anyone who is not of their religion, then they are discriminating, pure and simple. These are requests from people who are also spoken of as sinners, or argued against, in the Bible. Cherry picking again.

In regards to your Bible verses - I could direct you to my hubs, or I could just paraphrase it here:

Leviticus - do you eat shellfish? Wear polycotton blend (before you say no, check your underwear!)? Touch others when on your period (and for 7 days following)? Wash anything you have touched whilst menstruating, as it is unclean? Allow your husband to cut his hair? Only have intimate relations when you are trying to conceive, and not using a condom (spilling seed etc)?

I'm gathering that you can't manage not to follow all the laws - why should homosexuals have to follow the laws of the Old Testament, when you as a Christian can't even do that??

The Laws were designed for a tribe trying to forge an existence in the desert - outlawing things that wouldn't promote population growth (non-reproductive sex), or cause disease/illness - cleanliness re: food, blood.

Romans - not written by God at all. Written by Paul, who was trying to convert more people to Christianity from the pagan religions of the time. What better way to get conversions than speak badly and fearfully of the more...pleasurable activities of another religion? Fearmongering at it's best. (Corinthians is the same)

Before you mention Genesis/Sodom and Gommorah - Jesus himself spoke of the sins of Sodom in Ezekiel, and it was NOT homosexuality - but haughtiness, greed, inhospitality to visitors.

Cherry picking isn't useful. Before you say you aren't - you are removing verses from their scriptural context (the verses surrounding them), their historical and cultural context, therefore taking all meaning out of them, and using them to try to justify your dislike. That is cherry picking.

Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion. You cannot force anyone to be your religion against their will, nor follow your religious laws just because you do. Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences of said speech - these people are free to say what they like, but they can't complain about the repercussions of what they have said.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

1. Yes, I believe that they would be within their right.

2. You are missing the point on the second question, the bakers felt it would be morally OK to bake a cake for a birthday as birthdays are not unbiblical whereas gay marriage is and to bake a cake for a gay wedding celebrates what is sinful.

3. The moral laws stand, the dietary laws were for Israel at that time.

4. There is no evidence in the Bible that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for greed or haughtiness..it's very clear what the sin was as it even states that they tried to rape the angels. Jesus never said what you say he said.


word55 profile image

word55 2 years ago from Chicago

Hi Brie, I agree with your overall point of view but as a brother of yours in Christ, we must treat people fairly without discriminating against anyone. There are laws that protect the rights of everyone. As a real estate broker, I can't treat a male or female couple any different than a man and wife if they are looking to buy a house regardless of their personal opinions of my religion or being a Christian. The best thing we can do is find a way to love each other as God commands us to do and get along. Take care :-)


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Did you read the article? It's not about discriminating, it's about being forced to do things for Gay Weddings which God has called an abomination. Are we, as Christians to follow man or God?


word55 profile image

word55 2 years ago from Chicago

Yes Brie, I read it. In today's justice system (not the Bible) it is called discrimination. However, I'm on your side.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Well, man can call it whatever man wants but God is the one who says what is right and what is wrong. I'll side with God.


word55 profile image

word55 2 years ago from Chicago

I'll side with God too. I always have. Thank you. This was a test :-)


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

Brie -

1 - Good. Then if they do - don't complain.

2 - They bake cakes for a living. Baking a cake for a situation does not mean you must or do agree with it - it means that you are providing a service to the public. If these people had come in asking for a wedding cake, but were ordering it on behalf of a friend, and just happened to be two males, and he denied them the cake on the basis of assumption of sexual orientation, is he not judging them? And is that not God's job.

However, I do agree that it is going a bit far to take them to court - I would just go elsewhere....WHICH is exactly what I did with our wedding photographer - even though she was a family friend just starting out and I wanted to help her - she did not agree with our wedding, and we all came to the conclusion that it would be better to use someone else...all sides happy. So I am in agreeance that people should not be forced to do something that they do not wish to do - BUT they can't say something and not be free from it's repercussions. Freedom of speech is only freedom to say what you like, not freedom from it's consequences.

3 - The mixed fabrics? The period issue? Did Jesus not overwrite the laws of the old testament with his arrival? That's why there is a new one? I'd understand your issues if you were Jewish, as I am aware they do not follow the NT. Also - is it not in Leviticus as a moral law that a woman must marry her rapist?? Or be stoned to death if she is raped but not enough people were witness to it??

4 - Jesus did so - Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (KJV).

(and I'll wait for the cherry picking remark)


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

I don't complain and I don't issue death threats as the gays did in one case mentioned above!

It says that they committed abominations before me, in the 50th verse (which you cherry picked out) and it says in Lev. that lying with a man and a man is an abomination.

As far as the shellfish argument: just read this as it's too long of an explanation to type here:

http://carm.org/leviticus-homosexuality-old-testam...

As far as judging..read this: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Judge-Not-...

I get tired of the same old arguments so I write articles explaining them once and for all.


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

Brie - and you cherry pick the laws you'll follow from Lev, you cherry pick the verses out of their context - scriptural, historical and cultural - there are perfectly good reasons why those verses are where they are - the 6 apparently against homosexuals (a word not invented until the 20th century) for the time in which they were written.

The Bible also condones slavery, woman as property - and incest (Lot has sex with his daughters after the destruction of Sodom).

I knew you'd see I'd left out 16:50 - I wanted to point out two things with that - that the 'abominations' dealt with after the other sins of Sodom - if it was that important would it not come first?

And secondly - those who argue from the same viewpoint as yourself - do exactly that with the verses you use to say gay is wrong. There are many verses around Lev in particular admonishing heterosexual practices but you don't add them, or even comment on them

I agree the death threats are over the top and I do not condone it whatsoever - however one could argue that if the evangelists and conservative religious politicians could also be over step in their mark by advocating death to a population as has been evidenced just this week with politicians and preachers alike. Or the threats homosexuals get via Facebook etc just for being gay. But again I so do not condone them.

I will take a look at yr hubs - perhaps if you could take a look at my two on the same - I'm more than happy to look at both sides of an argument - would you do me the same respect.

I'm done here though - I'm happy to agree to disagree. We actually seem to be on the same page re whether people should be forced to do something - find another business to do business with and tell yr friends not to use that business if it offends you, there is no need for law suits.

Anyway, thanks for a good discussion and a willingness to respond to my assertations and theories. Wishing you a good day.


mbuggieh 2 years ago

Brie:

Why do dietary laws apply only (apparently) to ancient Israel, but laws related to ONE THING---homosexuality, persist into the present? This is cherry-picking at best and hypocrisy at worst.


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

Brie has infringed my freedom of expression by deleting my comments. More hypocrisy.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

CFIN, I told you already that you posted twice..get a clue!

Mbuggieh: Leviticus18:22, 20:13, homosexuality, shellfish, mixed fabrics, and not being under Old Testament Law

by Matt Slick

Leviticus says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:9-12), use mixed seed or fabrics (Lev. 19:19), harvest the corners of fields (Lev. 19:9), and that homosexuality is wrong (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). If homosexuality is wrong because Leviticus says so, then shouldn't we also obey the other laws about shellfish, seed, fabrics, and fields because that is in Leviticus as well? If not, then why not? Why would Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow?

First of all, not all of Leviticus is written to everyone. There were abominations that applied only to the Jews such as eating shellfish, rabbit, and pork, etc., which were things that typologically represented purity before the Lord. We know this because God says, "Speak to the sons of Israel saying . . . ." He gives instructions to the Israelites--not to the rest of the nations.

Here is a list of instances when the occurrence of the phrase "Speak to the Sons of Israel saying . . . " is found in Leviticus, the book under consideration.

Lev. 4:2, atonement for unintentional sins

Lev. 7:23, don't eat fat from ox, sheep, or goat

Lev. 7:29, procedures for peace offering to the Lord

Lev. 11:2, list of animals the Israelites may eat

Lev. 12:2, uncleanness after giving birth

Lev. 23:24, rest on 1st day of 7th month

Lev. 23:34, Feast of Booths on 15th day of 7th month

Lev. 24:15, the one cursing God will bear his sin

So, we can see a host of things that dealt only with Israel.

However, there are abominations that did not apply only to Israel but to everyone else also. Again, let's look at Leviticus.

Lev. 18:22-30, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. 24 Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled 25 ‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. 26 But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you 27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); 28 so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. 29 ‘For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. 30 ‘Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord your God.’"

What abominations is Lev. 18:22-30 speaking of? Contextually, chapter 17 is about blood atonement procedures, so that is for Israel--not for everyone. In Chapter 18 God says to Israel, "You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you;" (Lev. 18:3). So, now instead of it applying only to Israel, God mentions things that are done by Egypt and the land of Canaan. What were the things those nations did? The chapter contains the following.

Lev. 18:6-18, don't uncover the nakedness of various relatives.

Lev. 18:19, don't have sexual relations with woman on her period

Lev. 18:20, don't have intercourse with your neighbor's wife

Lev. 18:21, don't offer children to Molech

Lev. 18:22, don't lie with a male as with a female

Lev. 18:23 don't have intercourse with animals.

So, we see there are requirements in Leviticus only for the Israelites, and there are lists of abominations spoken of that were for the non-Israelites as well. It is in the latter group that homosexuality is listed. It is a mistake for people to mix topics intended only for Israel with topics that included the non-Israelites. Furthermore, when we see that the New Testament condemns the idea of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, we could see the continuity between Old Testament moral law and New Testament moral law.

Three divisions of the Law in Leviticus

A common mistake made by homosexual proponents when discussing the Old Testament, in particular Leviticus, is the failure to understand the three main divisions of the Law: civil, ceremonial, and moral. This is important because the civil and ceremonial law are not in effect now, but the moral law is. Let's take a look at these divisions within the book of Leviticus since it is the book under examination.

Civil--Expired with the demise of the Jewish civil government

Justice practices (Lev. 24:17-23)

Law of property redemption (Lev. 25)

Be just with the poor (Lev. 19:15)

Do not hate in your heart (Lev. 19:17)

Retain just scales in commerce (Lev. 19:35f)

Robbery, extortion, false witness, and restitution (Lev. 6:1-7)

Ceremonial--Expired with the fulfillment of priestly work of Christ (Matt. 3:15)

Various sacrificial offerings for sin (Lev. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Priestly duties (Lev. 7:1-37)

Laws on animals for food (Lev. 11:1-47)

Cleaning house of leper (Lev. 14:33-57)

Law of Atonement (Lev. 16:1-28;17:1-16)

Regulations for Priests (Lev. 21, 22)

Festivals (Lev. 23:1-25)

Moral--No Expiration because it is based on God's character. "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy," (Lev. 19:2)

Do not steal or lie (Lev. 19:11)

Do not oppress your neighbor (Lev. 19:13)

No idolatry (Lev. 26:1-13)

Don't sacrifice children to Molech (Lev. 20:1-5)

Don't commit adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, etc. (Lev. 20:9-21)

You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18)

Homosexuality is under the moral law category. In addition, as stated earlier, it is an abomination practiced by all people (Egypt and Canaan)--not just the Israelites. Therefore, we see that the moral aspects of the Law are still in effect but not the civil or ceremonial. Again, there were things addressed to Israel only where God said "speak to the sons of Israel saying . . . " These things included atonement for unintentional sins, eating habits, uncleanness, feast days, rest days, etc., which do not apply for us today.

Should we also dismiss the commands not to lie, steal, or commit adultery?

If, as some argue, we are not under the Law and therefore we can dismiss Leviticus along with its clear condemnation of homosexuality, then shouldn't we also dismiss Levitical teachings that warn against lying (Lev. 19:11), theft (Lev. 19:13), bearing false witness (Lev. 19:16), hating your fellow man (Lev. 19:17), exacting vengeance (Lev. 19:18), avoiding unjust balances (Lev. 19:36), sacrificing children (Lev. 20:1-5), committing adultery (Lev. 20:10), committing incest (Lev. 20:11-14), and the practice of bestiality (Lev. 20:15-16)? Of course not.

Furthermore, if we are to basically dump the book of Leviticus because it is Old Testament law, then why are parts of Leviticus quoted in the New Testament as still being valid?

Leviticus

New Testament

Lev. 19:2, "Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy."

1 Pet. 1:16, "because it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy.""

Lev. 19:18, ""You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord."

Matt. 22:39, "The second is like it, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.""

Lev. 26:12, "I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people."

2 Cor. 6:16, "Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.""

Are we to dismiss Leviticus along with the idea of being holy, of loving our neighbor, and that


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

Brie, you stated that Catholics are not Christians? I am confused. Catholics are Christians!! How can you write an article about Christians businesses when you don't even know what Christianity is, and what a christian is. How ignorant.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Mat_7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

You must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven..said Jesus


mbuggieh 2 years ago

Brie: Really...Catholics are not Christians? That is just past-absurd.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Take it up with Jesus.


word55 profile image

word55 2 years ago from Chicago

I agree with Brie but without elaborating too much, Catholics are not Christians. We can have a respectable debate about this but not here on HP.


mbuggieh 2 years ago

If Catholics are not Christians, then what is all the Jesus stuff about in terms of Catholic catechism, Catholic theology, etc.?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

There are a lot of people and religions who talk about Jesus but they don't have a personal relationship with Him, nor does their church teach that that is required.


MizBejabbers profile image

MizBejabbers 2 years ago from Arkansas

I would like to see Catholics v. Christians debated in a forum. I follow the teachings of Christ but I do not follow the teachings of the Catholics or the Pauline Christian church, and I've been told that I am not a Christian. Frankly, I don't care what others say. I think being a Christian is what is in one's heart and mind, not what others think.

Brie, your discussion of Leviticus is thorough enough to put into a hub. Maybe you should so it will get more traffic.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

I have a lot of ideas for hubs and I've already written a few about Catholicism since I was raised Catholic it's what I know best. Here are the few I've done already:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Is-the-doc...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Why-I-Am-N...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Are-All-Re...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Are-You-Go...


mbuggieh 2 years ago

Brie:

What do you think constitutes this "personal relationship" with Jesus?

And how can you be so presumptuous as to think that with Jesus it is, basically, your way or the highway?


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

So Brie, if the Catholics wrote the bible that you preach and are in FACT Christians according to all educated religious scholars, you still claim that they are not Christians.

Do you think you are some kind of god to make such a wild and ridiculous accusation? Catholics ARE the original christians. Saint Peter was a Catholic, all Christian saints are Catholic and all protestant christian faiths came from Catholicism.


cfin profile image

cfin 2 years ago from The World we live in

"Full Definition of CATHOLIC

a. often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal

b. often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it."

And now Brie is rewriting the bible, the dictionary and history.


SageCanton 2 years ago

Just to clarify, I grew up in a faith based home and attended church and Sunday school, and I am also straight.

Here is my issue. We can create the most intricate, complex technology and put men on the moon, and yet the basic concept of equality still eludes us.

Gay people are born gay. It is not "lifestyle" but rather biologically determined sexual orientation. Their brains are literally, physically different. Because it is an "invisible" cognitive configuration (unlike, for example, Down Syndrome) people assume that it is a choice.

Imagine if you were gay how difficult your life would be: constantly feeling as though you are broken because of the misconceptions of society.

Where is compassion? Is supporting discrimination really "doing God's work"?

The Bible is a very complex piece of literature that can be interpreted many different ways. However as a student of and a believer in God, I refuse to believe that anyone's god would advocate bigotry against a group of people for a quality that they are born with and cannot change.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

There is no evidence that anyone is born gay and even if people were born that way...I was born heterosexual and yet the Bible forbids sex outside of marriage so it's a choice to act on one's impulse. A lot of people say that they are born with an attraction to children should we give them a pass because they were supposedly born that way?


SageCanton 2 years ago

This from a university, and the first link I found when I googled...there is plenty more, I assure you.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1...

The fact remains that you're absolutely entitled to believe whatever you see fit... but I implore you to re-assess the issue with a little compassion.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Even the author says that this isn't evidence..however, even if it were so, you could make the same arguments for Pedophiles.

Before proceeding further, a comment about the nature of evidence is warranted. Each scholarly discipline has developed certain standards by which presented arguments or data are usually evaluated. These tests of validity mightinvolve double-blind studies, the use of suitable controls, statistical analysis, peer review and critique, suitable comparison with available models, consistency with established theories within the particular field as well as other disciplines, and so on. Anecdotal findings are not evidence; they may, however, be presented.

In addition, the law of parsimony usually governs which of competing theories should reign; the explanation that best links the majority of findings and depends on the fewest assumptions is to be most credited. This chapter will attempt to hold to these standards in proving a biological predisposition for sexual orientation. Gladue (1993) uses a legal metaphor to suggest that perhaps instead of looking for “proof beyond a reasonable doubt, ” we accept “the preponderance of evidence.”


Faith Reaper profile image

Faith Reaper 2 years ago from southern USA

Awesome hub here and great discussion. I agree with all that you have stated here, Brie. It seems many want to make it all about hate, but it is not that at all, as we are to love others, but they want to make it about hate and go out of their way to force their beliefs on others when they have a choice to go to other establishments who do not offend them, just as we do. We are all indeed sinners and not one is perfect, but if we are to allow the beliefs or unbelief of others to enter our lives, and go against our beliefs, we are bowing down to man not God. Why is it that when we are discriminated against for being Christians, it is not discrimination, but then it is the opposite for all others?

On another note, one of my hubs had the ads disabled because it deals with men's sexual health, nothing obscene, just a health hub about a serious health issue.

Being a Christian is having a personal and intimate relationship with Jesus, not following all of the traditions of man.

Voted up +++

God bless you.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thank you Faith Reaper, I have a feeling we have a lot of things in common!


mbuggieh 2 years ago

One thing I do not understand:

How does having an "intimate relationship" with Jesus become being a devoutly homophobic?

There are many Christians out there---myself included, who do NOT believe that homosexuality is a "sin" or that discrimination against gays and lesbians should be worn as a badge of honor.

Jesus himself NEVER said a word about homosexuality.


Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 2 years ago from US

You know what I think Brie; these people are going to sadly have their answers sooner than they think and what we need do is just hold up the verses where God says how it is and we say; "This is the Lord God's Word! We stand behind it and it is "our" law!"

It has moved in upon us fast and I don't think we have too much longer to wait; I hope not for Christians are the target of so many; even ones we thought were friends. Great article; God bless you for standing on His word.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

I agree completely "Pollyannalana", thanks for commenting.


mbuggieh 2 years ago

Pollyanna:

Exactly what do you mean by your statement: "I don't think we have too much longer to wait..."

Is this some call to action? Some threat?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Seriously "mbuggieh"? Pollyanna was talking about the return of Jesus Christ.

Unbelievable!


Cari Jean profile image

Cari Jean 2 years ago from Bismarck, ND

I could say so much right now because there are so many comments that got me totally riled up but for now I'm just going to commend you for a well-written article and for standing up for BIBLICAL TRUTH. I believe the day is coming when pastors will be arrested in the U.S. for preaching the gospel which includes preaching against gay marriage. And for those priests and pastors who condone it and actually marry gay couples, the thought of it makes me sick to my stomach when I think about how it must grieve the Holy Spirit. Personally, I think many who are pushing the gay agenda are a bunch of bullies and they will stop at nothing to get their own way.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

I agree, thanks for commenting "Cari Jean".


mbuggieh 2 years ago

What is the gay agenda? I don't understand the phrase.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

The Gay Agenda is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate approval of homosexuality and homosexual ideology, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes). Such special rights will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of broader society.


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

(sorry original was too short, and it wouldn't let me change it - Brie - please feel free to delete the FIRST one - actually you are free to delete what you like...but this is NOT a copy of the first one)

Brie - if you remove homosexual and homosexuality from it, and replace that in your 'definition' with Christian - it describes EXACTLY what you are trying to defend your fellow business owners doing.

The Christian (particularly the anti-gay Christian) agenda is just that - indoctrinating students in public schools with religious ideologies (public is state is it not?), obtaining special treatment for Christians (erasing the separation of church and state - hobby lobby etc...different subject of debate but same idea), ignoring some biblical teachings in favour of others, and at the expense of the science that is out there.

Free speech - freedom of speech is NOT freedom from the consquences of said speech. Freedom of speech means you are entitled to say it - that is all.

Immunity from criticism - you equate hate crimes with "special rights" - are you advocating that homosexuals deserve to be beaten, raped, killed, tortured merely for who they are? Or threatened with such? Because that is what you are saying when you say that "they seek special rights for homosexuals that others don't have such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, crimes etc)"

You can happily criticise homosexuals all you like, and most will not care - you are entitled to your opinion of homosexuals all you like. BUT when you (not you in particularly but anyone) assault someone, or incite violence against them by using language to do so it is hate speech - whether it is against homosexuals, people of other races, religions, abilities.

Equal rights are not special - they are merely extending the same rights that everyone else has - which currently homosexuals do not have.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

I have one question for you "jlpark"..should Pedophiles have those same rights?

Regarding "hate speech" I don't think that a person's motivation should be taken into account. I think a person should be judged on what they do not why they do it. I think that a person who is beaten or murdered..that it doesn't matter who, it matters what crime has been committed..all people are equally important. Hate speech laws give more importance to one group over another.


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

Why is it only those who seek to deny rights that equate those two things as equal? Or even use them in the same sentence? But I will humour you on this one...though..humour is not the word I would use.

Should Paedo's get the same rights? No.

Why? Because it is an issue of CONSENT.

Two adults of sound mind who are homosexually orientated - that is attracted romantically, sexually, physically, emotionally, and mentally to an adult of the same gender - are capable of consent - they know what they want to do, what it involves, that they want to do it, and have not been coerced.

An adult and a child - a child is not capable of consent to sexual acts as they are not mature emotionally, physically, mentally or otherwise. Co-ercion into an act is not consent - so even if the child performed the act apparently willingly, they are often co-erced into doing so through threats, promise of a 'special treat' etc etc.

Paedophilia is an abuse of power on the part of the adult. Power that strips children of their innocence.

Should they have the same rights? No, because of this.

I somewhat agree with the hate crimes thing - they should be charged on the crime rather than the motivation (tho, in reverse we used to have what was called the "Gay Panic" defense in NZ - a person who had been come on to by a homosexual, and panicked - killing them - thankfully, it only resulted in a slightly lesser sentence, then was written out of law - taking the "motivation" out of the equation).

Hate speech on the other hand - when it is inciting others to violence against a group of people merely because of who they are, who they worship, or what colour they may be - should be dealt with as a crime...based on hate.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Pedophiles say that they cannot help who they are attracted to either and the law that prohibits pedophilia is arbitrary and could change just like the laws against sodomy have changed in this country. We are already seeing these issues coming down the pike.


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

I understand that there is an attraction element to paedophilia. I also understand that laws are changeable.

The abuse of power in the paedophilic 'relationship' is the issue - the person is using their power over the child to make them do things that they are not ready to do, or do not want to do.

Paedophilia and other sexual crimes like rape are about POWER. Not sex. Paedo's are also found in EVERY sexual orientation - straight, gay, lesbian, trans - and OFTEN do not discriminate between genders of children - they merely need to be pre-pubescent.

However, what is now considered paedophilia - eg sex with a minor (under the age of consent in whatever country or state the law is being applied) - so usually under the age of about 16....in Biblical times were people not married under this age? Often to older men?? Bears thinking on.

Thank you for a civil discussion, though, even though we are on different sides of this 'gay agenda' issue.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Yes, I'm just trying to state the fact that Pedophiles use the same arguments and it's true that other countries and other religions look at pedophilia as normal (especially the Muslim religion whose own prophet married a 6 year old). As far as the Bible goes..it is never mentioned how old a girl was when they married so I don't know about that. I do know that Jesus said that anyone who hurts a child..that it would have been better for that person had they never been born.


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

I agree with Jesus on that! I actually agree with him on a lot of things (Not that I'm sure he cares if I agree or not), including his comments on homosexuality...of which, he had nothing to say.

The fact remains that if you changed the dominant 'group' of your 'agenda' - we are asking for practically the same thing for our two different groups of people. So why is it okay and 'just' for Christianity to have the rights, and deny them to homosexuals, and accuse them of 'demanding' them, when if you look at it, Christianity or at least the Christians doing this (not all christians, just as it's not all homosexuals being anti-christian either), is demanding just that in the guise of religion.

Paedo's may use the same argument, but it's not an equal or consentual relationship - there is power and force involved in order to inflict the abuse upon a child.

Any force used on anyone sexually is rape - regardless of sexual orientation - as men can rape women, men, or children, as can a women.

Consensual sex between two consenting adults is vastly different to sex with a child.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

First of all, my personal belief is that there should be no state involvement in marriage in the first place. I don't think there should be any tax benefits given at marriage or by having children. I am a libertarian and therefore think the state should stay out.

However, barring that scenario, the reason Homosexuals should not be given "civil rights" is that homosexuality is an activity. It is an activity that is sinful and used to be criminal. While I don't think it should be criminalized, I also don't think that it should be given a higher status than any other group. I do not believe that homosexuals are born that way. I do not think that groups should be protected based upon sexual activity. It would be the same thing as if a group of 'swingers" or "adulterers" or polygamous groups wanted special status because they were being discriminated against (in my view).


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

Okay, I understand that re: tax benefits etc - in my own country there are no tax benefits at all to being married, be you heterosexual or homosexual. And I agree with it, and you (wow!), on this. There is if you have children (regardless of your marital status or orientation), but only if you are not well off (eg...we struggle but receive no tax benefits to assist in caring for our daughter because we earn too much as a married couple), and being married is actually a detriment if you were wanting assistance from the government - you get less, not more.

I come from a place where we have a secular government, equal rights for everyone regardless of religion, orientation, colour or creed, and robust anti-discrimination laws. We have not devolved into anarchy, nor have we suffered as a nation - in fact, we are known as one of the most accepting, happy, hard working nations in the world, who came through the GFC reasonably well. So I can't accept the notion that being unable to discriminate in business will affect anyone's back pocket, or their civil rights.

Civil rights - such as?? There are plenty of activities that are sinful that are undertaken by heterosexuals and christians alike. Judgement (God's job), touching a woman on her period, eating shellfish, anal sex, lusting after another, a woman speaking out of turn or disrespecting her husband, denying assistance to another. So, shall we deny civil rights to all who sin, even the once? These are all 'Activities'.

Homosexuality is NOT an activity - in as much as heterosexuality is NOT an activity. If you think that homosexuality is all about sex - you are VERY VERY wrong - it is as much about sex as heterosexuality - that is, sex is a small part of what makes a person who is homosexual tick, just as it is a small part of what makes a heterosexual tick. Sexuality is a bigger item than sex....and if you are listing homosexuality as an activity please add heterosexuality. And if you have added heterosexuality - you are basically getting special rights because of your 'activity" aren't you?

How is giving equal (read: EQUAL) rights to a group of people giving homosexuals a "higher" status?

You don't agree that people should be protected based on their sexuality - yet, by denying equal rights to homosexuals, you are granting protection to heterosexuals - and therefore protecting them based on sexuality.

Last question - so, when did you chose to be heterosexual? If you feel that people are not born that way, when did you choose to be heterosexual? Did you consider homosexuality as an option for long? Do you think you could choose to be attracted to a woman? No?


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

You say "Civil rights - such as?? There are plenty of activities that are sinful that are undertaken by heterosexuals and christians alike. Judgement (God's job), touching a woman on her period, eating shellfish, anal sex, lusting after another, a woman speaking out of turn or disrespecting her husband, denying assistance to another. So, shall we deny civil rights to all who sin, even the once? These are all 'Activities'."

Yes, and none of these people are asking to be included as a special group in our laws and if they were I would oppose that as well.

You ask how is giving equal rights to a group of people giving homosexuals a higher status... Equal rights being the right to marry..I am assuming? I would be against polygamous groups having those rights, as well as anyone who would want to "marry" an animal (don't laugh it's coming) or any other perversion. Marriage is an institution that was created by God and it was meant to be between a man and a woman. To pervert the institution by allowing homosexuals to marry is wrong.

You say, You don't agree that people should be protected based on their sexuality - yet, by denying equal rights to homosexuals, you are granting protection to heterosexuals - and therefore protecting them based on sexuality.

You are right I am, but to me it's the same thing as a thief saying that he or she just can't help himself, so I must accept that he is a thief and more than accept it, I must give him minority status as a thief.

And, I guess it all comes down to which world view you adhere to. I believe that God is who says what is good and what is evil, not man. And, he has said that homosexuality is evil (google it if you don't know the passages in the Bible).

If you refuse to submit to God's definition of good and evil then anything goes and that is making God in your own image which is also a sin called Idolatry.

I did not choose to be a heterosexual but I've had to choose to be celibate because I am a single Christian and I choose to obey God. Everyone has temptations but whether you choose to submit to them is the question. Homosexuality is not my temptation but it has been for many people and there are many people who choose to walk in holiness rather than submit to their temptations.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

SageCanton: If you could manage, like "jlpark", to write a comment that is not demeaning and is respectful then I would consider it but until then I will not publish your comments.


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

I'm not just talking marriage, but take from it what you will.

At least you are honest about the fact that yes, you are putting you and your sexuality to protections by denying others.

I know the passages - Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, Corinthians etc - zand I know the historical, cultural, societal and scriptural context in which they were written. I do not accept them as cherry picked verses because anyone can cherry pick a verse to suit their cause that does not actually say what they make it sound like it does. If you wish to include the multiple contexts in which they are written, when you use them, I will listen - but many many many christians cherry pick them to suit themselves.

You did not choose to be attracted to the opposite sex, so why assume that homosexuals do choose this? You CHOOSE to be celibate to follow God, and will wait until you are married - and I applaud that - because that is your decision, and your right to do so, and I actually think people who can stick this are to be respected, and I do respect you for that, and other things. I know several people who choose to wait until they are married - be they straight or gay - including myself though not for God, but because I wanted to wait until I found the person I wanted to spend the rest of my life with....

I have however learnt a lot from this conversation - and I thank you for being civil, and choosing to educate me rather than just jump on me as many do. I hope you have also learnt a few things from me. Time to get on with my evening.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

It's been very nice talking with you as well "jlpark". I see no reason whatsoever that people can't have a civil discussion regarding a topic. Unfortunately, it happens rarely when discussing these issues. I can only speak for Christians (being one myself) but as for myself I have no animosity towards anyone, however that does not mean that I accept sin. Jesus hung out with "sinners" and was chided for doing so yet He never overlooked sin. He told the woman caught in adultery..go and sin no more. I know this might come as quite a shock but I actually love homosexuals and I even like them ;), I find them easy to be around, funny and I don't know I just like them, unfortunately I cannot say the same for most of them when they find out that I am a born again Christian.


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

Well, this homosexual doesn't mind you being a born again Christian! I don't mind most Christians either! I do understand where you come from, and I'm not asking you to accept it, I'm merely adding to what you know about why certain things are being requested of the nation in general. Thanks.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

I think that is key, because as a Christian we will never accept homosexuality as being anything other than a sin. Unfortunately, because of the pressing to make homosexuality acceptable it forces us Christians to take a stand. Seriously, I don't think most of us would be so vocal if we didn't feel threatened by some of the things that I mention in the article. Many times homosexuals ask me or other Christians why we are picking on them and it's not as if we are picking on them (in our minds) because if any other group were pushing their cause to make us accept what the Bible tells us is sin we would have to stand up to that as well. All sin is sin. I sin, you sin we all sin. But, the difference is when a group insists on saying something is not sin when the Bible says it is.

If you know your Bible (and I think you might) there are many times in the Bible that people were forced by decree to worship other gods and they refused. It's not like they wanted to, but if something is forced upon us we will resist and the thing is..it will never work no matter what the penalty is. I know many Christians who are going off the grid because they don't want to be forced to accept homosexuality or Obamacare because (well with Obamacare it's the forced taxation for abortion). So, it's getting to the point that we can't work for the state because we are called bigots if we refuse to go along with "diversity training" and now with all these guys suing Christian small businesses those businesses are being shut down as well.

I understand the homosexual point of view but honestly I don't think they understand or maybe they don't want to understand our point of view.


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

We, in as many of us as there are Christians who wish to do the same, do wish to understand your point of view.

However it is so at odds with what our understanding of what Christianity is all about that it is a struggle to accept that people of he Christian faith would accept discrimination as just, and fair. That they would take judgement into their own hands, when even their Holy Book tells them that this is not their job - and that he only Judge in all this is God. By denying services to anyone 'based' on religion they are effectively judging them rather than leavin the judgement to God.

If a same sex owned business denied service to a religious organisation - it would be decried as discrimination and thy would likely be sued - even if it was a religious belief that differed from that of the customer. And they the customer would have every right to sue - just as the customers in these cases do as well - if you are providing a service to the public that has no bearing on your religion - baking cakes is not a religious vocation / the. Services should be provided to all. Just as a same sex couple owning a business would make a cake for a straight wedding even if their own religious beliefs were for arranged marriages etc.

If the business also makes divorce cakes - hen they are cherry picking BADLY.

As an accepting group, usually, we have difficulty understanding why a peaceful religion would have followers who are not at all Christian in their behaviour - which Is often the problem in discussions on homosexuality, I think


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

It's not "denying services". In the one instance in the article the baker was willing to bake birthday cakes for gays but not wedding cakes, because to bake a wedding cake was to acquiesce to Gay Marriage. T he former did not violate his conscience the latter does. It's the same for the boarding house owners, they did not allow anyone who isn't married to sleep together whether they were gay or straight, they even offered separate rooms (providing service without crossing their conscience)...didn't matter, they were still sued and put out of business.

Do you see the difference?

Also, the proscription to not judge is very misunderstood; take a look at this article:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Judge-Not-...


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

The bording house I understand the issue with the lawsuit - they were providing equal treatment based on marriage and if the gay couple weren't married then fine separate rooms.

And if gay marriage was legal in that state, and they were married - then there would be a problem worth investigating.

Ahhhh but do the bakers do divorce cakes? If they do - then it is discrimination against gay marriage - because divorce is a sin also. Birthday cakes are a different story.

Again - bakers are not a religious vocation - if they were priests refusing to marry a gay couple - I have no issue with that - they are in a religious vocation providing a religious service, that would be inappropriate to perform in relation to their faith.

A cake is not a religious notion, nor vocation. Therefore baking a cake for an occasion is not actually going against yr beliefs - it is merely providing foodfor an occasion. If they had asked for a wedding cake but not said anything - eg 'we just need the cake, we will sort the decorations, wedding toppers etc' they still would have been baking a cake for a gay wedding but it would have just been 'a cake' to them.

It's actually a credit to the bakery that they are asked to bake it - us gays are a fussy bunch when it comes to our parties! Only the best for us and more disposable income! Etc! So they obviously thought highly of their work until they were rebuffed.

I agree law suits are a bit much - it's easy enough to find another place to do the cake. They could have just told their friends not to go there - which is what anyone who had service they aren't happy with would do.

So you and I even agree on a few things!

The problem is when they cry discrimination when they are called out for discriminating - eg the businesses in Mississippi (I think) that had the 'no gays' stickers complaining of discrimination when businesses who would happily serve gay customers had 'everyone welcome here' type stickers for their windows making them look bad for not taking everyone or something - They can't have it both ways.

I will check out your hub soon - am just on a break at work so can't now. I think I shall leave this conversation where we are - agreeing to slightly disagree. Thank you again.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

I agree ..regarding the stupid No Gay Stickers and I am 100 percent certain that that Baker doesn't do "divorce" cakes! I don't know anyone who does do divorce cakes btw.

Great..let me know when you do.


jlpark profile image

jlpark 2 years ago from New Zealand

I know of 'divorce' cakes - not sure I've found a place that does them (and haven't had need of them tho!) - but I've seen a few. The ending of a bad marriage can be celebrated by some, and there are cake decorators who will help.

Off to read them now.


mbuggieh 2 years ago

Brie:

Actually so-called Christian bakers who have refused to make the cake for the same-sex wedding do, in fact, make not only divorce cakes but cakes for all manner of things soundly rejected by the Bible.

Among the occasions: parties for divorce, a pagan solstice, and stem cell research, births of babies to unmarried parents

The refusal to make cakes for same-sex weddings is part of a larger, and failing, political agenda.

For more information: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_ca...

PS: I know you will not approve this post, as other posts I have made have also been censored, but oh well, such is life.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

"mbuggieh" I have not published anything previously because you were rude and disrespectful. Actually, I am surprised that this baker does do these cakes and to tell you the truth I think that they are wrong and shouldn't do them..although the Kosher one is a stretch in my opinion. If it had been me, I would not have done the divorce cake, the stem cell cake (in case it involved aborted fetus' and the witch cake. The baby one is celebrating life even under less then optimal circumstances..it's still a celebration of life which is better than if that person had killed her child through abortion.

Regardless, a person or business should be able to refuse service of anyone (IMHO) for any reason. I am a libertarian and that's the way I feel across the board..even if I am the person they are refusing. I believe that men's groups are OK, women's groups who refuse men are OK, ..I even think that if groups want to come together who are NAZI's that that should be tolerated as long as no one is hurt (and I am a Jewish Christian btw). I think if a Gay Group wants to discriminate against me as a Christians they should be allowed to do so...


incomeguru profile image

incomeguru 2 years ago from Lagos

This is a controversial issue. I know some people will be in support of the message this hub is conveying while some will be against the content of the hub. However, the truth is always bitter. God doesn't support homosexuality.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks "incomeguru, I agree. God never supports sin.


mbuggieh 2 years ago

One question: If "God doesn't support homosexuality", then why did he create it AND homosexuals?

Remember---we are ALL created in God's image. Your Bible makes that claim.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

God created freewill because without no one could choose to love. Unfortunately, people love their sin more than God. God knew this would happen but I guess He thinks it's all worth it for the safe of those He knew would forsake their sin and walk with Him.


misterhollywood profile image

misterhollywood 2 years ago from Hollywood, CA

One can see why your hubs are popular. They are designed to flame. I'm gay. I find this hub to be just wrong. It's inaccurate, misinformed and frankly a cheap play for traffic. You are entitled to your opinions but not entitled to the facts.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Nothing but facts here.


btrbell profile image

btrbell 2 years ago from Mesa, AZ

Homosexuality is not a sin. The real sin is in people who can't accept other people because they are different. It is wrong to hurt other people no matter whether you're Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, straight, gay or asexual. You don't have to serve anyone you don't want to and you can have private, selective groups but that doesn't mean you can bash the ones that are not the same as you. G-d created generous, loving, forgiving people in his image. He didn't create us to be haters.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Is it a sin to judge? If so, you have just sinned.

Making up your own rules and your own god is called Idolatry and it is a sin against the first and second commandment. Sorry, but you don't get to make up your own rules.


btrbell profile image

btrbell 2 years ago from Mesa, AZ

Well, Brie, that was s stretch!


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Not at all.


Cari Jean profile image

Cari Jean 2 years ago from Bismarck, ND

Is stealing a sin? Is drinking to get drunk a sin? Is lying a sin? Is being greedy a sin? Is practicing homosexuality a sin? Hold on for a moment while I check my Bible...

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Also the Bible clearly points out that God created marriage to be between one man and one woman...

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Mark 10:6-9

Can't argue with truth.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Amen "Cari Jean".


Sanxuary 2 years ago

The line is crossed when another persons belief forces you to practice their beliefs. People are going to have to become smarter and change the rules to not become entrapped. Right now might be the time to stop making wedding cakes. Remember Christians had to go underground for hundreds of years to practice their beliefs, maybe its time to start planning.


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

I agree, thanks for commenting.


fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 2 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

Randi....I want to say that I fully understood your gracious comment. I like to believe I am a fair, open-minded.....and more importantly, open-HEARTED individual. In order to maintain a level of civility in discussions with others....I have found that it isn't always the "topic" that creates hateful exchange. More often it is the degree of staunchly (some may use the term "Blindly") held beliefs/opinions.

Whenever it is blatantly clear that someone (or group) is armed and loaded for bear.....will shoot their guns and rockets about carelessly with the sole intent to "SILENCE" an opposing voice....I find it my own personal "Victory"...that I am wise enough to save my strength for better things. Take care....Wishing you Peace..Paula


Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Who is Randi?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working