Indiana Pizza Shop 1st to Publicly Say It Would Deny Same-Sex Service

musterion

Well-known member
If you're heterosexual you may well be subject to temptations and lusts but as you've just conceded it ain't gonna be with a bloke is it? So once again, how is it possible for a heterosexual - one who is exclusively attracted to the opposite sex to choose to become or entertain any sort of homosexual intimacy?

Your question is fair and I have an answer. But bear with me on this...I expect you're not going to want to hear it and will reject it outright, but since you've asked point-blank, it's what I'm convinced is the truth.

Short answer: Because they have no life of Christ in them, and are slaves to their own sin nature as well as taken captive by the Devil at his will to do as he wills. So all bets are off as to limits on what they may or may not do, even if only potentially.

Loooooong answer: Sin manifests in many ways...even (perhaps "especially") religious self-righteousness and mere moral uprightness, which is quite offensive to God when done in rejection of the Gospel because it's still 100% of the flesh.

"The flesh?" you may ask, "What do you mean by that?"

There is no power within ourselves by nature (that nature being referred to by the apostle Paul as "the flesh" as well as other labels) to keep us from potentially doing absolutely ANYTHING, under the right temptations, inclinations, pressures or circumstances. None. Does that mean that we WILL do, or DO do, absolutely anything? Of course not. But the raw potential...the capacity...is there. The question you posed above is predicated on it.

However...

What I stated above is not exactly true any longer when one has received new life in Christ. At that point, there is a new dichotomy between "the original operating system" of base human nature/the old man/the flesh nature (which believers still possess, deny it though many will) and the New Man who longs for holiness after the holy God who created it.

Can the believer let the flesh express itself? Yes; that's a big part of the reason Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. It's wrong and unnecessary for believers to do so because the capacity and means NOT do so have been given us in Christ.

Unbelievers have neither such means nor capacity, even if they think they do.

Let me repeat that so you get it nailed down:

THAT DICHOTOMY BETWEEN OLD AND NEW DOES NOT EXIST IN SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT BELONG TO CHRIST. IN SUCH PERSONS, THERE IS ONLY THE OLD.

True, there may be (and often is) a veneer of religious/moral rigidity and fear of impending judgment from a defiled conscience. TOL is rife with such. But there is no LIFE there at all. It is all flesh, which is condemnable by God because it can do NOTHING to please Him. In fact, He counts it as already condemned and in fact dead. All it can do is stink in His nostrils.

Hang on, I'm still getting to the real main point...

It's impossible and stomach churning for you, the same with me so how is it possible for any other heterosexual person to "choose" such? So far you've actually argued against your own position were you to see that.
Actually, I haven't argued against my own position. I just didn't spell it out completely. I will do so now.

It is viscerally repulsive for me now, but that is only by the saving grace of God in Christ. Once upon a time, when I was in college (a large liberal arts theater program...you name it, it was represented and freely available) I did many things that I still regret (though they're wiped from the sight of God) and the very thought of them I now loathe. I was 100% heterosexual, but my life revolved around much fornication, including betraying two good male friends by seducing/letting myself be seduced by their fornication partners, and at least one incident of adultery with another man's wife. On top of, or underlying, all of that, constant burning, unsatisfiable lust, anger, lying, hatreds, sloth, etc etc etc.

I was quite damnable. The Lake of Fire would have been 100% justified. But I am forgiven much, for there was much to forgive. My sins < God's grace. Thank you, Father.

Anyway. While I was there, I also had ample opportunity to do as we're discussing now. I was one of the leads in the university's production of Angels in America...look it up if you're unfamiliar with it. Now I was not queer...never had been...didn't want to be and didn't need to be. But some unwarranted assumptions were made about me simply because I had that part, and I get that.

But I confess that a few times, I was *tempted* to do as we're discussing here. The thought began to present itself to me as an option I hadn't considered before. I rejected it, but not out of moral repulsiveness at offending God more than I already had done (not that I knew or cared about that...though He was just beginning to work on me at that very time). So while I never really did "go queer" or even bi-, that's not the point. My fallen human nature seriously mulled the possibility of adding it to my sexual repertoire.

That
is what tells me that, even if only potentially, our human nature knows zero bounds or limitations as to what it may come to want. One needn't be a believer in Christ to admit that...just honest.

That is also why presumably laser-straight people can turn homosexual:
they give in to sinful desire because they are of the flesh and nothing but the flesh. And the flesh can do nothing BUT sin.

Like I said, I expect you'll reject all of this out of hand, but I'm telling you the truth as I experienced it and as I now believe it to be.
 
Last edited:

Quincy

New member
Should they be receiving death threats? Absolutely not. Bad press? You betcha! Isn't that what the free market is about?

I agree with this, let people have the liberty to express their intolerance and bigotry so they can be put in an niche where they belong.

It seems dumb to me, for anyone to want a company who's prejudiced against them to have to hide it and be forced to provide a service. I'd rather know they're prejudiced and won't serve a certain group so I can not give them any patronage as well as spread the word about their view. Let the public decide if the business lives or dies.

If anything, force them to advertise on all over their store that they're Christian focused and won't serve anyone who doesn't like it. It would be interesting to see how many businesses across the country as a whole would live or die, then.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I agree with this, let people have the liberty to express their intolerance and bigotry so they can be put in an niche where they belong.

It seems dumb to me, for anyone to want a company who's prejudiced against them to have to hide it and be forced to provide a service. I'd rather know they're prejudiced and won't serve a certain group so I can not give them any patronage as well as spread the word about their view. Let the public decide if the business lives or dies.

If anything, force them to advertise on all over their store that they're Christian focused and won't serve anyone who doesn't like it. It would be interesting to see how many businesses across the country as a whole would live or die, then.
This is from a coward who would never go anywhere to defend the liberty he so casually asserts.
 

musterion

Well-known member
I agree with this, let people have the liberty to express their intolerance and bigotry so they can be put in an niche where they belong.

It seems dumb to me, for anyone to want a company who's prejudiced against them to have to hide it and be forced to provide a service. I'd rather know they're prejudiced and won't serve a certain group so I can not give them any patronage as well as spread the word about their view. Let the public decide if the business lives or dies.

If anything, force them to advertise on all over their store that they're Christian focused and won't serve anyone who doesn't like it. It would be interesting to see how many businesses across the country as a whole would live or die, then.

What would you think of a business, inspired by this article, that decided to say "Minorities Only Safe Zone, No Whites Welcome"?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
But I confess that a few times, I was *tempted* to do as we're discussing here. The thought began to present itself to me as an option I hadn't considered before. I rejected it, but not out of moral repulsiveness at offending God more than I already had done (not that I knew or cared about that...though He was just beginning to work on me at that very time). So while I never really did "go queer" or even bi-, that's not the point. My fallen human nature seriously mulled the possibility of adding it to my sexual repertoire.

You do realize that is completely alien to the vast majority of straight people, right? I, in my most rebellious years, could never even visualize doing that kind of thing. It wasn't sickening, it was kind of like "how would you like to dedicate your life to accounting?" No interest at all.

Some people say we all have the capacity for homosexual behavior, but the guys who went a little beyond that, are generally the ones who are homophobes. It wasn't your fallen nature.
 

TracerBullet

New member
No, it's a sin.

But since you brought it up.....

From Sigmund Freud until the mid '70's the American Psychiatric Association claimed that homosexuality was a mental illness that was curable by therapy.

But then in the mid '70's the APA voted, and claimed that homosexuality was normal.

Now, what caused this change?

There were no medical breakthroughs, no scientific discoveries, no new evidence, etc.

IOW, how did thousands of people with Phd's for decades claim homosexuality was a mental disorder, then with no new evidence whatsoever, the Phd's claimed homosexuality was normal?

First: you are wrong about Freud:

"I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you why you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness" S. Freud 1935


The inclusion of homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was challenged on the simple basis that there was no evidence that homosexuality was a mental illness. The minority of professionals who wised it to remain in the DSM were unable to produce any research or evidence that showed it was a mental illness.
 

TracerBullet

New member
The homo-lovers will continue to insist that we bend to their assertion of what we believe. We do not believe homosexuality is a disposition or a feeling; we believe it is defined by an act. By definition homosexuality is a choice because people choose who they have sex with.

They want our definition to be different so that they do not have to face the truth.

you can believe that the earth is flat all you like but that doesn't change the earth.

Were you a heterosexual before you had sex for the first time?
 

musterion

Well-known member
You do realize that is completely alien to the vast majority of straight people, right? I, in my most rebellious years, could never even visualize doing that kind of thing. It wasn't sickening, it was kind of like "how would you like to dedicate your life to accounting?" No interest at all.

I guess you're just a better class of sinner than I was.

I also can't help but detect the note of quiet pride you have there.
 

TracerBullet

New member
Pretty easy to shut Bain up...
Just point out that boys who were raped by faggots didn't choose the mental and emotional damage that was influenced upon them. Bain, you need shock therapy son.

Nice....Except that most gay men were never sexually abused as boys
 

TracerBullet

New member
No, I am pointing out the fact that you are to dense to comprehend the difference between natural and unnatural.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.


homosexuality exists in nature. being homosexual is in agreement with homosexuals.




there is no scientific proof that orientation is a choice
 

TracerBullet

New member
So, you believe that the comparison needs to be that narrow. The heart of the question still exists, is a person, any person, gay or straight allowed to turn down work for personal conviction? It really shouldn't matter why somebody does not want to do the work if they don't want to do it they shouldn't be forced to do so. There are enough bakers, printers, and florists in this country that I am sure you can find someone who's willing to take your money, what is the point of forcing somebody against their will to do a service for you? That is my point... It is called liberty.

We-Cater-to-White-Trade-Only-FSDM2.jpg
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame

*Your logical fallacy that Racism can be equated to the choice of sexual preference is duly noted.

Than you agree that the gay printer is not allowed to refuse service based upon personal conviction any more than the christian, baker, or florist. It appears that you are anti-liberty as well being under the fallacy that you can mandate or legislate acceptance. :loser:
 
Last edited:

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. (*Romans‬ *1‬:*24-28‬ ESV)

Downward spiral - heterosexual sin led to homosexual sin and beyond (animals and pedophiles)
 

musterion

Well-known member
Originally Posted by TracerBullet
there is no scientific proof that orientation is a choice
Sure there is.

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Penis complements vagina.

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Testes complement ovaries.

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Sperm complements egg.

SmallRedX.gif
Penis does not complement rectum.

SmallRedX.gif
Phallic sticks do not complement vagina.

To violate obvious anatomical and biological norms can only be done by choice. At best, such a desire reveals abnormal psychology. But let's not dilly-dally. Let's just call it what God calls it: sin. And sin is always chosen. That's why it's warned to be repented of (also a choice) or face judgment.
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
Sure there is.

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Penis complements vagina.

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Testes complement ovaries.

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Sperm complements egg.

SmallRedX.gif
Penis does not complement rectum.

SmallRedX.gif
Phallic sticks do not complement vagina.

To violate obvious anatomical and biological norms can only be done by choice. At best, such a desire reveals abnormal psychology. But let's not dilly-dally. Let's just call it what God calls it: sin. And sin is always chosen. That's why it's warned to be repented of (also a choice) or face judgment.

Pretty much sums up the physiology & the spiritual at one time...Good post. :thumb:
 
Top