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

[musterion]

TB has never liked it when someone brings up middle school biology lessons.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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...

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.

Well firstly thank you for the detailed response. I wasn't expecting that to be honest and I appreciate the thought you've put into it. It'll come as no surprise that I don't agree with your premise but I'll explain why.

The prospect of homosexual activity with another man is viscerally repulsive to me and always has been. I don't have particular religious or moral objections to it, it's simply a matter of finding it 'yeuch' personally. It's not something I've ever been capable of entertaining or even mulling over as a prospect, and as I told TH I've been hit on by men in my life so I've had opportunities to do so were it something in any way enticing. It wasn't, anything but in fact and I think that holds true for most who identify as straight. I don't think there is the potential for most to entertain an alternate sexuality.

 

[Simon Baker]

Well firstly thank you for the detailed response. I wasn't expecting that to be honest and I appreciate the thought you've put into it. It'll come as no surprise that I don't agree with your premise but I'll explain why.

The prospect of homosexual activity with another man is viscerally repulsive to me and always has been. I don't have particular religious or moral objections to it, it's simply a matter of finding it 'yeuch' personally. It's not something I've ever been capable of entertaining or even mulling over as a prospect, and as I told TH I've been hit on by men in my life so I've had opportunities to do so were it something in any way enticing. It wasn't, anything but in fact and I think that holds true for most who identify as straight. I don't think there is the potential for most to entertain an alternate sexuality.

​

IMO, There Is A Connection To Alcohol And/Or Drug Use. Obviously, Some Say They Were Born That Way, Yet I Would Be Curious Of An Accurate Assessment; Percentage; Alcohol/Drugs or Any Combination Thereof, As An Early Or Continuous Element In Gay Activity.

​

Certainly Not All, However, That Does Not Include Mental, Emotional, Environmental, Family/Home, Friends, Mentors, Teachers, Church Etc. Musterion Made A Very Good, Sharing Post. One Thing That Disturbs Me Personally,

​

In The Last 20 Years Men Have Expressed Interest In Me Openly, Mainly Because It Has Become Seemingly "Acceptable" In Society ? Then I Am A Bigot For Showing Disgust ? No ! Now It Becomes More OK With Each New Generation.

 

[Quincy]

This is from a coward who would never go anywhere to defend the liberty he so casually asserts.

Hilarious. I'd go to the border of my state or country to defend it, which I suppose is nowhere to an expat living on the other side of the world, sticking his nose in other people's business. All I will say about that.

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

I don't have any problem with that. I don't believe all people have to like each other. Legislating prejudice out of the public sphere doesn't eliminate the issues at the root of the problem. If a group of minority students want to segregate and discuss issues directly facing them, that's great. If a minority business owner doesn't want the majority visiting their shop from fear of them disturbing business or whatever reason, then alright. If a Muslim baker didn't want to serve Christians or vice versa, great for them. I'd much rather know who is against me and my views than have everyone silenced by legislation.

It doesn't make logical sense to expect someone who's prejudiced against you to accept your patronage. If people can't decline to serve another person they don't like, then we'll never know they're prejudiced. So, you end up with same-sex couples paying people who despise them, for a service, just one example. That's the end result of forcing a business to serve everyone.

People should drop the PC crap, say how they really feel and then let the market settle things.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian regarding Musty's admission of a passing interest in homosexual activity;
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.

No, I've never been one of the "my sin is nicer than your sin" crowd. I'm a sinner too. Just other kinds of sin. Not looking down on you for that.

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

In the sense that a burglar is proud that he never was never an embezzler. The point isn't that other people are better than you; it's that homosexuality isn't attractive at all to most of us, even if it is attractive to a small number of other people. There's nothing sinful in having an attraction to sin; we all do. In fact, there's much to commend in those who are inclined to some sort of sin, and avoid it.

You've confused being human with being a sinner.

 

[Arthur Brain]

​

IMO, There Is A Connection To Alcohol And/Or Drug Use. Obviously, Some Say They Were Born That Way, Yet I Would Be Curious Of An Accurate Assessment; Percentage; Alcohol/Drugs or Any Combination Thereof, As An Early Or Continuous Element In Gay Activity.

​

Certainly Not All, However, That Does Not Include Mental, Emotional, Environmental, Family/Home, Friends, Mentors, Teachers, Church Etc. Musterion Made A Very Good, Sharing Post. One Thing That Disturbs Me Personally,

​

In The Last 20 Years Men Have Expressed Interest In Me Openly, Mainly Because It Has Become Seemingly "Acceptable" In Society ? Then I Am A Bigot For Showing Disgust ? No ! Now It Becomes More OK With Each New Generation.

I don't really see that to be honest. Most people have been intoxicated with drink at some points in their lives but I don't see a connection between that and awakening a dormant homosexual desire. Drink reduces inhibitions and impairs judgement in excess but that's a separate issue. I've smoked my share of cannabis in youth and the same would go for that. Where it comes to upbringing/environment then that can certainly play a role on the development of the psyche although it's a heck of a stretch to adopt the position that all gay or bi-sexual people come from unstable or abusive backgrounds.

It seems fairly obvious that some people are simply homosexual with as much choice in the matter as the average straight. I wouldn't say you're a bigot for showing disgust necessarily although on the occasions where such has happened with me a polite 'not interested, I'm straight' has been enough.

 

[kmoney]

Well as far as being forced to carry or assist a Roman soldier (which was often the context as I recall), that could very well be "sinful" in one sense or another. Rome was a pagan authority, corrupt in many ways and hated by the Jewish people. Offering extra services to such an authority was probably quite a provocative statement. Probably more so than bringing pizza to a gay wedding today.

I'd say it would depend on the circumstances. Are you helping a Roman soldier carry out some executions of Christians or innocent people? Also, provocative isn't necessarily sinful. But I do agree that his statement probably would have ruffled some feathers.

Probably not since at the time, gay weddings were not too common and performing a miracle is rather different than just say, delivering normal wine.

Think of is this way, assume you're a baker in the 1st century. Very few if any of the events going on around you are "pure". People take bread to feed their families but also to go the Colosseum to watch mass murder or go to the temples to other gods. What would you do? Only serve other Christians even though there hardly are any?

Do you know what they are using the bread for? Most likely not. If you know that they are going to use the bread for a party while Christians are torn apart in the Colosseum then maybe you think twice. :idunno: Or being commissioned by the Colosseum to provide some food would be a better comparison.

Societies come and go and change over time in what is acceptable. We often forget how "bad" first century Christians actually had it. Gay marriage isn't much compared to what was normal in Roman times. Showcasing servant-hood and love is what is important in drawing people to Christ.

As I posted before, I think this verse applies. I Corinthians 9-19-23

Unless you think that homosexuality is a topic that's open for discussion on its sinfulness I don't think that passage has much application here. I doubt you think that Paul would say that you can take part in sin to reach someone and that's what some people think they'd be doing by providing services for a gay wedding.

 

[intojoy]

No, like we know, the boys who were raped by fags are susceptible to abnormal weaknesses. Like homosexual deviant behavior.

Google it

 

[musterion]

Barbarian regarding Musty's admission of a passing past, very brief and pre-Christ interest in homosexual activity;

Fixed that for you, because I know the point you think you're sly enough to make without having the guts to come out and say it.

No, I've never been one of the "my sin is nicer than your sin" crowd.

Not the way it came across. Still isn't.

I'm a sinner too. Just other kinds of sin. Not looking down on you for that.

Not the way it came across. Not that I care in the slightest.

[Proud] in the sense that a burglar is proud that he never was never an embezzler.

Stop digging. It's still pride. It's still fleshly. It's still comparing oneself with others: "I may be bad but I ain't as bad as that guy over there."

The point isn't that other people are better than you; it's that homosexuality isn't attractive at all to most of us, even if it is attractive to a small number of other people.

Nor is it attractive to me. It wasn't even attractive enough back then to have acted on it, and I'm now no longer that man. He's been crucified. So is your point made yet? No, I don't think you've said what you really want to say. I can see you itching to come out with it. Go ahead. You have my permission.

There's nothing sinful in having an attraction to sin; we all do. In fact, there's much to commend in those who are inclined to some sort of sin, and avoid it.

The most morally upright human is still a lost sinner without Christ. No exceptions.

You've confused being human with being a sinner.

I make no such distinction. In Adam, they are one and the same. That's what the Bible says.

 

[TracerBullet]

Only as an anomaly of the natural function, yes.

no it occurs in nature thus it is natural. you don't get to change the meaning of natural or exclude natural things from nature just because you want to justify your unnatural prejudices. That's just dishonest

Nor is their scientific proof to the contrary.

and yet more dishonesty.


you have made the positive claim yet when called upon directly or otherwise to support that claim you just twist and squirm and show everyone that your claim is not only false but you know it is false.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Fixed that for you, because I know the point you think you're sly enough to make without having the guts to come out and say it.

Not the way it came across. Still isn't.

Not the way it came across. Not that I care in the slightest.

Stop digging. It's still pride. It's still fleshly. It's still comparing oneself with others: "I may be bad but I ain't as bad as that guy over there."

Nor is it attractive to me. It wasn't even attractive enough back then to have acted on it, and I'm now no longer that man. He's been crucified. So is your point made yet? No, I don't think you've said what you really want to say. I can see you itching to come out with it. Go ahead. You have my permission.

The most morally upright human is still a lost sinner without Christ. No exceptions.

I make no such distinction. In Adam, they are one and the same. That's what the Bible says.

Well, as much as you have an issue with Barb I do think he made a salient point. That being that even entertaining or mulling over the notion of a homosexual encounter is simply alien to most heterosexuals.

It wasn't an option to me due to any sort of moral, religious or ethical objections but simply a revulsion at the prospect. I can be prone to lusts and carnal desires for sure but only from a heterosexual perspective.

Your argument that anyone 'in sin' has the potential to do almost anything is one that doesn't hold true either IMO.

 

[TracerBullet]

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

it's a choice? prove it.

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:

Don't the owners of the above pictured eating establishment have the right to refuse services based on personal conviction?

 

[TracerBullet]

Freud wrote an article titled: "Certain Neurotic Mechanisms in Jealousy, Paranoia, and Homosexuality"

"it cannot be classified as an illness" Freud

 

[musterion]

Well, as much as you have an issue with Barb I do think he made a salient point. That being that even entertaining or mulling over the notion of a homosexual encounter is simply alien to most heterosexuals.

Your point?

Your argument that anyone 'in sin' has the potential to do almost anything is one that doesn't hold true either IMO.

Then you keep on asking why profoundly straight people turn queer, why outwardly morally upright people steal from charities, why "nice folks" can fly into a rage and commit murder, why sometimes the last parents you'd suspect turn out to physically abuse their kids, etc etc etc ad infinitum. I provided you a reasonable answer. If you don't like it - which I knew you wouldn't - come up with your own.

 

[TracerBullet]

TB has never liked it when someone brings up middle school biology lessons.

Sure there is.

Penis complements vagina.

Testes complement ovaries.

Sperm complements egg.

Penis does not complement rectum.

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.

Obviously you failed middle school biology

 

[musterion]

Obviously you failed middle school biology

Prove it. What part of that little checklist is in error? Apart from the fact that you've already green-checked at least one of the last two points, I mean.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your point?

That for me it was never an option, and I emphasized why. Nothing religious or moral about it, I'm simply wired that way where homosexuality wasn't something I could possibly entertain as it repulses me - so the 'potential' just wasn't there to act on.

Not my problem. But you keep on asking why profoundly straight people turn queer, why outwardly morally upright people steal from charities, why "nice folks" can fly into a rage and commit murder, why sometimes the last parents you'd suspect turn out to physically abuse their kids, etc etc etc ad infinitum. I provided you a reasonable answer. If you don't like it - which I warned you wouldn't - come up with your own.

I'd surmise that those who can entertain such a prospect are not 'profoundly straight' to begin with as it certainly isn't anything I could possibly choose or ever been able to. It's simply never been an option. If it were then I couldn't identify as straight in honesty.

Where it comes to actions then that's somewhat different to an inherent attraction. I can choose to act on lust or desire, I can't choose to find a man sexually desirable as it just ain't there. Sure, I can steal, I can lie, have done in the past as most people - but there's certain things I'm morally opposed to whereby I simply couldn't. Murdering someone in cold blood. Mugging someone, raping someone, torturing someone etc.

 

[musterion]

That for me it was never an option, and I emphasized why. Nothing religious or moral about it, I'm simply wired that way where homosexuality wasn't something I could possibly entertain as it repulses me - so the 'potential' just wasn't there to act on.

Did you catch the part of my writeup (which Barbie chooses to ignore for the basest reasons) where I said our sin nature manifests itself in many ways, and not all the same for everyone?

I'd surmise that those who can entertain such a prospect are not 'profoundly straight' to begin with as it certainly isn't anything I could possibly choose or ever been able to. It's simply never been an option. If it were then I couldn't identify as straight in honesty.

You're getting closer to saying what you want to say about me. Go ahead. Show some guts. Say it. You have my permission.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Did you catch the part of my writeup (which Barbie chooses to ignore for the basest reasons) where I said our sin nature manifests itself in many ways, and not all the same for everyone?

Yes I did, but from your own testimony that was already manifest in your admissions of affairs and betrayal etc. A former life yes and you wouldn't do that now for sure but your argument that a heterosexual can become prone to entertaining homosexuality simply through the flesh just doesn't hold true. Heterosexuals lust, have desires whether or not they act upon them (most if not all do to some extent) but there's only one sex that informs any of that - the opposite one. Like I said I've had the opportunities to act on such an inclination if it were there - but it simply wasn't even if at the time I was hardly someone who constantly resisted carnal desires.

You're getting closer to saying what you want to say about me. Go ahead. Show some guts. Say it. You have my permission.

All I'll say is that for that time where you could entertain such a notion you were not heterosexual - and that's the same yardstick I'd give myself if I ever found myself even being able to contemplate such a thing. I never have.

 

[musterion]

Yes I did, but from your own testimony that was already manifest in your admissions of affairs and betrayal etc. A former life yes and you wouldn't do that now for sure but your argument that a heterosexual can become prone to entertaining homosexuality simply through the flesh just doesn't hold true. Heterosexuals lust, have desires whether or not they act upon them (most if not all do to some extent) but there's only one sex that informs any of that - the opposite one. Like I said I've had the opportunities to act on such an inclination if it were there - but it simply wasn't even if at the time I was hardly someone who constantly resisted carnal desires.

That man is counted by God as crucified, and I am counted as having died to him. So we're actually talking about someone else.

All I'll say is that for that time where you could entertain such a notion you were not heterosexual - and that's the same yardstick I'd give myself if I ever found myself even being able to contemplate such a thing. I never have.

Great. So let's move on.

My sins -- all the ones I listed and more -- are erased from God's sight forever.

Are yours?