As you might guess from the sex of Jesus, the husband is Christ, and the wife is the Church. Ephesians 5: 22-33:
*
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. *
The 16-year-old might well have become pregnant as a result of her sin, but giving birth to a child is not a sin. It’s worthy of celebration no matter what had happened beforehand.
The baby shower of a fornicator is not necessarily celebrating the fornication.
The marriage of a same-sex couple, however, is by definition celebrating the same-sex relationship.
So, they are very different situations. That being said, I would uphold the legal right of a baker to not serve the baby shower if he so chose.
You do realize that’s all gibberish from a civil legal standpoint, right? It means nothing and less than nothing in reference to what our secular government should be forbidding or endorsing.
Such a child is an illegitimate bastard, according to the Bible. You may think its birth is worthy of celebration but you have as much Biblical basis for saying that as I have for saying that gay love is worthy of celebration.
Here’s the thing you’re missing…the FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS, by virtue of the 1st Amendment, don’t accept the authority of the Bible. The stance against marriage equality is an unconstitutional stance, informed as it is only by religious belief.
So, as to the OP, all the actual devout Christians on this thread (a skewed sample if there ever was one) agree that they wouldn’t bake the cake or that Jesus wouldn’t either.
That settles it.
Were that true, someone who sincerely believes the Bible is the infallible word of the creator of the universe would probably feel quite free to ignore the First Amendment, since it would be overruled by a higher law.
But as for myself, I am quite happy to follow the First Amendment, for I see it as simply preventing the government from establishing a state church. I see nothing in the text about forbidding legislators and voters from supporting laws for religious reasons.
So, you’re opposed to a law that says, say, “Catholicism is the official religion of the US,” but you’d be okay with a law that outlaws eating meat on Good Friday?
How do you propose to deal with these dangerous fanatics?
I have noticed.
First of all, there’s nothing in Catholic doctrine that says it’s wrong for non-Catholics to eat meat on Good Friday, so that would be a rather strange law. Were such a law passed, I would be opposed to it. But I would be opposed because it was interfering with personal freedom, not because it was motivated by religion.
Or, more accurately, “sorta no,” in that WW is wrong as well.
Voters and legislators are free to support laws for religious reasons without offending the constitution.
However, if the law they supported ends up not also having a secular purpose, or creating an excessive entanglement of government and religion, or if it advances or hinders religious practice, THEN it becomes unconstitutional.
I don’t want to ban gay marriage. If two men want to rent a hall and have a party and promise vows to each other, I’m not going to arrest them. Rather, I want to ban government recognition of gay marriage. The government’s attitude towards homosexuality should be completely neutral, neither prohibiting nor encouraging it. Both the Good Friday meat-eater and the homosexual should be free to indulge in their pastimes in their private lives, but neither one should expect the government to give them a fancy paper affirming their actions.
I’m just curious, since you seemed to be indicating it was a major problem.
And that hateful little screed is my cue to stop responding to you before I post something that’ll get me in trouble. But thank you for showing your true bigoted colors right out like that. Saves me time.
But banning gay marriage is not a neutral position. It’s an explicitly anti-gay position, in that you want the government to prevent gay people from enjoying a benefit that is extended to all straight people without reservation or exception.
Why do you think the government should be in the business of enforcing your personal bigotries? More particularly, why do you think the government should be in the business of enforcing your own personal religious bigotries?