My Fear With Houston

[JohnnyP]

The golden calf episode was about preserving the Israelite culture intact. As for Hitler the humiliation and financial collapse heaped upon a proud nation by the Treaty of Versailles virtually guaranteed that any demagogue promising to restore national pride would succeed. And the Jews may have prospered prior to Hitler but they were always hated in Germany - as in most Western nations. In short there are understandable (if unjustifiable) reasons for these lapses in history that have plagued humanity.

But, despite these lapses, the overall direction of humankind has been towards tolerance and inclusiveness. See Pinker: ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined’. We are learning how to overcome the violence of war and demagoguery - as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And If Moses had commanded the murder of tens of thousands of men, women and children today, as he did re the Midianites, he would be tried before The International Court of Justice and hanged, like Saddam Hussein, instead of becoming a religious hero. So there's hope for our sspecies.

I'll ask this: if ever in a similar position as it was with Japan, do you think if USA had to choose between conquered by the tyranny of ISIS vs. nuking tens of thousands of men, women, and children: would the USA be justified in doing so, or should it go the pacifist route and let itself be conquered, thus sparing all those lives?

Homosexual behaviour is natural and it is found among many animals, but this is not what the argument is about. The argument is that there's no good reason to deny full civil rights to homosexual citizens.

Indeed! In a secular democracy like the USA, it is irrelevant what views you hold about God vis-à-vis homosexuals – except for you personally of course. The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all regardless of what ANY religious group may argue.

Wanting to lie, cheat, steal, murder, are natural things too, but it doesn't mean they are ok either, that's why I don't think that's a good argument in favor of homosexuality. But as I've said I don't see enough evidence to make that judgment, so I'd also agree there's no good reason.

I understand the Christian view of not wanting at all to seem to condone what it considers to be evil, but like I just told Nick, once you throw your hat into the ring of being a government-authorized business, you're pretty much at the mercy of government when it comes to doing business with those you may not care to. That's the breaks.

I tend to agree but that's not the issue. The fact is that the government DOES issue marriage licenses and in so doing should not discriminate against homosexuals.

Like you said, Christians and others opposed to it are unable to provide a really good secular reason not to.

"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," Chief Justice Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878) … The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances"– cited Wiki. In short, religious beliefs cannot override the laws of the land.

I don't think votes should be denied if it's currently the law to enable ordinances to be repealed by such votes, but there's a process of appeals to higher courts to override the people if their actions are deemed to be unconstitutional. Otherwise you end up with rogue governments issuing decrees without ability of the people to have any say about it.

Christians need to support their “better arguments and ideas” with substantive facts. That’s what’s lacking – as I said. But you are right in that Christians who, whilst proclaiming Christian love, behave with angry bitterness don’t do their cause much good - you seem to be an exception to this regrettable trend.

I try to see the other side even if I don't agree, sometimes I can be a jerk about it like anyone else but that's usually not too productive.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I'm not referring to all Christian-owned businesses, but to Christian-owned businesses that sell religion for profit, like marriage chapels for example. Even so, to claim that doing business with sinners violates their principles, but asking for example the City of Houston led by a gay mayor to grant businesses licenses, is somewhat hypocritical.

They're not objecting to doing business with sinners. They're objecting to having to celebrate and recognize something they think is sinful. There's a difference, and I'm thinking mainly of places like bakeries and such that have been sued because of the tolerance brigade. As for selling Jesus for profit, I don't think anyone is talking about that, but someone who is in the ministry of the Gospel is allowed to make His living by the Gospel.

To frame it in a biblical way, it's like asking a pagan Caesar for a business license, then refusing to serve pagans.

And this isn't being done.

He discussed deacons and bishops having one wife, the same command applied to kings of Israel, Deuteronomy 17:17. It's not a command to be married to one wife since Paul advised celibacy instead, neither are there general commands against polygamy applied to everyone. So opinions as to what constitute a family carry about as much weight as opinions like, you aren't a real Christian unless you believe in creation instead of evolution.

In the time of Paul, polygamy wasn't as much of an issue. Fidelity could be and divorce laws could be. I don't think 1 Tim. 3 is about polygamy anyway but fidelity. I'm thinking especially however of passages like Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 and 1 Peter 3 as well.

Like I said I'm not saying gay activity is either right or wrong for everyone, I've seen it be go very wrong for some people. I'm saying there are a lot of beliefs about it passed off as facts when they really aren't.

Have you gone through Gagnon's book?

[Tassman]

I'll ask this: if ever in a similar position as it was with Japan, do you think if USA had to choose between conquered by the tyranny of ISIS vs. nuking tens of thousands of men, women, and children: would the USA be justified in doing so, or should it go the pacifist route and let itself be conquered, thus sparing all those lives?

We must, as individuals and nations, protect ourselves and families but with the least cruelty and suffering being inflicted as possible. But this was not the case with Moses’ many acts of ISIS-like violence such as the slaughter of the Midianites, basically a territorial grab, whereby mere total victory was insufficient for Moses. He demanded the killing of every single boy and woman as well - except for the virgins who were to be saved for the solders.

Moses would not have fared well at the International Court of Justice.

Wanting to lie, cheat, steal, murder, are natural things too, but it doesn't mean they are ok either, that's why I don't think that's a good argument in favor of homosexuality. But as I've said I don't see enough evidence to make that judgment, so I'd also agree there's no good reason.

No, these things are not OK, which is why we as a society impose penalties against them. But, as you agree, the argument is that there's no good reason to deny full civil rights to homosexual citizens.

I understand the Christian view of not wanting at all to seem to condone what it considers to be evil, but like I just told Nick, once you throw your hat into the ring of being a government-authorized business, you're pretty much at the mercy of government when it comes to doing business with those you may not care to. That's the breaks.

Like you said, Christians and others opposed to it are unable to provide a really good secular reason not to.

Indeed! Religious values do not override the law in a secular state such as the US, as has been made clear by many court rulings over more than a century.

I don't think votes should be denied if it's currently the law to enable ordinances to be repealed by such votes, but there's a process of appeals to higher courts to override the people if their actions are deemed to be unconstitutional. Otherwise you end up with rogue governments issuing decrees without ability of the people to have any say about it.

Certainly, but the SCOTUS has the final word.

I try to see the other side even if I don't agree, sometimes I can be a jerk about it like anyone else but that's usually not too productive.

They're not objecting to doing business with sinners. They're objecting to having to celebrate and recognize something they think is sinful. There's a difference, and I'm thinking mainly of places like bakeries and such that have been sued because of the tolerance brigade.

They most certainly are “objecting to doing business with sinners” - as they regard homosexuals. They’re demanding the right to discriminate against them on the basis that they don’t agree with homosexuality. And cut the gratuitous hyperbole. No one is asking them to “celebrate and recognize something they think is sinful”. They are merely being told that, according to law, they cannot refuse service to homosexuals for precisely the same reason that they cannot refuse service to Jews or blacks.

[fm93]

I agree we should be aiming for souls, but what happens if culture is a barrier to that? It's not an either/or thing. It will be far more easier to present people to the Christian worldview if they see Christianity in their culture. We are to be salt and light. Redeeming people will involve redeeming the culture. We can be thankful Christians did that with widow-burning, abortion, and the slave-trade. Christ wants to redeem souls, but he also wants to redeem culture.

I have always thought that culture changes with its people--that is, the people come first. If one was to truly "redeem a culture," it would involve first redeeming the people, which would first involve loving them as people--something that the church isn't often perceived as doing.

It is not, but that sword also cuts both ways. Many a Christian business has been used as an object lesson by the left where if they don't get the service they want, then that person gets sued.

And when something like this happens, many traditional advocates start complaining about a "homosexual agenda" and speak of the other side in terms that make it sound like the entire gay rights movement is actively trying to maliciously destroy Christendom. The truth, however, is that while some take it too far, many in the movement are simply trying to earnestly help people and usher in equality. The people who happen to be gay, to whom such things matter, still feel ignored and marginalized when the people who want to support them (and whom they in turn support) are one-dimensionally viewed as enemies of the church.

The defense of marriage is not about a religious doctrine really, but about what constitutes a family.

It is based in religious doctrine, however.

I really don't think the Pope will be celebrated when people become convinced he has no chance of changing his mind. Phil is quite blunt, but the problem is people hear something they don't like and go after the person. Isn't that just what you said the gay community was condemning? They wanted to talk about the issue and not the person?

What I mean is that when traditional Christians hear someone say "I'm gay," they usually respond with something like "keep your perversions away from me" or mention something about homosexuality being harmful (with STD rates used to justify this claim), or at best something condescending like "Well, I don't agree with your lifestyle, but I'll be praying that God changes your heart" or "I love you, the sinner, but I hate your sin." The problem with the first three statements is that the person has made no claim whatsoever about actions or lifestyle. Wouldn't you think it odd if you said "I like My Little Pony" and someone said "I don't agree with your lifestyle?" As if Bronies are some monolithic entity that live by a formulaic schedule and checklist of behaviors? Gay people rightfully complain in light of such interactions that they're being treated more as issues than as people, because the traditional Christian side is stereotyping them and focusing on those perceptions of homosexuality rather than the people. Furthermore, it's considered quite insulting to tell a gay person who happens to in fact be living a healthy lifestyle (i.e. not fitting the stereotype of partying in gay bars or being promiscuous with other gay men) about how harmful one thinks homosexuality is, or to tell a happily-married gay couple that their marriage is a sham and won't work--especially when one doesn't even personally know them.

Meanwhile, the latter statement is problematic because at least from what I've observed, it seems that it's only towards gay people that the phrase is used nowadays. I've never seen traditional Christians say "I'll love you, the sinner, but hate your sin" towards divorcees, who have truly failed the institution of marriage, or compulsive smokers and drinkers, who truly engage in harmful behavior. It's as if divorcees and smokers and drinkers are viewed as regular well-meaning people who simply happen to have flaws just like anyone else, whereas gay people are given the label of "sinner" as the main, overarching identity.

This needs to be clarified more. Are they being celibate or not? Scripture is quite clear on this matter. Without context, I cannot speak to this statement.

The question was admittedly about what he'd do if he heard a priest in his ranks was gay but not active. Still, this is a change from previous popes, who spoke of homosexuality as a disorder and strictly barred gay people from entering the priesthood. And regardless of Scriptural interpretation, I think Pope Francis' answer would've been roughly the same had the question involved people who weren't celibate (but also didn't engage in acts with non-consenting people like young boys, of course). People who act upon their homosexual desires can still earnestly seek God with goodwill, and regardless of how they interpret those passages, I think Pope Francis would agree that they shouldn't be marginalized. He might instruct them to be taught or reinforced with the traditional interpretation, but not marginalized.

I really don't think you can get that from Phil's answer alone. To say he spoke about the question of homosexuality does not mean he does not see homosexuals as people.

But he doesn't exactly convince people otherwise when his words are primarily focused on a physical act.

[JohnnyP]

They're not objecting to doing business with sinners. They're objecting to having to celebrate and recognize something they think is sinful. There's a difference, and I'm thinking mainly of places like bakeries and such that have been sued because of the tolerance brigade.

The Hitching Post case may set a precedent where as long as you operate as a strictly-Christian business, you're exempt from having to recognize and celebrate what you think is sinful. But then that means you have to give up making wedding cakes for non-Christian weddings, which seems fair: you can't always have your cake and eat it too if you want to uphold Christian values, pardon the pun.

Here's a question though: if a business owner thought rejecting Jesus was sinful and refused to sell things related to celebrating and recognizing a Bar/Bat Mitzvah -- boys and girls bearing their own responsibility for Jewish ritual law, tradition, and ethics, which includes refusal of the belief in Jesus as Messiah among most branches of Judaism -- would you publicly stand by his decision by writing about it in your blog, patronizing his business, etc?

Or would you consider the business owner to be an antisemite discriminating against Jews, and/or distance yourself from him so you aren't labeled an antisemite as well?

As for selling Jesus for profit, I don't think anyone is talking about that, but someone who is in the ministry of the Gospel is allowed to make His living by the Gospel.

That was true of early missionaries who traveled all over spreading the Gospel, where it would be hard to settle down and work in any one place especially under threat of persecution. Today not always so much especially with some of the vast religious empires going on, but that's just my opinion.

In the time of Paul, polygamy wasn't as much of an issue. Fidelity could be and divorce laws could be. I don't think 1 Tim. 3 is about polygamy anyway but fidelity. I'm thinking especially however of passages like Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 and 1 Peter 3 as well.

Have you gone through Gagnon's book?

No but I'm checking out some of his articles and videos on his website.

[JohnnyP]

We must, as individuals and nations, protect ourselves and families but with the least cruelty and suffering being inflicted as possible. But this was not the case with Moses’ many acts of ISIS-like violence such as the slaughter of the Midianites, basically a territorial grab, whereby mere total victory was insufficient for Moses. He demanded the killing of every single boy and woman as well - except for the virgins who were to be saved for the solders.

Moses would not have fared well at the International Court of Justice.

That's a fair secular view, but a theist view could go something like: an omniscient God knew if any of the Midianites killed were left alive, they'd come back to kill all Jews in the world, Jesus couldn't be born, and the whole world would be damned to non-existence. So Midianites were an even worse threat to all of humanity than WWII Japanese or anyone else.

I'm not saying that's really why, but you know we're going to believe it was for a valid reason. I may get more into it later in another thread.

[Jedidiah]

Tass will twist anything at all. Discussion with him is futile.

[Tassman]

That's a fair secular view, but a theist view could go something like: an omniscient God knew if any of the Midianites killed were left alive, they'd come back to kill all Jews in the world, Jesus couldn't be born, and the whole world would be damned to non-existence. So Midianites were an even worse threat to all of humanity than WWII Japanese or anyone else.

I'm not saying that's really why, but you know we're going to believe it was for a valid reason. I may get more into it later in another thread.

As far as historical methodology is concerned it’s the only view that takes account of the facts - such as they are. The rest is highly speculative theological rationalisation. In principle it’s no different to ISIS or Boko Haram claiming that their mass slaughter of men, women and children and the kidnapping of virgins, is merely being obedient to God's will.

Tass will twist anything at all. Discussion with him is futile.

So looking at the available evidence rather than indulging in fanciful speculation, is “twisting“ the facts? Really?

[JohnnyP]

As far as historical methodology is concerned it’s the only view that takes account of the facts - such as they are. The rest is highly speculative theological rationalisation. In principle it’s no different to ISIS or Boko Haram claiming that their mass slaughter of men, women and children and the kidnapping of virgins, is merely being obedient to God's will.

I don't think historical analyses even qualify the Exodus and subsequent adventures as factual do they? As is, it's often only accepted within a theological framework. That may not score any points for overall acceptability to the secular world, but there's probably no reason to accept it anyway unless you believe in God to start with.

The general biblical idea was a process of taking over the Promised Land to establish the Messianic Kingdom but Jews didn't really want it so God allowed Gentiles to do to Jews what they did to them, and it's been going on ever since. Basically, "I'm giving you Jews power and authority to wipe out entire Gentile civilizations, but if you cross me, I'll take it away and give it to them instead." Kind of like giving them enough rope to hang themselves, if they hung others for no good reason, which is what it turned out to be entirely after the Roman exile.

I won't get into implications of the State of Israel here, that's more for eschatology. But my own Christian view is that if you follow Jesus, there's to be no more killing for land and things like that. Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves, etc. Another topic for eschatology, my view is that Muslims are primarily the 10 Horns of the Gentile Beast in Revelation occupying Jerusalem, used by God to punish Jews just as Babylon, Greece, and Rome the actual Beast were used, but still unjustified in their own ways going to excess.

So in one sense I as a Christian am against all things like that. In another I acknowledge that God has His own reasons for allowing it.

[Tassman]

I don't think historical analyses even qualify the Exodus and subsequent adventures as factual do they? As is, it's often only accepted within a theological framework. That may not score any points for overall acceptability to the secular world, but there's probably no reason to accept it anyway unless you believe in God to start with.

The general biblical idea was a process of taking over the Promised Land to establish the Messianic Kingdom but Jews didn't really want it so God allowed Gentiles to do to Jews what they did to them, and it's been going on ever since. Basically, "I'm giving you Jews power and authority to wipe out entire Gentile civilizations, but if you cross me, I'll take it away and give it to them instead." Kind of like giving them enough rope to hang themselves, if they hung others for no good reason, which is what it turned out to be entirely after the Roman exile.

I won't get into implications of the State of Israel here, that's more for eschatology. But my own Christian view is that if you follow Jesus, there's to be no more killing for land and things like that. Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves, etc. Another topic for eschatology, my view is that Muslims are primarily the 10 Horns of the Gentile Beast in Revelation occupying Jerusalem, used by God to punish Jews just as Babylon, Greece, and Rome the actual Beast were used, but still unjustified in their own ways going to excess.

Certainly, “historical analyses don’t even qualify the Exodus and subsequent adventures as factual”, as you say. Many scholars have concluded that the epic of Moses never happened, while others think it may combine myth, cultural memories and kernels of truth.

But, once you discard its historicity, you are relegating the narratives to the level of Judeo/Christian mythology suitable only for spiritual instruction. And, surely “instruction” detailing the gross brutality of the Israelite’s conquest of Palestine is hardly edifying.

So in one sense I as a Christian am against all things like that. In another I acknowledge that God has His own reasons for allowing it.

Well you have little choice other than to believe God must have good reason for demanding such cruelty and violence - despite appearances to the contrary. Whereas, from the viewpoint of a non-believer, the Israelite massacres, rapes and pillaging during their conquests of the so-called “Promised Land” (unfortunately occupied by other tribes at the time), are readily explainable as typical examples of brutal inter-tribal warfare and land-grabs which were commonplace at the time.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The Hitching Post case may set a precedent where as long as you operate as a strictly-Christian business, you're exempt from having to recognize and celebrate what you think is sinful. But then that means you have to give up making wedding cakes for non-Christian weddings, which seems fair: you can't always have your cake and eat it too if you want to uphold Christian values, pardon the pun.

Why would non-Christian weddings be a problem? As long as it's one man and one woman and it's not something like incest or an adult with a child, Christians have no problem. I see Christianity as having an interest in marriage, but it's not a Christian creation. It precedes Christianity. We just recognize it.

Here's a question though: if a business owner thought rejecting Jesus was sinful and refused to sell things related to celebrating and recognizing a Bar/Bat Mitzvah -- boys and girls bearing their own responsibility for Jewish ritual law, tradition, and ethics, which includes refusal of the belief in Jesus as Messiah among most branches of Judaism -- would you publicly stand by his decision by writing about it in your blog, patronizing his business, etc?

Would I support and give him my business? No. Would I have the strong arm of the government come in either? No. I don't think one should force a business to do anything they think is immoral. For instance, when I head home some Sundays if I go the store, on my way back I can pass a place that has a sign that says "Don't wait to dine on a great plate of swine." Should I go after a Jewish or Muslim deli because they refuse to sell swine?

If homosexuals want what they want, there are several places they can go to. Why go to someone who doesn't have any interest or support for what you're doing, unless you plan to use strong arm tactics? Perhaps the homosexual community could learn to be more tolerant.

Or would you consider the business owner to be an antisemite discriminating against Jews, and/or distance yourself from him so you aren't labeled an antisemite as well?

I would distance myself from him, but I would not use the government against him. Let the customers make their own choices with their wallets.

That was true of early missionaries who traveled all over spreading the Gospel, where it would be hard to settle down and work in any one place especially under threat of persecution. Today not always so much especially with some of the vast religious empires going on, but that's just my opinion.

Then you would be wrong. Why is it that people make donations to my ministry? It's because they value what I do and they want me to have as much time doing it as I can. It's essentially paying me to study. Why does a church pay their pastor? So he can devote all his time to study, counseling, administration, hospital visits, etc.

No but I'm checking out some of his articles and videos on his website.

Gagnon's material is excellent and I understand he's been trying to get Matthew Vines and others to agree to debate since they're making comments about him. They're turning it down.

[JohnnyP]

Why would non-Christian weddings be a problem? As long as it's one man and one woman and it's not something like incest or an adult with a child, Christians have no problem. I see Christianity as having an interest in marriage, but it's not a Christian creation. It precedes Christianity. We just recognize it.

The idea is that if you want such exemption as a religious business, you can't turn around and provide non-religious products and services.

Would I support and give him my business? No. Would I have the strong arm of the government come in either? No. I don't think one should force a business to do anything they think is immoral. For instance, when I head home some Sundays if I go the store, on my way back I can pass a place that has a sign that says "Don't wait to dine on a great plate of swine." Should I go after a Jewish or Muslim deli because they refuse to sell swine?

If homosexuals want what they want, there are several places they can go to. Why go to someone who doesn't have any interest or support for what you're doing, unless you plan to use strong arm tactics? Perhaps the homosexual community could learn to be more tolerant.

I would distance myself from him, but I would not use the government against him. Let the customers make their own choices with their wallets.

If homosexuality and rejecting Jesus both result in damnation, what's the difference? Unless one adheres to a kind of universal salvation where belief in Jesus doesn't matter, perhaps.

What if all businesses, landlords, etc. refused to serve Christians and they were homeless and starving on the streets, kind of like futurists suppose refusing to take 666 will be, deeming Christians to be immoral for not worshiping the one true God of the Beast. Not necessarily that, but a similar scenario. Would you still feel that no one should force a business to do anything they think is immoral?

Then you would be wrong. Why is it that people make donations to my ministry? It's because they value what I do and they want me to have as much time doing it as I can. It's essentially paying me to study. Why does a church pay their pastor? So he can devote all his time to study, counseling, administration, hospital visits, etc.

I think a lot of churches would do better structured to be more like 12-Step groups with voluntary rotating leadership, shared responsibilities, etc. as a safeguard against any one person assuming too much power and money. The church I go to isn't bad but it still goes to some excess in money it spends. Anyway, another topic.

Gagnon's material is excellent and I understand he's been trying to get Matthew Vines and others to agree to debate since they're making comments about him. They're turning it down.

I'll get more into it this week.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The idea is that if you want such exemption as a religious business, you can't turn around and provide non-religious products and services.

Because?....

You're also assuming that those who provide marriage do so in a non-religious context. When a Christian provides marriage, he does so believing it is ordained by God. By what authority could he ordain that which He does not think God ordains?

If homosexuality and rejecting Jesus both result in damnation, what's the difference? Unless one adheres to a kind of universal salvation where belief in Jesus doesn't matter, perhaps.

When someone comes in who is a non-Christian, their not being a Christian is peripheral to the whole thing. They don't make it the issue. They don't ask me to endorse or celebrate their non-Christianity. If someone comes in who is a homosexual wanting to marry someone of the same sex, they are asking a pastor to endorse and celebrate their homosexuality.

What if all businesses, landlords, etc. refused to serve Christians and they were homeless and starving on the streets, kind of like futurists suppose refusing to take 666 will be, deeming Christians to be immoral for not worshiping the one true God of the Beast. Not necessarily that, but a similar scenario. Would you still feel that no one should force a business to do anything they think is immoral?

I'm not for strong-arming the government either way. Leave it to the people to decide.

I think a lot of churches would do better structured to be more like 12-Step groups with voluntary rotating leadership, shared responsibilities, etc. as a safeguard against any one person assuming too much power and money. The church I go to isn't bad but it still goes to some excess in money it spends. Anyway, another topic.

And rather irrelevant to the main point.

I'll get more into it this week.

Sure.

[JohnnyP]

Because?....

You're also assuming that those who provide marriage do so in a non-religious context. When a Christian provides marriage, he does so believing it is ordained by God. By what authority could he ordain that which He does not think God ordains?

What was disputed in the case mentioned were that civil/secular marriages were also provided, so the deal is you have to decide whether you're going to provide religious services only, you can't go cherrypicking secular customers. Which seems fair.

When someone comes in who is a non-Christian, their not being a Christian is peripheral to the whole thing. They don't make it the issue. They don't ask me to endorse or celebrate their non-Christianity. If someone comes in who is a homosexual wanting to marry someone of the same sex, they are asking a pastor to endorse and celebrate their homosexuality.

So it's the don't ask don't tell reasoning, haha ok. I asked about if you did know.

Can you just answer the question of why being gay is worse than rejecting Jesus, if in fact you think both result in damnation?

I'd give you zero cents for your ministry if you can't answer that

[Apologiaphoenix]

What was disputed in the case mentioned were that civil/secular marriages were also provided, so the deal is you have to decide whether you're going to provide religious services only, you can't go cherrypicking secular customers. Which seems fair.

If someone identifies as a Christian, why should they be forced to recognize that which they do not recognize? Why would someone who is homosexual even want to go to someone like that, unless of course they're trying to instigate something....

So it's the don't ask don't tell reasoning, haha ok. I asked about if you did know.

Can you just answer the question of why being gay is worse than rejecting Jesus, if in fact you think both result in damnation?

I'd give you zero cents for your ministry if you can't answer that

Actually, I never said it was worse, but if a non-Christian comes to me and I run a business like a grocery store and they buy groceries from me, they're not asking me to celebrate the fact that they're not a Christian. The service I provide is peripheral to that. If someone comes asking for a wedding to someone of the same sex, the nature of the request is something directly tied in to what I believe.

The main unforgivable sin is the sin of rejecting Jesus since one can never repent of it, but we are warned about a homosexual lifestyle specifically. This does not mean being tempted to homosexual behavior, but it means making it your lifestyle and saying there's nothing wrong with it. Such a place is in 1 Cor. 6. In Romans 1, Paul uses it as a clear identification of horizontal behavior in direct rebellion against God.