About Uncategorized
Sodomites demand right to temporary slaves; courts agree
2 minutes to read It’s satire. But…not really.
In a surprising twist of events, courts across the United States are reinstituting slavery at the request of the LGBT lobby.
Currently, America is known as the Land of the Free because of the hard-won belief that all private individuals should have the liberty to associate only with people they choose, and use their time and resources only as they see fit.
The abrupt about-face on individual liberty has started relatively small, with only certain people being allowed slaves, and only for a limited time and in a limited capacity.
At the moment, homosexuals are permitted to force religious private business owners to render to them whatever services they normally offer. Payment is still required, in order to support these business owners enough that they will remain available for future indentured servitude.
The sudden change in approach to individual freedoms came after sodomite couples discovered they could not currently force private citizens to give up their time and expertise to support events they felt were immoral—even in exchange for money.
Several private business owners around the nation had declined to participate in sodomitic legal commitment ceremonies—colloquially referred to as “marriages”—on projects ranging from baking “wedding” cakes to taking photographs. Other businesses also declined to print gay pride tee-shirts and signage.
The businesses all cited conscientious objections, saying that the services they had been asked to render would, by definition, make them complicit in events they believed opposed the law of God.
Rather than finding businesses which would be willing to offer their services, sodomites have asked the courts to force these private citizens to serve them. At one point in United States history, this was known as slavery. However, LGBT spokespeople say they are trying to distance themselves from that word because of the negative connotations, and would prefer people to use the term “enforced anti-discrimination.”
So far, the law-changes only apply to bigots and haters who deserve to be slaves for at least a short time.
2 comments
Grant Hartley
I want to respond in compassion; please call me out if I am crossing a boundary and becoming antagonistic with this comment.
I guess one of the questions I have is which would show the love of Christ better: baking a couple the best damn wedding cake they have ever had, providing a service for them regardless of the specific sin they deal with, or refusing them service on the grounds of that sin? I recognize that there are instances in which refusing service is understandable (performing same-sex unions, maybe even printing gay pride t-shirts), but I also believe that if one’s conscience is not violated, providing a cake for a ceremony, t-shirts for an organization, or taking photographs for an LGBTQ* couple would not be sin.
Also, would this conversation change at all if a lifestyle of drug abuse or premarital sex was in view instead of a same-sex relationship?
“It is God’s job to judge, the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, and my job to love.” – Billy Graham.
Please don’t hear me saying that you should change your thinking about the sinfulness of same-sex behavior, or even that you should remain silent on the issue. All I am calling for is more compassion and understanding.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this!
Dominic Bnonn Tennant
At the risk of stating the obvious, it is impossible to show the love of Christ by sinning. So if it is actually the case that baking a cake will be objectively the wrong thing to do, then regardless of how loving the gay couple might perceive it to be, it is not loving in a Christian sense.
This is tricky, because while the Bible indicates that God regards us as not guilty when we act in faith, that doesn’t mean that we cannot be objectively wrong when we act in faith.
This seems obvious if we press the example to the extreme: say a Christian nurse mistakenly believes that abortion is a woman’s right, and gives of his time and expertise to assist with one. He does so believing he is honoring God by showing compassion to a woman in need. In every other way he is a God-fearing Christian.
Now, I think a genuine Christian in that position would naturally come to realize their terrible mistake. But let’s say he doesn’t realize it until after the abortion is done. I think the Bible is clear that God will not hold him accountable for his actions, not because they weren’t wrong (for in fact they were), but because he acted in faith. He committed a grievous sin without knowing it was sin. As Paul says, even for those without faith, where everything is sin (for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin; Rom 14:23), nonetheless their consciences may excuse them on the day of judgment (Rom 2:15).
So it seems to me that the question once again comes back to whether performing a certain service will be objectively wrong or not. Whether it violates anyone’s conscience is an important question, but is ultimately secondary to that fundamental issue.
That depends. Is the Christian being asked to do something that would contribute or sanction or involve him in that lifestyle? For example, surely a Christian photographer who is asked to take glamor shots of unwed people having an orgy and shooting heroin into their eyeballs would be quite correct to decline the offer. But if he is simply asked to photograph a wedding between people who engage in these activities on the weekend, I don’t see how he would be contributing or sanctioning or involving himself in their sin. But clearly, baking a wedding cake or taking photos for a ceremony that, by definition, we agree is a mockery of God’s design, is contributing to that ceremony, involving the Christian in the ceremony, and arguably giving implicit sanction to it.
In a case like that, we should have “nothing to do with the fruitless works of lawlessness, but rather expose them” (Eph 5:11).
I hope you won’t take this the wrong way, but in my observation (and this is entirely anecdotal) LGBTQ people seem to think that compassion and understanding are synonymous with approval. If you don’t approve of what they do, you are essentially denying their legitimacy as human beings, which is exceedingly uncompassionate. I don’t see how Christians can ever extend the kind of compassion they seem to want. The truly compassionate thing for a Christian to do is expose their sin for what it is, and beg them to receive forgiveness through Jesus. But that is regarded not as compassionate and understanding, but hateful and bigoted. This is the difficulty we face when people resolutely replace evil for good, and good for evil—it makes even speaking to them about these things extremely hard. Especially when we have to walk on egg-shells for fear of provoking outrage and offense from people who, again in my experience, are incredibly emotionally fragile and lacking in genuine self-confidence (bravado is not the same thing).