Activists Call for Boycott on Cake Shop After Owner Refuses to Bake Gay Wedding Cake
Move over Chick-fil-A. There’s a new business getting heat for its stance on gay marriage. Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colorado, is facing critics who are calling for a boycott after it refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.
Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig, who went to the shop earlier this month to ask about having a cake made for their wedding, say they dated for two years before getting engaged. After only seconds of entering Masterpiece, they claim that owner Jack Phillips turned them away.
“My first comment was, ‘we’re getting married.’ And he kind of just shut that down immediately,” Craig explained:
This past weekend, protesters started lining up outside of the establishment in an attempt to convince Phillips to reverse course. But — he’s not planning on changing his mind.
...
Jim Lincoln wrote: ...examples of the Mormon and Lutheran churches that have their own insurance plans
...Keystone pipeline...
You're not paying attention. I asked for examples of corporations who clearly support the Repub party. Where's your proof for the examples you gave? Just because certain institutions might share policy views with certain Repubs doesn't prove your contention.
Surely you can do better & list some real Fortune 500 for-profit companies that have consistently supported conservative (as opposed to Progressive) Republicans.
I gladly concede that there are corporate whores for Progressives in both parties. The Romneys, for examples, have been Progressive since the '60s at least.
Oh, examples, have I gave examples of the Mormon and Lutheran churches that have their own insurance plans, which help keep members in for economic rather then for Christian reasons, I can assume the Romish Church has that too, and definitely they won't allow at least one procedure that Christians would allow in some circumstances voluntary sterilization.
Keystone pipeline, for folks who suppose to support states' rights, many are certainly willing to let this company to run roughshod over Nebraska's environment! If this company just paralleled the pipeline they already have, I might even be out there with a sign, "Let Them Dig!!" I have no problem with the pipeline, just where they put it.
Oh, one of our U.S. Senators opposes aerial surveillance to see if feedlots are living up to standards. Apparently he's for on foot surveillance which isn't as quick, perhaps less accurate or thorough, but more importantly not as low cost either!
I seemed to have gripped about both the liberal and conservative Plutocracy that wants to run the country. I remember a decade or so ago, seeing an article that the rich were being pushed aside, without any place to release their creative outbursts, at least in the political field -- alas they seem to be back with a vengence!
Neil wrote: All the businesses I can think of, including my employer, toe the Progressive Democrat line & shove their leftist nonsense in our faces almost every day.
Same is true here in Silicon Valley, with very few exceptions. Our CEO is conservative but he used to be TJ Rogers' right-hand-man at Cypress Semiconductor. Apple, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. are ALL liberal. As usual, people like Jim focus on the mote while ignoring the log, in this case and others.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Republican politicians are the whores for large businesses and denominations? Perish the thought!
Yes, that thought *should* perish. Please give an example of a supposed corporate Repub whore. All the businesses I can think of, including my employer, toe the Progressive Democrat line & shove their leftist nonsense in our faces almost every day.
Though in a way, they have little choice, or else OSHA, NLRB, EEOC, EPA, et al., will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Corporations today are largely in thrall to Federal & State bureaucracies, who can pick & choose whom to persecute depending upon administrative priorities.
Unless you in the middle of it, you simply have no idea how many bureaucratic tripwires are out there, ready to nail the unwary or unlucky.
Hmm, I see we agree in connotation, if not denotation. I couldn't put up all of Miles Stanford's comments on Theonomy because of space restrictions, but he did say earlier in that article,
Miles J. Stanford wrote: Actually, Theonomy is Calvinist-Covenant theology gone to seed, and poison seed at that. It is an extreme example of what can happen in law-orientation outside the realm of dispensational truth.
So, he recognized it as an extremist form of Reformed theology.
Gasp! you mean the U.S. stop being a feudal society where Republican politicians are the whores for large businesses and denominations? Perish the thought!
Mike wrote: Whoever could you possibly mean? Surely not Jim's buddy, who only wants to make Christians pay for abortions, er, make healthcare affordable? Or who supports marriage of a different kind? Or who wants to transform America into a feudal serfdom? Or who gives millions to crony corporate supporters, but wants Joe the plumber to spread his wealth around? Or who will have more freedom to help out Russia after the election? Surely not that one?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Miles J. Stanford wrote: Theonomy is founded on Covenant Theology
Dispensationalists are not the best sources for an informed critique of Theonomy. It does NOT necessarily follow from Covenant Theology, nor is it affirmed by the Reformed confessions.
"To them also [the people of Israel], as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require" - WCF XIX
Well, Mike of NY I answered your comment and others, in the 9 Bible banging companies thread, please see that.
Neil, I will agree with what I perceive our implications on Theonomy. from which,
Miles J. Stanford wrote: Theonomy is founded on Covenant Theology. But Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology represent different systems of theology. Theonomy insists that no distinction exists between God’s program with Israel and His program for the Church. But this distinction is the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. Theonomy believes that the Old Testament Law of God--in brief, the entire Mosaic economy--is still in force today. But Dispensationalism believes that the Law of Moses as a rule of life [for the Jew] was terminated for this age at Calvary. [Besides, the believer is dead to the Law]. Theonomy believes it is the duty of the Church to bring civil powers into subjection to God’s Law, both its precepts and its penalties. But Dispensationalism does not believe this for a moment. Theonomy does not believe in a future for Israel as a nation. But Dispensationalism most assuredly does!
Lurker wrote: Exactly, Mike! So, do we have an elected official treading dangerously close to the dilusion right now, saying in his heart to God "I'll not have you rule over me. I'll propose laws which force your people to bend the knee to me and not to you"?
Whoever could you possibly mean? Surely not Jim's buddy, who only wants to make Christians pay for abortions, er, make healthcare affordable? Or who supports marriage of a different kind? Or who wants to transform America into a feudal serfdom? Or who gives millions to crony corporate supporters, but wants Joe the plumber to spread his wealth around? Or who will have more freedom to help out Russia after the election? Surely not that one?
Theonomist wrote: "So" = false inference. You have moved your question from "all" (divine right of kings) to "any".
So far you'd rather find fault with my posts than provide any clarification, which I think might do more good here.
Please enlighten me by explaining, in detail, how a spiritual offense (heresy) should be prosecuted & punished by secular authority, since I presume you deny the church has the Rom. 13 power of the sword. You say heretics should be executed, so walk me through the judicial process by which this is accomplished, in a way answerable to Scripture.
Mike wrote: imo, bro Lurker, it isn't limited to kings. Even presidents and prime ministers who dare place themselves above God, by making decisions in opposition to his revealed will, are at similar risk.
Exactly, Mike!
So, do we have an elected official treading dangerously close to the dilusion right now, saying in his heart to God "I'll not have you rule over me. I'll propose laws which force your people to bend the knee to me and not to you"?
Mike wrote: imo, bro Lurker, it isn't limited to kings. Even presidents and prime ministers who dare place themselves above God, by making decisions in opposition to his revealed will, are at similar risk.
Yes. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are walking a tightrope without a paddle.
Lurker wrote: Eze 28:2-8 Acts 12:21-23 --- In both biblical accounts, God brought these diluded rulers over His people down. History repeats itself with Henry VIII, Mary I & Charles I. Whose next?
imo, bro Lurker, it isn't limited to kings. Even presidents and prime ministers who dare place themselves above God, by making decisions in opposition to his revealed will, are at similar risk.
Neil wrote: Not necessarily. It is ironic to hear a Theonomist make the same argument as Royal Supremacists, for during the 1660s, Presbies, like Baptists, were persecuted by Stuart Divine Right monarchy.
Ah.....the Anglicans then.
Plodworthy, just saw yours, thanks for the history lesson.
John UK wrote: I take it you mean the Presbies, Neil?
"The clergy of the Church of England became vigorous supporters of the authority of the king and obedience to the king by all true Christians. Elizabethan Calvinism granted the right of resistance to the Church as an institution but denied the right of individuals to resist. English Presbyterians aimed at a state church in which ecclesiastical authority would be subordinate to the secular.
"The Scottish Church, or "kirk", never accepted the idea of the crown as head of the church. Its Presbyterian organization used presbyters elected by local congregations to administer local churches and select a minister, these presbyters elected synods, the members of which named the Assembly of the Church. The system of indirect election gave them a considerably larger lay participation in the Church than the "command and control" hierarchy of the Catholic or Anglican Churches. Although protesting loyalty to the king, almost all Scots subscribed to the "National Covenant" of the Presbyterian Church" Divine Right of Kings
It's interesting that the dilusion of the Divine Right of Kings has a long history dating back to at least circa 516 BCE.
Eze 28:2-8 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.
Act 12:21-23 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
In both biblical accounts, God brought these diluded rulers over His people down. History repeats itself with Henry VIII, Mary I & Charles I.
John UK wrote: I take it you mean the Presbies, Neil?
Not necessarily. It is ironic to hear a Theonomist make the same argument as Royal Supremacists, for during the 1660s, Presbies, like Baptists, were persecuted by Stuart Divine Right monarchy.
Thus my warning to be careful what one wishes for.
26
There are a total of 45 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Steven J. Lawson | 10/11/2009
COMMENTS | 
I couldn't put up all of Miles Stanford's comments on 
from which,
