Separate names with a comma.
Join our non-denominational community with 10,000+ members and more than 50,000 monthly visitors today. Engage in bible discussions, studies, prayer support and friendly fellowship.
Discussion in 'News Stand' started by Chad, Jul 7, 2015.
They are Head Christians, not Heart Christian where God dwells!
Hello BR Bear
Dear me, badly worded as I look back. To say one is very busy is acceptable, to say not sure if we can make for date stated is acceptable.
Avoiding being put in a compromising situation is acceptable.
Sorry and thank you.
Excellent description RJ. Spot on.
Is it true that Halal Certification is allowed and acceptable and supported by government?
Halal certifying has to be strictly observed, which includes praying blessings over more than the food. Factories and processing plants also must be covered. Why?
For reasons of personal belief and faith.
Halal Certification basically proves that the Government is not against citizens insisting that their religious views are legal.
The bakers are praying people who surely would make prayer part of their everyday personal and business life. If a person prays as part of the process of making and baking a wedding cake then it is completely appropriate that they would not know how to pray for something that is not acceptable according to their faith.
The bakers need to express this dilemma that they faced.
Personally, I would have to say that I don't know how to make a cake for a lesbian or homosexual wedding because I have absolutely no idea how to pray over the cake or for the wedding.
Bless you ....><>
zabihah.com: your guide to halal eating
I think it is made the same way any marriage cake is made. It takes flour, eggs, milk, salt and vegetable oil, butter and a smiggin of love.
It's easy, simply pray the same way you would for any government sanctioned marriage.
Bless you ....><>
Greetings Br. Bear
Is Halal not food or drink prepared under islamic law according to the koran?
I am not sure that the UK Government, at present, are backing Halal certification, but they are pushing for better labelling and have said they will review the situation in a couple of months.
There are concerns, in a number of countries, that the sale of Halal products may be funding terrorism, also that the non-profit making organisations for Halal certification are Islamic run and funded.
This made me so angry when I first read about it. Now the gag order....
I'm just curious, what would this judge do if a church asked a homosexual owned bakery to make a cake with the writing "Sodomy Is A Sin" ? Would the church be able to sue when the bakery would most likely refuse to make it ?
There is a lot more to this story than the discussion in this thread suggests. The bakery owners were not fined $135k for refusing service to a homosexual couple. That, of course, would be ridiculous. They were fined for publishing private, identifying information of the couple on the internet. This action not only put the homosexual couple in danger of physical harm, it broke the law. We can argue that the fine was out of line, but please take a moment to learn the truth about this case before continuing to spread misinformation.
I am not an expert about this but the above post is quite possibly incorrect.
It appears that the ruling was damages awarded "for emotional and mental suffering resulting from the denial of service."
I do not want to make excuses for any but any person conducting business within a worldly legal framework must abide by that framework AND it appears that within the world framework it is common and acceptable to sue in the world courts.
All of us NEED God's forgiveness and most of us need to remember to reciprocate forgiveness and at times like this, both parties have an opportunity to do so.
Bless you ....><>
I am not an expert either, and I'll admit that my claim is only as strong as the veracity of my source; however, one must admit that stories sometimes get spun to meet an agenda. When this happens, we often find ourselves believing things that out-of-line with the true nature of events, and in-line with what we would have them be instead.
Consider the following excerpt from a recent article:
What is widely known is that the anti-gay Christian bakers discriminated against the same-sex couple by denying them full and equal access to a place of public accommodation, which is against the law in Oregon, and presumably anywhere else in the U.S. that includes sexual orientation as a protected class.
What is not widely known, is that after the lesbian couple filed their original complaint, the Christian bakers published the lesbian couple’s personal information on social media, with terrifying and heart-breaking consequences.
After the publication of their personal information, the couple received death threats from many “concerned Christians,” threats that terrorized the couple and nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children.
In its final order issued last week, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the Kleins liable for the threats made by others against the couple and awarded them to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.”
Now, consider the excerpt from the news source Reuters:
An Oregon judge has ruled that the owners of a Portland-area bakery who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple should pay the couple $135,000 in damages, state officials said Tuesday.
Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough issued a proposed order last week that could mean Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer, for emotional suffering.
No where does Reuters state that the owners of the bakery should pay $135,000 because they refused service. On the contrary, they were ordered to pay the amount for emotional suffering. One cannot simply jump to the conclusion that the bakery owners were ordered to pay such an inordinate amount because they refused service. That is a gigantically dangerous assumption conveniently in-line with the anti-gay agenda.
Business is run by laws and regulations of the government
And is not christian.
business is run by the law of this worlds' system.
I think this is and should be easy to understand.
A business in not a born again believer!
I find the whole subject baffling in its errors.
Maybe its good they lost
After all we do not want
A canaanite in the house of the Lord to be normal practice do we?
I see it leading to that if they won, special Christian business is a strange idea to me.
It is very wierd.
Sounds like babylon to me.
But what happens if you are lesbian?
If its a "Christian" court
Anyway we are not to swear
I am not for gay marriage
It is false teaching an abominable idea.
I can see their dilemna though
I sound harsh probably
But they should have just trusted in the grace of the Lord Jesus towards them and made the cake.
Instead of trying to fight the case.
How can their business be too holy for lesbians?
It may be baffling to you but not to me.
From my perspective, you may need to learn what the Bible thoroughly means when it says to "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God"!
No, Sodomy is Babylon!
I think the christian business is need of knowing the difference
It is obvious i do know the differecne
as i said they are like canannites in the houe of the Lord
Or did you not see that?
It is baffling to me their stance and your reply to me.