This is true.
p), then, this: you might have missed the point in those passages. Always look in context (the Bible, what Christ was talking about in that passage, etc).
It is sort of like with martyrs: when in a situation of “convert to our faith, or die!”, a Christian should be ready to lay down their own lives. But NEVER their faith in God and His teachings. 
I saw an article on FB that was using these exact scripture references and I also was wondering how to respond to them. So, thanks Shaolen for bringing it up first and thanks to everyone else with the great responses.
While I agree with your take on what Jesus said, I don’t agree with your interpretation of “an eye for an eye.” What the latter means, according to Jewish law, is that one should NOT seek emotional revenge but rather limit oneself to resolving disputes in an equitable and fair way under the law. IOW, the punishment should not surpass the crime. If an eye, figuratively speaking, was taken from you, you should limit retribution to an eye instead of two eyes or an eye and an ear, and so on. It is a call for restraint in handling disputes.I am not sure I understood what you meant. If I am wrong, would you please rephrase that?
If you said what I think you did
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Back then, and even today, people used this piece of ‘law’ to prevent people from committing crimes against others. You rob me, I rob you; you hurt me, I hurt you.
When Jesus told us to ‘give the other cheek’, ‘give also your cloak’, ‘walk a second mile’, He wanted to turn us away from all this ‘revenge’, to stop us from doing evil against those who hurt us. He was giving us a lesson in Love. “Give. Do not turn to revenge. Do not turn to evil. Do not resist an evil person”. Overcome evil with Love.
A baker, if the State or the LGTB groups decides to sue them for not offering their services on the grounds of religious beliefs, should do just that. Give them. Give them their business, give them their shop. Give them their money.
But they are not to give them their faith or go against their beliefs. If they want to take the Baker’s money and business, it is these groups who are doing evil. The Christian baker has no part in it. The Christian baker would be ready to give everything, EXCEPT the gay-wedding-cake.
One of the earliest cases of this Baker vs. Gay Wedding issue, went just like that. The baker’s family eventually moved out, because the hate did not stop at closing the Shop. They were run out of business, run out of their city, lost friends, money… but still, they stood firm in what they trusted to be the right thing. They were hated for believing in God.
“and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” - Matthew 10:22
Another lawsuit, perhaps–for bad service due to being gay?
Yeah, but it’s a whole lot harder to prove (unless the baker made the cake out of sawdust or something really obvious).
Even back then, it was just an expression, and I used them as such, but I can see how you could have misunderstood my words.
It was just an expression, trust me. It was that, or I would have to go into specifics, as the fine/compensation was often monetary.A slap on the face would cost someone 10 - just for the insult. A backhanded slap (which would be the one given on the right cheek of a person, if the aggressor was right-handed - “give the other cheek”) would cost double the damage. You see why I didn’t do that
There’s a huge area of interpretation between “bad service” and “not the best”. If the baker, for example, was making a cake for his own niece’s wedding, he will probably put his heart and soul into it. For anyone else, there is going to be a range of results. Everyone who practices a craft, whether it be baking, photography, painting or decorating knows that sometimes his/her work is really, really good and at other times, it’s just ok. Sometimes, there is just something that really inspires the person and the art takes over. At other times, it’s just the technical skill. If someone tries to sue for getting a cake that was “ok” but not superb, he is going to have a high burden of proof.
Exactly! This brings up a good point, though. People seem to think that Christians want to refuse service to people *because *they’re gay. However, I don’t think that’s the reason Christians refuse service. For example, a Christian baker wouldn’t refuse to bake a cake becausethe customer is gay, but rather making a gay wedding cake would go against their conscience. However, if a gay person wanted to buy a birthday cake, there’s nothing there that would go against a Christian’s conscience.
While I understand, and in large part agree with the sentiment behind your post, I want you to put the shoe on the other foot.
There is no scriptural evidence for supporting sin. In John * with the woman they wanted to stone the very last think Jesus tells her not to sin anymore. He doesn’t “turn the other check” and overlook her sin. I am not sure how or why some people have turned Jesus into an American liberal.
Along this line, I was wondering; What IS a gay wedding cake??
The cake is insignificant in regard to the larger moral issue which is should a business or individual be forced to participate in something with which they disagree?
It isn’t insignificant, actually. We should distinguish between denying service to homosexuals (which even the Catechism acknowledges is wrong) and refusing to cooperate in mortal sin (which is an act of conscience). Personally, I’ve long been uncomfortable with the idea that selling someone a cake rises to the level of cooperation in mortal sin.
Sorry but I think the abortion analogy is a poor one. The catholic doctor isn’t required to perform an abortion but the baker is required to bake the cake. Businesses have been shut down because they refuse service. Should a doctor lose his license to practice if he doesn’t perform the abortion? That’s what I fear is coming if we don’t stand our ground. When do we finally say enough is enough?
The doctor would face disciplinary proceedings if he essentially denied that abortion is a legal option, even if it is one he finds morally objectionable, which is really what these bakers are doing. Baking a cake is a morally neutral action; therefore, there has to be a middle ground wherein we can find that bakers can still provide service and not be participating.