Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
"Gee, I'm not tipping you because I hate your lifestyle." Might as well come out and say to that person that they repulse you and get it over with. They should have had the balls to say it to her face BEFORE she served them. 
Fixed.CUDA wrote:didn't read the story, but if they chose not to tip someone because of their biologically determined sexual orientation they are wrong.
Read the stories CUDA, plural. Read what they wrote. It shameful that these people even call themselves Christian. These are the types of "Christians" that give the whole religion a bad name. Plus, they waited until AFTER they'd eaten, and LEFT, to make their little "statement". Cowards.CUDA wrote:didn't read the story, but if they chose not to tip someone because of their lifestyle they are wrong.
What was it that set off your gaydar? It HAD to be something in her appearance or mannerism, unless you were told by that person that she was gay. There's no other way to tell that someone is gay. Either they tell you, or they have some mannerism or appearance that you notice. Neither of these are always accurate either. So you have to be intentionally profiling and making assumptions to make that judgement call. If you're wrong, you WILL insult people.Sergeant Thorne wrote:What would make you think I can't tell when someone is a homo? What are these false assumptions? Who says it has anything to do with their looks? The last time I picked out a lesbian (nothing to do with restaurants), it was a fairly attractive looking girl with long hair.
). The final kicker was the way they acted toward my mom and my sister, and how they spoke to them. No, nothing was ever said about either of them being lesbians. It was a very brief encounter.You have absolutely no idea how disgusting this makes you, do you?Sergeant Thorne wrote:The last time I went to a restaurant where there was a homo serving tables I went to another restaurant.
Top Gun wrote:Might want to take a look at that plank in your eye, chief.
Smacked Down! 
hilarious!Sergeant Thorne wrote:What would make you think I can't tell when someone is a homo?
so is not eating shellfish, for the record........and women trying to exert control over men. And, if one wishes, as MOST sane Christians do, to limit the list of actual sins to the Ten Commandments, I don't see homosexuality on the list anywhere. On that note, I'm off to my shore house to fish, and consume enough shellfish to float a small boat.Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lecture about Christ's behavior coming from someone who rejects him always comes off hollow. Christ associated with sinners for the reason he gave, which was in the capacity of a physician. I know that you would only think less of me if I claimed to be there in this capacity, so where is the argument? And to remove any semblance of a point you may have left, a recognition of homosexuality as a "sin" is not "ridiculous", it is Biblical plain and simple..
To make it dirt simple, I was asking what might make you (tc) think me to be so unperceptive that I might think anyone wearing, say, a funny hat is this sort of person or that sort. I don't know that I've ever actually given that impression here, so I figure it's coming from elsewhere.Do tell, how did you come to this conclusion?Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lecture about Christ's behavior coming from someone who rejects him always comes off hollow.
The Bible also says to not eat pork products and to avoid contact with women who are menstruating. The Bible makes many statements that were a product of the culture in which it was written, and no longer have any relevance in the modern world. The fact that you continuously place far more emphasis on those statements than the ones that DO matter today pretty much negates anything you have to say from the get-go.Sergeant Thorne wrote:And to remove any semblance of a point you may have left, a recognition of homosexuality as a "sin" is not "ridiculous", it is Biblical plain and simple..
The New Testament also says, "Wives, be submissive to your husbands in all things." Though you probably agree with that one too...how's the single life going for you?Sergeant Thorne wrote:Fast-forward to the New Testament, and we are told that homosexuals have their place in the lake of fire, and that they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. That's what it says. I didn't write it, and I can't change it.
Since you brought it up, what does the Bible say of those believers who will not be restored with a warning? Your last sentence here is confusing. It's like you're rolling intent and cause-and-effect into one, and treating it only as intent...CUDA wrote:It does tell belivers to warn those believers that are heading to or living in sin to change their ways.
But only to restore NEVER to ostracise.
What? You didn't know you reject Christ, or you didn't think your wielding a position you don't subscribe to is empty?Top Gun wrote:Do tell, how did you come to this conclusion?Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lecture about Christ's behavior coming from someone who rejects him always comes off hollow.
"pretty much negates anything you have to say from the get-go." This seems to be your favorite tactic. Your imagined emphasis on something I was supposed to be talking about, while ignoring the fact that we are in a topic and a topic is necessarily narrow, is convenient. Secondly, the Bible does not issue a universal command not to eat "pork products". I am well able to see the context and emphasis which you folks so enjoy stripping away when you deal with the scriptures, and having never been a Jew, but also understanding that even Jews who believe in God are under a new covenant, I do not feel myself constrained by old covenant law. I do realize that old-covenant law is no less a statement of the requirements or standards of God. Finally, the Bible says not to have sex with a woman who is menstruating.Top Gun wrote:The Bible also says to not eat pork products and to avoid contact with women who are menstruating. The Bible makes many statements that were a product of the culture in which it was written, and no longer have any relevance in the modern world. The fact that you continuously place far more emphasis on those statements than the ones that DO matter today pretty much negates anything you have to say from the get-go.Sergeant Thorne wrote:And to remove any semblance of a point you may have left, a recognition of homosexuality as a "sin" is not "ridiculous", it is Biblical plain and simple..
Yes, that's what it says. Don't tell me Top Gun is married?Top Gun wrote:The New Testament also says, "Wives, be submissive to your husbands in all things." Though you probably agree with that one too...how's the single life going for you?
it says to separate from them.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Since you brought it up, what does the Bible say of those believers who will not be restored with a warning? Your last sentence here is confusing. It's like you're rolling intent and cause-and-effect into one, and treating it only as intent...CUDA wrote:It does tell belivers to warn those believers that are heading to or living in sin to change their ways.
But only to restore NEVER to ostracise.
you are telling the crowd to stone homosexuals, by both your words and your actions. you are condemning them for their lifestyle. that is something that Christ himself would not do. are we not supposed to emulate him?Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.
4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”
STOP condemning others for their choices. your sins are no betterJames 1:22
22 But don’t just listen to God’s word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves.
No I'm not, when did I do that? You're the one that brought believers up. I just wanted to clarify that point with regard to what you brought up. While we're at it... why did you even bring believers up in the first place?CUDA wrote:but you're comparing people that are turning their backs on Christ with those that do not know him. again what would Christ tell them?
No I'm not. Where?CUDA wrote:you are telling the crowd to stone homosexuals, by both your words and your actions. you are condemning them for their lifestyle. that is something that Christ himself would not do. ...
Where have I condemned anyone?CUDA wrote:STOP condemning others for their choices. your sins are no better
Sergeant Thorne wrote:Where have I condemned anyone?CUDA wrote:STOP condemning others for their choices. your sins are no better
sounds like you condemned your server by not going back to where he worked becauseThe last time I went to a restaurant where there was a homo serving tables I went to another restaurant
#2 Because you didn't like the person (and maybe don't want them to be serving you next time).
and you are basing your judgement of them on their appearance or mannerisms. and also basing your choice of association on the same criteria.And again the derogatory term Homo. you might not call a man a Homo to his face, but you do here, and your actions by your own words exhibit the same condemnation.What would make you think I can't tell when someone is a homo?
I agree with most of your argument, but I wouldn't use this particular passage to back it up... there's question about whether is really belongs there.CUDA wrote:Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.
4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”
Not sure I follow what you mean by "exposed to that" here.Sergeant Thorne wrote:The fact is I don't want to be exposed to that on a casual basis, and I don't want the people I'm going out to eat with to have to be exposed to it on a casual basis.
I used that passage earlier.snoopy wrote:I agree with most of your argument, but I wouldn't use this particular passage to back it up... there's question about whether is really belongs there.CUDA wrote:Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.
4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”
I'd say it comes more directly down to "love your neighbor as yourself." I don't think the note really fits that criteria. There may be times when expressing judgement is a loving and appropriate thing to do, but I don't think this one of those cases.
Anytime a person is involved in something, and particularly openly, they are a personal statement of the acceptability of those activities or behaviors.Foil wrote:Not sure I follow what you mean by "exposed to that" here.
Are you saying that the server is somehow promoting homosexuality when they serve your group? Or something about proximity to a homosexual person can affect people? Or something else?
the mouth says what the heart feelsSergeant Thorne wrote:That's all pretty ★■◆●ing thin, CUDA, and there are a lot of assumptions at work. FYI I use "homo" as an abbreviation, not a derogatory term.
Kinda Westboro baptist church thinking. IMHOJust to clear something else up, when I don't want to be served by a homosexual at a restaurant, it doesn't have anything to do with them personally. For that reason I wouldn't get any enjoyment out of asking for another server, or walking out to find another location. I'm not trying to hurt them. You wouldn't find me writing notes on receipts unless maybe somehow I thought I could help them. The fact is I don't want to be exposed to that on a casual basis, and I don't want the people I'm going out to eat with to have to be exposed to it on a casual basis. Most people will not go back to eat at a restaurant, or will get up and walk out if the atmosphere is not to their liking, even for relatively little things... guess what? I'm not looking to make a scene or make trouble for anyone... I do, on some level, take issue with a restaurant essentially asking me to take that sitting down when they know perfectly well how some people feel about it.
I didn't realize Homosexuality was contagious.The fact is I don't want to be exposed to that on a casual basis,
ya that's what they said about Christ when he had dinner with the Tax collectors. they were wrong then and you are wrong nowSergeant Thorne wrote:Anytime a person is involved in something, and particularly openly, they are a personal statement of the acceptability of those activities or behaviors.Foil wrote:Not sure I follow what you mean by "exposed to that" here.
Are you saying that the server is somehow promoting homosexuality when they serve your group? Or something about proximity to a homosexual person can affect people? Or something else?
Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”
I still don't follow.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Anytime a person is involved in something, and particularly openly, they are a personal statement of the acceptability of those activities or behaviors.Foil wrote:Not sure I follow what you mean by "exposed to that" here.
Are you saying that the server is somehow promoting homosexuality when they serve your group? Or something about proximity to a homosexual person can affect people? Or something else?
I recommend that you be mindful of who your audience is here, Sarge.Sergeant Thorne wrote:FYI I use "homo" as an abbreviation, not a derogatory term. Would it make everyone feel better if I used the full term, or is there another that is more acceptable to the hyper-sensitive?
I have heard that entire passage many times, and I feel like I have a good understanding of it. Even if you take that word to mean "yield to," I find that absolutely unacceptable in the year 2013. If I ever wind up getting married, I want my wife and myself to be EQUALS in every sense of that word, including any important decisions that we need to make. The only thing I want "submissive" to me is a dog.CUDA wrote:And as for wives be submissive to you husband. You CLEARLY do not understand the verse. And as with the seperation of church and state. You pick and choose the portion you wish, without look at all of the verse. And clearly your understanding of the word submission is lacking. It means to yield to. NOT to be a slave of. HUGE difference.
I don't reject Christ, so you're barking up the wrong tree anyway. I simply know how to apply basic reasoning and critical thinking when it comes to what's being said in the Bible.Sergeant Thorne wrote:What? You didn't know you reject Christ, or you didn't think your wielding a position you don't subscribe to is empty?Top Gun wrote:Do tell, how did you come to this conclusion?Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lecture about Christ's behavior coming from someone who rejects him always comes off hollow.
So just the fact that someone whom you think (NOT know) is gay might be serving you dinner is too much for you? You don't even want to acknowledge the fact that, hey, some people happen to be gay? I mean I could maybe see if the waiter was aggressively trying to hit on you (which would be wrong no matter what their gender), but just for being there? Christ...Sergeant Thorne wrote:Anytime a person is involved in something, and particularly openly, they are a personal statement of the acceptability of those activities or behaviors.
