May 2·edited May 2

At the heart of this case is deceptive attempt to conflate immutable characteristics and variable behaviours (with clear intents outlined by God in the scripture.)

By definition they are polar opposite and it is absurd to classify them as the same thing.

Physical characteristics like racial variation and biological sex are immutable. You can mask them, but by definition, at core, you cannot change their reality. Nor should anyone be discriminated against because of them.

On the flip side, human behavioural characteristics are singular in their intention (by God), but variable in how they can be applied (by man) and we are held account for how we do that.

We can follow God’s plan for these, or we can follow human sinfulness and distort and misuse them.

It is entirely Biblical and correct to rebuke those who behave in ways go against God’s good design and distort his creative order.

You can still love someone by graciously refusing to bake a cake, and sharing your reasoning behind it. This indeed is a most gentle form of rebuke.

Indeed the person seeking the baked goods, if claiming it be a follower of Christ, should shake the dust of their feet and go to the next cake shop. But that isn’t the pattern we see, and that alone is very telling.

They don’t want freedom, they want oppression, mandates and punishment.

Expand full comment

Absolutely. But you can't mandate Love Isn't this the point of the case? I'd rather see energy go into promoting mutual understanding of and at least respecting differences, not legal battles over who is right - whatever that even means when it comes to spiritual experiences.

Expand full comment