Still_Small_Voice

From what you posted it sounds to me your wife may have the spiritual gifts of faith, compassion and of hearing and using the still small voice of the Holy Ghost.

I have always felt the scripture was fine the way it was written. I think the membership’s obsession with trying time adjust it or explain it to mean something else is just them trying to relate it to traditional Christianity, which as we know had fallen into apostasy ages ago.
God’s Grace only effects us after we have chosen to follow him and are seeking to do so. Sure there does need to be some individual coaching on how grace effects us if we fall short through weakness or rebellion, but one scripture can’t be expected to explain all that.
I stand by what the scripture says. We are indeed saved by grace “after all we can do”.

Actually, this is even worse. 
Before, it merely said that gay rights were more important than religious rights.  Now you're saying (or the argument is saying) that gay rights are SO important, that it takes ALL THE OTHER RIGHTS COMBINED to justify overruling gay rights.
No, methinks I like it not.

I really don't like the argument about an artist's rights.  What it's really saying is that religious freedom is less important than gay rights.  But artist's rights is greater still than that.  I don't buy into it.
Yes, I'm thankful for a minor win.  But the fact is that by getting that minor win in courts, we've found that religion is simply being pushed to the bottom of the barrel as far as rights.
This has nothing to do with "artistic expression."  It has everything to do with Religious Freedom and Freedom of conscience.

Oh, I don't think he's doing that.  So, the baker is in Colorado, and I've heard him interviewed many times.  He has been used by both sides, multiple times, because his willingness to refuse and violate a city ordinance is a legal jumping-off point that ends at the Supreme Court.  He comes across as someone who is ok with that.  Supreme Court decisions can have a bigger impact than prostituting your values to make a quick buck to donate to conservative causes.  Maybe he's wiser than you think...
We're all taking about Jack Phillips and the Masterpiece Cakeshop, right? 
 

Art and smarts?  Do they even belong in the same sentence?  I mean, strippers and pole dancers can get a lot more paying gigs than the Irish Dance society or the Dutch cloggers or the BYU dance troup.  Just think about how many funds could be diverted to conservative causes, if only those folks were a little smarter. 
It ain't about smarts, it's about 'artistic integrity'.   You draw your line, and don't compromise on your morals.   It's one of the reasons we have a lot of starving artists.  Everyone wants to art, but not all the sources of money are worth pursuing.
And again (this has got to be one of the most repeated and most ignored facts of the whole thing), dude offered to sell them a cake.   He just declined to design them one of his artistic cakes. 

I think I understand where you are coming from, MG. 
 
We all have to choose which battles we are going to fight and where we draw our line in the sand. It’s a matter of weighing the cost of the battle versus the rewards we hope to gain.
 
I would also say that sometimes we are asked to make heavy sacrifices based on the light and knowledge we have received from God. We have hope that those sacrifices will be rewarded after this life and that they will be worth the cost of our battles. 
 
I can only assume this is why he refused to bake the cake. If so, I personally believe that he will be rewarded for his sacrifices made because of the faith he has in his God. 

Thank you.
I'd like to focus on the bolded phrase.
I do not say that what we're seeing is the beginning of the end. I'm also not saying it isn't.
I'm saying that there are some things that the devil does that don't change.  Some things do.  But there are some things that Satan is limited in his tools.  It may be that God is limiting him.  It may be that the tools he has used are already the best tools possible.
The tools for breaking down faithful societies have not changed.  They have been the same since scriptural times.  I believe what John the Revelator saw for his future was already part of history.  And it is no different today.  He keeps using the same tools again and again in every generation (eternal vigilance and all).
I had often wondered why we see the "signs of the times" so often and then we're almost "disappointed" or feel like someone has cried wolf too often to believe there is going to be an "End Times Scenario".  The signs keep coming.  No Second Coming.  Some fall away with loss of faith.
I don't think there was any crying wolf.  I think that the end could have come at any time in history as long as the people were not properly resisting the darkness.  The date isn't set.  That is why "no man knows the day nor the hour."  It will come just as soon as we lose vigilance; as soon as there are insufficient people blowing their horns; as soon as enough people bow down to the beast and the faithful eventually become powerless to stop them.  That could be this generation.  It could be the next.  It could be 20 generations from now.  There is no date.  There is a condition that needs to be satisfied.
I don't remember the WKRP episode you're speaking of.  But I'm guessing it's this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZP0Hn31HA0&list=PLbNMmuomfgHl8RBFWwnXlLvNLvL7jP6AJ&index=22 (BTW, Gordon Jump (the station manager) was LDS.)
Here's my take on boycotts.  I do not believe boycotts themselves are good or bad.  I think that sometimes, the cause which motivates the boycott could be evil, silly, meaningless, or noble.  I don't have a problem with some people raising awareness to boycott some things.  I believe it to be a free market tool for social justice reform.  And I encourage its use.  And I encourage businesses to make their decisions on whether to capitulate or to resist.  The battles will do what the battles do.
 
What is happening recently is not what we saw in the 80s.  The strategy is FIRST: boycott.  WHEN that fails use violent tactics -- often vandalism or bodily harm.  And that is what it's come down to.  Because I disagree with you, I can hit you and even kill you.  Not just put pressure on you, but completely destroy you.
Dan Crenshaw spoke of how it is all too easy to call someone a racist or a nazi when one feels their position is weakening.  But this is really a form of violence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik_kzn3etsE (start at around 3:13).
There is certainly a difference between massive gatherings of TEA Party folks vs. even the small gatherings of ANTIFA.  This is not a good environment for us to be in.
 

Why--especially in light of the fact that the same plaintiff asked the baker if he would bake a cake of Satan engaging in a pornographic act? I get that we sometimes satisfy customers who choose that which we would not. However, this was an individual seeking a lawsuit, attempting to legislate the doctrine that Christians can be made to support anti-Christian messaging. The plaintiff is driving for the judge to legislate from the bench and using Jack Philips as his humiliated religionist to get the job done. Kudos that you won't force him to do so, but why even counsel him to? Frankly, he should not.

Do you not see the evil of such economic bullying? Do you truly believe that the best, most moral response to such a threat is to quietly acquiesce?

No, they should not. There is not the least moral nor ethical compulsion for them to do so. On the contrary, there is great moral reason for them to refuse to do any such thing, exactly as much as they have moral reason to refuse to bake and decorate a cake shaped like an aborted fetus so that a woman can celebrate the termination of her pregnancy.

They have the right to deny, but they should just shut up and bake the cake?  I don't see how that's any different than saying their right doesn't mean squat.  You're essentially saying that this right is so small, that it isn't worth fighting for -- or worth protecting.  If that's the esteem we give it, then by preponderance, we're basically saying, the right doesn't exist (in a real world scenario).
Listen, I know you want to walk the fine line of balance.  And I commend you for that ideal you try to achieve.  But there are some bigger things at work here.
You want us to just "bake the cake."  But it's more than just the cake.
What do you think the "cancel culture" is really about?
It is the mark of the beast.
If you don't do what we want you to do and believe what we want you to believe, and bow down to the idolatrous god of materialism, abortion, moral depravity, & licentiousness,  then you shouldn't have the right to do business in America. If you don't have the mark in your hand (actions) and head (beliefs) then you cannot buy or sell here.  Boycotts, lawsuits, shoutdowns on social media Conservative public forums with specified formats for open dialogue with opposing points of interest are being overrun by liberals who simply want the conservatives to stop speaking. All of Hollywood can't make a blockbuster movie without some SJW theme anymore. The mark of the beast is all around.  And you want us to just "bake the cake"?  It's more than just the cake.

Seriously. 
 
Just having to fill out the paperwork for the arrest would have irritated me. 
 
IF she was hoping to actually get the law changed, her fight would have been at city hall, not with some police officer at a park who has no ability to change the legality of anything. 
 
Reading the story makes me think she got the 15 minutes of fame she was hoping for. 

This is an excellent point.
If a police officer were to decide on his own whom to arrest and whom to leave alone for committing the same crime, or what laws to enforce and which laws to not enforce, after they've gone through established processes, he's basically taking the law into his own hands.
The entire idea behind the Constitution was that it would be better to have a few tyrants with a lot of power counter-acting each other as opposed to a million little tyrants exercising power over their little realms.
As much as I like the idea of civil disobedience for unjust laws, one must understand that the right to civil disobedience does have a price.  And that price is often that some people will get arrested -- and sometimes killed.

Can we at least blame the mayor 10%?

I know I edited the article as you were writing your response.  But here it is again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/terminally-boy-denied-potentially-life-saving-treatment-nhs/
Here was a blatant opportunity for a child to get the care he needed where it was available, and it was a government death panel that deliberately prevented it from happening.  This is a fairly common occurence.
You have not taken into account the idea the fact that there are MANY ways of already treating long term issues even for poor people.  Medicaid is available.  Charities are available.  Go Fund Me and sites like that are available.  And the Free Market WILL provide many more opportunities to fill in the gaps this way.
Remember that the free market also includes charities.  These are free-will exchanges that people enter into.  These are free-market principles operating charities.
Also remember that there is nothing that is 100%.  So, yes, there will be some that fall through cracks in ANY system.  But even with a government system that is supposed to be 100% (getting EVERYONE in its safety net) they have even more who fall through the cracks than a free market system would.
The biggest problem with government deciding vs WE THE PEOPLE deciding is that if a government agency makes a decision, there is no way to appeal.  That is why government panels truly are "death panels".  They're all encompassing.  There is no other choice to be had. 
With the market, there are other options.  People have a choice.  If one hospital says no, another might say yes.  If money is an obstacle, there may be a way to get it.  People at a local church held a bake sale to pay for a life-saving operation for a man with a tumor.  ONE BAKE SALE paid for it.  
For people with long term issues, people in a community can come together.
There are choices.  With government, there are none.

I have been following the Jack Phillip's court case for some time and I am grateful the courts have sided with his first amendment religious rights.  The Bill of Rights lists out many of our liberties and rights and they are every American citizen's rights.  A win for Jack is a win for all Americans.

While Obamacare was being debated, Sarah Palin was roundly chastized for decrying the inevitability of death panels.
Whelp!!  Here it is:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH Document Library/COVID-19/California SARS-CoV-2 Crisis Care Guidelines4-20.pdf
A point system for determining who dies and who lives.

Fair enough, @MormonGator. On the other hand, the point of the article was that Philip's fight benefits all who love our First Amendment. Rather than cave, he stood. I believe he had backing from at least one religious liberty law firm. I am so thankful for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Rutherford Institute, Homeschool Defense League, and other such groups. I remember when one of the Christian dating sites was forced to cave by providing the same services for same-sex dating. The company openly said it did not have the funds to fight. Hopefully, those days are done. We could lose our First Amendment. Many young adults believe "Hate speech is not free speech." Of course, who defines hate? The time to give in and take the moral hit, so the family can survive is past--if people of faith will unite, pray, and back these groups fighting for our freedoms.

The comparisons between LGBT forcing Christians to engage in artistic efforts that promote anti-Christian messaging and the civil rights struggle of the 1960s is a difficult one. The latter had the state imposing segregation upon businesses. However, it generally gets portrayed as government forcing racists to integrate. The argument then--why not force haters to conform, just like that? I suspect @anatess2 is on to something. Give everyone the right to compete. If some choose to limit their options and miss out on business, let them. As the NRO article pointed out, there are plenty of bakers close to Philips who would have happily made a gay wedding, celebrate transition, or even pro-Satanism cake.
Sadly, I suspect this is about revenge. Also, those who are convinced that same sex attraction is purely biological, will indeed come to hate all religions that oppose homosexual sex. They want us shut up and pushed to the fringes of society. In their minds we are no different than racists. Yet, I keep reminding myself that 70% of Americans still identify as Christian.

When stories first started coming out, after gay marriage was constitutionally legalized across the U.S., of bakers, florists and photographers refusing to participate in them, based on their sincerely held religious beliefs (yes, that's Religious Freedom Restoration Act language), many gave the advice, "Just bake the stupid cake." Even some well-meaning conservatives said this, perhaps believing this would be a silly, symbolic fight of little import. Did it not dawn on us that we were giving up our freedom of religion, speech and association with this cave-in? Here's the update:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/why-jack-phillips-matters/

I think it's a historic first. We were unlikely ever to see this day. But it's a market fluctuation, albeit extreme. This too shall pass.

I doubt I will ever see this in my life again. The price of oil per barrel went negative yesterday.  They are paying people to take barrels of oil because no one wants it!  It is a huge oversupply of oil in the markets right now.  That is unbelievable to me.

Back in 2008 the price of oil soared to about $145 per barrel and now they are paying people to take barrels of oil off their hands.
Edit:  And the cheapest I can find gasoline for around me is $2.06 per gallon.

It's a 1.34 where I live. With my grocery store points I actually paid 66 cents a gallon the other day. The lowest I had ever seen gas in my life, when I was a young child, was 1.00 a gallon. While I love cheap gas I am concerned about the economic fallout this will cause.