PDA

View Full Version : Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake



Pages : [1] 2 3

Knight
December 15th, 2014, 05:52 PM
“Support Gay Marriage” is one Christian bakery was sued for refusing to put that slogan on a cake for an event to support the gay agenda.

Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are getting sued left, right, and center. They get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. To make our case we provided 3 video clips, the third one is a video showing homosexual activists in Ireland used the state to force a Christian bakery to make a cake with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage” for a pro-gay marriage event, but he refused which added a tremendous loss to his business. Several Christian bakeries were sued in the United States with several who lost their businesses and we said enough is enough. So Shoebat.com decided to call some 13 prominent pro-gay bakers in a row. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it just to insult us because we are Christian. We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual bakers were. Even after we completed our experiment we got a ton of hate messages saying that we were “hateful” for simply giving them a taste of their own medicine by asking for a cake with the slogan “Gay Marriage Is Wrong” to be written on the cake.

AJaroR_qTNs

ptgAKywiHG0

By Theodore Shoebat

FULL STORY (http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/)

musterion
December 15th, 2014, 06:00 PM
Remember the old rhyme, Rub-a-Dub-Dub, Three Men in a Tub? The baker was a homo.

Knight
December 15th, 2014, 06:08 PM
Remember the old rhyme, Rub-a-Dub-Dub, Three Men in a Tub? The baker was a homo.Huh?? :confused:

Town Heretic
December 15th, 2014, 06:28 PM
Goose/gander. If you hold yourself out as a public business making cakes or cookies then you can't discriminate. If you do then you open yourself for a lawsuit. That said, I'd say there is a difference between seeking a cake for a gay or traditional ceremony and going a step further, which is what is being done here or could be done on the other side of it, UNLESS the baker in question offers private messages on their product as a part of their regular business practice.

Sherman
December 15th, 2014, 06:28 PM
They are :flamer: Pretty hateful in the way they act if you ask me.

Tambora
December 16th, 2014, 07:35 AM
Well, well. Imagine that.

gcthomas
December 16th, 2014, 08:19 AM
If they had refused to make a wedding cake with bride and groom figures on it would be a story.

Knight, I thought you would support these bakers in their attitudes, unless you only want the right for Christians to refuse service for arbitrary reasons. :idunno:

The Barbarian
December 16th, 2014, 09:24 AM
The problem is obvious. Gay bakers don't see a problem with making a heterosexual wedding cake, but some non-gay bakers see a problem with making a wedding cake with two grooms or two brides.

So it's really difficult to pull a goose/gander thing, unless one adds something. Hence, this guy asks for a statement as well as the wedding cake.

It all comes around to a single moral question. "Do we have a moral responsibility to make other people be good?"

If so, then we should applaud the efforts of this guy. If not, then he's just making Christians look foolish.

Rusha
December 16th, 2014, 09:40 AM
Not really seeing a difference in the gays refusing to do the cake ...

It's their right to refuse it and THEIR hypocrisy that screams out when it is done to them.

Having said that, it would also be hypocrisy if the Christian being refused service made an issue of the refusal.

Rusha
December 16th, 2014, 09:48 AM
If they had refused to make a wedding cake with bride and groom figures on it would be a story.

Knight, I thought you would support these bakers in their attitudes, unless you only want the right for Christians to refuse service for arbitrary reasons. :idunno:

I think you are missing the point to the story. People who do not respect the right of business owners to run their business according to their own moral standards and preference do not deserve the right to run their own as they see fit.

No one has ever died because a bakery owner would not make the cake of their dreams ...

gcthomas
December 16th, 2014, 09:51 AM
I think you are missing the point to the story. People who do not respect the right of business owners to run their business according to their own moral standards and preference do not deserve the right to run their own as they see fit.


Are these bakers the ones who tried to buy a wedding cake from the Christian shop? If not, then your point is pointless. These are different people, aren't they?

Rusha
December 16th, 2014, 09:55 AM
Are these bakers the ones who tried to buy a wedding cake from the Christian shop? If not, then your point is pointless. These are different people, aren't they?

Why does it matter who the participants are? You are one of those DEMANDING equal treatment and fairness via disallowing business owners to refuse offering certain services.

Oh wait ... that's only if you disagree with business owners private beliefs.

Via their own standards, the gay bakery should have made the cake, no questions asked. However, feel free to pretend like the situations are different. :Plain:

CabinetMaker
December 16th, 2014, 09:59 AM
Not really seeing a difference in the gays refusing to do the cake ...

It's their right to refuse it and THEIR hypocrisy that screams out when it is done to them.

Having said that, it would also be hypocrisy if the Christian being refused service made an issue of the refusal.
In this case I would disagree. I think it is necessary for the Christians to publicly point out the double standard and even go to court over it. If it is "illegal" for a Christian to refuse service to a gay couple for personal convictions then it is equally "illegal" for a Homosexual to refuse to serve Christians for the same reason.

This is what irritates me so much about "social injustice" real or perceived. If I say I am against gay marriage then people say they are offended by that and I lose my right to freedom of expression because it is offensive to somebody. Will, what about the offense I feel when people are saying that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable. I find that offensive yet it is perfectly acceptable to ignore my offense and protect others from being offended. It is a double standard that should not be allowed to exist. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees freedom from offense.

Rusha
December 16th, 2014, 10:13 AM
In this case I would disagree. I think it is necessary for the Christians to publicly point out the double standard and even go to court over it. If it is "illegal" for a Christian to refuse service to a gay couple for personal convictions then it is equally "illegal" for a Homosexual to refuse to serve Christians for the same reason.

I agree with this sentiment ... THOUGH, I don't believe either should end up in court.


This is what irritates me so much about "social injustice" real or perceived. If I say I am against gay marriage then people say they are offended by that and I lose my right to freedom of expression because it is offensive to somebody. Will, what about the offense I feel when people are saying that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable. I find that offensive yet it is perfectly acceptable to ignore my offense and protect others from being offended. It is a double standard that should not be allowed to exist. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees freedom from offense.

I have no argument against your statement and have actually pointed out that those whining the loudest should have the same freedom to run their business as they see fit.

Jedidiah
December 16th, 2014, 02:41 PM
...this guy asks for a statement as well as the wedding cake...I think a wedding cake with two grooms or two brides is making a statement. :idunno:

Angel4Truth
December 16th, 2014, 10:35 PM
Why does it matter who the participants are? You are one of those DEMANDING equal treatment and fairness via disallowing business owners to refuse offering certain services.

Oh wait ... that's only if you disagree with business owners private beliefs.

Via their own standards, the gay bakery should have made the cake, no questions asked. However, feel free to pretend like the situations are different. :Plain:

That, exactly.

I believe any business owner should be able to deny any service they want, and run their business model any way they want, but if they are going to be forced to cater to business models against their own, then it has to be so across the board.

Christian bakers forced to make cakes for gay weddings and celebrations and parades = Gay bakers forced to make cakes for opponents against gay marriage and celebration of Christian beliefs

Angel4Truth
December 16th, 2014, 10:37 PM
The guy who made the calls and asked for the refused services, need to sue them all, so this can end up finally getting law defined one way or the other.

gcthomas
December 17th, 2014, 03:59 AM
Have any Christian bakers been prosecuted for refusing to print an anti-Christian political slogan on their cakes? :think:

Not really an equal situation.

Town Heretic
December 17th, 2014, 04:04 AM
Have any Christian bakers been prosecuted for refusing to print an anti-Christian political slogan on their cakes? :think:

Not really an equal situation.
It's not exactly, it's negative instead of affirmational, but again if they regularly engage in the practice of letting customers design copy for their cake tops and/or cookies they should be open to the same sort of censure at the heart of the matter.

gcthomas
December 17th, 2014, 04:18 AM
It's not exactly, it's negative instead of affirmational, but again if they regularly engage in the practice of letting customers design copy for their cake tops and/or cookies they should be open to the same sort of censure at the heart of the matter.

Agreed. But since they just phoned up a bunch of gay bakers I doubt if they have that information themselves.

Anyway - how did they get a list of gay bakers? Is there a directory of such things? :idunno:

Delmar
December 17th, 2014, 05:03 AM
It's not exactly, it's negative instead of affirmational, but again if they regularly engage in the practice of letting customers design copy for their cake tops and/or cookies they should be open to the same sort of censure at the heart of the matter.

So if a couple wanted a naked bride and groom, a Christian baker should not be able to refuse?

Delmar
December 17th, 2014, 05:04 AM
Anyway - how did they get a list of gay bakers? Is there a directory of such things? :idunno:

Most likely, yes.

http://www.orlandosgayagent.com/orlando-pride/gay-orlando-metropolitan-business-association-central-floridas-lgbt-chamber-of-commerce/

musterion
December 17th, 2014, 05:06 AM
He just let his fingers do the walking through the Pink Pages.

oatmeal
December 17th, 2014, 05:19 AM
Either equal protection under the law for both or not.

If the gays can refuse and get away with it so should Christians be able to refuse without harassment, lawsuits etc.

If gays are now prosecuted and driven out of business, great.

The best solution is that gays seek the deliverance they need.

Homosexuality, like all sin can and should be overcome

Paul, in the first epistle after the opening verses of Romans, immediately confronts God rejecters and homosexuals. He does not waste any time rooting out the worst offenders

Knight
December 17th, 2014, 12:53 PM
Knight, I thought you would support these bakers in their attitudes, unless you only want the right for Christians to refuse service for arbitrary reasons. :idunno:I do support the bakers right to refuse service.

What I don't support is the double standard and the complete lack of any media attention on the reverse side of the equation.

rexlunae
December 17th, 2014, 01:17 PM
What I don't support is the double standard and the complete lack of any media attention on the reverse side of the equation.

One of the reasons that it is especially important to protect LGBT people under civil rights laws is the well-established history of mistreatment and marginalization of those people. That's a distinction made by the law and by courts. So it's really a false equivalency. If it were true that Christians were subject to routine suspicion and discrimination, any discrimination against them would merit a much higher level of scrutiny.

Furthermore, it is hard to see where the message "gay marriage is wrong" is a genuine religious expression and thus protectable under civil rights law. It seems to me that the point is the political message rather than the expression of a religious sentiment, in which case the free speech rights of the bakery make take precedence.

Town Heretic
December 17th, 2014, 01:22 PM
So if a couple wanted a naked bride and groom, a Christian baker should not be able to refuse?
While there's nothing inherently obscene about nudity, unless the bakers do that sort of thing for anyone who walks in, no. Again, it's classic goose/gander. You can't discriminate, but that doesn't mean you can be forced to provide a service outside of the parameters of what you hold out as a product. So that would be different from a one sided refusal based not on the product, but upon the baker's impression of the client.

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 01:30 PM
How about KKK cakes from a black baker? A swastika shaped cake from a Jewish baker? How about a NAMBLA cake from any baker? (though I doubt a "gay" baker would be offended).

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 01:31 PM
Have any Christian bakers been prosecuted for refusing to print an anti-Christian political slogan on their cakes? :think:

Not really an equal situation.

IF you truly are against discrimination, numbers shouldn't matter.

gcthomas
December 17th, 2014, 01:40 PM
IF you truly are against discrimination, numbers shouldn't matter.

There is a difference between some and none. I'm not against discrimination in general, but unfair discrimination.

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 01:46 PM
There is a difference between some and none. I'm not against discrimination in general, but unfair discrimination.Define unfair?

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 01:48 PM
There is a difference between some and none. I'm not against discrimination in general, but unfair discrimination.

Everyone is biased ... so when it comes to fairness VS rights, you need to show that an actual harm is being done to those you deem are being treated unfairly.

IF a Christian baker refuses to bake or sell to me because I am not a Christian, that's good enough for me. I may be annoyed, but I have other options that are superior to creating a ruckus over such a silly issue. Personally, I would not want to line the person's pocket with my money.

And yes, having someone refuse to bake a cake or bake it to a certain specification is a small annoyance compared to actions that actually harm people.

gcthomas
December 17th, 2014, 01:52 PM
The problem, Rusha, is the imbalance of power. If a minority refused to serve a majority, then the minority get put out of business. If the majority refuses to serve a minority then the minority has a huge reduction in options while the majority hardly notices the loss in business.

See, when discrimination is allowed it is the minority that experiences the lion's share of the hardship. That is why law works hard to equalise the situation by protecting minorities.

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 01:54 PM
The problem, Rusha, is the imbalance of power. If a minority refused to serve a majority, then the minority get put out of business. If the majority refuses to serve a minority then the minority has a huge reduction in options while the majority hardly notices the loss in business.

See, when discrimination is allowed it is the minority that experiences the lion's share of the hardship. That is why law works hard to equalise the situation by protecting minorities.
The KKK is a minority.
Nazis are a minority
NAMBLA is a minority

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 02:03 PM
Furthermore, it is hard to see where the message "gay marriage is wrong" is a genuine religious expression and thus protectable under civil rights law. It seems to me that the point is the political message rather than the expression of a religious sentiment, in which case the free speech rights of the bakery make take precedence.
Right. The fundamental problem with what's described in the OP is that it tries to equate two very different things.

First we have gay couples who go into bakeries and ask for wedding cakes for their weddings. Christian bakers refuse because of their religious opposition to gay marriage, thus violating the relevant anti-discrimination laws (gays are a protected class under such laws). So the Christian baker is at fault.

But then we have Christians calling bakeries on the phone (and we have to trust that the people they're talking to are actually gay bakers, and the whole thing isn't hoax) and requesting a cake that says "Gay marriage is wrong". The gay bakers refuse. But they aren't violating any anti-discrimination laws. There's nothing in those laws that says businesses have to do anything any customer requests. So the gay bakers are not at fault.

"People who oppose gay marriage" are not a protected class under anti-discrimination laws, thus no law was violated, thus trying to equate it with the other scenario is specious at best.

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 02:29 PM
The problem, Rusha, is the imbalance of power. If a minority refused to serve a majority, then the minority get put out of business. If the majority refuses to serve a minority then the minority has a huge reduction in options while the majority hardly notices the loss in business.

See, when discrimination is allowed it is the minority that experiences the lion's share of the hardship. That is why law works hard to equalise the situation by protecting minorities.

I am not interested in protecting people just because they belong to a ... group. Also, in the situation we are speaking of, where is the THREAT and DEVASTATION they are being protected from?

Seriously, if you were arguing that an EMT had the duty to provide service to a patient and should not be allowed to use their religion as a basis to discriminate, I would agree. But that just isn't the case here.

It's a matter of hurt feelings and ego from the offended party. The same would hold true in regards to the OP ... a Christian being denied service.

Go elsewhere. It's not like they are being refused a blood transfusion or CPR.

rexlunae
December 17th, 2014, 02:41 PM
Right. The fundamental problem with what's described in the OP is that it tries to equate two very different things.

First we have gay couples who go into bakeries and ask for wedding cakes for their weddings. Christian bakers refuse because of their religious opposition to gay marriage, thus violating the relevant anti-discrimination laws (gays are a protected class under such laws). So the Christian baker is at fault.

But then we have Christians calling bakeries on the phone (and we have to trust that the people they're talking to are actually gay bakers, and the whole thing isn't hoax) and requesting a cake that says "Gay marriage is wrong". The gay bakers refuse. But they aren't violating any anti-discrimination laws. There's nothing in those laws that says businesses have to do anything any customer requests. So the gay bakers are not at fault.

"People who oppose gay marriage" are not a protected class under anti-discrimination laws, thus no law was violated, thus trying to equate it with the other scenario is specious at best.

Another consideration to ponder, in the cases that I'm aware of, the gay couples have been turned away prior to considerations about what they actually wanted the cake to look like, on the basis of the fact that it was merely for a gay wedding. In other words, they were refused, not for the content of the requested product, but for the fact that it was going to be used in a gay wedding, which means that the owners of the bakeries wouldn't have had a chance to assert a First Amendment right to a claim of free expression. It strikes me that there is quite a difference between being forced to bake a cake to be used in a wedding ceremony and being forced to write some particular thing upon said cake.

kmoney
December 17th, 2014, 02:47 PM
I think there is a double standard and I don't like that, but I question a Christian coming up with this experiment, and I question even more the idea that this guy should sue all the bakers that denied him service (I don't know if Shoebat would do it but I've seen that idea in this thread). Are Christians really supposed to fight back?

1Co 4:11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
1Co 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
1Co 4:13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Pro 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Pro 25:22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.


I don't see how suing these bakeries, or doing the experiment at all (especially recording the bakeries without their knowledge and then putting it on the internet) is following any of the verses above. Or is a loving response. It seems like much of Christianity in America is very concerned about maintaining political power or avenging/righting wrongs and not very much about bearing and suffering all things in love.


I've been reading Bonhoeffer recently and he has been helpful in taking a fresh look at what discipleship with Jesus means.

kmoney
December 17th, 2014, 02:57 PM
Furthermore, it is hard to see where the message "gay marriage is wrong" is a genuine religious expression and thus protectable under civil rights law. It seems to me that the point is the political message rather than the expression of a religious sentiment, in which case the free speech rights of the bakery make take precedence.


Right. The fundamental problem with what's described in the OP is that it tries to equate two very different things.

"People who oppose gay marriage" are not a protected class under anti-discrimination laws, thus no law was violated, thus trying to equate it with the other scenario is specious at best.


Another consideration to ponder, in the cases that I'm aware of, the gay couples have been turned away prior to considerations about what they actually wanted the cake to look like, on the basis of the fact that it was merely for a gay wedding. In other words, they were refused, not for the content of the requested product, but for the fact that it was going to be used in a gay wedding, which means that the owners of the bakeries wouldn't have had a chance to assert a First Amendment right to a claim of free expression. It strikes me that there is quite a difference between being forced to bake a cake to be used in a wedding ceremony and being forced to write some particular thing upon said cake.

:think:

shagster01
December 17th, 2014, 05:25 PM
Two sides. Each hypocritically doing the same thing they are yelling at the others about.

Way to prove that gays and Christians are both the same kind of stupid.

rexlunae
December 17th, 2014, 05:42 PM
Two sides. Each hypocritically doing the same thing they are yelling at the others about.

Way to prove that gays and Christians are both the same kind of stupid.

No, not really.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 05:49 PM
Two sides. Each hypocritically doing the same thing they are yelling at the others about.

Way to prove that gays and Christians are both the same kind of stupid.

Actually its a matter of getting it settled in the law, it cant be unfair one way but not the other on the same overall issue.

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 05:54 PM
Two sides. Each hypocritically doing the same thing they are yelling at the others about.

Way to prove that gays and Christians are both the same kind of stupid.


Actually its a matter of getting it settled in the law, it cant be unfair one way but not the other on the same overall issue.

Exactly ... IF it's illegal to discriminate, then those bakery owners who refused to bake the pro-traditional marriage cake should be held to the same standards as those refusing to bake a gay wedding cake.

My preference is that people just grow up and find a baker who will serve them whatever their little heart desires.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 05:57 PM
Exactly ... IF it's illegal to discriminate, then those bakery owners who refused to bake the pro-traditional marriage cake should be held to the same standards as those refusing to bake a gay wedding cake.

My preference is that people just grow up and find a baker who will serve them whatever their little heart desires.

I agree completely :thumb:

bybee
December 17th, 2014, 06:03 PM
I agree completely :thumb:

Me too!

TracerBullet
December 17th, 2014, 06:09 PM
I do support the bakers right to refuse service.

What I don't support is the double standard and the complete lack of any media attention on the reverse side of the equation.

except it isn't a double standard. on the one hand a marrying couple wants a traditional symbol of compliment and family on the other hand is a guy who wants statements of hate printed on a cake.

TracerBullet
December 17th, 2014, 06:10 PM
That, exactly.

I believe any business owner should be able to deny any service they want, and run their business model any way they want, but if they are going to be forced to cater to business models against their own, then it has to be so across the board.

Christian bakers forced to make cakes for gay weddings and celebrations and parades = Gay bakers forced to make cakes for opponents against gay marriage and celebration of Christian beliefs

I wonder how many Christian bakers would refuse to bake cakes with hate slogans on them.

aikido7
December 17th, 2014, 06:16 PM
“Support Gay Marriage” is one Christian bakery was sued for refusing to put that slogan on a cake for an event to support the gay agenda.

Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are getting sued left, right, and center. They get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. To make our case we provided 3 video clips, the third one is a video showing homosexual activists in Ireland used the state to force a Christian bakery to make a cake with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage” for a pro-gay marriage event, but he refused which added a tremendous loss to his business. Several Christian bakeries were sued in the United States with several who lost their businesses and we said enough is enough. So Shoebat.com decided to call some 13 prominent pro-gay bakers in a row. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it just to insult us because we are Christian. We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual bakers were. Even after we completed our experiment we got a ton of hate messages saying that we were “hateful” for simply giving them a taste of their own medicine by asking for a cake with the slogan “Gay Marriage Is Wrong” to be written on the cake.

AJaroR_qTNs

ptgAKywiHG0

By Theodore Shoebat

FULL STORY (http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/)
I hate to be so blunt, but today's Christianity (and Islam) tends to be bigoted, patriarchal, other-worldly and elite--far from where Jesus of Nazareth was.

That's why there are so many atheists, agnostics, humanists, those who identify as "spiritual, not religious," etc. It is a bitter irony for me that most of the people I see today that are trying to realize God's Kingdom On Earth (as it is in heaven) are not that many Christians these days, but are people who have had it with organized religion and are being very public about their criticisms.

Most believers, I have found, are unable to understand the criticism and have not even learned to respond to it in a reasonable, adult way.

We have much violence in the world today and I am convinced it is passed on through the generations by people who have never learned to deal with their own suffering (from spanking to insults, etc.) in an adult way.

We tend to treat others the way we ourselves were treated and unless we become conscious and feeling about those early negative experiences we have no conception of how our learned behavior is passed on to others.

I was sexually abused and yelled at but they always taught me to be as kind as I could to others, to learn how to value and take criticism, and to listen to people when they are in pain and don't want to be treated badly. So as soon as I learned that--if I was being hurtful or unkind to others--to simply respect them and stop what I was doing.

We all have good intentions but we are not always able to express those good intentions in "good" ways.

I remember this legislator who yelled out "You Lie" to the president during one of his State of the Union speeches. He was finally forced to apologize for his disrespect and he said "Well, I let my emotions get the better of me."

Exactly. Obviously his parents never taught him how to recognize and feel his strong emotions and to express them in an adult manner.
This is so important for everyone to learn--otherwise we might as well say "goodbye" to collaborative problem-solving and conflict resolution.

We have become a country of whiners and losers. And I only know this because I have a whiner and a loser within myself and am all-too-familiar with those feelings so I can easily recognize those feelings in myself.

I am the pot calling the kettle black but if I am accountable I have to admit that as a "pot" I am just as black as the kettles I criticize.

When we are attacked (as homos surely feel from the church) we get defensive and angry. I think this is where these guys are at now, so their decision to make a certain kind of cake is an attempt to "get back" at those of us who are happy and heterosexual.

But this is only my opinion and I am always willing to be accountable for my own wrong-headedness. So I could very easily be way off base here.

Thanks for letting me preach a bit!

shagster01
December 17th, 2014, 06:16 PM
Exactly ... IF it's illegal to discriminate, then those bakery owners who refused to bake the pro-traditional marriage cake should be held to the same standards as those refusing to bake a gay wedding cake.


Except they are asking them to make a cake that supports discrimination. So the "fighting discrimination" stance is a little tricky here.



My preference is that people just grow up and find a baker who will serve them whatever their little heart desires.

I agree with this.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 06:18 PM
Except they are asking them to make a cake that supports discrimination. So the "fighting discrimination" stance is a little tricky here.

Forcing a christian to go against their own beliefs is religious discrimination. Its the same thing in reverse.

shagster01
December 17th, 2014, 06:19 PM
Forcing a christian to go against their own beliefs is religious discrimination. Its the same thing in reverse.

Exactly. You said it... "The same thing."

Which is why I called both sides stupid.

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 06:19 PM
Sign on front window of a business in Indiana...


WE WOULD RATHER DO BUSINESS WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI, HARRY REID, ALL THE ELITES OF CONGRESS, THE MASS MEDIA, AND HOLLYWOOD , THAN WITH ONE CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN!'












Owens Funeral Home
Whiting, Indiana

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 06:24 PM
Exactly. You said it... "The same thing."

Which is why I called both sides stupid.

You can call it stupid all day, but its costing loads of christians their business and lots of money - its high time that slices the other way and it either ends (like it should and those who dont like a business model shop somewhere else) or the gay side needs to be hit with some fines and business loss for religious discrimination.

And guess what, only one of them is protected by the constitution and its not the gay side, so this issue needs to be forced to the supreme court.

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 06:29 PM
except it isn't a double standard. on the one hand a marrying couple wants a traditional symbol of compliment and family on the other hand is a guy who wants statements of hate printed on a cake.

Hate would be a message stating "I hope all gays implode and die". That isn't the message they asked for.

Let's quit playing games here and just admit that there is a huge amount of satisfaction that some people seek when they knowingly target a business who does not support their POV/religion/agenda, etc.

The Christian man had a point to make and he made it very well. Serving the public isn't so important when it's a customer one disagrees with or hates.

We all know it was a set up ... and guess what. It worked. Those refusing to bake this man's cake have a huge red "H" on their foreheads.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 06:34 PM
hmm..I always get in trouble when I jump into political/religious debates here...taking a chance out on that limb...lol

and I thought they would have taken the high road, being on the other end of discrimination and all.

But this challenge was unfair to me, they should have just asked the bakers to make a heterosexual wedding cake, afterall that's all the gays were asking.

the gays were not asking them to write on the cake "support gay marriage" just two same characters on the top.

I think they took it too far by asking them to write something specifically like that, it's uncouth and uncalled for and no one in their right mind would want a cake with writing on it like that at their wedding to begin with.

What does Peter say to his followers? live such good lives among the pagans when they slander you as practicers of evil, they may see your good actions and glorify God on the day he visits or something to that effect.

this just reeks of sensationalism and over the top stunts IMHO, could have been done much better and point still proven.

If it were me I would have just asked the gays to put a cymbal of my faith on the cake and went from there, a cross, dove, fish, anything would have done should they have refused or had issue with the faith itself.

hopefully I will still be around tomorrow to respond...ducks and runs for cover.

rexlunae
December 17th, 2014, 06:38 PM
Exactly ... IF it's illegal to discriminate, then those bakery owners who refused to bake the pro-traditional marriage cake should be held to the same standards as those refusing to bake a gay wedding cake.

So, for instance, if a KKK member asked for a cake with...well, the sort of message you might expect the KKK would ask for, would you say that they can't discriminate?

As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single case of a Christian-owned bakery being fined or sued or otherwise punished for failing to make a cake with any given pro-gay message, or anything even so much as representing that it would have been for a gay wedding. What's happened so far is that a gay couple asked for a cake for their wedding, and they were turned away before any discussion of the actual content of the cake, ergo, they were refused service because it would be used in a gay wedding, not because of any message that might have been a part of the cake.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

There is a legitimate right to free expression that must be respected, even sometimes in preference to civil rights. However, unlike the case in the OP, the wedding cake incident in Colorado was not such a situation.


My preference is that people just grow up and find a baker who will serve them whatever their little heart desires.

I'm generally in favor of a pretty broad interpretation of civil rights. I just don't like false equivalencies, which this thread is setting up.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 06:38 PM
hmm..I always get in trouble when I jump into political/religious debates here...taking a chance out on that limb...lol

and I thought they would have taken the high road, being on the other end of discrimination and all.

But this challenge was unfair to me, they should have just asked the bakers to make a heterosexual wedding cake, afterall that's all the gays were asking.

the gays were not asking them to write on the cake "support gay marriage"



Gays have forced christian tshirt and logo makers to create tshirts that support gay pride events and got their tails sued off and the gays won after the tshirt and print shops refused.

They openly admit they target christian business on purpose to "force equality" so if its really that they are after, then they need to be on the other end of those kinds of suits and be forced to support that which THEY do not agree with, or this nonsense needs to end.

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 06:41 PM
Again it's pretty simple. "People who are against gay marriage" is not a protected class in any anti-discrimination laws. Gays OTOH, are a protected class.

Therefore the two scenarios are not comparable.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 06:43 PM
Again it's pretty simple. "People who are against gay marriage" is not a protected class in any anti-discrimination laws. Gays OTOH, are a protected class.

Therefore the two scenarios are not comparable.

False, Christians have a constitutional right to follow their religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Can you show me the gay law in the constitution that overrides freedom of religion and speech?

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 06:45 PM
So, for instance, if a KKK member asked for a cake with...well, the sort of message you might expect the KKK would ask for, would you say that they can't discriminate?
Exactly. If you really want to compare like to like, then it would be...

A black couple is refused a wedding cake because the owner is a racist. He is fined by the city for discriminatory business practices.

A KKK member calls a black bakery and asks for a cake with a racist slogan on it and is refused.

Does anyone here really think the black baker should be fined and punished the same as the racist baker?

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 06:47 PM
Exactly. If you really want to compare like to like, then it would be...

A black couple is refused a wedding cake because the owner is a racist. He is fined by the city for discriminatory business practices.

A KKK member calls a black bakery and asks for a cake with a racist slogan on it and is refused.

Does anyone here really think the black baker should be fined and punished the same as the racist baker?

I don't think either should be fined, or punished, i think the crybaby who is refused service, should find someone else to fill their request, or make it themselves.

PS - its funny to see an extreme liberal use the word punish, i thought you guys hated that word, i mean you dont believe violent criminals should be punished - just those who dont agree with you....hypocrisy all over the map

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 06:49 PM
False, Christians have a constitutional right to follow their religion.
And you think having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" on them is following the Christian faith?


Can you show me the gay law in the constitution that overrides freedom of religion and speech?
Legally this is pretty cut and dry. "People who oppose gay marriage" is not a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Gays are. Therefore a baker can refuse to make a cake with "Gay marriage is wrong", but cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 06:51 PM
And you think having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" on them is following the Christian faith?


Legally this is pretty cut and dry. "People who oppose gay marriage" is not a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Gays are. Therefore a baker can refuse to make a cake with "Gay marriage is wrong", but cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.

I asked you for the constitutional passage that says gay rights are there and trump religious rights and free speech rights. Whats wrong, cant you back your own claim?

Oh and to stop your usual bait and switch quickly, heres the context again to refresh your memory of what YOU claimed:


Forcing a christian to go against their own beliefs is religious discrimination. Its the same thing in reverse.


Again it's pretty simple. "People who are against gay marriage" is not a protected class in any anti-discrimination laws. Gays OTOH, are a protected class.

Therefore the two scenarios are not comparable.


False, Christians have a constitutional right to follow their religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Can you show me the gay law in the constitution that overrides freedom of religion and speech?

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 06:52 PM
Again it's pretty simple. "People who are against gay marriage" is not a protected class in any anti-discrimination laws.

Why?


Gays OTOH, are a protected class.

Why?


Therefore the two scenarios are not comparable.

The only people I am interested in making special laws to protect are those who cannot protect themselves. That would include unborn babies, the handicapped and senior citizens.

The very scenario presented in this thread is exactly why hate crime legislation is opposed. People cry for fairness and then in turn defend the right to be unfair.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 06:55 PM
And you think having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" on them is following the Christian faith?

Yes



Legally this is pretty cut and dry. "People who oppose gay marriage" is not a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Gays are. Therefore a baker can refuse to make a cake with "Gay marriage is wrong", but cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.

False as ive already shown in the constitution, and you keep being unable to show your claim from it.

rexlunae
December 17th, 2014, 06:57 PM
I don't think either should be fined, or punished, i think the crybaby who is refused service, should find someone else to fill their request, or make it themselves.

PS - its funny to see an extreme liberal use the word punish, i thought you guys hated that word, i mean you dont believe violent criminals should be punished - just those who dont agree with you....hypocrisy all over the map

Well, credit where credit is due, that's consistent, at least. But it also means that you're willing to relegate people to permanently and hopelessly unequal status, and I don't think any of us should be content with that. If not for the various civil rights act, especially the Civil Rights Act of 1968, a large portion of the country would likely still be segregated by race, with one portion largely marginalized and denied access to a lot of what most people experience on an everyday basis.

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 06:58 PM
I asked you for the constitutional passage that says gay rights are there and trump religious rights and free speech rights.
Before we even go there, you need to demonstrate that having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" is such an integral part of Christianity, that not making one constitutes denying Christians their right to practice their religion.

If you can't, then you haven't established that anyone's religious rights have been violated.

As far as free speech, I would be surprised if we actually had to debate whether a business owner has to make everything any customer requests, no matter what it is.

musterion
December 17th, 2014, 06:59 PM
Side question.

If even one of them had agreed to bake him a cake, do you think he should have let anyone eat it? Be honest, now...

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 07:00 PM
Why?
Because AFAIK, no one has even proposed including "People who oppose gay marriage" in the list of protected classes in anti-discrimination laws.


Why?
Because gays have successfully made their case to be included in the list of protected classes.


The very scenario presented in this thread is exactly why hate crime legislation is opposed. People cry for fairness and then in turn defend the right to be unfair.
Except the two situations aren't equivalent.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 07:00 PM
Gays have forced christian tshirt and logo makers to create tshirts that support gay pride events and got their tails sued off and the gays won after the tshirt and print shops refused.
well that would have been appropriate, tit for tat

call up Westboro and have them order some shirts for their next gay funeral rally.



They openly admit they target christian business on purpose to "force equality" so if its really that they are after, then they need to be on the other end of those kinds of suits and be forced to support that which THEY do not agree with, or this nonsense needs to end.
Yes, but the Christians went for it....:D wise as serpents hardly.

all they would have had to do is say "we don't have same sex figures, you'll have to add that yourself" and made a regular cake.

The Christians made their choices not to serve the people based on their faith and a bit of prejudice, and not because they were being asked to write something blasphemous against their faith, they could have made a plain cake and sold it to a gay, a thief, murderer, whatever without agreeing with them or their lifestyle, it is literally done every day.

I agree it needs to end, I'm just throwing some ideas out there that are my best for a resolution that will be good for all and I think we all have something to contribute there rather than waiting around for a legal solution.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 07:02 PM
Well, credit where credit is due, that's consistent, at least. But it also means that you're willing to relegate people to permanently and hopelessly unequal status, and I don't think any of us should be content with that.

False, unless you can show me how someone is actually injured because a store wont make them a cake, or print them a tshirt to support what the business owner wont.

"I dont like this and dont like how i feel" is not injury, when you can get it somewhere else, and when you are who targetted someone to force them to cater to you. These people were not denied service in general, they were denied a specific item.

Its not possible for a gay to find a gay baker or a non christian baker to make them a cake? They exist clearly as shown in the video of the op dont they?

But you bunch of whining hypocrites keep acting like you dont get it. Its makes you all look nuts because you cannot see your own flagrant hypocrisy. You scream discrimination and think the answer is discriminating against others to even the scale.

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 07:03 PM
Yes
Wow. So according to you, having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" on them is such an essential aspect of Christianity, that denying such cakes constitutes denying Christians the ability to practice their faith.

Have fun making that argument in court. :rolleyes:


False as ive already shown in the constitution, and you keep being unable to show your claim from it.
Not at all. Your only counter argument is the above, which is so patently absurd, it speaks for itself.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 07:06 PM
Wow. So according to you, having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" on them is such an essential aspect of Christianity, that denying such cakes constitutes denying Christians the ability to practice their faith.
Have fun making that argument in court. :rolleyes:


Not at all. Your only counter argument is the above, which is so patently absurd, it speaks for itself.

You just twisted what i said completely. Forcing a christian to create a cake (or anything for that matter) to support something that is against their religion, is discrimination of their religious beliefs. Forcing a gay to create what is against their beliefs, is the same exact thing.

Neither should be happening but if the law wants to fine christians for refusing, the gays should be fined also, or the law needs to be clear that a business owner can refuse that which to which they do not agree or support.

Cant have it both ways.

now, no more responses for you, untill you actually back what you claimed before, and i have asked for repeatedly, show me the gay protected class clause of the constitution and that it trumps the first amendment.

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 07:10 PM
Forcing a christian to create a cake to support something that is against their religion, is discrimination of their religious beliefs.
Nobody's forcing them to do anything. But once you open a business to the public, you must abide by the same anti-discrimination laws as every other business. If conservative Christians can't abide by those laws, then they don't have to open businesses.


Forcing a gay to create what is against their beliefs, is the same exact thing.
No it's not. "People who oppose gay marriage" is not a protected class. Gays are. Not the same thing.


Neither should be happening but if the law wants to fine christians for refusing, the gays should be fined also, or the law needs to be clear that a business owner can refuse that which to which they do not agree or support.

Cant have it both ways.
You're basically making the argument I put forth earlier. Because a racist baker can't refuse to serve blacks, a black baker must therefore bake a cake with a racist slogan on it.

If that's where you want to plant your flag, be my guest.


now, no more responses for you, untill you actually back what you claimed before, and i have asked for repeatedly, show me the gay protected class clause of the constitution and that it trumps the first amendment.
The protected class aspect refers to the local anti-discrimination laws. I thought you knew that.

rexlunae
December 17th, 2014, 07:13 PM
False, unless you can show me how someone is actually injured because a store wont make them a cake, or print them a tshirt to support what the business owner wont.

What if every store won't make you a cake? What if no one will let you stay in their hotel? What if no one will sell you a car? These were the reason for the Civil Rights Act of 1968.


"I dont like this and dont like how i feel" is not injury, when you can get it somewhere else, and when you are who targetted someone to force them to cater to you. These people were not denied service in general, they were denied a specific item.

If you can't see the injury in being forced to look around for a business that is willing to serve you regardless on your innate traits, then I can only say that you are blind and privileged.


Its not possible for a gay to find a gay baker or a non christian baker to make them a cake?

Not the issue, and you really should be able to see how this approach runs contrary to the goal of a genuinely pluralistic society.


But you bunch of whining hypocrites keep acting like you dont get it. Its makes you all look nuts because you cannot see your own flagrant hypocrisy. You scream discrimination and think the answer is discriminating against others to even the scale.

There's no hypocrisy in embracing genuine pluralism while rejecting fake pluralism.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 07:17 PM
Yall let me know when you are done throwing strawmen, and own up to your own hypocrisy that to discriminate against others, is doing what you claim to hate.

You are as bad as a man who attacks someone else (innocent victim) because of a wrong or perceived wrong done to them by someone completely different, but pretending its justified because of (race, sex, profession, etc..)

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 07:21 PM
I'm done. lol

I've been telling people on here for years I am a hypocrite! lol

finally someone believes me. :)

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 07:24 PM
own up to your own hypocrisy that to discriminate against others, is doing what you claim to hate.
No one said all discrimination is wrong, all the time. If a pedophile asked a baker to make a cake with an obscene image, the baker can legally discriminate against him and I think we all would support that.

If a woman goes into a restaurant and starts shouting, the owner can legally discriminate against her and kick her out.

If a KKK member asks a t-shirt business to make a shirt with a racist image and slogan on it, the owner can legally discriminate against him.

Pedophiles, loud people, and racists are not protected classes in any anti-discrimination law. Neither are gay marriage opponents.

Gays OTOH are a protected class, and I think that's the real root issue you are struggling with.

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 07:25 PM
Because AFAIK, no one has even proposed including "People who oppose gay marriage" in the list of protected classes in anti-discrimination laws.

They are being discriminated against based on their religious beliefs.


Because gays have successfully made their case to be included in the list of protected classes.

That doesn't answer the question of WHY? Why do you believe they need protection? Are they not as smart? Good looking? Talented? Easy on the eyes? Are they mentally incompetent? What makes them so special that they need to receive preferential treatment and special laws to protect them?


Except the two situations aren't equivalent.

They absolutely are ... a patron is just that ... a person who comes in to buy or order something. He/she is in a situation where if the product were not available, they would just go elsewhere. Their life and well being does not depend on patronizing *that* particular business. All they are is a person walking into a business who may may or may not spend a few buck at the business.

OTOH, the business owners business is like their second home. It's their hard work that goes into making their business successful. They are not required to buy from any particular vendor. The perks of ownership should include running a business as the owner sees fit in accordance to their needs and beliefs.

No one in their right mind would go out of their way to have something as important as a wedding cake made at a shop that does not wish them well. It's about making a political statement.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 07:27 PM
No one said all discrimination is wrong, all the time.




now, no more responses for you, untill you actually back what you claimed before, and i have asked for repeatedly, show me the gay protected class clause of the constitution and that it trumps the first amendment.

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 07:33 PM
They are being discriminated against based on their religious beliefs.
Sure, but so are KKK members who request racist cakes.


That doesn't answer the question of WHY? Why do you believe they need protection? Are they not as smart? Good looking? Talented? Easy on the eyes? Are they mentally incompetent? What makes them so special that they need to receive preferential treatment and special laws to protect them?
I think you misunderstand the point of anti-discrimination laws. For example, it is illegal to discriminate based solely on a person's ethnicity. Does that mean we believe all that stuff you wrote above applies to minorities? Of course not.


They absolutely are ... a patron is just that ... a person who comes in to buy or order something. He/she is in a situation where if the product were not available, they would just go elsewhere. Their life and well being does not depend on patronizing *that* particular business. All they are is a person walking into a business who may may or may not spend a few buck at the business.
"They can just go elsewhere" is a failed legal argument.


OTOH, the business owners business is like their second home. It's their hard work that goes into making their business successful. They are not required to buy from any particular vendor. The perks of ownership should include running a business as the owner sees fit in accordance to their needs and beliefs.
If someone opens a business to the public, they have to abide by the relevant anti-discrimination laws, the same as every other business owner.


No one in their right mind would go out of their way to have something as important as a wedding cake made at a shop that does not wish them well. It's about making a political statement.
No one in their right mind would go out of their way to sit in the front of a bus in a city that does not wish them well.

See how hateful that sounds?

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 07:35 PM
Pedophiles, loud people, and racists are not protected classes in any anti-discrimination law. Neither are gay marriage opponents.

So ... if I KNOW someone is a pedophile, loud mouth or racist, I shouldn't be forced to serve them. According to you.


Neither are gay marriage opponents.

Oh, so you are pro-censorship/pro-discrimination. Sometimes. IF you agree with those who are being censored or discriminated against. Got it.

So much for white and black issues. Everything is grey.


Gays OTOH are a protected class, and I think that's the real root issue you are struggling with.

I think we should ALL have an issue when grown, healthy adults receive more protection and consideration from the law than the rest of us.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 07:35 PM
They are being discriminated against based on their religious beliefs.



That doesn't answer the question of WHY? Why do you believe they need protection? Are they not as smart? Good looking? Talented? Easy on the eyes? Are they mentally incompetent? What makes them so special that they need to receive preferential treatment and special laws to protect them?



They absolutely are ... a patron is just that ... a person who comes in to buy or order something. He/she is in a situation where if the product were not available, they would just go elsewhere. Their life and well being does not depend on patronizing *that* particular business. All they are is a person walking into a business who may may or may not spend a few buck at the business.

OTOH, the business owners business is like their second home. It's their hard work that goes into making their business successful. They are not required to buy from any particular vendor. The perks of ownership should include running a business as the owner sees fit in accordance to their needs and beliefs.

No one in their right mind would go out of their way to have something as important as a wedding cake made at a shop that does not wish them well. It's about making a political statement.

And about being a bully and about $$$ because they are specifically targeting certain businesses and they admit it.

They wish to demand that christians believe what THEY want them to believe their message or have no business and pay up, and they openly state it all the time.

They say if you dont like gay marriage dont participate, then they FORCE YOU to participate and agree or have no livelihood and go banktupt paying them. If thats not bullying, i dont know what is.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 07:39 PM
"They can just go elsewhere" is a failed legal argument.

See how hateful that sounds?

If you don't like our naked parades in front of your children, you dont have to look

If i want you to agree, you will or pay me and be fined and go out of business....

Why is what we do your business anyway stay out of our bedroom untill we force you there....

:think:

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 07:46 PM
And about being a bully and about $$$ because they are specifically targeting certain businesses and they admit it.

They wish to demand that christians believe what THEY want them to believe their message or have no business and pay up, and they openly state it all the time.

They say if you dont like gay marriage dont participate, then they FORCE YOU to participate and agree or have no livelihood and go banktupt paying them. If thats not bullying, i dont know what is.

you can't see how they felt they had to take it that far to get a result?

what do you think would have happened if the Christians would have just made the first cake and explained it to them as stated in my earlier scenario?

where is the wisdom of the serpent here? the harmlessness of the dove?

it seems the Christians got taken fairly easy.

I am saying this in hopes some will read it and think next time, and realize we do not live in a Christian monarchy/hierarchy in the US but a secular equal right society that has it's own laws for public businesses.

As ridiculous as the Christian cakes and their writing are to me, I think they will win the cases legally.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 07:51 PM
you can't see how they felt they had to take it that far to get a result?

No, discrimination against others who did nothing to you because of perceived discrimination against you, from someone else, is insane and hypocritical.


what do you think would have happened if the Christians would have just made the first cake and explained it to them as stated in my earlier scenario?

Totally irrelevant, if they feel God would have them do no such thing and they are forced to comply with man instead of God on it - then they have been discriminated against for practicing their religion, period.


where is the wisdom of the serpent here? the harmlessness of the dove? Not being shown by you, God would have a christian choose His ways over mans.


it seems the Christians got taken fairly easy.

Yes, its so easy to lose your business and life savings in fines and payments to those who openly admit they targetted you for discrimination against your beliefs.


I am saying this in hopes some will read it and think next time, and realize we do not live in a Christian monarchy/hierarchy in the US but a secular equal right society that has it's own laws for public businesses.

I am saying choose this day who you will serve, man or God.

TracerBullet
December 17th, 2014, 08:00 PM
False, Christians have a constitutional right to follow their religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Can you show me the gay law in the constitution that overrides freedom of religion and speech?

that would be the 14th amendment which says that everyone, even people you choose to hate, have equal rights and equal responsibilities.

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 08:04 PM
So ... if I KNOW someone is a pedophile, loud mouth or racist, I shouldn't be forced to serve them. According to you. Depending on the circumstances, you can discriminate.


Oh, so you are pro-censorship/pro-discrimination. Sometimes. IF you agree with those who are being censored or discriminated against. Got it. It's not about what I agree with, it's about what the law says.


So much for white and black issues. Everything is grey.
Pretty much.


I think we should ALL have an issue when grown, healthy adults receive more protection and consideration from the law than the rest of us.
So you oppose all anti-discriminaton laws?

TracerBullet
December 17th, 2014, 08:08 PM
False, unless you can show me how someone is actually injured because a store wont make them a cake, or print them a tshirt to support what the business owner wont.


http://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/whites-only-2.jpg

Did this actually physically injure anyone?





But you bunch of whining hypocrites keep acting like you dont get it. Its makes you all look nuts because you cannot see your own flagrant hypocrisy. You scream discrimination and think the answer is discriminating against others to even the scale.

the answer is equal access for everyone. You are the one demanding the right to discriminate.

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 08:10 PM
http://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/whites-only-2.jpg

Did this actually physically injure anyone?





No. Unless some white guy blew off his finger with an M80

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 08:13 PM
what do you think would have happened if the Christians would have just made the first cake and explained it to them as stated in my earlier scenario?
Totally irrelevant, if they feel God would have them do no such thing and they are forced to comply with man instead of God on it - then they have been discriminated against for practicing their religion, period.
they can't possibly judge every person equally and know who is a murderer, molester, etc from every one of their customers.
So they ARE selling cakes to people whom disagree with their faith, quite hypocritically even without their knowledge of it, this particular one just happens to be out in the open.



where is the wisdom of the serpent here? the harmlessness of the dove?
Not being shown by you, God would have a christian choose His ways over mans.
I've never read in the Bible were Jesus turned away anyone for his services, the Samaritan woman comes to mind, the Centurion as well.
Of course we can't all follow his example and some do chose to make their own way....wisdom? yep, he had it!



Yes, its so easy to lose your business and life savings in fines and payments to those who openly admit they targetted you for discrimination against your beliefs.
I wouldn't not allowed such people to steal my biz from me, I've already stated what I could have been done in this scenario to avoid that.

sounds like a battle of flesh and blood rather than spirits.


I am saying choose this day who you will serve, man or God.
And I agree and appreciate your candor,

I don't think serving God means we have to discriminate against men tho, we are free to follow His sons example or not.

do unto others as you would have them comes to mind. :)

In the original Temple designed by God after the priest got their share the rest of the offerings were given to the wanderers, the poor, people that were not even Jews, probably some gays in there back then,,,lol

Now the Temple is within us, how much more glorious should that be...how much more open to offering the best to the world indeed, that they would come to know the Lord.

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 08:14 PM
Oh
If you don't like our naked parades in front of your children, you dont have to look

If i want you to agree, you will or pay me and be fined and go out of business....

Why is what we do your business anyway stay out of our bedroom untill we force you there....

:think:
Thus confirming that the real issue here is that you just don't like gays.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 08:15 PM
t
I've never read in the Bible were Jesus turned away anyone for his services

Why do you think hell exists? He will be turning away loads of people for His "services". Seems you need to read your bible again.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 08:15 PM
Thus confirming that the real issue here is that you just don't like guys.

I love guys. Ask my husband.

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 08:17 PM
I love guys. Ask my husband.

Auto correct sucks.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 08:20 PM
Auto correct sucks.

So do your comprehension and understanding skills.

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 08:23 PM
So you oppose all anti-discriminaton laws?

I think they were initially well intended but are currently abused and misused. Most laws that cater to a specific gender/religion/race/sexual orientation are giving preferential treatment to only a specific few.

A law will not determine my opinion or treatment of another human being. For example, if my best friend in high school asked me to do his wedding cake (he is gay), I would do it in a heart beat, for free even.

If my children's friend's mother came in and tried to patronize my shop, I would tell her to get lost. Not because she is gay, but because I cannot stand the woman.

However, with the second scenario, I would be in a position to be accused of hating gay people and possibly penalized. That's not the issue.

I don't like having people second guess my reasons and intentions for how I react and treat others. It would be hypocritical to not afford others the same courtesy.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 08:27 PM
I've never read in the Bible were Jesus turned away anyone for his servicesWhy do you think hell exists? He will be turning away loads of people for His "services". Seems you need to read your bible again.

that's after you die,

while you are alive there is still hope, and no he doesn't turn anyone alive away thats just silly talk and you know it,

try and remember he saved you while you were still dead in your sins

and all sins are the same in his eyes....if ya'v broken one your guilty of all James 2:10

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 08:29 PM
that's after you die,

while you are alive there is still hope, and no he doesn't turn anyone alive away thats just silly talk and you know it

yes, He still turns away people that refuse to acknowledge Him in truth, even in this life.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 08:30 PM
If my children's friend's mother came in and tried to patronize my shop, I would tell her to get lost. Not because she is gay, but because I cannot stand the woman.


remember that old sign?

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason!"

oh the good ole days...lol

simple solution we talked about in the gay cake thread, go private.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 08:31 PM
yes, He still turns away people that refuse to acknowledge Him in truth, even in this life.

biblical example?

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 08:34 PM
biblical example?

John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 08:37 PM
John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

and that meant they were turned away from his services?

so the 5000 that ate fish and loaves, ALL believed? not a single doubter in the lot.

interesting take.

that's more miraculous than Peters 3000 conversion in Acts for sure.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 08:38 PM
and that meant they were turned away from his services?

so the 5000 that ate fish and loaves, ALL believed? not a single doubter in the lot.

interesting take.

that's more miraculous than Peters 3000 conversion in Acts for sure.

Weird, that you think those things have to do with serving God and that you think because they got fed food it means they received Him as Lord and Savior and recognized Him as such.

More bait and switch.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 08:42 PM
Weird, that you think those things have to do with serving God.
I tried to make a point about how we should conduct ourselves based on Jesus example.

who He offered his services (to feed) to and who He turned away based on His faith.

obviously and epic fail on my part.:D

but I do have a hard time believing all 5,000 believed in him and were not judged is how they obtained service.

just a wee little part of me wants to beleive Jesus gave equal food to all....

hanging on to hope of things unseen. ;)

Jose Fly
December 17th, 2014, 08:52 PM
I think they were initially well intended but are currently abused and misused. Most laws that cater to a specific gender/religion/race/sexual orientation are giving preferential treatment to only a specific few. Not really. They're ensuring groups of people who have been wrongly discriminated against in the past, are not discriminated against now.


A law will not determine my opinion or treatment of another human being.
Not opinion, but behavior? Definitely.


I don't like having people second guess my reasons and intentions for how I react and treat others. It would be hypocritical to not afford others the same courtesy.
Society has decided otherwise.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 08:55 PM
and that you think because they got fed food it means they received Him as Lord and Savior and recognized Him as such.

More bait and switch.

not exactly, because they got fed food means He did not discriminate nor require them to be saved to eat from His supply.

it should be no different for a cake seller or provider of that service, unless of course they are being asked to write something on the cake that is blasphemous or against their beliefs, that would cross a line IMHO.

but simply making the cake and selling it to someone of another faith makes no one a bedfellow with the devil.

You mentioned hypocrisy before, I doubt any Christian cake maker can honestly say they have never sold a cake to a molester, a murderer, a thief, but somehow this one sin is different.
IF they can't honestly judge every person equally that enters their store, look into their hearts and know their every sin, then they shouldn't judge or turn away any of them to be fair, all "writings" aside.

Angel4Truth
December 17th, 2014, 08:57 PM
You mentioned hypocrisy before, I doubt any Christian cake maker can honestly say they have never sold a cake to a molester, a murderer, a thief, but somehow this one sin is different.
IF they can't honestly judge every person equally that enters their store, look into their hearts and know their every sin, then they shouldn't judge or turn away any of them to be fair, all "writings" aside.

Those bakers didn't refuse to serve the gays and even offered them treats for their parties, they refused to support their marriage by making them a specialty item signifying approval. (like the tshirt makers didnt refuse them tshirts, they refused tshirts supporting gay marriage and gay pride parades)

Again, more bait and switch.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 09:04 PM
Those bakers didn't refuse to serve the gays and even offered them treats for their parties, they refused to support their marriage.

Again, more bait and switch.
I've read several cases on the matter, and even saw one on a popular Tv court show where they did just that, they refused to make cakes for the gays based on faith.

the one on TV, the Christians actually won the case because the gay was given ample time to find another baker and was told early on they were not going to be able to make their cake for them, the judge decided it posed no hardship to the fellow and they were within their religious rights to refuse.

so I don't get were your goin on about this bate and switch deal,

is that one of your catch phrases when you start loosing a debate? lol

are you familiar with all the reverse cases on this? I assure you I switched nothing, got no need to really as I see it my view has not only been supported biblically by Jesus own actions but is the stronger and more ethical stance all around IMHO.

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 09:05 PM
You mentioned hypocrisy before, I doubt any Christian cake maker can honestly say they have never sold a cake to a molester, a murderer, a thief, but somehow this one sin is different.
I think the two men/women on top of the cake or the two male/female names would be an indicator to the baker. If someone from asked for a cake with NAMBLA celebrates 50 years on the cake, any baker should be free to discriminate.

Would you have an issue if a Jewish baker was asked to make a cake in the form of swastika and said no?

How about an African American baker being asked to put KKK on a cake in the shape of a noose?

Discrimination is a good thing, when it is done for the right reasons.

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 09:06 PM
Not opinion, but behavior? Definitely.

Behavior ... treatment. Same criteria.


Society has decided otherwise.

Society and legality do not necessarily determine between right and wrong. I am sure we would both agree that it should be legal for gays to marry, UNLESS they are under age. And yet, it is not.

What I wouldn't agree with would be forcing a pastor to marry any couple.

For me, it's not an issue of discrimination but rights and ownership (of property,merchandise and self).

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 09:13 PM
You mentioned hypocrisy before, I doubt any Christian cake maker can honestly say they have never sold a cake to a molester, a murderer, a thief, but somehow this one sin is different.I think the two men/women on top of the cake or the two male/female names would be an indicator to the baker. If someone from asked for a cake with NAMBLA celebrates 50 years on the cake, any baker should be free to discriminate.

Would you have an issue if a Jewish baker was asked to make a cake in the form of swastika and said no?

How about an African American baker being asked to put KKK on a cake in the shape of a noose?

Discrimination is a good thing, when it is done for the right reasons.

I agree,

and beleive I offered the same scenario as a solution for the baker on page 5, post #70 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4152568&postcount=70).

the cases I am referring to tho, the bakers actually refused to even make the cakes, they refused service based solely on the person being wed being openly gay.

what that tells me is "we will serve any sinner as long as you keep your sin a secret"....

I just can't get on board that train....if you are going to refuse business based on sin and be honest across the board, you will go out of biz real quick as we do not live on a planet of holy's..lol

it was a good thing I proved early on Jesus never did such with his food supplies...

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 09:16 PM
I agree,

and beleive I offered the same scenario as a solution for the baker on page 5, post #70 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4152568&postcount=70).

the cases I am referring to tho, the bakers actually refused to even make the cakes, they refused service based solely on the person being wed being openly gay.

what that tells me is "we will serve any sinner as long as you keep your sin a secret"....

I just can't get on board that train....if you are going to refuse business based on sin and be honest across the board, you will go out of biz real quick as we do not live on a planet of holy's..lol

If I go into a restaurant and have a meal, I will tip the waitress. However, if she decides to inform me that she is saving her money to have an abortion, I will leave no tip. It is perfectly acceptable to make good decisions based on the information you have been given.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 09:22 PM
If I go into a restaurant and have a meal, I will tip the waitress. However, if she decides to inform me that she is saving her money to have an abortion, I will leave no tip. It is perfectly acceptable to make good decisions based on the information you have been given.

I mean really? not tipping your waitress of all the lame excuses I have heard.

you my friend are a bum. :rotfl:

I mean, I could see not giving anything above and beyond, but 15% is mandatory/customary.

I can't beleive you would go that far, to actually stiff a person whom gave you a service, someone that relies on that income for more than just their abortions.

How would you feel if your boss found out you were a Christian and decided as an atheist they weren't going to pay you what you earned?

seriously dude, where is the golden rule of Jesus in all this, as you would have them do unto you, would you really have atheist do that unto you?

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 09:25 PM
I mean really? not tipping your waitress of all the lame excuses I have heard.

you my friend are a bum. :rotfl:

I mean, I could see not giving anything above and beyond, but 15% is mandatory/customary.

I can't beleive you would go that far, to actually stiff a person whom gave you a service, someone that relies on that income for more than just their abortions.

How would you feel if your boss found out you were a Christian and decided as an atheist they weren't going to pay you what you earned?

seriously dude, where is the golden rule of Jesus in all this, as you would have them do unto you, would you really have atheist do that unto you?I personally would not support a women who is going to murder her child. You obviously see nothing wrong with that. You most likely think that Jesus would have given the woman caught in adultery a morning after pill.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 09:30 PM
I personally would not support a women who is going to murder her child.
there is a difference in 'supporting' someone and paying them for services rendered.


You obviously see nothing wrong with that.
Incorrect, I said I could see not going above and beyond, but I understand they get like $3 an hour, the tips are their income and 15% is customary/mandatory in most places.

she may have 5 other kids to support, you can't possibly be that short sighted.



You most likely think that Jesus would have given the woman caught in adultery a morning after pill.
I think we are going a bit off topic here, if ya must know I am pro-choice in the case of rape or incest but anti-abortion in general.

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 09:33 PM
I think we are going a bit off topic here, if ya must know I am pro-choice in the case of rape or incest but anti-abortion in general.So you are pro-murder with exceptions.

Is this how you love your neighbor?

There are some real flakes on this site.

Rusha
December 17th, 2014, 09:39 PM
there is a difference in 'supporting' someone and paying them for services rendered.

In that particular situation though, it is assumed the waitress has made her abortion known to a customer. Not only unappetizing, but very unprofessional.


Incorrect, I said I could see not going above and beyond, but I understand they get like $3 an hour, the tips are their income and 15% is customary/mandatory in most places.

she may have 5 other kids to support, you can't possibly be that short sighted.

While this isn't really the thread for an abortion discussion, finances do not dictate the morality of abortion. The unborn baby of a rich person is no more deserving of life than the unborn baby of a poor person. It's about their value and right to life, not the parent's bank account.


I think we are going a bit off topic here, if ya must know I am pro-choice in the case of rape or incest but anti-abortion in general.

A child created out of rape or incest is no less innocent and deserving of life and protection than one created from consensual sex.

That is where the rape/incest/poverty arguments fail. It insinuates that an unborn baby's worth is determined by the parent's finances and circumstances.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 09:44 PM
So you are pro-murder with exceptions.

Is this how you love your neighbor?

There are some real flakes on this site.

yep, I don't beleive an incest child with mutations and such is going to have a good quality of life.

they will most likely have some genetic regressive disease that will be very painful and debilitating and they will be lucky to live past 4 years old.

it's more merciful that such a child never be born, IMHO, especially when it can be avoided early on before the child takes on a form that is human (embryonic).

must you turn every debate into abortion? we do have threads here for that btw....

what's it got to do with the gays and their cakes?

not wanting children to have live terribly excruciatingly painful lives might make me a flake but at least I tip! :D

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 09:51 PM
A child created out of rape or incest is no less innocent and deserving of life and protection than one created from consensual sex.

That is where the rape/incest/poverty arguments fail. It insinuates that an unborn baby's worth is determined by the parent's finances and circumstances.

my reasons for wanting to allow incest abortions (embryonic) have nothing to do with levels of innocence or deserving of recipients or finances and everything to do with quality of life as I have gone into further detail with Doom and my last post.

If the child of incest was given the choice to live a miserable painful genetically regressive short life or none at all I feel they would agree.
Unfortunately they cannot make that choice for themselves.....and someone has to sit in the mercy seat sometimes.

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 09:56 PM
yep, I don't beleive an incest child with mutations and such is going to have a good quality of life.

Thank you Mr. Hitler.

Next.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 10:39 PM
Thank you Mr. Hitler.

Next.
seems science is lost on the simple minded.

this guy would rather watch them suffer their miserable few year existence in excruciating pain with no hope of every having a healthy life,,, than terminate embryonic before they form as human....

nice fellow, welcome to TOL! lol

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b1/5a/76/b15a76c9e857746ad862071a279d8572.jpg

Doom
December 17th, 2014, 10:47 PM
seems science is lost on the simple minded. "Simple minded" enough to know better than to murder innocent babies.


this guy would rather watch them suffer their miserable few year existence in excruciating pain with no hope of every having a healthy life,,, than terminate embryonic before they form as human....I'm sure everyone who knows you has had to suffer a miserable existence their whole life in excruciating pain with no hope.

Lighthouse
December 17th, 2014, 10:54 PM
In this case I would disagree. I think it is necessary for the Christians to publicly point out the double standard and even go to court over it. If it is "illegal" for a Christian to refuse service to a gay couple for personal convictions then it is equally "illegal" for a Homosexual to refuse to serve Christians for the same reason.

This is what irritates me so much about "social injustice" real or perceived. If I say I am against gay marriage then people say they are offended by that and I lose my right to freedom of expression because it is offensive to somebody. Will, what about the offense I feel when people are saying that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable. I find that offensive yet it is perfectly acceptable to ignore my offense and protect others from being offended. It is a double standard that should not be allowed to exist. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees freedom from offense.
:thumb:


they can't possibly judge every person equally and know who is a murderer, molester, etc from every one of their customers.
So they ARE selling cakes to people whom disagree with their faith, quite hypocritically even without their knowledge of it, this particular one just happens to be out in the open.
You're an idiot. The issue is not to whom the cakes are being sold, but the purposes of the cakes themselves; the event[s] for which they are meant and/or the message[s] on them.

If a gay man orders a regular birthday cake from a bakery run by Christians then the Christians have no valid reason to refuse whether or not they know he's gay.


I've never read in the Bible were Jesus turned away anyone for his services, the Samaritan woman comes to mind, the Centurion as well.
Of course we can't all follow his example and some do chose to make their own way....wisdom? yep, he had it!
Because those people came to Him in faith and submission. He outright rejected those who tried to entrap Him, such as the Pharisees with the woman caught in adultery.

You really are a moron.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 10:55 PM
"Simple minded" enough to know better than to murder innocent babies.

they are not babies at that point,

in fact they are not even human, any DNA could be introduced and they could form into whatever is coded.

it's not murder until it becomes a human, and if it would be inhumane and quite frankly heartless to allow something to develop to be a human knowing it will have a poor quality of life and be in such pain if even for a short miserable existence.

I don't advocate abortion of babies, it's a shame you are too daft to know the difference.

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 11:01 PM
:thumb:


You're an idiot.
sticking with that old gem I see....when you lose every debate I read! lol

it has served you well, or rather suites you, shows a maturity level both physically and spiritually. :rotfl:



The issue is not to whom the cakes are being sold, but the purposes of the cakes themselves; the event[s] for which they are meant and/or the message[s] on them.

If a gay man orders a regular birthday cake from a bakery run by Christians then the Christians have no valid reason to refuse whether or not they know he's gay.
and they do so hypocritically because they cannot possibly judge every other persons sin that enters the shop.

thank you for helping prove the point in spades here, good assist! lol



Because those people came to Him in faith and submission. He outright rejected those who tried to entrap Him, such as the Pharisees with the woman caught in adultery.

You really are a moron.
one of these days you are actually going to be able to address the issues of a debate, the scriptures presented and points being made,,,

until then we will enjoy these name calling tangents... :D

as we have all these years.....on fine day bro, one fine day indeed. :drum:

jeremysdemo
December 17th, 2014, 11:03 PM
Wow I can't beleive I took House of ignore 3 years ago just to read this,

Sozo, welcome back to where you ain't wanted by management,

just like old times people, :)

I think you guys can take it from here!

goodnight :grave:

Lighthouse
December 17th, 2014, 11:36 PM
sticking with that old gem I see....when you lose every debate I read! lol

it has served you well, or rather suites you, shows a maturity level both physically and spiritually. :rotfl:
The fact that you can't spell weakens your case. And if I lose every debate you read then you aren't reading much of anything. Which is easy to believe as you apparently can't read. You're clearly not reading the Bible.


and they do so hypocritically because they cannot possibly judge every other persons sin that enters the shop.

thank you for helping prove the point in spades here, good assist! lol
You really are stupid.

My entire point was that they need not worry about anyone's sin in the course of doing regular business in which they are not asked to support sin. And in all of these stories they were being asked to support sin.

They're is nothing hypocritical in any of this. You're just an imbecile.

one of these days you are actually going to be able to address the issues of a debate, the scriptures presented and points being made,,,

until then we will enjoy these name calling tangents... :D

as we have all these years.....on fine day bro, one fine day indeed. :drum:[/QUOTE]
How did I not address the issue, twit?


Wow I can't beleive I took House of ignore 3 years ago just to read this,
Are you drunk or was this intended to read as gibberish?

rexlunae
December 18th, 2014, 12:15 AM
I think they were initially well intended but are currently abused and misused. Most laws that cater to a specific gender/religion/race/sexual orientation are giving preferential treatment to only a specific few.

A law will not determine my opinion or treatment of another human being. For example, if my best friend in high school asked me to do his wedding cake (he is gay), I would do it in a heart beat, for free even.

If my children's friend's mother came in and tried to patronize my shop, I would tell her to get lost. Not because she is gay, but because I cannot stand the woman.

However, with the second scenario, I would be in a position to be accused of hating gay people and possibly penalized. That's not the issue.

I don't like having people second guess my reasons and intentions for how I react and treat others. It would be hypocritical to not afford others the same courtesy.

So, to be clear, you're saying that it should be completely legal for stores to hang "whites only" signs up, and kick out black people, so that if a black person you don't happen to like for entirely non-racial reasons comes into your business, you can kick them out without anyone suspecting that you are breaking the law?

kmoney
December 18th, 2014, 06:58 AM
I know one could say that even 1 business is too many, but how many Christians have gone bankrupt and lost their business because of getting sued by homosexuals? Reading through this thread you get the impression there are hundreds.

Also, a question to anyone who thinks that making a cake for a gay wedding would be violating a Christian's beliefs, do you think there are cases of taxation causing a similar violation? (not just on homosexuality, but any topic)

Stripe
December 18th, 2014, 08:32 AM
Kxpc6I_P5Ik

The Barbarian
December 18th, 2014, 08:56 AM
I understand that at least in some cases, Christian bakers where asked to produce a message in writing as offensive to them, as the message this guy asked homosexual bakers to produce.

While baking a cake certainly isn't an endorsement of one POV or the other, it seems like an abuse of one's rights to me, to force them to write something they find morally or religiously wrong.

Extremists on both sides seem unwilling to live and let live: they want to force everyone to agree with them.

annabenedetti
December 18th, 2014, 09:30 AM
Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake

Listening to the first call, he didn't ask for a "pro-traditional marriage cake," he asked for one that said "gay marriage is wrong."


Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it just to insult us because we are Christian. Actually, at the end of that call, she said she would make the cookies. And while she said she'd illustrate them in that way because she thought he was bigoted, she didn't say it was because she wanted to insult them just because they were Christian.

A lot of self-serving spin going on there.


We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual bakers were. Even after we completed our experiment we got a ton of hate messages saying that we were “hateful” for simply giving them a taste of their own medicine by asking for a cake with the slogan “Gay Marriage Is Wrong” to be written on the cake.And I remember Christians complaining that the only reason homosexuals were calling Christian bakeries for their orders was so they could target the bakeries for harassment and then share it on social media. How is this any different?

Arsenios
December 18th, 2014, 09:45 AM
And I remember Christians complaining that the only reason homosexuals were calling Christian bakeries for their orders was so they could target the bakeries for harassment and then share it on social media. How is this any different?

It is the same...

I think that was the point...

They love to dish it out,
But they wont take it...

Then they blame Christians for not taking it either...
And sue them in court...

Here, they are not being sued...
They are just being exposed as hypocrites...

Christians can be hypocrites too...
Creation is fallen, after all...

And we are all created...

Arsenios

annabenedetti
December 18th, 2014, 09:53 AM
It is the same...

I think that was the point...

They love to dish it out,
But they wont take it...

Then they blame Christians for not taking it either...
And sue them in court...

Here, they are not being sued...
They are just being exposed as hypocrites...

Christians can be hypocrites too...
Creation is fallen, after all...

And we are all created...

Arsenios

I agree that everyone has the capacity to be hypocritical, whether they realize it or not, or whether it's intentional or not.

But homosexuals have made legitimate requests for service and been denied. And because of that fact, I don't see your comparison as a valid one.

These calls in the OP are specifically motivated by something other than a legitimate need or request for a service.

resodko
December 18th, 2014, 10:06 AM
in fact they are not even human, any DNA could be introduced and they could form into whatever is coded.



:doh:

mr science sez you fail


http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/a-funny-pictures-wtf-3-23-09-22.jpg

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 10:11 AM
But homosexuals have made legitimate requests for service and been denied.

Any business, organization, or individual should not only be free to discriminate against homosexuals, but it is the right thing to do. The behavior does not deserve equal rights, but equal justice with those who commit murder, child molestation, adultery, rape, etc.

The entertainment industry and the depraved media might have the biggest voice in this fight, and weak-minded people might follow them like lemmings, but homosexual behavior will always be abhorrent, immoral and unworthy of acceptance in a civilized society.

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 10:35 AM
Behavior ... treatment. Same criteria.
Right, but not opinion. Governments do regulate many behaviors, but not opinions.


Society and legality do not necessarily determine between right and wrong.
For that society they do. But that's another debate.


I am sure we would both agree that it should be legal for gays to marry, UNLESS they are under age. And yet, it is not.
We agree, and it is becoming legal in more and more places.


What I wouldn't agree with would be forcing a pastor to marry any couple.
I wouldn't agree with that either.


For me, it's not an issue of discrimination but rights and ownership (of property,merchandise and self).
It's also an issue of business that are open to the public, and therefore are subject to laws that govern such establishments.

resodko
December 18th, 2014, 10:46 AM
But homosexuals have made legitimate requests ...


this is an illogical statement for a Christian to make, anna


homosexuals (those who wish to be accepted as "normal") have no legitimacy in a Godly society, other than to be legitimately executed

Caino
December 18th, 2014, 11:30 AM
This all makes me want to call a Gay bakery and ask if they would bake me a Mardi Gras cake to celebrate aCultureWarrior's TOL threads one year anniversary "Why Homosexuality Must be Recriminalized" part I,II and III and see if they would agree to put him in it? White angel food cake with a gooey, hate filled center.

rexlunae
December 18th, 2014, 11:31 AM
I understand that at least in some cases, Christian bakers where asked to produce a message in writing as offensive to them, as the message this guy asked homosexual bakers to produce.

Well, in the case that has lead to an actual legal action, the bakers refused to make the cake before the appearance or content of the cake was discussed. That's a big part of why they got in trouble. You can't claim free speech or free expression when you haven't even heard what, if anything it is that you're being asked to write.


While baking a cake certainly isn't an endorsement of one POV or the other, it seems like an abuse of one's rights to me, to force them to write something they find morally or religiously wrong.

I think that's essentially true. Or at least there's a real legitimate free speech and free expression case to be made.


Extremists on both sides seem unwilling to live and let live: they want to force everyone to agree with them.

I think that's false balance. Even if you allow that the LGBT activists have been overzealous, they are fighting for long-denied rights, and we should be able to rely on the law and the courts to reign them in if they go too far. This guy in the videos is trolling in defense of long-held privilege, and against civil rights.

rexlunae
December 18th, 2014, 11:32 AM
:doh:

mr science sez you fail

Is there any chance we could have this discussion without posting disturbing images?

Lon
December 18th, 2014, 11:38 AM
I would NEVER write an obscenity on a cake and 'should' not be sued over that matter. Conscience IS protected under the law so these cases have caused harm that is unfair to one's values and faith. Such laws then, are unconstitutional. History will get this right or the Constitution will cease to function and our nation will no longer be under its guidelines. There is no way around it. We cannot undermine the structure of freedom and rights without the Constitution toppling.

resodko
December 18th, 2014, 11:38 AM
Is there any chance we could have this discussion without posting disturbing images?




no, prolly not :idunno:

Lon
December 18th, 2014, 11:43 AM
Is there any chance we could have this discussion without posting disturbing images?
Why do you find that disturbing? No blood, just a visual of losing one's brains/mind.

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 11:44 AM
Is there any chance we could have this discussion without posting disturbing images?I agree. Any conversation that includes a discussion about "gay" rights :rolleyes: is disturbing enough.

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 12:16 PM
Again it's pretty simple. "People who are against gay marriage" is not a protected class in any anti-discrimination laws. Gays OTOH, are a protected class.

Therefore the two scenarios are not comparable.In the First Amendment which has been incorporated against all of the fifty states, we have the freedom of religion. My religion, which is not some fly-by-night moneymaking scheme and has been around for almost two thousand years, is against gay marriage, and so therefore your argument is invalid.

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 12:27 PM
If you don't like our naked parades in front of your children, you dont have to look

If i want you to agree, you will or pay me and be fined and go out of business....

Why is what we do your business anyway stay out of our bedroom untill we force you there....

:think:Regardless of the morality of this matter, can we all agree that it is adult content ? My main beef with some LBGTQ's is that they aren't discreet. These bad apples along with non-LBGTQ's who belligerently preach that we all have to accept this adult subject matter being broadcast to our children, forced upon them without a second thought, is the problem.

I would feel the same way about people who want to familiarize my kids with graphic marital acts; they're kids and this is adult content.

What is the argument that this is not adult content ?

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 12:31 PM
...so the 5000 that ate fish and loaves, ALL believed? not a single doubter in the lot.

interesting take...Our Lord Jesus Christ had no trouble convincing the commoners Who He is; it was the scribes and teachers of the law who were unmoved.

...that's more miraculous than Peters 3000 conversion in Acts for sure.As it should be. :)

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 12:34 PM
I think the two men/women on top of the cake or the two male/female names would be an indicator to the baker. If someone from asked for a cake with NAMBLA celebrates 50 years on the cake, any baker should be free to discriminate.

Would you have an issue if a Jewish baker was asked to make a cake in the form of swastika and said no?

How about an African American baker being asked to put KKK on a cake in the shape of a noose?

Discrimination is a good thing, when it is done for the right reasons.You raise the good point that there is no symbol that represents loving disapproval of LBGTQ-marriage. It used to be the Cross. They took that one.

republicanchick
December 18th, 2014, 12:36 PM

. So Shoebat.com decided to call some 13 prominent pro-gay bakers in a row. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. .

[STORY[/URL]

wow, bummers... I don't have ear phones today


:(

republicanchick
December 18th, 2014, 12:40 PM
The problem is obvious. Gay bakers don't see a problem with making a heterosexual wedding cake, but some non-gay bakers see a problem with making a wedding cake with two grooms or two brides.

So it's really difficult to pull a goose/gander thing, unless one adds something. Hence, this guy asks for a statement as well as the wedding cake.

It all comes around to a single moral question. "Do we have a moral responsibility to make other people be good?"

If so, then we should applaud the efforts of this guy. If not, then he's just making Christians look foolish.

I don't fully get what you are getting at

But here's the bottom line for me: private industries should have the right to "discriminate" against what is morally repugnant to them. In other words, we have a right in this country to believe what we want. Being Black or Hispanic is not the same as being gay. No one can help what color he is but being gay is a choice, and an IMMORAL one. Being Black is not amoral, so why did this country once refuse them rights?

because we were wrong and amoral ourselves

But we repented.

We have no similar call to "repent" of hating sexual immorality and wanting to discourage it in our business practices and everywhere else



__

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 01:02 PM
In the First Amendment which has been incorporated against all of the fifty states, we have the freedom of religion. My religion, which is not some fly-by-night moneymaking scheme and has been around for almost two thousand years, is against gay marriage, and so therefore your argument is invalid.
So having cakes with "gay marriage is wrong" on them is such an essential part of Christianity, that not getting one constitutes denying you the ability to practice your faith?

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 01:04 PM
Our Lord Jesus Christ had no trouble convincing the commoners Who He is; it was the scribes and teachers of the law who were unmoved.


convincing commoners (whoever they are) who He is is a far cry from refusing food service based on belief, which he never did IMHO,

so far I have yet to see a valid argument made to that effect, so the point I made remains.

all this abortion and other off topic banter is just that, obfuscation because the Christians of this board are having a hard time dealing with the reality of the topic. :chuckle:

the gays seem to be handling it well tho....

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 01:05 PM
But here's the bottom line for me: private industries should have the right to "discriminate" against what is morally repugnant to them.
So "whites only" shops are just fine?


In other words, we have a right in this country to believe what we want. Being Black or Hispanic is not the same as being gay. No one can help what color he is but being gay is a choice, and an IMMORAL one.
Religious affiliation is also a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Religion is obviously a choice. Would you be ok with government-sanctioned discrimination against Christians?

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 01:08 PM
So having cakes with "gay marriage is wrong" on them is such an essential part of Christianity, that not getting one constitutes denying you the ability to practice your faith?I didn't say that....

resodko
December 18th, 2014, 01:09 PM
So "whites only" shops are just fine?


as long as we can exclude the micks and the dagos

kmoney
December 18th, 2014, 01:09 PM
Religious affiliation is also a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Religion is obviously a choice. Would you be ok with government-sanctioned discrimination against Christians?
I think that's exactly what some are saying the gov't is doing. :Plain:

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 01:11 PM
:doh:

mr science sez you fail



well than mr. science needs to update his textbooks, or open one? :chuckle:

90% of human cell reproduction comes for the bacteria in our stomachs and 10% is from our own DNA.

Embryonic cells are just that, they are pre-human, and at this point any DNA can be introduced and will then code the embryo into any animal of choice should the environment support it's growth.

I can't beleive I even entertained this silly post that added nothing to the topic, but for the benefit of educated readers it was worth it...;)

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 01:12 PM
...so the 5000 that ate fish and loaves, ALL believed? not a single doubter in the lot.

interesting take....


Our Lord Jesus Christ had no trouble convincing the commoners Who He is; it was the scribes and teachers of the law who were unmoved.

convincing commoners (whoever they are) who He is is a far cry from refusing food service based on belief, which he never did IMHO,....Sure is.

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 01:13 PM
I didn't say that....
So if a gay baker declines to make you a cake with "gay marriage is wrong" on it, he is not infringing on your ability to practice your religion, right?

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 01:14 PM
I think that's exactly what some are saying the gov't is doing. :Plain:
And they're failing in making that argument.

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 01:20 PM
So if a gay baker declines to make you a cake with "gay marriage is wrong" on it, he is not infringing on your ability to practice your religion, right?I don't think so, no.

But what if there were a symbol that expresses loving disapproval of LBGTQ-marriage ? It used to be the Cross, so I'm positing a hypothetical in which there is a such a symbol. If I want the baker to have that hypothetical symbol on it, and just for argument's sake, let's say it's the Cross, as it used to be seen as just such a symbol until the rainbow coalition infiltrated many denominations, and they refuse, then this would be the same as a Christian baker denying a customer a cake with two brides/grooms, because two brides/grooms is a symbol that means approval of LBGTQ-marriage.

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 01:25 PM
But homosexuals have made legitimate requests for service and been denied. And because of that fact, I don't see your comparison as a valid one.

and the Christian baker I watched win the case was able to refuse service based on their beliefs of not wanting to support that marriage.

I've got no problem with that, I only ask they be fair across the board and also deny service to every other sinner that walks in, they will have to do do diligence of course and get to know every one of them personally and dig deep (some people are rather good at hiding their sins) otherwise inevitable hypocrisy will ensue.

The bottom line here is just because we CAN do something (like refuse service to gays) based on religious freedom does not mean we should.

It's like I have the right to go outside and make a huge noise waking everyone up on my block at 5AM as long as it does not break local sound ordinance....but I would not do that purposefully because I care for my neighbors and would not want that done to me, back to the golden rule of Jesus and the Law of God.

Christians and gays are getting too hung up here on the law and what can or cant be done legally and seem to be missing the obvious and that is what the right thing to do is, if we need laws to dictate that rather than the Spirit we are still lost indeed.....

but I digress.... ;)

kmoney
December 18th, 2014, 01:34 PM
I wonder if the Christian bakers who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding would also refuse to make a cake for a gay couple's anniversary. Or an unmarried, co-habitating straight couple's anniversary. Or someone who wants a cake to celebrate a divorce. The gay couple's anniversary is the best analogy but the other things are close to serving a purpose that most Christians would disapprove of.

kmoney
December 18th, 2014, 01:36 PM
and the Christian baker I watched win the case was able to refuse service based on their beliefs of not wanting to support that marriage.

I've got no problem with that, I only ask they be fair across the board and also deny service to every other sinner that walks in, they will have to do do diligence of course and get to know every one of them personally and dig deep (some people are rather good at hiding their sins) otherwise inevitable hypocrisy will ensue.
To repeat Lighthouse's point, they wouldn't have to do due diligence on all their customers because it's not about the sins of the customers; it's about the purpose of the requested cake.

resodko
December 18th, 2014, 01:38 PM
spose i went into a bakery in harlem and ordered a cake to celebrate the assassination of MLK

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 01:50 PM
I don't think so, no.
Ok, good.


But what if there were a symbol that expresses loving disapproval of LBGTQ-marriage ? It used to be the Cross, so I'm positing a hypothetical in which there is a such a symbol. If I want the baker to have that hypothetical symbol on it, and just for argument's sake, let's say it's the Cross, as it used to be seen as just such a symbol until the rainbow coalition infiltrated many denominations, and they refuse, then this would be the same as a Christian baker denying a customer a cake with two brides/grooms, because two brides/grooms is a symbol that means approval of LBGTQ-marriage.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you talking about requesting a cake with a cross on it from a gay baker, who then refuses?

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 01:50 PM
To repeat Lighthouse's point, they wouldn't have to do due diligence on all their customers because it's not about the sins of the customers; it's about the purpose of the requested cake.

the purpose of the cake is to be used for a sin in their view?

what other reason are they being denied? if not for gay marriage being a sin according to their faith?

I am trying to follow....but I will go back to just because we can do something legally does not mean we should.

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 01:52 PM
spose i went into a bakery in harlem and ordered a cake to celebrate the assassination of MLK
good luck with that. :chuckle:

Town Heretic
December 18th, 2014, 01:52 PM
To repeat Lighthouse's point, they wouldn't have to do due diligence on all their customers because it's not about the sins of the customers; it's about the purpose of the requested cake.
So we should ask people what they plan to do with anything they purchase? As problematic or, failing, as hypocritical. We only need to be concerned if someone lets us know?

Who knows, that linen may be used in a gay wedding. Those steak knives? What are you buying that sugar and flour for? Are you thinking of baking a cake for a gay wedding? :Plain:

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 01:55 PM
To repeat Lighthouse's point, they wouldn't have to do due diligence on all their customers because it's not about the sins of the customers; it's about the purpose of the requested cake.

btw, lighthouse didn't have a point,

mainly because he was all up in the koolaid and didn't know the flavor,

most of what he said to me, I've already said to others in the thread. ;)

so he failed to read the thread and all I said first. :hammer:

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 01:55 PM
So we should ask people what they plan to do with anything they purchase? As problematic or, failing, as hypocritical. We only need to be concerned if someone lets us know?

Who knows, that linen may be used in a gay wedding. Those steak knives? What are you buying that sugar and flour for? Are you thinking of baking a cake for a gay wedding? :Plain:

"If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake" 1 Cor 10:28

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 02:22 PM
...Are you talking about requesting a cake with a cross on it from a gay baker, who then refuses?I'm talking about a hypothetical world unfortunately, where the historic symbol of the Christian faith the Cross, which historically would represent loving disapproval of LGBTQ-marriage, and does not do so today, is requested on a wedding cake. Today in the wrong company it represents hate, or even approval of LGBTQ-marriage. An LGBTQ baker who's asked to bake a cake with a Cross on it in my hypothetical world, would only then be asked to do the same thing that Christian bakers are asked to do in baking cakes with two grooms/brides, or other rainbow coalition symbols.

It's hypothetical. We no longer possess such a symbol because the rainbow coalition nabbed it through infiltration of many Christian denominations, along with the rainbow symbol itself. I'm guessing that part of the frustration that motivated the perpetrators of the scheme in the OP, is that they have to use words to express their faith rather than symbols, while the rainbow coalition has plenty of symbols and have even neutralized, if not totally hijacked the symbol of the Cross.

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 02:31 PM
An LGBTQ baker who's asked to bake a cake with a Cross on it in my hypothetical world, would only then be asked to do the same thing that Christian bakers are asked to do in baking cakes with two grooms/brides, or other rainbow coalition symbols.
I'm pretty sure the gay baker couldn't discriminate on the basis of religion.

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 02:35 PM
I'm pretty sure the gay baker couldn't discriminate on the basis of religion.Why not ? I wouldn't have a Christian baker forced by law to bake a two-groom/bride cake, and I wouldn't have an LGBTQ baker forced by law to bake a cake with a Cross on it (in my hypothetical world where the Cross represents as it always has until recently loving disapproval of LGBTQ-marriage). :idunno: We have the right to be anti-religion just as much as religious.

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 02:58 PM
Why not ?
Because anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.


I wouldn't have a Christian baker forced by law to bake a two-groom/bride cake, and I wouldn't have an LGBTQ baker forced by law to bake a cake with a Cross on it
The law says otherwise.


We have the right to be anti-religion just as much as religious.
Not when operating a business that is open to the public.

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 03:08 PM
Because anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion...Then anti-discrimination law violates the First Amendment, when it forbids a Christian from abstaining from participating in the promulgation of views directly opposed to their Christian faith. It's emperor worship in sheep's clothing.

...Not when operating a business that is open to the public.I fail to see how it is a crime to refuse to participate in the promulgation of views directly opposed to the Christian faith. Perhaps you can lay it out for me ?

gcthomas
December 18th, 2014, 03:26 PM
Then anti-discrimination law violates the First Amendment, when it forbids a Christian from abstaining from participating in the promulgation of views directly opposed to their Christian faith.

No, it doesn't according to the Supreme Court.


"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," Chief Justice Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878). here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Free_exercise_of_religion).

resodko
December 18th, 2014, 03:28 PM
So "whites only" shops are just fine?



no

white people are evil and must be exterminated


hqCLr6MSBWk

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 03:32 PM
Then anti-discrimination law violates the First Amendment, when it forbids a Christian from abstaining from participating in the promulgation of views directly opposed to their Christian faith.
Nope. The First Amendment prohibits the gov't from impeding the free exercise of religion. Baking cakes is not exercising one's religion.

If you want to go that route, then racist groups have an even stronger case. Many of them base their racism on the Bible. If we were to apply your above argument to them, the racists could open a business and refuse to serve anyone but white Christians.

Obviously that's not the case, so it's a failed legal argument.


I fail to see how it is a crime to refuse to participate in the promulgation of views directly opposed to the Christian faith. Perhaps you can lay it out for me ?
Again it's pretty simple. Many state and local gov'ts have anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discriminatory business practices based on a number of categories (race, religion, sex, sexual orientation). Any for-profit business that is open to the public must abide by those laws.

Thus, a business owner can't refuse to hire someone because they're gay, black, or Jewish. Similarly, a business can't refuse service to members of the public for the same reasons.

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 03:52 PM
Why not ? I wouldn't have a Christian baker forced by law to bake a two-groom/bride cake, and I wouldn't have an LGBTQ baker forced by law to bake a cake with a Cross on it (in my hypothetical world where the Cross represents as it always has until recently loving disapproval of LGBTQ-marriage). :idunno: We have the right to be anti-religion just as much as religious.

again it falls back to just because you can do something...does not mean you should.

We have the right to hate others, even express that hate, but I'm sure most would agree we shouldn't.

these people on both sides are just pushing the issue, like they want their ten seconds of fame, go viral!

it's no more necessary for a Christian baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay marriage (within reason, all special writings and characters aside) to keep their beliefs intact than it is necessary for a gay baker to not make a hetero wedding cake based on their beliefs, they are choosing to refuse based on their right to do so not the necessity to do so to keep their beliefs intact.

that being said any baker Christian or otherwise is not required by law to have same sex figurines in stock, a gay couple may be forced on their own to look elsewhere for one that does.....

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 04:07 PM
The other problem is if we allow bakers exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious beliefs, we have to allow landlords, bankers, taxi cab drivers, and every other professional the same exemption.

Do we understand where that would lead?

Dialogos
December 18th, 2014, 04:21 PM
So if a gay baker declines to make you a cake with "gay marriage is wrong" on it, he is not infringing on your ability to practice your religion, right?
No more than a Christian baker declining to make a so called wedding cake for a same sex couple.

The Christian can dial another baker and so can the same sex couple.

The problem that the videos illustrate are the hypocrisy of the homosexual agenda and the injustices of the judiciary which has absolutely disregarded the first amendment when it comes to the freedom of religion of conservative Christians who hold the bible as innerant and authoritative.

Its pretty simple. The bible says that homosexuality is a sin. The bible also says not to participate in sin or give one's approval to sin and furthermore the bible says "take no part in unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them."

Refusing to bake a cake for a so called same sex wedding is acting in accord with the first part of the verse and asking for a cake that says, "same sex marriage is wrong" is acting in accordance with the second.

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 04:35 PM
No, it doesn't according to the Supreme Court.


"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," Chief Justice Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878). here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Free_exercise_of_religion).So you're arguing that creating the symbols that represent the antithesis of Christian faith is what is meant by "...social duties..." and "...good order..." ? Can you walk me through that ?

Is it against anti-discrimination law to refuse to bake a cake upon which is depicted in frosting a black swastika on a white circle on a crimson background ? If not, why not ?

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 04:54 PM
The other problem is if we allow bakers exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious beliefs, we have to allow landlords, bankers, taxi cab drivers, and every other professional the same exemption.

Do we understand where that would lead?In most cases it would lead to those businesses not being visited by customers and going out of business. Just like it does if you have a reputation of serving bad food. That's how it should work.

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 05:07 PM
No more than a Christian baker declining to make a so called wedding cake for a same sex couple.
The Christian baker isn't infringing on anyone's ability to exercise their religion.


The Christian can dial another baker and so can the same sex couple.
"You can just go somewhere else" is a failed legal argument.


The problem that the videos illustrate are the hypocrisy of the homosexual agenda and the injustices of the judiciary which has absolutely disregarded the first amendment when it comes to the freedom of religion of conservative Christians who hold the bible as innerant and authoritative.

Its pretty simple. The bible says that homosexuality is a sin. The bible also says not to participate in sin or give one's approval to sin and furthermore the bible says "take no part in unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them."

Refusing to bake a cake for a so called same sex wedding is acting in accord with the first part of the verse and asking for a cake that says, "same sex marriage is wrong" is acting in accordance with the second.
So basically you're saying Christians should be allowed to discriminate against gays in any business practices and public accommodation.

Do we extend this same exemption to Christians who hold racist views based on how they read the Bible?

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 05:08 PM
In most cases it would lead to those businesses not being visited by customers and going out of business. Just like it does if you have a reputation of serving bad food. That's how it should work.
Tell that to the Jim Crow South.

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 05:17 PM
Tell that to the Jim Crow South.Do you want to legislate morality or not?

Town Heretic
December 18th, 2014, 05:28 PM
Do you want to legislate morality or not?
No, though the partially good news is that much of morality finds a full justification in secular, objective reason, which is a plus. When it doesn't it has to remain a matter of conscience.

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 05:47 PM
Do you want to legislate morality or not?
???????? What's your point?

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 05:59 PM
???????? What's your point?The point is, when it suits your own brand of morality, you have no issues with passing legislation to support it.

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 06:12 PM
The point is, when it suits your own brand of morality, you have no issues with passing legislation to support it.
And you don't operate the same way? :idunno:

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 06:19 PM
And you don't operate the same way? :idunno:Yep, so we are going to continue t-it for tat all day, because I believe that homosexuality is immoral and you don't. Either it gets settled through legislation or another civil war. The latter is most likely.

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 06:22 PM
Yep
Well that's good, because I can't imagine someone supporting legislation that enforces a moral code that they disagree with.


I believe that homosexuality is immoral and you don't. Either it gets settled through legislation or another civil war. The latter is most likely.
Seriously? You would go to war over homosexuality?

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 06:25 PM
puritan?

modern day pharisees... not that there is anything wrong with that. ;)

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 06:26 PM
Seriously? You would go to war over homosexuality?In a heartbeat. I'm disappointed it hasn't already happen.

Nick M
December 18th, 2014, 06:38 PM
"You can just go somewhere else" is a failed legal argument.


Of all the idiot things I have read in life, this is at the top. Well done you fool. Karl Marx and Satan are proud.

Lighthouse
December 18th, 2014, 06:41 PM
To repeat Lighthouse's point, they wouldn't have to do due diligence on all their customers because it's not about the sins of the customers; it's about the purpose of the requested cake.
germy demon proves again he's an insipid twit.


So we should ask people what they plan to do with anything they purchase? As problematic or, failing, as hypocritical. We only need to be concerned if someone lets us know?

Who knows, that linen may be used in a gay wedding. Those steak knives? What are you buying that sugar and flour for? Are you thinking of baking a cake for a gay wedding? :Plain:
Do you seriously not know the difference between obvious and obscure?


Nope. The First Amendment prohibits the gov't from impeding the free exercise of religion. Baking cakes is not exercising one's religion.
Baking a cake in celebration of sin is a violation of certain religions, and refusal to do so is well within the parameters of exercising said religions.


If you want to go that route, then racist groups have an even stronger case. Many of them base their racism on the Bible. If we were to apply your above argument to them, the racists could open a business and refuse to serve anyone but white Christians.Except they can't support their beliefs with actual Scripture.


Again it's pretty simple. Many state and local gov'ts have anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discriminatory business practices based on a number of categories (race, religion, sex, sexual orientation). Any for-profit business that is open to the public must abide by those laws.

Thus, a business owner can't refuse to hire someone because they're gay, black, or Jewish. Similarly, a business can't refuse service to members of the public for the same reasons.
Actually they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

TracerBullet
December 18th, 2014, 06:57 PM
Any business, organization, or individual should not only be free to discriminate against bigots, Christian or otherwise, but it is the right thing to do. The behavior does not deserve equal rights, but equal justice with those who commit murder, child molestation, adultery, rape, etc.

The entertainment industry and the depraved media might have the biggest voice in this fight, and weak-minded people might believe their false claims about gays and follow them like lemmings, but bigoted behavior will always be abhorrent, immoral and unworthy of acceptance in a civilized society.

TracerBullet
December 18th, 2014, 06:59 PM
I would NEVER write an obscenity on a cake and 'should' not be sued over that matter. Conscience IS protected under the law so these cases have caused harm that is unfair to one's values and faith. Such laws then, are unconstitutional. History will get this right or the Constitution will cease to function and our nation will no longer be under its guidelines. There is no way around it. We cannot undermine the structure of freedom and rights without the Constitution toppling.

and that is why no one has the special right to discriminate

TracerBullet
December 18th, 2014, 07:02 PM
I don't fully get what you are getting at

But here's the bottom line for me: private industries should have the right to "discriminate" against what is morally repugnant to them. In other words, we have a right in this country to believe what we want. Being Black or Hispanic is not the same as being gay. No one can help what color he is but being gay is a choice, and an IMMORAL one. Being Black is not amoral, so why did this country once refuse them rights?

because we were wrong and amoral ourselves

But we repented.

We have no similar call to "repent" of hating sexual immorality and wanting to discourage it in our business practices and everywhere else



__
No one chooses their orientation. Discrimination is however always a choice

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 07:09 PM
Baking a cake in celebration of sin is a violation of certain religions, and refusal to do so is well within the parameters of exercising said religions.
By the same token, so is refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple.


Except they can't support their beliefs with actual Scripture.
According to them they can. Do you really want the courts ruling on what is or isn't scripturally supported?


Actually they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
No, that's a common myth.

Jose Fly
December 18th, 2014, 07:12 PM
You would go to war over homosexuality?


In a heartbeat. I'm disappointed it hasn't already happen.

"You can just go somewhere else" is a failed legal argument.


Of all the idiot things I have read in life, this is at the top. Well done you fool. Karl Marx and Satan are proud.

This is what amazes me. All the complaining and whining about non-Christians here and watching over them like a hawk for the most minor of infractions.....

...yet fellow Christians posting this sort of visceral hatred is apparently just fine? No problems? :idunno:

TracerBullet
December 18th, 2014, 07:14 PM
No more than a Christian baker declining to make a so called wedding cake for a same sex couple.

The Christian can dial another baker and so can the same sex couple. and the African American can walk by the restaurant with the "white only" sign and go to a different restaurant. But why should he have to?


The problem that the videos illustrate are the hypocrisy of the homosexual agenda and the injustices of the judiciary which has absolutely disregarded the first amendment when it comes to the freedom of religion of conservative Christians who hold the bible as innerant and authoritative. and you post illustrates the hypocrisy of the anti-gay agenda which disregards the 14th amendment stating that everyone (even minorities that you don't happen to like) are equal in the eyes of the law and no one has the special right to discriminate.



Its pretty simple. The bible says that homosexuality is a sin. The bible also says not to participate in sin or give one's approval to sin and furthermore the bible says "take no part in unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them."it also says that eating shrimp is a sin.

TracerBullet
December 18th, 2014, 07:16 PM
Yep, so we are going to continue t-it for tat all day, because I believe that homosexuality is immoral and you don't. Either it gets settled through legislation or another civil war. The latter is most likely.

why should your choice to hate trump others rights to be treated equally?

rexlunae
December 18th, 2014, 07:20 PM
Yep, so we are going to continue t-it for tat all day, because I believe that homosexuality is immoral and you don't. Either it gets settled through legislation or another civil war. The latter is most likely.

Wow, overreact much? Gay people getting married??? WAR!!!

There's not going to be a war. Your side is going to lose, and you're going to have to figure out how to deal with it.

rexlunae
December 18th, 2014, 07:22 PM
Actually they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

You can reserve the right all you like, it doesn't authorize you to break the law.

Lighthouse
December 18th, 2014, 07:38 PM
Any business, organization, or individual should not only be free to discriminate against bigots, Christian or otherwise, but it is the right thing to do. The behavior does not deserve equal rights, but equal justice with those who commit murder, child molestation, adultery, rape, etc.

The entertainment industry and the depraved media might have the biggest voice in this fight, and weak-minded people might believe their false claims about gays and follow them like lemmings, but bigoted behavior will always be abhorrent, immoral and unworthy of acceptance in a civilized society.
Any business, organization, or individual should not only be free to discriminate against homosexuals, but it is the right thing to do. The behavior does not deserve equal rights, but equal justice with those who commit murder, child molestation, adultery, rape, etc.

Do you agree with that sentiment Traci?


By the same token, so is refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple.
Which religion?


According to them they can. Do you really want the courts ruling on what is or isn't scripturally supported?
Is it in the Bible or is it not? It's pretty simple. Of course, the courts can't seem to understand the Constitution, so there is that.


No, that's a common myth.
Can you back that assertion up?


No one chooses their orientation.
Can you prove this?


and the African American can walk by the restaurant with the "white only" sign and go to a different restaurant. But why should he have to?
Why would he want to go anywhere else?


and you post illustrates the hypocrisy of the anti-gay agenda which disregards the 14th amendment stating that everyone (even minorities that you don't happen to like) are equal in the eyes of the law and no one has the special right to discriminate.
That's assuming homosexuality is as natural as skin, hair, eye, etc. color.


it also says that eating shrimp is a sin.
Acts 10


You can reserve the right all you like, it doesn't authorize you to break the law.
That right is the law.

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 07:39 PM
why should your choice to hate trump others rights to be treated equally?
Nothing to do with hate. It has to do with homosexuals being no different than child molesters, rapists, murderers, adulterers, etc. To not treat them the same as any other abhorrent criminals is an injustice to society. Allowing homosexuality to be celebrated is no different than give hearty approval to abortion.

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 07:43 PM
No one chooses their orientation. That's a lie. That's like saying no one chooses to be a murderer.

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 07:52 PM
Wow, overreact much? Gay people getting married??? WAR!!!

There's not going to be a war. Your side is going to lose, and you're going to have to figure out how to deal with it.We shall see, won't we?

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 07:54 PM
Wow, overreact much? Gay people getting married??? WAR!!!

There's not going to be a war. Your side is going to lose, and you're going to have to figure out how to deal with it.

Bingo.

he has every right to hatemonger as the gays have the right to marriage.

but once again, just because we can use a "right" to do or not do something does not always mean we should.

That is what all this comes down to in the end.

Do I feel the Christian bakers would have compromised their faith to make a cake that would be used for a gay wedding? No. no more so than a Muslim or Buddhist wedding. THEY were clearly fearful it would or wanted to exercise that 'right'.

We've had Muslim and Buddhist weddings in the US long before we had gay marriages....decades in fact.

if it was really a "religious right" issue it would have been settled legally...there is something more at play here, this is a 'new' right of a group purposefully being put to the test on both sides and it's getting ugly real quick. :box:

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 07:58 PM
he has every right to hatemonger Says the self-professed Nazi who wants imperfect babies murdered.

Nick M
December 18th, 2014, 09:29 PM
No one chooses their orientation.

No kidding. The male delivering the y chromosome does.

Dialogos
December 18th, 2014, 09:37 PM
The Christian baker isn't infringing on anyone's ability to exercise their religion.

Exactly right, which is why they should not be civilly penalized for refusing to bake a cake for a religious ceremony that they rightly find repugnant.



"You can just go somewhere else" is a failed legal argument.

What is legal and what is rational are often not synonymous.

It may not be a compelling legal argument in a season in our country where we no longer value the freedom of religion but it is nevertheless a completely rational argument.

They can go somewhere else and in reality the reason they went to the conservative Christian baker is because they wanted to punish the baker for his religious views and wanted to use the punitive authority of the state to do it.




So basically you're saying Christians should be allowed to discriminate against gays in any business practices and public accommodation.

:doh:

Talk about your straw man arguments.

No, I'm saying that Christians should not be forced to participate or contribute to a religious ceremony that they find morally repugant.

I don't think it is rational or moral to penalize a Muslim for refusing to serve beer in his restaurant, I don't think it is rational or moral to penalize a Jewish deli for refusing to serve bacon lettuce and tomato sandwiches and I don't think it is rational or moral to penalize a Christian baker for refusing to bake a cake for a religious ceremony he finds morally repugnant or penalizing a Christian t-shirt maker for refusing to print t-shirts for the gay pride parade which he finds morally and religiously objectionable. Nor would I advocate penalizing a Jehovah's witness t-shirt shop for refusing to print a t-shirt that says "Jesus is God" or a Jewish baker for refusing to make a "Jesus is the reason for the season" cake.

The abridgment of the "free exercise thereof" should not be either positive or negative. One should not be prevented from worshiping according to their own conscience nor should someone be compelled to participate in anything that violates their faith.




Do we extend this same exemption to Christians who hold racist views based on how they read the Bible?

See, Jose, the reason why this argument is a total failure is because those who use it refuse to acknowledge that race and sexual behavior aren't synonymous.

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 09:45 PM
No, I'm saying that Christians should not be forced to participate or contribute to a religious ceremony that they find morally repugant.


Again making a cake for sale is not "participating" or "contributing" to a religious ceremony, it is providing a service to the public.

this whole thing is less about that and more about putting egg on someone face because we have the 'right' to do so.

Christians in the US have been making cakes for people of various other faiths for decades and this "issue" had yet to come up....so that whole argument that their faith is somehow compromised for "contributing" is mute for all this time or that they needed or just had to exercise that 'right'.

See what this is REALLY about?

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 09:51 PM
Then anti-discrimination law violates the First Amendment, when it forbids a Christian from abstaining from participating in the promulgation of views directly opposed to their Christian faith. It's emperor worship in sheep's clothing.

Nope. The First Amendment prohibits the gov't from impeding the free exercise of religion. Baking cakes is not exercising one's religion...Never said it was. Law that requires Christians to craft symbols representative of forces working actively against the Christian faith is bad law. Emperor worship, thinly veiled.

...If you want to go that route, then racist groups have an even stronger case. Many of them base their racism on the Bible. If we were to apply your above argument to them, the racists could open a business and refuse to serve anyone but white Christians.

Obviously that's not the case, so it's a failed legal argument...That's not a good analogy. Try this one. A Christian baker is asked by belligerent LGBTQ/rainbow coalition people to bake a wedding cake with two grooms/brides, a clear symbol of anti-Christianity, and they aren't forced by bad law to do it.


I fail to see how it is a crime to refuse to participate in the promulgation of views directly opposed to the Christian faith. Perhaps you can lay it out for me ?

...Again it's pretty simple. Many state and local gov'ts have anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discriminatory business practices based on a number of categories (race, religion, sex, sexual orientation). Any for-profit business that is open to the public must abide by those laws.

Thus, a business owner can't refuse to hire someone because they're gay, black, or Jewish. Similarly, a business can't refuse service to members of the public for the same reasons.A Jewish baker oughtn't be forced by any law to craft a wedding cake as a black swastika on a white circle on a crimson background. That's all I'm saying. Don't we agree ?

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 09:59 PM
...it's no more necessary for a Christian baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay marriage (within reason, all special writings and characters aside)....The whole thrust of my presence ITT has been to say that two grooms/brides on a wedding cake constitute things unreasonable, symbols that we could loosely describe as "...special writings and characters...."

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 10:03 PM
No one chooses their orientation....Fatalism.

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 10:08 PM
The whole thrust of my presence ITT has been to say that two grooms/brides on a wedding cake constitute things unreasonable, symbols that we could loosely describe as "...special writings and characters...."

I agree, not all cakes shops have to stock those items, Christian ones certainly don't if they don't want that business.

it's very easy to send a customer looking elsewhere when you do not carry what they are looking for.

that's not what all this is about tho because no one on either side is looking for simple solutions,

it's clearly about one group trying excerpt their authority using a right over another, and a little rubbing their faces in it too IMHO.

Angel4Truth
December 18th, 2014, 10:12 PM
it's very easy to send a customer looking elsewhere when you do not carry what they are looking for.



Which is what the christian bakers do, they do not carry weddings cakes for anything other than a man and a woman.

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 10:19 PM
...it's clearly about one group trying excerpt their authority using a right over another, and a little rubbing their faces in it too IMHO.The latter group being Christians, correct ?

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 10:20 PM
Which is what the christian bakers do, they do not carry weddings cakes for anything other than a man and a woman.

I think some of them took it a bit further than that when they refused to make any kind of cake at all, all figurines aside.

The case I observed did just that, and won the court case.

granted it was one of those "tv" people court shows...lol

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 10:21 PM
The latter group being Christians, correct ?
both actually.

neither of them are walking away from this unscabbed IMHO.

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 10:35 PM
both actually.

neither of them are walking away from this unscabbed IMHO.Except for the stunt done for effect in the OP, I don't think there are any LGBTQ bakers enduring the same thing that Christian bakers are.

jeremysdemo
December 18th, 2014, 10:39 PM
Except for the stunt done for effect in the OP, I don't think there are any LGBTQ bakers enduring the same thing that Christian bakers are.

how exactly are they going to walk away from this unscabbed?

I say it's shameful for both parties.

patrick jane
December 18th, 2014, 10:48 PM
how exactly are they going to walk away from this unscabbed?

I say it's shameful for both parties.

i think it's unscathed. but i guess unscabbed works

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 11:04 PM
how exactly are they going to walk away from this unscabbed?

I say it's shameful for both parties.That really doesn't figure in to my concern that there purportedly are bad laws on the books that purportedly would force Christian bakers to construct wedding cakes with two brides/grooms whenever asked to do so. I hope that there are no such laws and that I'm misinformed, but some other posters are indicating that this is in fact the case.

Arthur Brain
December 18th, 2014, 11:06 PM
That's a lie. That's like saying no one chooses to be a murderer.

Did you choose to be heterosexual?

:think:

Angel4Truth
December 18th, 2014, 11:08 PM
Except for the stunt done for effect in the OP, I don't think there are any LGBTQ bakers enduring the same thing that Christian bakers are.

They need to be, then this can be forced to the supreme court and finished.

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 11:10 PM
Did you choose to be heterosexual?

:think:


When someone steals, we refer to them as a "thief", if they murder, we call them a "murderer", or commit adultery, an "adulterer". They are defined by the act committed, that is, their evil behavior. There are not names to define those who do not commit those acts, because it makes no sense to label an individual for something they did not do.

When God created man, He created them male and female (Gen 1:27). He did not create them "straight" or "heterosexual". Those terms were created with the intention to legitimize homosexuality as an identity rather than a behavior. There is no such thing as a heterosexual, and the only people who are "gay" are those whose behavior is cheery or joyful. There is nothing joyful about evil behavior.

Arthur Brain
December 18th, 2014, 11:14 PM
When someone steals, we refer to them as a "thief", if they murder, we call them a "murderer", or commit adultery, an "adulterer". They are defined by the act committed, that is, their evil behavior. There are not names to define those who do not commit those acts, because it makes no sense to label an individual for something they did not do.

When God created man, He created them male and female (Gen 1:27). He did not create them "straight" or "heterosexual". Those terms were created with the intention to legitimize homosexuality as an identity rather than a behavior. There is no such thing as a heterosexual, and the only people who are "gay" are those whose behavior is cheery or joyful. There is nothing joyful about evil behavior.

Well, let me ask you another way then. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite gender and could you choose to be attracted to your own where you could act on such?

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 11:21 PM
Well, let me ask you another way then. Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite gender?It is natural.

What is unnatural is to choose to do otherwise.


"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Rom 1:27

Jedidiah
December 18th, 2014, 11:30 PM
They need to be, then this can be forced to the supreme court and finished.There's no need for others to endure what Christian bakers have had to endure. We can have a more peaceful solution. It depends upon whether those who are belligerently pro-LGBTQ-marriage, calm down.

Arthur Brain
December 18th, 2014, 11:31 PM
It is natural.

What is unnatural is to choose to do otherwise.


"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Rom 1:27

So you didn't choose to be attracted to the opposite gender then? Fair enough if so as neither did I, it was just the case. Choosing to be attracted to blokes is in no way an option for me so why are you apparently suggesting that others can 'choose' theirs unless you can do so yourself?

Doom
December 18th, 2014, 11:46 PM
So you didn't choose to be attracted to the opposite gender then?The natural attraction of all males is to females, and the natural attraction of all females is to males.
Fair enough if so as neither did I, it was just the case. Choosing to be attracted to blokes is in no way an option for me so why are you apparently suggesting that others can 'choose' theirs unless you can do so yourself?

Is every person capable of having the desire to choose to do what is unnatural, of course they are. In fact, I am just as guilty for giving into my unnatural desires as you are. We all are, and that is why Jesus died for our sins. In fact, what's important is not that you are overcome by what is unnatural, but just that you agree with God that it is unnatural, and accept His once for all sacrifice for your sin of choosing to do what is unnatural, just as everyone else who believes in Him has.

You are most likely incapable of refraining from doing what is unnatural, just as the apostle Paul was, and yet he said there is no more condemnation for those in Christ. The bottom line is not what are you going to do about your unnatural desire, but what are you going to do about Jesus?

Lon
December 19th, 2014, 12:03 AM
and that is why no one has the special right to discriminate
When it crosses the church/state line, it is against the Constitution. This law was made to protect people from Government abuse, not government from church, or else you couldn't be a Christian politician. That makes no sense and is exactly backwards from the Constitution. Of course we are in a backwards era now, where wrong is right. That pendulum has to swing back. Our country cannot sustain the extreme, morally or financially. The backbone of American liberty is and always will be families. No other group produces the next generation but them. Both the morals AND economics demands the pendulum swing back. We cannot sustain this. It can't be done.

Arthur Brain
December 19th, 2014, 12:03 AM
The natural attraction of all males is to females, and the natural attraction of all females is to males.

So how can anyone consciously and volitionally choose to go against an inherent attraction? I can't. You might as well say that people 'choose' to fall in love with someone. It's not something within your control.


Is every person capable of having the desire to choose to do what is unnatural, of course they are. In fact, I am just as guilty for giving into my unnatural desires as you are. We all are, and that is why Jesus died for our sins. In fact, what's important is not that you are overcome by what is unnatural, but just that you agree with God that it is unnatural, and accept His once for all sacrifice for your sin of choosing to do what is unnatural, just as everyone else who believes in Him has.

You are most likely incapable of refraining from doing what is unnatural as the apostle Paul was, and yet he said there is no more condemnation for those in Christ. The bottom line is not what are you going to do about your unnatural desire, but what are you going to do about Jesus?

I'm guilty in my life of succumbing to lusts and desires for sure, but in context of the subject matter it's always been in regards to the opposite sex. I could no more 'choose' to start being attracted to men as I could change my DNA. If you can 'choose' to be attracted to your own gender then how exactly?

The Barbarian
December 19th, 2014, 07:28 AM
When it crosses the church/state line, it is against the Constitution. This law was made to protect people from Government abuse, not government from church,

More specifically to protect people from church. The Constitution provides both freedom from religion (the first clause, prohibiting establishment of religion) and freedom of religion (the second clause, prohibiting interference in religion).

kmoney
December 19th, 2014, 07:52 AM
So we should ask people what they plan to do with anything they purchase? As problematic or, failing, as hypocritical. We only need to be concerned if someone lets us know?

Who knows, that linen may be used in a gay wedding. Those steak knives? What are you buying that sugar and flour for? Are you thinking of baking a cake for a gay wedding? :Plain:
:idunno: That's a discussion one can have, but I don't tend to think one would have to investigate everyone to see in what way someone is using their purchase. And I might even say that it's advisable not to, with keeping Matt 7:1-2 in mind.

Let's say I'm walking past a homeless person and give him some money. I walk past another one a block away and as I start to give him money he says that anything I give him will be used to go buy drugs. Do I have to give it to him anyway because I'd be a hypocrite for not asking what the previous beggar was going to use it for? :idunno:

kmoney
December 19th, 2014, 07:54 AM
the purpose of the cake is to be used for a sin in their view?
Yes. Either that or a more narrow concern about being associated with a religious ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs.


what other reason are they being denied? if not for gay marriage being a sin according to their faith?
I'm not saying that homosexuality or gay marriage being sinful is not part of it.


I am trying to follow....but I will go back to just because we can do something legally does not mean we should.
Agreed, here.

Quincy
December 19th, 2014, 08:49 AM
If I were a gay baker, I'd have made the cake for the man. Cake is precious and decadent. We should use cake to bring mankind together (and make a profit), not tear us apart. So, some people think same-sex marriage is wrong and want a cake. I'd happily take their money and :chuckle: .

Jose Fly
December 19th, 2014, 10:31 AM
Which religion?
Just as some Christians derive their anti-gay beliefs from the Bible, so do some racist Christians.


Is it in the Bible or is it not? It's pretty simple. Of course, the courts can't seem to understand the Constitution, so there is that.
I can't find anywhere in the Bible that says it's forbidden to bake cakes for a same-sex wedding.


Can you back that assertion up?
HERE (https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance). As long as a person is a member of a protected class, they cannot be denied equal services and accommodations.

Jose Fly
December 19th, 2014, 10:44 AM
Exactly right, which is why they should not be civilly penalized for refusing to bake a cake for a religious ceremony that they rightly find repugnant.
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. The fact remains, in many localities, businesses open to the public cannot refuse service based on a customer's sexual orientation.

That's the law. If you don't like it, try and change it.


What is legal and what is rational are often not synonymous.

It may not be a compelling legal argument in a season in our country where we no longer value the freedom of religion but it is nevertheless a completely rational argument.
That's your opinion, but society has decided otherwise.


They can go somewhere else and in reality the reason they went to the conservative Christian baker is because they wanted to punish the baker for his religious views and wanted to use the punitive authority of the state to do it.
Maybe so, but that's irrelevant to the legal question at hand. The bakery, being a for-profit business open to the public, cannot deny service to customers based on their sexual orientation.


No, I'm saying that Christians should not be forced to participate or contribute to a religious ceremony that they find morally repugant.
No one's forcing them to. If they don't want to ever be faced with the prospect of baking a cake for a same-sex wedding, then they shouldn't open a bakery in an area where sexual orientation is protected class in the relevant anti-discrimination laws.


The abridgment of the "free exercise thereof" should not be either positive or negative. One should not be prevented from worshiping according to their own conscience nor should someone be compelled to participate in anything that violates their faith.
The courts have ruled otherwise.


See, Jose, the reason why this argument is a total failure is because those who use it refuse to acknowledge that race and sexual behavior aren't synonymous.
See Dialogos, this is why your side keeps losing in court. No one is saying race and sexual orientation are synonymous. The point is, the legal principles are the same. Just as a Christian baker who believes the Bible teaches separation of the races cannot deny an interracial couple his services, a Christian baker who believes the Bible teaches opposite-sex marriage only cannot deny a same-sex couple his services.

Do you understand? It's the legal principles that are the same, not the people being discriminated against.

Jose Fly
December 19th, 2014, 10:49 AM
Never said it was. Law that requires Christians to craft symbols representative of forces working actively against the Christian faith is bad law.
That's your opinion, and you're free to have it. Fortunately, society is moving away from discrimination rather than towards it.


That's not a good analogy.
Yes it is. The legal principles are exactly the same.


Try this one. A Christian baker is asked by belligerent LGBTQ/rainbow coalition people to bake a wedding cake with two grooms/brides, a clear symbol of anti-Christianity, and they aren't forced by bad law to do it.
And this is why your side keeps losing in court. No one buys that a wedding cake is actually a "clear symbol of anti-Christianity". That argument only resonates with your fellow fundamentalists.


A Jewish baker oughtn't be forced by any law to craft a wedding cake as a black swastika on a white circle on a crimson background. That's all I'm saying. Don't we agree ?
Are Nazi's a protected class in anti-discrimination laws?

Jedidiah
December 19th, 2014, 11:17 AM
Law that requires Christians to craft symbols representative of forces working actively against the Christian faith is bad law.

That's your opinion...Explain for me and others how this is an opinion. In what way is it an opinion ? I can only figure one way in which it is an opinion, and that is if we take your own apparent opinion as factual, that somehow, in some way, forcing Christians to craft for those militant against the historic Christian faith, symbols representative of that, is good. Do you really feel as if you're in the right here ? Or are you just trying to cause trouble ?

...Fortunately, society is moving away from discrimination rather than towards it...The discrimination that we are moving towards -- and that apparently you are just fine with -- is against Christians, when laws attempt to force Christians to create symbols that perpetuate the myth that LGBTQ voluntary behaviors and lifestyle choices are safe, harmless, and even good, in direct contradiction to what the historic Christian faith has always believed and taught.

Emperor worship.

...Yes it is. The legal principles are exactly the same...The legal principles would be exactly the same if there were today a symbol representing loving disapproval of LGBTQ-marriage, such as the Christian Cross in times past, and LGBTQ bakers were forced by law to create this symbol even if they feel it militates against them and their behaviors and lifestyle. Do you support the right of the LGBTQ baker to deny service to customers who make such a request ?

I do.

...this is why your side keeps losing in court. No one buys that a wedding cake is actually a "clear symbol of anti-Christianity". That argument only resonates with your fellow fundamentalists...A cake is just a cake. A cake made with a black swastika on a white circle on a crimson background upon it, is not just a cake. And I've never argued anything otherwise.

I'm not talking about cakes, I'm talking about symbols. Two grooms/brides is a symbol. A Cross is a symbol. A rainbow is a symbol. A black swastika breaking to the right, upon a white circle, upon a crimson background, is a symbol. And if a customer desires a baker to craft a cake with a symbol repugnant to the baker's religious sensibilities, then there oughtn't be any law to force that baker to oblige that customer. You don't agree ?


A Jewish baker oughtn't be forced by any law to craft a wedding cake as a black swastika on a white circle on a crimson background. That's all I'm saying. Don't we agree ?

...Are Nazi's a protected class in anti-discrimination laws?Do you agree with me, or don't you ?

jeremysdemo
December 19th, 2014, 11:39 AM
If I were a gay baker, I'd have made the cake for the man. Cake is precious and decadent. We should use cake to bring mankind together (and make a profit), not tear us apart. So, some people think same-sex marriage is wrong and want a cake. I'd happily take their money and :chuckle: .

^this.

if i were a gay cake maker I would say tho, "I'll make the cake for ya but I ain't writing that on there! you'll have to write your own hate diatribes for your ceremonies."

resodko
December 19th, 2014, 11:45 AM
Let's say I'm walking past a homeless person and give him some money. I walk past another one a block away and as I start to give him money he says that anything I give him will be used to go buy drugs. Do I have to give it to him anyway because I'd be a hypocrite for not asking what the previous beggar was going to use it for? :idunno:



you could just give him drugs instead of money :idunno:

jeremysdemo
December 19th, 2014, 11:48 AM
I just buy them beer, I know that's what they are going to spend it on anyway! lol