Indiana Pizza Shop 1st to Publicly Say It Would Deny Same-Sex Service

Alate_One

Well-known member
Taking food to an unmarried co-habitating couple isn't really the same thing unless they are having an event to celebrate their relationship and their co-habitation.
True, but it's still a question of whether it's actually support.

However, I am open to the argument that catering a gay wedding isn't necessarily taking part in the celebration of their wedding. For instance, if they'd cater a heterosexual wedding would they see themselves as celebrating that wedding or simply providing a service? If someone photographs a wedding are they necessarily celebrating the event and that relationship? :idunno: Probably not.
I think in that case you're providing a service to the general public.

But a wedding for a gay couple is an obvious instance of something going against their beliefs. It's harder to ignore. And one might feel conflicted about profiting from something they see as sinful, even if their conscience isn't celebrating it. What about catering a holiday party for a porn shop? But it can be lazy or hypocritical to only stand against the things that smack you in the face.

I don't think there is an easy answer either way.
The question I would ask is, what is the better witness?

Is it better to refuse?

Or should you do the best job you can, making sure that your clients know you're a Christian and don't agree with their celebration (whatever it is)?

I think the latter is the better choice and better witness. I think it mirrors the servant spirit that Christ modeled.


41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5
 
Last edited:

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
So you think because you supply food for something (for pay) you're supporting the event? Now I would say if you were *donating* the pizzas then yes you're supporting the event.
What you fail to understand is that there are people who have a different viewpoint than you. Some people would see it as supporting the event. Those people should have the right to decline providing service for that event.

No, I think you have a weird notion of "support". Does coca-cola *support* every event where it is sold?
Who's providing the coke?

Are they protesting the event if they are selling their product there?

Say it's a birthday party for a child produced from an unmarried couple. They have no intention to marry and are very open about that fact.
Who is bringing the pizza?
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
The question I would ask is, what is the better witness?

Is it better to refuse?

Or should you do the best job you can, making sure that your clients know you're a Christian and don't agree with their celebration (whatever it is)?

I think the latter is the better choice and better witness. I think it mirrors the servant spirit that Christ modeled.


41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5

Depending on how it is done I agree with you that providing the service could end up being the better witness and the better show of love. But I don't think it's comparable to the verse you quoted. Jesus wasn't giving examples of things that could be perceived as being or contributing to sin. Do you think Jesus would have gone to and turned water into wine at a gay wedding?
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
again -the situation you pose isn't the equivalent of any of the recent court rulings on civil rights and so called"religious freedom"
you are trying to equate the rejection or not of a specific message with the rejection of a minority. It would be equivalent if your printing business owner reject printing fliers with a racist message? or an anti-Semitic message? If that print shop owner would be happy to print racist literature and fliers but decline to print anti gay literature and fliers. Your situation would also become equivalent if the printing business refused to serve a customer because that customer were black re

There is no "again" as you never answered to begin with, and yes this an exact duplicate situation just having the roles reversed. You really are all over the map with this thing because there is no possible wiggle room. You either say that a person has the freedom to deny work based on personal conviction, be it religion, race, sexual preference, or you say that everyone including the gay printer is obligated to perform the service. The gay printer can no more deny service than the florist, the wedding cake maker, or any other service by the standard being set. No special treatment for anyone....is this the world that you are so desperate to have?
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Depending on how it is done I agree with you that providing the service could end up being the better witness and the better show of love. But I don't think it's comparable to the verse you quoted. Jesus wasn't giving examples of things that could be perceived as being or contributing to sin.
Well as far as being forced to carry or assist a Roman soldier (which was often the context as I recall), that could very well be "sinful" in one sense or another. Rome was a pagan authority, corrupt in many ways and hated by the Jewish people. Offering extra services to such an authority was probably quite a provocative statement. Probably more so than bringing pizza to a gay wedding today.

Do you think Jesus would have gone to and turned water into wine at a gay wedding?
Probably not since at the time, gay weddings were not too common and performing a miracle is rather different than just say, delivering normal wine.

Think of is this way, assume you're a baker in the 1st century. Very few if any of the events going on around you are "pure". People take bread to feed their families but also to go the Colosseum to watch mass murder or go to the temples to other gods. What would you do? Only serve other Christians even though there hardly are any?

Societies come and go and change over time in what is acceptable. We often forget how "bad" first century Christians actually had it. Gay marriage isn't much compared to what was normal in Roman times. Showcasing servant-hood and love is what is important in drawing people to Christ.

As I posted before, I think this verse applies. I Corinthians 9-19-23
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
What you fail to understand is that there are people who have a different viewpoint than you. Some people would see it as supporting the event. Those people should have the right to decline providing service for that event.
And you can have that viewpoint. There are people that have the viewpoint that people of certain races shouldn't be provided with certain commodities. Civil society has to balance the interests of both types of people. But if you let the providers call all the shots then you end up with what we had before civil rights, people can't get hotels, eat at lunch counters etc.

Freedom for one group becomes enslavement for another. Now you probably think that's a just fine outcome for homosexuals, but the majority of society doesn't agree with you.

Who's providing the coke?
Coke, ultimately, a subcontractor proximally.

Are they protesting the event if they are selling their product there?
Is that what you think the only options are? Protest or support? :doh:

Who is bringing the pizza?
uhh people who bake pizza? What are you trying to ask?
 

Aner

New member
The level of ignorance and lack of critical thinking displayed in certain of these posts is stunning - both the OP poster and #4 Poster, etc.

Denying catering at a wedding IS denying a service. Geez.... Just because you are religious does mean you need think like an idiot.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Indiana pizza fund just went north of $800k.

Hypothetical: What would happen if (assuming this is even possible, I dunno) certain leftists obtained the list of donors, just like they got the names of people who voted in California several years ago. And speculating further, what if yet another deranged leftist (I repeat myself) took it upon himself to "punish" a donor who happened to live near him?

Question: How do you think that situation would play out in the leftist national media? Do you think the dots would even be connected, or would they play it off as random? Would they mention it at all? Most importantly, what would Obama have to say about it when reached for comment at the 9th hole?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Unless you can show scientific proof to the contrary it is a choice, I can however show scientifically that heterosexuality is the natural, normal function of the human body...what is absurd is trying to make excuses for a life choice which neither normal or natural.

Now, back to the subject in this thread, AB maybe you can answer the question:

Should a gay man who owns a printing business be compelled under force of law to print anti-gay literature & flyers for an anti gay rally? Should this man have the freedom to decline the work based on personal conviction?

You're not getting it. I identify as heterosexual because I'm exclusively attracted to the opposite sex. Because of that there is no "choice" available in terms of any 'homosexual lifestyle' as it's rendered impossible by being straight. Without an inherent attraction there's nothing to act upon and if there were I wouldn't identify as hetero as it wouldn't even mean anything as a term anymore. Ergo, it's impossible for me to "choose" to start liking men. So how in blazes is it possible for other people who have the same exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to make a "choice" to become gay?!

Please do explain that one in some way that makes sense.

In regards to your question then yes, he should have that right and so should anyone else if they're convicted to do so.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
It's a choice by definition of what we would argue against. Moron's like no-brain think the opposition is to a feeling people get. It's not. The Bible says that sex between men is punishable by death. Having sex is a choice people make. Asking for evidence that it is a choice is just inviting more nonsense.

Hey brainiac, you tell me how it's possible to be exclusively attracted to the opposite sex and then how it can be a 'choice' to have sex with your own. I'll wait while you don't manage to explain that at all...

:freak:
 

musterion

Well-known member
Hey brainiac, you tell me how it's possible to be exclusively attracted to the opposite sex and then how it can be a 'choice' to have sex with your own.

Anatomy. Biology. Reproduction. Emotional complementarity. Childrearing.

Or to put it bluntly:

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Penis complements vagina.

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Testes complement ovaries.

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Sperm complements egg.

SmallRedX.gif
Penis does not complement rectum.

SmallRedX.gif
Phallic sticks do not complement vagina.

Seems rather obvious when stated in such simple terms, doesn't it.

You claim to be straight but you need to have that explained to you?
 

TracerBullet

New member
Homo-lovers hate reading.

Homosexuality is a choice by definition of what Christians argue is a sin. Moron's like no-brain think that our opposition is to a feeling people get. It's not. The Bible says that sex between men is punishable by death. Having sex is a choice people make. Asking for evidence that it is a choice is just inviting more nonsense.

By definition, the thing that we argue is wrong is an act people choose to engage in. You cannot be convicted of something that you did not choose to do. You cannot be convicted for a feeling.

homophones hate thinking

calling a horse a duck doesn't change the horse. Pretending that orientation is a choice (but not a choice for you) doesn't change what orientation is. All it does is make you look stupid.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Anatomy. Biology. Reproduction. Emotional complementarity. Childrearing.

Or to put it bluntly:

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Penis complements vagina.

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Testes complement ovaries.

check-mark-green-small.jpg
Sperm complements egg.

SmallRedX.gif
Penis does not complement rectum.

SmallRedX.gif
Phallic sticks do not complement vagina.

Seems rather obvious when stated in such simple terms, doesn't it.

You claim to be straight but you need to have that explained to you?

I didn't need to have anything explained to me at all dingbat so if you've got anything relevant as to how straight folk can 'choose' to be gay then by all means.

Otherwise try acting at least half yer age?
 

musterion

Well-known member
I didn't need to have anything explained to me at all dingbat so if you've got anything relevant as to how straight folk can 'choose' to be gay then by all means.

God condemns homosexuality, in all contexts, as a chosen behavior, just like choosing to steal, choosing to lie, or choosing to seduce another man's wife. Hence the condemnation as sin, and it's perfectly just.

If it was "normal" in the sense many here insist -- that "He made me this way" -- then He'd be an unjust hypocrite for condemning it.
 

TracerBullet

New member
There is no "again" as you never answered to begin with, and yes this an exact duplicate situation just having the roles reversed.
only a very dim witted person would think what you present is even remotely like the original. If you want that sort of comparison then you need to have a heterosexual couple going to a gay baker to purchase a wedding cake and being refused because of the gay bakers religious convictions and the simple fact he doesn't wish to "celebrate" that couple's marriage.

You really are all over the map with this thing because there is no possible wiggle room. You either say that a person has the freedom to deny work based on personal conviction, be it religion, race, sexual preference, or you say that everyone including the gay printer is obligated to perform the service. The gay printer can no more deny service than the florist, the wedding cake maker, or any other service by the standard being set. No special treatment for anyone....is this the world that you are so desperate to have?
If you really want to go that route then YOU have to find this acceptable -
We-Cater-to-White-Trade-Only-FSDM2.jpg


Either a bussiness has the freedom to deny services based on personal conviction or they don't. No special treatment for anyone.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
God condemns homosexuality, in all contexts, as a chosen behavior, just like choosing to steal, choosing to lie, or choosing to seduce another man's wife. Hence the condemnation as sin, and it's perfectly just.

If it was "normal" in the sense many here insist -- that "He made me this way" -- then He'd be an unjust hypocrite for condemning it.

So why don't you explain how heterosexuals can somehow 'choose' to become gay then? How? Are you exclusively attracted to the opposite sex or not?
 
Top