S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[Joanne]

Something that I wish more conservative parents would realize is that few children/teens have the nuance and maturity to separate "homosexuality/same-sex attraction is a sin" from how they interact with and treat LGBT people they encounter. I had to pull my daughter out from public school because "love the sinner hate the sin" did nothing to promote kind treatment from these religiously conservative kids toward LGBT kids like my daughter. She faced daily harassment and teasing. She was treated as less than fully human. I find this to be much more morally repugnant than whatever consensual sexual practices someone might engage in. As a Christian, I find it very disturbing and disappointed that other Christians seem to think "love one another" does not apply to LGBT people (individually or as a group).

 

I've maintained on this board (and in person life) that "love the sinner, hate the sin" is on the continuum of hate. Even interpreting Christian scripture as against homosexuality is on the continuum of hate. The fact that the words were codified, and ambiguous in ancient times is hate.

 

How it can NOT be hate is anathema to me.

[*Lulu*]

There seems to be a lot of focus on defining marriage....but defining marriage won't change anything one way or the other. It may normalize to some what others feel should not be normalized, but it won't change whether a situation is right or wrong.

Morality cannot be legislated. I will comply with the law up to the point my conscience says no. But other than that I just try to live my life and raise my kid the best way I know how according to what I believe.

Having laws does not make people moral or immoral. Fear of consequences does maintain order to an extent. But laws do not make people want to do right or wrong.

This is totally true, and something that comes up eventually in every discussion of laws that intersect parental responsibility, bigotry, or sexism. So I will repeat what I wrote in another thread this week:

 

"I hear it said a lot in these sort of conversations that you can't legislate people's feelings. Bigots will be bigots. Sexists will be sexists. Crappy parents will be crappy. And it is true.

 

Crappy parents will be crappy, but we (society) agree they must not physically abuse their children and put laws in place.

 

Sexists will be sexist, but we agree they must not act on these feelings in the public arena and put programs and laws in place to allow men and women equal footing in the public square.

 

Bigots will be bigots, but we should not allow them to act upon their bigotry by virtue of institutional and historical biases when they act as representatives of the government.

 

None of the above examples happen perfectly. It doesn't mean we should throw our hands up in the air and give up trying to find ways to right wrongs and create a society where bodily integrity, individual worth, and gender and racial equality are valued concepts that are pursued on individual and institutional levels."

 

We already do not allow businesses to refuse service to people based on religious views. A bakery cannot refuse to bake a cake for someone because they are Buddhist. A Pentecostal bakery owner cannot refuse to bake a cake for someone because they go to a Baptist church. Why anyone thinks refusing to serve same sex persons is any different is beyond me.

[Catwoman]

We already do not allow businesses to refuse service to people based on religious views. A bakery cannot refuse to bake a cake for someone because they are Buddhist. A Pentecostal bakery owner cannot refuse to bake a cake for someone because they go to a Baptist church. Why anyone thinks refusing to serve same sex persons is any different is beyond me.

I never could understand the bakery thing.

 

I mean, they weren't asking the bakery owner if they could move into his spare room; they just wanted a cake.

 

I got the impression that they could have bought a nice pie or a big box of cookies, but somehow the line was drawn at a wedding cake. That makes no sense at all.

[zoobie]

It is ironic to me that in a post above, strippers were mentioned. If a female stripper went to a Christian florist or baker for her wedding purchases, should the business owners be allowed to decline?

 

If a sin is a sin is a sin, should Christian (or other conservative religious owner) be able to decline services to smokers? Gossips? Gluttons? People who yell at their kids (oops, that implies unwed or divorced parents, so maybe they should be excluded already based on THAT.)

Wedding cake bakers could require proof of virginity from heterosexual couples! Lol.

[Catwoman]

Wedding cake bakers could require proof of virginity from heterosexual couples! Lol.

:lol:

 

"Well, certainly we'll be happy to take your order, but first we need you to step into the examining room for a minute..." ;)

[*Lulu*]

:lol:

 

"Well, certainly we'll be happy to take your order, but first we need you to step into the examining room for a minute..." ;)

"But sir, I am a "born-again virgin"; we had a ceremony and everything. Would you like me to get a letter from my pastor?"

[Ravin]

It is ironic to me that in a post above, strippers were mentioned. If a female stripper went to a Christian florist or baker for her wedding purchases, should the business owners be allowed to decline?

 

If a sin is a sin is a sin, should Christian (or other conservative religious owner) be able to decline services to smokers? Gossips? Gluttons? People who yell at their kids (oops, that implies unwed or divorced parents, so maybe they should be excluded already based on THAT.)

Let me get this straight...you think people who yell at their kids can be implied to be divorced or single parents?

 

Stereotyping much? Also not particularly reflective of reality.

[LucyStoner]

Let me get this straight...you think people who yell at their kids can be implied to be divorced or single parents?

 

Stereotyping much? Also not particularly reflective of reality.

She's making a joke about stereotypes other people have expressed. I'm quite certain that Joanne doesn't hold that belief.

[Joanne]

Let me get this straight...you think people who yell at their kids can be implied to be divorced or single parents?

 

Stereotyping much? Also not particularly reflective of reality.

 

 

No. If you read the post.....

 

 

I was talking about a patron seeking wedding services - a sinner. This sinner yelled at their kids. It then occured to me if that sinner yelled at their kids, they had already been married (divorce = sin) or were unwed parents (unwed parenting = sin).

 

You may not know my perspective on such matters, but if you did, you'd know to look again at the context.

 

(ETA: I was making a point of the hypocrisy of reacting to "sin" in the Christian church. I can see how it might not be clear. My point is that I've observed that Chrsitans who defend excluding wedding sales to the GLTB community cherry pick sin)

[LucyStoner]

I never could understand the bakery thing.

 

I mean, they weren't asking the bakery owner if they could move into his spare room; they just wanted a cake.

 

I got the impression that they could have bought a nice pie or a big box of cookies, but somehow the line was drawn at a wedding cake. That makes no sense at all.

Good point.

 

It would be like a dress shop being willing to take your money for a cocktail dress but not a white wedding dress. Or telling immigrants they can buy your sandwiches but they can't sit and eat those sandwiches in your cafe. Generally it is really bad business to tell your customers what you will and won't sell them. And in some cases it is (and should be) illegal.

 

Do we want to live in a world where the bookstore owner can say he won't sell you this or that book because he thinks women shouldn't read that subject or the hotel owner can say they won't book a room for an interracial couple? Or where a carpet store can say they won't install carpet in a Methodist Church? I sure the heck don't. These laws protect all of us from being denied public accommodations because of the same exact set of criteria.

[Joanne]

Good point.

 

It would be like a dress shop being willing to take your money for a cocktail dress but not a white wedding dress. Generally it is really bad business to tell your customers what you will and won't sell them. And in some cases it is (and should be) illegal.

 

Do we want to live in a world where the bookstore owner can say he won't sell you this or that book because he thinks women shouldn't read that subject or the hotel owner can say they won't book a room for an interracial couple? Or where a carpet store can say they won't install carpet in a Methodist Church? I sure the heck don't. These laws protect all of us from being denied public accommodations because of the same exact set of criteria.

 

 

And, assuming reasonable people don't want to live in that world, how is not wanting to serve sexual minorities different than other "sinners" (sic).

 

I've never gotten an answer that makes sense to me on that question.

[TranquilMind]

  

Yes, LDS.

 

Temple weddings/sealings (the idea is that you're bound for eternity after this ceremony) are seen as The Right Way to be married. Other weddings (civil, other religions) are seen as valid/legal but sad because they're not eternal. In countries that require public wedding ceremonies, LDS couples have a public ceremony and then they get sealed privately later. I hope the church makes that a worldwide policy soon because the exclusiveness of temple weddings causes a lot of unnecessary pain--especially if the bride and/or groom converted. Currently, if a couple in the US does not get legally married and sealed in a temple ceremony, they must wait a year to be sealed as a penalty. Also, if a couple doesn't marry in the temple, people assume that they had morality (chastity) issues or were otherwise unworthy. Therefore, there is a ton of pressure to "do the right thing" by getting married in the temple despite familial or other concerns.

 

My mother is a convert. Her parents were not allowed to attend her LDS wedding. My grandmother was a convert as well, but at that time (1970s) women who were married to non-members were not allowed to go through the temple ceremonies that are required before one can attend a wedding/sealing. My mom tells the story as an example of her choosing God over everything else, including family. I see it as unnecessarily divisive and hurtful. She was my grandmother's only daughter.

Can I ask you a question I have always wondered?  How does the LDS get around the scripture where Jesus says that people in heaven are like angels, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, where he is talking about how death ends a marriage?

 

Luke 20:27-38  

27Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. 28“Teacher,†they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 29Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30The second 31and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32Finally, the woman died too. 33Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?â€

 

34Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage,36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.37But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’^b38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.â€

[TranquilMind]

The "religious right" in the US developed around segregation. It's morphed since then, obviously, but that was the origin. Scripture and religion absolutely were used to defend their positions. Bob Jones University didn't allow black students until the 1970s, and even after allowing students who met certain requirements to enroll, it continued to forbid interracial dating. They based this on religious doctrine and claimed First Amendment protections. The IRS stripped its tax exempt status. BJU sued and the resultant court case went all the way to the Supreme Court. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/ (Liberal media source, but it is a well-written sketch including links to law review articles and etcetera) N.B., BJU didn't lift the ban on interracial dating until 2000. This isn't exactly in the way back past!

 

The refusal to provide flowers for a gay wedding is absolutely equivalent with the refusal to provide flowers for an interracial wedding. I'm not concerned about my constitutional rights at all in this regard.

Source, besides the laughable "thinkprogress" to back your assertion that the religious right (whoever they are) developed around segregation?

 

There is no equivalence whatsoever, based on the premises.  The former is based on racial prejudice, not scripture. 

[TranquilMind]

Where is the scripture that says it is a sin to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple?

You are missing the point.  Reducing it to absurdity, as if it is merely a financial transaction is necessary to support your view, but it doesn't recognize the view of the Christian baker who feels in good conscience that he chooses not to participate in providing products for something that violates his scriptural beliefs. 

 

That's just not ok.  Someone else might decide not to sell products to say, the Duggar family, when they have yet another of their huge number of upcoming weddings because the business disagrees with their scriptural beliefs.  That's fine too.  They can go somewhere else, and would, I suspect, rather than framing the business and suing. 

 I just love the hypocrisy here that it is fine to FORCE some transactions/performances, if a liberal interest is at stake, but by golly, stay out of my (womb, or fill in the blank with another) if a conservative belief is at stake. 

 

How about some "equality" there? 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

You are missing the point.  Reducing it to absurdity, as if it is merely a financial transaction is necessary to support your view, but it doesn't recognize the view of the Christian baker who feels in good conscience that he chooses not to participate in providing products for something that violates his scriptural beliefs. 

 

That's just not ok.  Someone else might decide not to sell products to say, the Duggar family, when they have yet another of their huge number of upcoming weddings because the business disagrees with their scriptural beliefs.  That's fine too.  They can go somewhere else, and would, I suspect, rather than framing the business and suing. 

 

It IS absurdity. This country wasn't founded on scripture, our laws are not governed by scripture, we don't all live by scripture, and even people who do claim to live by scripture don't all interpret scripture the same way. Therefore, by necessity, our laws are a neutral and equalizing force. If someone doesn't want to live by those laws because they don't meet their moral standards, they are free to move elsewhere. Or go ahead and work to change the laws, but you don't get to flout them in the meantime because someone else's moral standards aren't equal to yours. 

 

And ETA, I have no idea what you're referring to about the Duggar family, but if I heard someone was refusing to sell them wedding products because of their religious stance, I'd be just as outraged, even though I don't agree with their religious beliefs. Is that what actually happened to them? I can't really envision it.

 

ETA again: Are you really suggesting that you'd be perfectly happy to live in a world where anyone can refuse to provide services to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose? Really? I find that intensely disturbing. Are you completely unaware of the benefits that have accrued to you as a woman and a mother due to anti-discrimination policies and laws? Or are you just arguing that only certain people are allowed to have protection--the ones you deem worthy? 

[LucyStoner]

TranquilMind, actually it would be illegal (and should be illegal) for a baker to refuse to sell wedding cake to a Duggar because of their religious beliefs.

 

These laws protect all of us, liberal and conservative. Equally. Under the law. As it should be.

 

Do you really think that a baker should be able to say "sorry, I don't sell cakes to Catholics or Jews or Muslims. Go somewhere else."? Remember in some places there may be nowhere else to go.

 

ETA: some people say that being gay is a choice. Well it's a choice to:

 

-be religious/belong to a church

-be married to a person of a different skin color

 

It's also a CHOICE to open a store to the public. When you make that choice you agree to follow the law. From filing your taxes to paying your employees minimum wage to not illegally discriminating against customers. If you don't want to pay your taxes due to your religion, try telling that to the IRS and see what they say. :P. if running a store could put you in a position to be legally required to go against your beliefs, then you don't need to run a store. As a landlord I am sure you know you can't violate the Fair Housing Act merely because of your personal or religious views.

[TranquilMind]

Is religious belief the only thing that makes it uncomfortable? What I wonder is, would it be similarly distasteful in a different context, for example if a small community collectively refuses to patronize a new strip club in town. If the porn industry went out of business because people stopped purchasing movies and watching videos on line, would that be an example of the market putting inappropriate pressure on business for ethical reasons of the individuals that compromise "the market"?

 

This would be excellent.   If not financially supported, the business would not thrive.  But don't target Christians specifically, and sue them in order to damage or eliminate their businesses, which is what gay activists have done.  That just sucks.  If you would find it distasteful for a Christian to target and sue a gay-owned business on some basis, don't do it to someone else.   But feel perfectly free not to patronize that business with which you disagree. 

 

I'm not sure why college campuses would be expected to give equal time to representatives of every viewpoint. If they don't decide what constitutes as educational enrichment, who does? Should my local university be compelled to give equal speaking time to NAMBLA representatives in order to avoid the appearance of silencing viewpoints but theirs?

Arguing an extreme example here does not address the question.  So it is perfectly fine with you that ONLY liberal viewpoints are available on campus, and all conservatives are silenced?

 

http://www.twincities.com/ci_19541486

 

 

I think you're looking at it from a defensive point of view, and that's skewing how you interpret the circumstances. You're looking at it from the point of view of conserving the social status quo, but that's not only impossible, it's undesirable for most of society. I'm having trouble thinking of an example of a society that freely chooses to preserve all conservative social expectations and public policy. But furthermore, the interesting thing for me to note is that those very ideas that people want to preserve were once "new and improved" ideas that replaced even more traditional expectations. We've already talked about the trend to reduce racism in public policy, and we tend to forget how much women gained in each generation. Instead, people point to this amorphous "golden era" of society when things were as they should have been, and watch as society moves away from that, to the detriment of society (without considering how the older generation of that society thought of the same era as degradation of society!). How interestingly we tend to ignore those conservation efforts to preserve other values, values like appeal to law rather than vigilantism, appeal to reason rather than tyranny, appeal to logic rather than fear of retribution. 

 

Well, in your equally biased view, it is undesirable to conserve any traditional morals in society.  Unlike you, I say let all views be equally heard and not silenced.  Those that are marginal and unworthy won't be supported in the long run. 

 

 

I see this idea on this forum all the time. Parents younger than me lament the downfall of society, pointing to their own youth when things were better. Interestingly, their own youth marked a time of fear and anxiety for my generation! And the same thing happened in my mother's generation, and her mother's before her. Society evolves for so many reasons, including, I think, access to information and new ideas. What I see is people want to suppress information and new ideas in order to preserve a particular belief (not necessarily religious, but you can't remove religion from society, they're too interconnected). Part of this belief is that a "golden age" is behind us, and we're going to hell in a hand basket. Ask any group whose has recent memory of being systematically and legally marginalized, and you'll find a different interpretation of the evolution of society. In other words, the belief system being preserved is the privilege to maintain privilege - even at the expense of others. 

 

 

Sure, every generation has had its issues and fears.  My mother worried that all her friends wouldn't come home from the War and she lost people every day.  I had different concerns.  But the difference is that in those days, we had a general set of values that MOST shared, and those were supported by society as a whole.  Today, each man for himself and screw everyone else. 

 

[idnib]

Dagnabbit, I have so much to do today and instead I'm sitting here trying to figure how to tell DH we're not married. He'll be back from lunch any moment!

 

(Should I be referring to him as "DH" now?)

 

P.S. Can you make a gluten-free gingerbread house? (Spin-off thread?)

[elegantlion]

You are missing the point.  Reducing it to absurdity, as if it is merely a financial transaction is necessary to support your view, but it doesn't recognize the view of the Christian baker who feels in good conscience that he chooses not to participate in providing products for something that violates his scriptural beliefs. 

 

 

 

By singling out the gay person or couple, even the Christian baker places himself in a role of judgment over sin, placing a higher sin value on that person's lifestyle. How does the baker now the wedding cake he makes for the heterosexual couple is not a couple that has been living in sin and she is currently pregnant. I know some christians believe that pre marital sex and cohabitation is sinful. Do you they do a morality survey on all customers or just discriminate based upon their sense of sight? What about the pedophile attending church who wants cupcakes for the Sunday school class because he's grooming a child or two? I suppose the baker wouldn't know that but brother so and so seems like a nice guy and, hey, he didn't fill out the morality survey. What about the mother that comes in to buy the most expensive cupcakes because she wants to come off as the best mom at the school party, her intention is self-focused and she's intentionally doing something to elevate herself above others. Or the customer who is having an affair and wants to get his sweetheart a cake for her birthday, he won't get it at the other baker because this cake isn't going to his wife. 

 

So the baker, in essence, has probably dealt with customers in which he disagrees before, but because it is not directly in his face. Business is about treating everyone fairly, even those you disagree with their lifestyle choices. If you (rhetorical) disagree, maybe you shouldn't have a public business and only work on contract to those who pass your morality test. 

[TranquilMind]

TranquilMind, actually it would be illegal (and should be illegal) for a baker to refuse to sell wedding cake to a Duggar because of their religious beliefs.

 

These laws protect all of us, liberal and conservative. Equally. Under the law. As it should be.

 

Do you really think that a baker should be able to say "sorry, I don't sell cakes to Catholics or Jews or Muslims. Go somewhere else."? Remember in some places there may be nowhere else to go.

 

ETA: some people say that being gay is a choice. Well it's a choice to:

 

-be religious/belong to a church

-be married to a person of a different skin color

 

It's also a CHOICE to open a store to the public. When you make that choice you agree to follow the law. From filing your taxes to paying your employees minimum wage to not illegally discriminating against customers. If you don't want to pay your taxes due to your religion, try telling that to the IRS and see what they say. :p

No, that's different to not sell to groups of people and no one refuses to "sell to Catholics or Jews", for example. It isn't the same at all as refusing to sell to a specific person who wants you to provide a service or products for an event that violates your religious beliefs specifically.

 

For example, sue me to Kingdom Come and back, but if a NAMBLA member shows up at my business and wants me to photograph their latest event or provide cakes that say, "Young girls are ******" (fill in with some nasty thing) or something, as a Christian business owner, I will most decidedly turn that down.  Your way forces me to find a pretext instead of be honest that I don't have any interest in being involved in such an event in any way. 

[Veritaserum]

Can I ask you a question I have always wondered? How does the LDS get around the scripture where Jesus says that people in heaven are like angels, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, where he is talking about how death ends a marriage?

 

Luke 20:27-38

27Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. 28“Teacher,†they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 29Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30The second 31and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32Finally, the woman died too. 33Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?â€

 

34Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage,36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.37But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’^b38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.â€

Here's an apologist explanation: http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/09/17/matthew-2230

 

Here's another: http://en.fairmormon.org/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Jesus_said_%22neither_marry_nor_given_in_marriage%22

[LucyStoner]

Pedophiles and pornographers are not a protected class in any jurisdiction. As an athiest I wouldn't make a pro-child molestation or pornographic cake either and I would be perfectly within my rights to refuse service.

 

Gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, age, race, disability. Those are the sorts of things that you can't discriminate about under the law though the specifics vary by place.

 

FTR- above you did say it would be ok for the baker to turn the Duggars away. No, no it is not and now your latest post contradicts that prior claim.

 

And likening homosexuals to pedophiles is just tired and inaccurate.

[Amira]

Repeated what someone else said.

[TranquilMind]

By singling out the gay person or couple, even the Christian baker places himself in a role of judgment over sin, placing a higher sin value on that person's lifestyle. How does the baker now the wedding cake he makes for the heterosexual couple is not a couple that has been living in sin and she is currently pregnant. I know some christians believe that pre marital sex and cohabitation is sinful. Do you they do a morality survey on all customers or just discriminate based upon their sense of sight? What about the pedophile attending church who wants cupcakes for the Sunday school class because he's grooming a child or two? I suppose the baker wouldn't know that but brother so and so seems like a nice guy and, hey, he didn't fill out the morality survey. What about the mother that comes in to buy the most expensive cupcakes because she wants to come off as the best mom at the school party, her intention is self-focused and she's intentionally doing something to elevate herself above others. Or the customer who is having an affair and wants to get his sweetheart a cake for her birthday, he won't get it at the other baker because this cake isn't going to his wife. 

 

So the baker, in essence, has probably dealt with customers in which he disagrees before, but because it is not directly in his face. Business is about treating everyone fairly, even those you disagree with their lifestyle choices. If you (rhetorical) disagree, maybe you shouldn't have a public business and only work on contract to those who pass your morality test. 

The HYPOCRISY here astounds me.    The Christian baker is deciding NOTHING about the eternal destination about any such person, straight or gay or adulterous or whatever!  He is merely saying that he chooses not to do certain events that overtly violate his belief system, and "gay marriage" is one of them, but certainly not the only one.    That baker may be equally unwilling to provide a cake for another event having nothing to do with Christian beliefs.  He may love animals and refuse to do a cake for a leather company party, for example, as it violates his values. 

 

Most of those situations you describe are not visible, but if the person comes in and STATES that he wants a cake for a "rape party" for example, hell no, reject freely!  I would.  It's wrong and I'm not playing any role whatsoever in it.   If the husband SAYS that he is married, but this is for his girlfriend,  freely reject it.  I have no problem with that.   

 

It isn't "my morality test".  It is scriptural.  If I'm beholden to follow my scriptures to the best of my conscience, your desire to have a cake does not override my religious beliefs. 

[zoobie]

Source, besides the laughable "thinkprogress" to back your assertion that the religious right (whoever they are) developed around segregation?

 

There is no equivalence whatsoever, based on the premises. The former is based on racial prejudice, not scripture.

Bigots found scriptural and doctrinal "support" for their positions. You can dig up obscure verses for just about anything, but they don't trump US laws. Law based on your religion would be the equivalent of sharia law.

 

The thinkprogress article links to a Wake Forest Law Review article among other sources, as I said in my original reply.

 

BJU v US Supreme Court decision: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/574/case.html

[TranquilMind]

Here's an apologist explanation: http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/09/17/matthew-2230

 

Here's another: http://en.fairmormon.org/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Jesus_said_%22neither_marry_nor_given_in_marriage%22

Ah, ok.

 

Here it is:   There is no Biblical obstacle to the doctrine of eternal marriage. This doctrine is consistent with the Bible, but it is not drawn from it. As in all things, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is guided by modern revelation, and the doctrine of eternal marriage came to the church through this means.

[Joanne]

 

 

 

TranquilMind says above that previous generations shared values and today we host a "everyone for themselves and screw everyone else" mentality.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I just wanted to respond that we must not live in the same world. Not a day goes by that I don't witness altruism, kindness, laughter, cooperation, joy, compassion, and care.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

It isn't "my morality test".  It is scriptural.  If I'm beholden to follow my scriptures to the best of my conscience, your desire to have a cake does not override my religious beliefs. 

 

You're astounded by the hypocrisy here, yet you're completely unaware of your own. It's almost comical.

 

The laws of our land override your religious beliefs. It's that simple. If you don't like it, move. Or break them and be subject to prosecution. I'm OK with that too. 

 

What would you say that people who aren't Christian have to back up their beliefs? Is scripture the only moral system that can't be overridden? Do non-Christians have no rights because they don't have scripture to back them up? 

[TranquilMind]

Pedophiles and pornographers are not a protected class in any jurisdiction. As an athiest I wouldn't make a pro-child molestation or pornographic cake either and I would be perfectly within my rights to refuse service.

 

Gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, age, race, disability. Those are the sorts of things that you can't discriminate about under the law though the specifics vary by place.

 

FTR- above you did say it would be ok for the baker to turn the Duggars away. No, no it is not and now your latest post contradicts that prior claim.

 

And likening homosexuals to pedophiles is just tired and inaccurate.

 

Here are just a few examples of Christian discrimination.  It happens. 

 

What I said is that I have no problem with an individual refusing to provide services or goods in a case where he isn't the only provider, regardless of reason.  I guess that is why I am Libertarian.  You don't want to serve me because my beliefs contradict yours? I will go down the block and support your competitor, not sue you and try to put you out of business. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Dagnabbit, I have so much to do today and instead I'm sitting here trying to figure how to tell DH we're not married. He'll be back from lunch any moment!

 

(Should I be referring to him as "DH" now?)

 

P.S. Can you make a gluten-free gingerbread house? (Spin-off thread?)

 

In my experience, not so well. I mean, you can learn to do it over time, but you're facing half a dozen failures which sucks the fun out of it. Practice in the off season to be ready for next year.

 

My favorite alternative for doing quick-and-easy GF gingerbread houses with little kids: Buy GF graham crackers (order online if your local store doesn't have them) and "glue" them with icing to (washed) pint-size milk cartons as the walls and roof, and then you can decorate with GF candies. Let each child do several because they're small. Make a village.

[TranquilMind]

You're astounded by the hypocrisy here, yet you're completely unaware of your own. It's almost comical.

 

The laws of our land override your religious beliefs. It's that simple. If you don't like it, move. Or break them and be subject to prosecution. I'm OK with that too. 

 

What would you say that people who aren't Christian have to back up their beliefs? Is scripture the only moral system that can't be overridden? Do non-Christians have no rights because they don't have scripture to back them up? 

BS.

 

The First Amendment IS the law of the land.  Unfortunately, it is being curtailed to serve the interests of liberal viewpoints only.  That is the hypocrisy you cannot see. 

[Frances]

 

 

It isn't "my morality test".  It is scriptural.  If I'm beholden to follow my scriptures to the best of my conscience, your desire to have a cake does not override my religious beliefs. 

 

But where is the scripture that says it is wrong to make a cake for a gay wedding? And isn't gluttony a sin? Should the baker also assume that overweight people are gluttonous and refuse to sell them any sugary baked goods because that would be enabling the sin of gluttony?

 

Do you understand how those who don't share your beliefs find it hypocritical for business owners to refuse service based on religious beliefs only for particular sins? If a Christian bakery owner is really that offended by the sin of gay marriage that they are willing to break the law and refuse service to a gay couple, wouldn't they also feel very strongly about adulterers getting married, premarital sex, etc. that they would want to carefully screen their customers to only provide wedding cakes for those whose sins don't offend their religious beliefs? What is so special about homosexuality?

[Amira]

TranquilMind, I doubt that you think that the First Amendment allows people to opt out of obeying any law because of their religious beliefs.  Where would you draw the line? Would you just like sexual orientation to not be included as a protected class?

[TranquilMind]

TranquilMind says above that previous generations shared values and today we host a "everyone for themselves and screw everyone else" mentality.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I just wanted to respond that we must not live in the same world. Not a day goes by that I don't witness altruism, kindness, laughter, cooperation, joy, compassion, and care.

Sure, we see it on an individual basis, depending on where and with whom we spend our time.  I'm talking about overall, in the marketplace. 

 

But the "screw everyone else" mentality was evident in the Ferguson riots and looting, and was experienced first hand by the poor guy who was unfortunate enough to own a liquor store right there (not white, not even American!) .

This guy, Terence Williams,  by sharp contrast, goes virtually unnoticed in the national media:  http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/05/st-louis-man-says-god-inspired-clean-ferguson-riots/

[TranquilMind]

But where is the scripture that says it is wrong to make a cake for a gay wedding? And isn't gluttony a sin? Should the baker also assume that overweight people are gluttonous and refuse to sell them any sugary baked goods because that would be enabling the sin of gluttony?

 

Do you understand how those who don't share your beliefs find it hypocritical for business owners to refuse service based on religious beliefs only for particular sins? If a Christian bakery owner is really that offended by the sin of gay marriage that they are willing to break the law and refuse service to a gay couple, wouldn't they also feel very strongly about adulterers getting married, premarital sex, etc. that they would want to carefully screen their customers to only provide wedding cakes for those whose sins don't offend their religious beliefs? What is so special about homosexuality?

It has NOTHING to do with making a cake or selling a cake!  I don't know how many times that has to be said.

 

It has to do with not being forced to provide goods and services for an event against your will for something that violates your religious beliefs.    If you have specific knowledge, and it is morally wrong, Americans should feel free to reject that business at will.  Rejecting for skin color?  No.  Rejecting a nonwhite person's (or any person's) request for a cake to celebrate a swinger's party (if they tell you, which is unlikely), yes, feel free to reject. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Update: Since I tried to make a GF gingerbread house, evidently more and better products and techniques have been created --

 

1. Use Pamela's Bread Mix and gingerbreadify it. http://www.pamelasproducts.com/gingerbread-house/

 

2. Buy a kit from Jules http://www.julesglutenfree.com/Jules-Gluten-Free-Gingerbread-House-Kit-p/special-ghk.htm

 

3. From scratch - she's done it, so obviously anyone can do it (hah) http://www.glutenfreebaking.com/public/How_to_Make_a_GlutenFree_Gingerbread_House_stepbystep.cfm

[Frances]

It has NOTHING to do with making a cake or selling a cake!  I don't know how many times that has to be said.

 

It has to do with not being forced to provide goods and services for an event against your will for something that violates your religious beliefs.    If you have specific knowledge, and it is morally wrong, Americans should feel free to reject that business at will.  Rejecting for skin color?  No.  Rejecting a nonwhite person's (or any person's) request for a cake to celebrate a swinger's party (if they tell you, which is unlikely), yes, feel free to reject. 

But swingers aren't a protected class, so you would be perfectly fine not a baking a cake for them. Again, when it comes to weddings, what is so special about the "sin" of gay marriage? Why aren't the Christian bakers who are refusing to provide wedding cakes to gay couples not carefully screening all couples to make sure they aren't guilty of sins, especially sexual sins, that violate their religious beliefs?

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

BS.

 

The First Amendment IS the law of the land.  Unfortunately, it is being curtailed to serve the interests of liberal viewpoints only.  That is the hypocrisy you cannot see. 

 

It's only hypocrisy when you twist it to support the point of view that benefits your cause. We can argue all day, but--just like your precious scripture--it's subject to interpretation in both directions, and never the twain shall meet. 

[TranquilMind]

TranquilMind, I doubt that you think that the First Amendment allows people to opt out of obeying any law because of their religious beliefs.  Where would you draw the line? Would you just like sexual orientation to not be included as a protected class?

Name any other instances in which Christians don't follow the law.  This is pretty much the only instance in which they are targeted and forced to provide goods and services under penalty of law by gay activists.  I have a problem with that.  Let the market deal with it.  Don't support that business if you don't want to, but don't target it. 

 

Sexual orientation is not a protected class everywhere, and generally it makes NO DIFFERENCE.  Not even a hardcore Christian would object to selling anyone a bicycle or  a birthday cake or a tropical fish. 

It is the specific requirement to sell goods or services for weddings that cannot be weddings scripturally that is the current sole issue.  A very small class of people are affected here, and why they in particular should be stripped of the First Amendment rights is difficult to justify. 

[Laura Corin]

But the "screw everyone else" mentality was evident in the Ferguson riots and looting, 

 

You do know that property damage during demonstrations at times of social change has been a feature of history for many hundreds of years, don't you?  The Luddites come to mind.  As do those who rioted against the Corn Laws of the early 19th century in the UK.

 

L

[Guest]

I was so angry at being told that I am not really married that I had to go make gingerbread houses with the kids. Thank you Crimson Wife!

 

I'm a Christian.  You are married.  Don't worry about what was said earlier.  It's nonsense.

[Frances]

Name any other instances in which Christians don't follow the law.  

 Just off the top of my head and because I work for a tax agency, people regularly refuse to file and pay taxes due to religious beliefs. Although they always lose in court, they keep trying.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Sure, we see it on an individual basis, depending on where and with whom we spend our time.  I'm talking about overall, in the marketplace. 

 

But the "screw everyone else" mentality was evident in the Ferguson riots and looting, and was experienced first hand by the poor guy who was unfortunate enough to own a liquor store right there (not white, not even American!) .

This guy, Terence Williams,  by sharp contrast, goes virtually unnoticed in the national media:  http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/05/st-louis-man-says-god-inspired-clean-ferguson-riots/

 

That's right, certainly people have never rioted to protect or advance the rights of white people in this country.

 

Golly, if only things could be like they used to be, when we were all for one and one for all. 

 

"Those were the days my friend

We thought they'd never end

We'd sing and dance forever and a day

We'd live the life we choose

We'd fight and never lose

For we were young and sure to have our way."

 

Speaking of BS...

 

ETA: Oh! I forgot that I wanted to C&P this cheery little bit of old-timey, feel-good history from the link about, ironically, the good old days of the East Saint Louis riots of 1917:

 

"In May, three thousand white men gathered in downtown East St. Louis and attacks on blacks began. With mobs destroying buildings and beating people, the Illinois governor called in the National Guard to prevent further rioting. Although rumors circulated about organized retribution attacks from African Americans,^[4] conditions eased somewhat for a few weeks.

On July 2, a car occupied by white males drove through a black area of the city and fired several shots into a standing group. An hour later, a car containing four people, including a journalist and two police officers (Detective Sergeant Samuel Coppedge and Detective Frank Wadley) was passing through the same area. Black residents, possibly assuming they were the original suspects, opened fire on their car, killing one officer instantly and mortally wounding another.^[4][6] Later that day, thousands of white spectators who assembled to view the detectives' bloodstained automobile marched into the black section of town and started rioting.^[7] After cutting the water hoses of the fire department, the rioters burned entire sections of the city and shot inhabitants as they escaped the flames.^[4] Claiming that "Southern negros deserve[d] a genuine lynching,"^[8] they lynchedseveral blacks. Guardsmen were called in but accounts exist that they joined in the rioting rather than stopping it.^[9][10] More joined in, including allegedly "ten or fifteen young girls about 18 years old, [who] chased a negro woman at the Relay Depot at about 5 o'clock. The girls were brandishing clubs and calling upon the men to kill the woman."^[4][11]"

[EmseB]

I think people are conflating the idea of refusing service based on protected classes of people and not wanting to be associated with certain events.

 

If I think that circumcision is genital mutilation, that doesn't mean I won't sell cakes* to Jews.  But it might mean I won't cater a bris.

 

I'm not going to associate my name, for example, with the WBC by making a cake* for them that says something horrible.  That doesn't mean I won't sell cakes to Baptists.

 

There's a distinct difference between not selling a cake to a gay person and not wanting to cater to a certain event/ceremony/function based on religious beliefs.  I bet the same bakeries would also refuse to sell cakes to a divorce party (yes, this is a real thing) or any number of events they don't want to be associated with.  Maybe some of those reasons are illogical and bigoted, but what I'm hearing here is that it would be better for them to be forced to go against their beliefs than for the consumer to simply head on down the street and find someone who doesn't care what the event is.

 

The fact that I, as one party to a contract, should be forced into said contract under the the threat of violence is disturbing no matter what the reason.  And no one really wants to acknowledge that they (from what I can tell) would rather use violence to put people they disagree with out of business than let them say, "No, I can't cater this event."  We would rather send men with guns to a business to shut it down than have someone get offended because they can't obtain a cake for an event.  Which is okay, I guess, until the pendulum swings the other way and the men with guns are coming for the wrong offense.

As a consumer, I'm free to boycott any business I want and I can tell the world why I'm boycotting them.  The idea that I, then, as a consumer can also force any business I want into a contract with me is abhorrent, and a huge imbalance of power.  A business transaction is just two parties entering into a contract.  One party should not get freedom of conscience while the other party does not.  People who run businesses are still individuals with rights.  Or at least they should be.  And it shouldn't matter if their conscience offends mine.  Wouldn't it all be better if we just moved along instead of threatening people with violence to get what we want?

 

 

 

*I don't actually even make cakes for a living.

[DragonFaerie]

Morality is legislated all the time.  Often that's the basis for laws.  "Thou shall not kill"..... is legislated by the fact that if you do kill somebody, you will face judicial action.  Up until not too long ago, that also usually meant the murderer lost his/her life.  

 

BTW, that very phrase was used as a reason not to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the laws did not remove all racism, it did, in many ways change things towards the better.

 

I think it could also be said that this is not legislating morality so much as legislating the other person's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Sure, "thou shalt not kill..." but from a legal standpoint, killing someone deprives them of their basic human right to live.

 

 

Some people just can't absorb the general notion that their right to swing their fist ends where someone else's face begins.

 

Exactly.

[Amira]

Name any other instances in which Christians don't follow the law.  This is pretty much the only instance in which they are targeted and forced to provide goods and services under penalty of law by gay activists.  I have a problem with that.  Let the market deal with it.  Don't support that business if you don't want to, but don't target it. 

 

Sexual orientation is not a protected class everywhere, and generally it makes NO DIFFERENCE.  Not even a hardcore Christian would object to selling anyone a bicycle or  a birthday cake or a tropical fish. 

It is the specific requirement to sell goods or services for weddings that cannot be weddings scripturally that is the current sole issue.  A very small class of people are affected here, and why they in particular should be stripped of the First Amendment rights is difficult to justify. 

 

As someone else mentioned, tax laws.  Hobby Lobby.  Companies who don't want to hire women at all, or only for certain jobs because of religious beliefs.  Therapists refusing to counsel gay patients.  Insurance companies not wanting to cover birth control.  Refusing to hire a pregnant woman who isn't married.  Firing a woman when she gets pregnant because mothers aren't supposed to work.  These things all happen.

 

I'm a religious person and I believe there are many, many good reasons why we don't allow religion to trump everything else.  

 

Also, I am pro-cake for everyone who wants it.

[*Lulu*]

My religious beliefs do not include homosexuality as a sin.

 

I am a Christian.

 

I do not understand how you are missing that refusing to bake cakes for someone based on you/your religions interpretation of scripture is discriminatory.

 

If you would not refuse a Hindu, Muslim, Buddist, Catholic, Mormon, Unitarian, or differing Protestant denomination because they do not share your religion why is this okay?

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

As a consumer, I'm free to boycott any business I want and I can tell the world why I'm boycotting them.  The idea that I, then, as a consumer can also force any business I want into a contract with me is abhorrent, and a huge imbalance of power.  A business transaction is just two parties entering into a contract.  One party should not get freedom of conscience while the other party does not.  People who run businesses are still individuals with rights.  Or at least they should be.  And it shouldn't matter if their conscience offends mine.  Wouldn't it all be better if we just moved along instead of threatening people with violence to get what we want?

 

I see you're a woman and a mother. Once again, I'm going to say that you should take a look at the benefits that have accrued to you over the years thanks to anti-discrimination policies and lawsuits. Can you hold a job? Have a checkbook? A credit card? A driver's license? Inherit property? Purchase a car or house in your own name? Gosh, I don't know, what else...VOTE?

 

All of those things are possible because people fought to put legislation in place to protect you, force businesses AND OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to enter into those contracts with you, and make so abhorrent to the public at large the idea that a business or government would REFUSE to enter into those contracts with you that they couldn't possibly do it without a huge public backlash.

 

Times change. Moralities evolve. Even when people kick and scream about it and insist that those things are counter to their own moral system.

 

You're welcome.

[Frances]

 

As a consumer, I'm free to boycott any business I want and I can tell the world why I'm boycotting them.  The idea that I, then, as a consumer can also force any business I want into a contract with me is abhorrent, and a huge imbalance of power.  A business transaction is just two parties entering into a contract.  One party should not get freedom of conscience while the other party does not.  People who run businesses are still individuals with rights.  Or at least they should be.  And it shouldn't matter if their conscience offends mine.  Wouldn't it all be better if we just moved along instead of threatening people with violence to get what we want?

 

 

 

 

So you're okay not forcing a business to enter a contract with an individual due to race, religion, gender, etc. You think both sides should be able to only enter into contracts they want and businesses should be able to refuse for any reason, including religion, gender, race, etc?

 

And where is the reference to violence coming from? One of the major gay marriage cake stories took place in my state and I never heard anything about violence or guns.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Also, I am pro-cake for everyone who wants it.

 

Yeah, now I'm fantasizing about mocha cake from my favorite bakery :lol: I really hope they don't mind serving sinners, because this glutton might be headed over in a little while!