Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[Tanaqui]

The concern is that, as same-sex marriages multiply the right to believe and teach contrary to idea that homosexuality is natural and normal will be curtailed, yes.

 

And, again, that concern is not terribly valid. You might as well say "the concern is that, as the cat-owning population multiplies, the right to own dogs and mice will be curtailed".

 

You cited one failed bill, but you've yet to state clearly which bill that was. This doesn't bode well for your accuracy.

 

It's not about cake.  It's about people being concerned that they will have to support something they feel strongly is wrong.

 

Baking a cake is not supporting anything, other than your own bottom line. The analogy is flawed at the very base.

[Amira]

Maize, I like and agree with your ideal of marriage from a religious perspective. I imagine that we feel the same on that point, especially regarding temple sealings. And I definitely think that you have the right to support your principles.

 

But I see a very clear divide between my religious ideal and the way marriage has been used by people throughout history. Sometimes it has been wonderful and created happy families, but too often it has been used as a tool to subjugate women, establish political alliances, or do other things that have nothing to do with families. I especially don't have much respect for traditional (historical) marriage since one of its main purposes was to give women a society-sanctioned way to have children when that has historically been the only (or one of very few) roles society has even allowed women. But I also respect the way society has used marriage to provide legal and social benefits to people because marriage is seen as beneficial by many (probably most) people.

 

I definitely agree that society's perception of civil marriage has changed greatly recently, with both good and a few not-so-good results. I believe those changes make gay marriage a valid legal option for civil marriage.

 

My solution would be to separate religious and civil marriages from each other completely as many others have suggested. I don't need society's definition of civil marriage to support or line up with mine because the purpose of the civil marriage is, to me, different from the religious marriage (particularly for LDS, I think). I'd like everyone in the US (as is the case in most countries) to have to have a civil marriage that fulfills state law and provides legal benefits, and then have the option of having a religious marriage that fulfills religious law and provides religious benefits. I think there is overlap between the goals of each type of marriage but that there are enough differences that a separation would help greatly.

[Pam in CT]

...To me the whole issue revolves around types, not in the sense of variations but in the sense of ideals, fundamental ideas. I believe that marriage is an important type, significant in the makeup of any society. Specifically, I believe that marriage as the foundation for reproduction, the form that establishes a new family unit, is important. The union of a man and woman symbolizes the union of a potential mother and father; marriage in the ideal creates a secure and supportive framework within which children can be born and reared, naturally guided, protected, and nourished by their mother and their father.

 

While reality never entirely matches ideals, the perceived ideal, the type as a guiding principle of society, should not be undervalued. Yes, some children will be born out of wedlock. Yes, some marriages will be infertile. Some marriages will not be mutually supportive. Some parents will fail in their responsibilities towards their children. Some divorces will be inevitable. As long as the type stands as a guiding principle, however, it exerts a sort of gravitational pull: people will seek to approximate the type.

 

It appears to me that modern western society has been gradually shifting away from the marriage type I have described above for several decades. The push for gay marriage did not initiate the shift, rather I think it is a symptom of such a shift. In fact the shift was a prerequisite for the words “gay marriage†to make sense conceptually together; if marriage as a type is fundamentally about the reproductive union of a man and a woman, two men or two women simply don't fit into the equation. An ideal can be stretched and remain intact, but there are limits to what can be included within the type without destroying it altogether. To my mind, a marriage that does not involve both male and female blows apart the type. At that point marriage as a social type has become something different entirely, more about the adults involved, less about reproduction and childrearing. While the new type may still serve a useful function in society, it is not the same function.

 

I believe that a marriage type rooted in the reproductive family unit is important for the wellfare of society. To a great degree that belief is built on my personal understanding of religious principles and experiences; it is not something founded on purely academic grounds nor do I have academic proof with which to defend it; social science research at this point in time casts scant illumination on such issues. I have to make decisions based on my own understanding of truth, and I cannot live as a person of integrity if I support attitudes and policies that undermine something I believe to be of fundamental importance.

 

Maize, thank you for this. 

 

I stand in a different religious tradition than you, but I expect that day to day my family looks more similar than different...

 

...and I too have "ideals" for the circumstances in which children ideally are raised, and I expect there's more similarity than difference there too.  Ideally all children are raised with love, stability, safety, and continuity of care... I even agree with you-- with no disrespect at all intended to the many single parents doing a fabulous job raising their kids -- that ideally kids have two loving parents... I know that I myself are tired sometimes, or cranky, or unavoidably unavailable.  It's a wonderful thing, to be able to tag-team and share the responsibilities as well as the joys. 

 

So I think I appreciate the ideal.

 

It's difficult, though, for me to wrap my head around establishing this ideal -- even though I happen more or less share it-- as the basis of our civil decision-making...  I mean, we don't do that in other arenas.  Ideally all children get a good education -- but we don't, as a society, impose a single BLUEPRINT on what that's supposed to look like, one-size-fits-all, with the idea that what's best for one is best for everyone.  Ideally, everyone lives within a sustaining, nurturing community -- but we don't, as a society, impose a single BLUEPRINT on what that should look like... KWIM?

 

We expect that different groups, families, individuals will come to different decisions about what is right for them, based on their ideals.  Which may be different, in part or in large measure, from the ideal you and -- with only imo minor differences -- I hold...

 

 

 

 

[Tsuga]

 

Have their been civilizations that restricted marriage to only those who appeared to be fertile? I'm a little fuzzy on that particular piece of history.

 

Yes--in the Old Testament if you didn't produce your brother could make your wife a baby, and in backward (I say backward as this is not traditional for most Muslims) Muslim areas, you can apply for divorce or annulment on grounds of impotency or infertility, though usually this used by women only as men have the option to get another wife.

[swimmermom3]

As far as a loss of freedom, there is concern that speech will be hindered, that churches will no longer be able to identify fornication as a sin, that parents will not be allowed to teach their children what they believe is the truth, that individuals will no longer be allowed to openly believe such a thing without facing penalties. 

 

Examples of something being said enough causing change...  well, there are a number of those.  If you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it.  Isn't that how Pepsi became the drink of a new generation?

 

Julie, thanks for explaining this. How do you see this coming about?

 

I would never ask that churches change what they teach - unless those teachings involved killing, maiming, harassing, etc. I would never interfere with what you are teaching your children because frankly, I don't want you (generic) dictating what I teach my children. Again, here my exception would be if your teachings at home caused your child to beat up and harass my child. I am willing to be held to the same standard.

 

One thing that confuses me is that while I certainly get the fear of a loss of freedom of speech, why do many conservative Christians not get that losing control over one's own body is incredibly terrifying? Yet, there is an enormous push to do just that. I think perhaps that push is much larger and has significantly more funding than any civil rights limitations on the liberal side. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Please also understand that I have read your posts for a long time and that my questions are sincere and not meant to belittle your faith in any way.

[Pam in CT]

Okay, I see now where I must have gone wrong in my initial post.  I was trying to answer the question what limitations on freedom people are concerned about.  I know what a lot of people are worried about, because a lot of people I know are worried about them.  I'm not overly worried.  I'm a firm believer that whatever comes to pass is in God's good will, part of His plan, and will be all to His glory and good to those who love Him.

 

The concern is that, as same-sex marriages multiply the right to believe and teach contrary to idea that homosexuality is natural and normal will be curtailed, yes.

 

I do think that as something becomes more of an everyday thing it becomes more acceptable and reaches the point where hearing that it is not right seems surprising and hard to believe.  Divorce keeps being brought up as a comparison.  It used to be that divorce was a huge deal and now it's just sort of sad, or even in some cases it's hardly shrug worthy.  Now that it's at that point, there are many people who find it hard to believe that there was ever any issue with people divorcing before.  Divorce has lost its stigma, as something that shouldn't be done except for the most pressing of circumstances, it is normalized, and now it's like a slightly more complicated break-up and there are plenty of divorces.  

 

So, sure, as it becomes normalized I guess it would become more prevalent.

 

I have to wonder if strings would be attached to the ability to oversee a state recognized marriage, yes.  In general, that's not an issue with licensing, so perhaps it never will be an issue.  It is something that has come up though, in discussion.  

 

It's not about cake.  It's about people being concerned that they will have to support something they feel strongly is wrong.  

 

Thank you.  That helps.

 

I understand what you mean, about how as norms shift, it is much harder as parents to teach values that argue a different way.  We work hard to pull our kids away from the magnetism of commericalism and media, for example.  It's rough going.

 

I think maybe, standing as my family does inside a minority religion, it may actually be easier to understand how religiously-based messages, including those around values, can still have continuity...

 

 

Keep the faith.  Your children will know your values.  Your life will speak, far louder than anyone else's words.

[swimmermom3]

I welcome you speaking your mind on this thread, though I encourage you to go back and read the rest of the thread as there is much information there that you may not have encountered or thought about before.  

 

I am guessing from the #2 in your post above that you don't know many people whom you know to be gay.  

 

You know how people who don't know any homeschoolers have a lot of inaccurate perceptions of us?  Like our kids don't have friends and won't ever amount to much, and we might actually be homeschooling to hide abuse?  

 

And you know how people who only know one homeschooling family, maybe one with a socially-awkward kid, think all homeschoolers are exactly like that family, and all of our kids will be socially awkward just like that one kid?  

 

And you know how people who know a lot of homeschoolers tend to have a more favorable and accurate perception?

 

Think, for a minute, about where you are getting your perception of homosexuals.  Is it from the media, more specifically from sensationalist news shows and click-bait online articles that make money through manipulating your emotions and getting you all riled up about something?  Or is it from getting to know ordinary, everyday homosexuals who might live in your neighborhood, work with your husband, come to your family reunions, or even go to your church?  

 

 

Loved this whole post and the homeschooling analogy is excellent. Thank you for putting the care and effort into expressing these ideas. (I just shortened it for convenience sake)

 

 

[swimmermom3]

I am going to address social and political support for a traditional definition of marriage only in this post. There are a lot of other social issues (such as the baking of cakes) that may be tangentially related, but I don't have strong opinions on those issues. I do my best to treat individuals with kindness and fairness, and think many legitimate challenges faced by LGBT people can and should be addressed outside the context of the marriage debate. 

 

To me the whole issue revolves around types, not in the sense of variations but in the sense of ideals, fundamental ideas. I believe that marriage is an important type, significant in the makeup of any society. Specifically, I believe that marriage as the foundation for reproduction, the form that establishes a new family unit, is important. The union of a man and woman symbolizes the union of a potential mother and father; marriage in the ideal creates a secure and supportive framework within which children can be born and reared, naturally guided, protected, and nourished by their mother and their father.

 

While reality never entirely matches ideals, the perceived ideal, the type as a guiding principle of society, should not be undervalued. Yes, some children will be born out of wedlock. Yes, some marriages will be infertile. Some marriages will not be mutually supportive. Some parents will fail in their responsibilities towards their children. Some divorces will be inevitable. As long as the type stands as a guiding principle, however, it exerts a sort of gravitational pull: people will seek to approximate the type.

 

It appears to me that modern western society has been gradually shifting away from the marriage type I have described above for several decades. The push for gay marriage did not initiate the shift, rather I think it is a symptom of such a shift. In fact the shift was a prerequisite for the words “gay marriage†to make sense conceptually together; if marriage as a type is fundamentally about the reproductive union of a man and a woman, two men or two women simply don't fit into the equation. An ideal can be stretched and remain intact, but there are limits to what can be included within the type without destroying it altogether. To my mind, a marriage that does not involve both male and female blows apart the type. At that point marriage as a social type has become something different entirely, more about the adults involved, less about reproduction and childrearing. While the new type may still serve a useful function in society, it is not the same function.

 

I believe that a marriage type rooted in the reproductive family unit is important for the wellfare of society. To a great degree that belief is built on my personal understanding of religious principles and experiences; it is not something founded on purely academic grounds nor do I have academic proof with which to defend it; social science research at this point in time casts scant illumination on such issues. I have to make decisions based on my own understanding of truth, and I cannot live as a person of integrity if I support attitudes and policies that undermine something I believe to be of fundamental importance.

 

Thanking you for taking the time to write this. This gives me a different perspective to contemplate - that reproduction is the primary part of marriage. I think I will need to work through why a non-married couple that have been together for many years and are raising children, would not fulfill this definition.

 

Would it be better to say that when children are reproduced in the framework of a traditional heterosexual marriage, sanctified by a church ceremony for the glory of God, it's a marriage? But if that union produces no children? I think I am truly confusing myself. You are saying that what you have described above is the "symbol" of what marriage "should be" and that is the standard that many Christians hold to?

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

I am a blue cheese bigot.  <hangs head>

 

 

There, there. Nobody is perfect.     I Turn Away from Tahini.   And am not repentant.

[Joanne]

It could never be passed. It goes against everything that we believe in as Americans.

 

I sure hope it becomes *culturally* unacceptable.

 

Just like using the "n" word has.

Because, really, it is very similar.

[JadeOrchidSong]

So gay marriage and abortion? I don't think of abortion as a Christian versus unchristian issue; it is whether you believe life begins at conception and a weighing of the value of that life versus other factors. But those are scientific and moral questions with which even non-Christians need to wrestle.

I agree!

[lionfamily1999]

And, again, that concern is not terribly valid. You might as well say "the concern is that, as the cat-owning population multiplies, the right to own dogs and mice will be curtailed".

 

You cited one failed bill, but you've yet to state clearly which bill that was. This doesn't bode well for your accuracy.

 

 

Baking a cake is not supporting anything, other than your own bottom line. The analogy is flawed at the very base.

Perhaps they are not valid to you.  I am sure that you have some concerns that I might not consider valid as well.  Concerns, though, are a lot like feelings and just saying, "That concern is not valid" does nothing to allay those concerns.  Even if you repeat it, often.  

 

Your analogy does not follow.  It would be more like saying, "the concern is that, as the cat-owning population multiplies, cat ownership will gain validity and my right to speak out against cat-ownership may be curtailed."

 

I think it was 1911, maybe 1912.  It was a few years ago, and failed to pass the Senate.

 

What analogy are you talking about?

 

Julie, thanks for explaining this. How do you see this coming about?

 

I would never ask that churches change what they teach - unless those teachings involved killing, maiming, harassing, etc. I would never interfere with what you are teaching your children because frankly, I don't want you (generic) dictating what I teach my children. Again, here my exception would be if your teachings at home caused your child to beat up and harass my child. I am willing to be held to the same standard.

 

One thing that confuses me is that while I certainly get the fear of a loss of freedom of speech, why do many conservative Christians not get that losing control over one's own body is incredibly terrifying? Yet, there is an enormous push to do just that. I think perhaps that push is much larger and has significantly more funding than any civil rights limitations on the liberal side. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Please also understand that I have read your posts for a long time and that my questions are sincere and not meant to belittle your faith in any way.

I have a few very angry atheist family members who are very outspoken that me teaching my children about God, Christ, &tc is akin to abuse.  Yes, they call it *abuse.*  They lend their voices to those family members who believe that homeschooling is not healthy, although those folks can't decide if it's negligence or somehow emotional abuse (people DO love to throw abuse around, it's like the catch all for "I disagree with your parenting choices!").  And every once in awhile they get the joy of attacking me for my added sin of not believing that homosexual sex is an acceptable behavior (break out the balloons, because it's an absolute party at that point).  

 

Side-note, at least they can all agree that I'm doing a terrible job as a parent and would be much better off if I just did it the way they tell me too :p

 

So, having sat through some fun moments with these folks, this is how I think it would come about, if it did.  Teaching these things would be considered abusive, because enough of the people I know already believe this and if they could just raise my children the right way (ie their way) then the kids would be better off.

 

The harassment angle is another one.  I know that there are grey areas, there are things that can be taught or said in such a way as to tiptoe around laws that make it illegal to teach children to physically harm people.  In the rush to close those loopholes, sometimes freedoms can be tossed.  I see this on both sides of the aisle.  Christians that want Westboro arrested, because they make us look bad, while hardly considering how easily they could be arrested under the same laws they want written up, for instance.  Banning things that could cause harassment...  well that's a can of worms.

 

I'm not positive what you mean by the loss of control over one's body.  I know a lot of Christians that are very concerned over mandatory vaccines, being forced to go to a physician, being forced to accept/use Western medicine, that sort of thing...  but I'm guessing that is not what you mean.

 

:)  I haven't been here for years, but I do remember you and I have not a single reason to be upset about how you've addressed me ;)

 

Thank you.  That helps.

 

I understand what you mean, about how as norms shift, it is much harder as parents to teach values that argue a different way.  We work hard to pull our kids away from the magnetism of commercialism and media, for example.  It's rough going.

 

I think maybe, standing as my family does inside a minority religion, it may actually be easier to understand how religiously-based messages, including those around values, can still have continuity...

 

 

Keep the faith.  Your children will know your values.  Your life will speak, far louder than anyone else's words.

Thank you for your kindness.

[lionfamily1999]

Yes--in the Old Testament if you didn't produce your brother could make your wife a baby, and in backward (I say backward as this is not traditional for most Muslims) Muslim areas, you can apply for divorce or annulment on grounds of impotency or infertility, though usually this used by women only as men have the option to get another wife.

If you didn't produce an heir and you died (and were a man) then your wife had the right to demand a child of your brother.

 

There are a number of couples who went past their primes without producing children in the Bible.  Some of the greatest miracles were when women, who were both barren and past childbearing age, became pregnant.  :)

[TranquilMind]

No, Christian bakers don't have to go through any additional hoops that any other religious or non-religious baker who wishes to discriminate. The law applies to every public business. It's not targeting Christians. Christians aren't the only group who might *prefer* not to serve someone in a protected class. That's the beauty of the law. It applies evenly.

Not true. 

 

The baker does not "wish to discriminate".  He wishes to be free to do his wedding work (and it is limited to WEDDING work here)  in accordance with his own faith.  You are looking at it from the wrong angle. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Not true. 

 

The baker does not "wish to discriminate".  He wishes to be free to do his wedding work (and it is limited to WEDDING work here)  in accordance with his own faith.  You are looking at it from the wrong angle.

Legally, in the USA, it's YOU who are looking at it from the wrong angle. You might disagree, but stop telling us we are *wrong* when the courts have sided with us as far as US law goes.

 

There is nothing religious about cakes.

[TranquilMind]

My view is consistent. The BHoF is a *private* organization and the event was a *private* event for its members. The BHoF didn't randomly refuse to sell Tim Robbins a public entrance ticket. I would not have an issue with a bakery reorganizing and forming a private club of Christian buyers instead of being open to the public.

But the baker sells everything to the public, including wedding cakes.

 

He just declined (in the past, since now he is forced)  to sell "wedding" cakes for non-weddings. 

[*Lulu*]

But the baker sells everything to the public, including wedding cakes.

 

He just declined (in the past, since now he is forced) to sell "wedding" cakes for non-weddings.

Unless the "non-wedding" was for dogs.

[Mrs Mungo]

But the baker sells everything to the public, including wedding cakes.

Exactly.

 

 

He just declined (in the past, since now he is forced)  to sell "wedding" cakes for non-weddings.

He hasn't been forced to do anything, that's a lie. He now doesn't sell wedding cakes at all, which is a valid choice.

 

It wasn't a cake to be cut at a wedding, it was a cake for a wedding reception, after the couple had been LEGALLY married in another state. Neither you nor me nor the baker in question get to decide what is and is not a valid wedding. You may have *beliefs* about it, but you are factually incorrect if you insist that they aren't really married under the law.

 

And he WAS willing to sell wedding cakes for non-weddings since he was willing to do dog weddings. So, that's a lie too. You know these things as they have been repeatedly stated in the thread.

[zoobie]

But the baker sells everything to the public, including wedding cakes.

 

He just declined (in the past, since now he is forced) to sell "wedding" cakes for non-weddings.

Yes, he let "the gays" on the bus, but he made them sit in the back.

 

If you operate a business in the US, you have to follow US law. You have to pay taxes. You can't discriminate against people. It's the price of doing business.

[TranquilMind]

Legally, in the USA, it's YOU who are looking at it from the wrong angle. You might disagree, but stop telling us we are *wrong* when the courts have sided with us as far as US law goes.

 

There is nothing religious about cakes.

It is true that the cases are going the other way, boldly declaring that a Christian has no right to follow his Christian faith or practice when it involves refusing to embrace and celebrating gay marriage, even if gay marriage is not even legal in that state (as in the Colorado case).

 

This outcome should deeply concern every American, as it is a bald slap in the face of the First Amendment.  You might like it in this case, since it only involves Christian bakers and gay weddings, but do we really want society telling us that (pick disfavored group) must not act according to religious beliefs in their own businesses?   

 

Now we have a UK case where a baker is being sued for not wishing to make a cake that says, "Support Gay Marriage".  How is that not a limitation on free speech?   How does that not penalize one speech while favoring another? 

[TranquilMind]

Yes, he let "the gays" on the bus, but he made them sit in the back.

 

If you operate a business in the US, you have to follow US law. You have to pay taxes. You can't discriminate against people. It's the price of doing business.

The law did not recognize gay marriage at the time.  But the baker was forced to do so. 

[Slartibartfast]

The law did not recognize gay marriage at the time.  But the baker was forced to do so. 

 

He wasn't forced to recognize anything. Making a cake isn't performing the ceremony. It's cake! 

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

It is true that the cases are going the other way, boldly declaring that a Christian has no right to follow his Christian faith or practice when it involves refusing to embrace and celebrating gay marriage, even if gay marriage is not even legal in that state (as in the Colorado case).

The issue had nothing to do with marriage. Whether gay marriage was recognized in Colorado at the time is completely irrelevant. The problem is that he refused to offer a service to a person in a *protected class* of people that he was offering to everyone else. Under the LAW, it is *exactly* the same as not serving an interracial couple and claiming a religious objection to it.

 

 

This outcome should deeply concern every American, as it is a bald slap in the face of the First Amendment.  You might like it in this case, since it only involves Christian bakers and gay weddings, but do we really want society telling us that (pick disfavored group) must not act according to religious beliefs in their own businesses?

That is not what is happening.

 

 

Now we have a UK case where a baker is being sued for not wishing to make a cake that says, "Support Gay Marriage".  How is that not a limitation on free speech?   How does that not penalize one speech while favoring another?

This is not the UK.

[TranquilMind]

Exactly.

 

 

He hasn't been forced to do anything, that's a lie. He now doesn't sell wedding cakes at all, which is a valid choice.

 

It wasn't a cake to be cut at a wedding, it was a cake for a wedding reception, after the couple had been LEGALLY married in another state. Neither you nor me nor the baker in question get to decide what is and is not a valid wedding. You may have *beliefs* about it, but you are factually incorrect if you insist that they aren't really married under the law.

 

And he WAS willing to sell wedding cakes for non-weddings since he was willing to do dog weddings. So, that's a lie too. You know these things as they have been repeatedly stated in the thread.

He HAS been forced to stop selling wedding cakes, since he cannot in good conscience recognize gay weddings as legitimate, scripturally.  That is indeed what has happened, so you are being disingenuous in suggesting he has not been forced to do anything.  THAT is the lie here.   He was forced to change his religious stance or reduce his business.  He could not do the former in good conscience so was forced to do the latter by the state. 

[TranquilMind]

The issue had nothing to do with marriage. Whether gay marriage was recognized in Colorado at the time is completely irrelevant. The problem is that he refused to offer a service to a person in a *protected class* of people that he was offering to everyone else. Under the LAW, it is *exactly* the same as not serving an interracial couple and claiming a religious objection to it.

 

 

That is not what is happening.

 

 

This is not the UK.

He did not refuse to offer a wedding cake.  He refused to offer a wedding cake for two men. 

 

The thought police in the UK are taking it a step farther.  This is relevant.  This will soon happen here. 

[zoobie]

It is true that the cases are going the other way, boldly declaring that a Christian has no right to follow his Christian faith or practice when it involves refusing to embrace and celebrating gay marriage, even if gay marriage is not even legal in that state (as in the Colorado case).

 

This outcome should deeply concern every American, as it is a bald slap in the face of the First Amendment. You might like it in this case, since it only involves Christian bakers and gay weddings, but do we really want society telling us that (pick disfavored group) must not act according to religious beliefs in their own businesses?

 

Now we have a UK case where a baker is being sued for not wishing to make a cake that says, "Support Gay Marriage". How is that not a limitation on free speech? How does that not penalize one speech while favoring another?

No, we shouldn't be concerned. Case law goes back to the 1800s supporting non-discrimination. There was probably a great deal of hand-wringing when the Heart of Atlanta case came down in 1964 too. The Commerce Clause has been pretty well-tested. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/241/case.html

[Mrs Mungo]

He did not refuse to offer a wedding cake.  He refused to offer a wedding cake for two men.

He refused to sell a wedding cake (something he offers for sale to his other customers) to a pair of gay men. Homosexuals were in a protected class at the time in Colorado. That means he broke the law. The court agreed that his actions were illegal. He solved the problem by no longer offering wedding cakes for sale.

[TranquilMind]

No, we shouldn't be concerned. Case law goes back to the 1800s supporting non-discrimination. There was probably a great deal of hand-wringing when the Heart of Atlanta case came down in 1964 too. The Commerce Clause has been pretty well-tested. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/241/case.html

Two totally inapposite cases, as clearly explained previously.  You cannot conflate race with sexual behavior.  The former isn't voluntary, isn't behavioral,  isn't malleable...and it isn't invisible.

 

It is an inappropriate comparison, but quite a convenient one for those who chose to jump on the civil rights train.

 

I will not address that issue again, as I have addressed it exhaustively from the opposing perspective of those who just assume it. 

[TranquilMind]

He refused to sell a wedding cake (something he offers for sale to his other customers) to a pair of gay men. Homosexuals were in a protected class at the time in Colorado. That means he broke the law. The court agreed that his actions were illegal. He solved the problem by no longer offering wedding cakes for sale.

Yes, I know what happened. 

 

I just don't think the baker's perspective is understood. 

[*Lulu*]

Okay.

 

Cake is not part of the wedding ceremony.

 

It is part of the after party.

 

With or without cake, people are married.

 

The cake is as nonessential to a wedding as every one and thing except the license, the people GETTING married and the person officiating.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, I know what happened. 

 

I just don't think the baker's perspective is understood.

We *understand* it, but we *disagree* with him (and you, and we agree with the courts).

[justasque]

It is true that the cases are going the other way, boldly declaring that a Christian has no right to follow his Christian faith or practice when it involves refusing to embrace and celebrating gay marriage, even if gay marriage is not even legal in that state (as in the Colorado case).

 

This outcome should deeply concern every American, as it is a bald slap in the face of the First Amendment.  You might like it in this case, since it only involves Christian bakers and gay weddings, but do we really want society telling us that (pick disfavored group) must not act according to religious beliefs in their own businesses?   

 

Now we have a UK case where a baker is being sued for not wishing to make a cake that says, "Support Gay Marriage".  How is that not a limitation on free speech?   How does that not penalize one speech while favoring another? 

 

No, the cases are boldly declaring that, regardless of the reason, public businesses cannot treat people in protected classes differently than other customers.  The law has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage per se, which is why the legality of marriage in Colorado is neither here nor there.  It also has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular religion; this is not about Christianity.

 

It is not limiting religious belief in general; rather it is limiting religious beliefs that require a merchant to treat customers in a protected class differently than customers who are not in the protected class.  Our country's belief of equality trumps our belief in religious freedom, in this very narrow set of circumstances.

 

There are decades and decades of Supreme Court cases, decided first in one direction then in another, that have led up to this balance of religious freedom vs. equality. 

 

The UK does not have free speech; the discussion there would be quite different.

[zoobie]

The law did not recognize gay marriage at the time. But the baker was forced to do so.

This is completely and utterly pointless. I should probably go slam my head in a car door instead.

 

He did not make the freaking cake. He chose not to do so and altered his business model to comply with the law. He did not have to get gay married or recognize anything. He's probably still just as bigoted as he was before the incident if not more so.

[*Lulu*]

Yes, I know what happened.

 

I just don't think the baker's perspective is understood.

And I think it is understood more than you wish to admit.

 

We just think he.is.wrong.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, I know what happened. 

 

I just don't think the baker's perspective is understood. 

 

Finding it ludicrous doesn't mean I don't understand it. 

[Susan Wise Bauer]

You have all been doing pretty well.   :mellow:  Some of you are repeating the same things again and again...and may need to walk away...there is bound to be sugar somewhere in your house that needs to be addressed...

 

SWB

[Vera]

I am curious about whether those of you who oppose gay marriage realize that you are on the losing side. The writing is on the wall. In 20 years, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

[TranquilMind]

We *understand* it, but we *disagree* with him (and you, and we agree with the courts).

Gotcha.  And he disagrees with you, based on scriptural beliefs.

 

We disagree here as to whether the other person's rights trump his rights to take business that does not violate his beliefs. 

[TranquilMind]

I am curious about whether those of you who oppose gay marriage realize that you are on the losing side. The writing is on the wall. In 20 years, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Of course, this is inevitable.

 

We all knew this.  Christians have already been warned about how the world is going to change over time. 

[TranquilMind]

Finding it ludicrous doesn't mean I don't understand it. 

You find it ludicrous because you do not understand it from his perspective. 

[Vera]

We all knew this. Christians have already been warned about how the world is going to change over time.

It is going to be wonderful! I love the next generation. Every time I talk to a teenager, I have so much hope for the future. They are amazing.

[Slartibartfast]

You find it ludicrous because you do not understand it from his perspective. 

 

Yes, I do. I understand it perfectly well. However I am not 100% white so I would also feel the same way as if he denied me  a wedding cake when I married my husband who is white. While some have said they have never heard someone use scripture to defend such a position, I HAVE.

[TranquilMind]

This is completely and utterly pointless. I should probably go slam my head in a car door instead.

 

He did not make the freaking cake. He chose not to do so and altered his business model to comply with the law. He did not have to get gay married or recognize anything. He's probably still just as bigoted as he was before the incident if not more so.

Right.  This particular one was forced to change his business model to comply with beliefs that contradict his own religious beliefs. 

 

But he and his staff were forced to attend "sensitivity training" and submit quarterly reports to the government to "prove" he had not declined any gay weddings.  That's pretty ridiculous.  He has to decline others in favor of gay weddings if there is a conflict.   Nothing like the iroiny of the state mandating diversity with conformity.  He is being "rehabilitated" by the state, and indoctrinated with "right beliefs".  That's some scary crap there. 

 

A baker in Oregon had to close his shop and operate from his home or comply with the same sort of government indoctrination. 

 

Why can't these few Christian bakers be left to choose their own business according to their own beliefs?    There are loads of bakers out there. 

 

Religious freedom is a CONSTITUTIONAL right. 

[zoobie]

You find it ludicrous because you do not understand it from his perspective.

It doesn't matter what his perspective is if he's operating a public business. He chose to waive that by going into public business. His opening a bakery and doing wedding cakes is entirely voluntary. There's no inalienable right to run a discriminatory business. If he is of a religion where making wedding cakes is how he worships, there are ways to set up his bakery to enable him to make cakes only for straight, white virgins. If he were banned from making cakes cakes entirely, that would be different. He is free to choose whether to operate a legally compliant public bakery or run a private model. He's not any more or less free than any other public business owner.

[Mrs Mungo]

TM, I'd like to see your answers to the questions in this post, if you don't mind.

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/535619-so-family-research-council-frc/?p=6069092

[*Lulu*]

You find it ludicrous because you do not understand it from his perspective.

*wearily raises hand*

 

I was raised in a religious culture awash in this perspective.

 

It was MY perspective until I was in my early twenties.

 

There are Christians who have been surrounded by and accepted this perspective who have changed their stance because they have come to the realization that they were wrong.

[Anne in CA]

Many years ago when gay marriage was first on the ballot in Oregon my gay coworkers and I had many discussions about this issue. My final take was that I couldn't, in good conscience vote for gay marriage because I was worried that it was a slippery slope the would lead to polygamy, which can be so abusive to young women. I remember how patient my gay coworkers were, and now they are some of my very, very best friends.

 

Even though my mother is a devout liberal in many ways she was very homophobic and it took me many years to get our from under the shadow of that. I now have very different beliefs than I did then, but if my gay coworkers had been rude about my ignorance  I would have never really gotten to know them and probably have the same opinions.

 

When people have opinions that are ignorant, they are not changed by sarcasm, they are changed by love.

[justasque]

Yes, I know what happened. 

 

I just don't think the baker's perspective is understood. 

 

OK.  In the spirit of reflecting the other side's arguments as an exercise in active listening, here's my understanding of the baker's view (and that of those who agree with him):

 

1. Baking a cake is something of an artistic pursuit, which is much more of a personal undertaking for the baker than, say, serving someone pancakes and bacon at a lunch counter, therefore, we are more uncomfortable saying that the baker has to bake for anyone who requests a cake.

 

2. It's not actually about baking for a particular person or couple, it's more about the event.  Baking someone a generic cake is not a tacit agreement with their unrepentant sins.  However, baking a cake specifically designed for a party that actually celebrates their unrepentant sin is a step too far; it publicly (and personally, for the baker's conscience) implies that the baker is condoning the sin.

 

3. Putting homosexuals in a protected class puts people whose religious beliefs restrict their interaction with gays in a difficult position, as they may have to rearrange their business practices to avoid violating their religious tenets.

 

4. There is a fear that if homosexuals are a protected class, the slippery slope might require other categories of sinners, of a more distasteful variety, to become protected classes.

 

5. There is a fear that parents who have previously taught their children that homosexuals are sinners will be in some way restricted from doing so.

 

6. There is a fear that public schools, in an attempt to make gay kids feel comfortable at school, will essentially be promoting values that are contrary to those of families who feel that homosexuality is immoral.

 

7. Families should, ideally, consist of a mother and a father and their genetic offspring, and allowing same-sex marriage to be legal somehow undermines this ideal.

 

There's more, of course, but I think I've grasped the basics.  (Or maybe not?)  I think that most everyone in these threads has been able to articulately put forth their position, and I think most folks understand the other side's position.  But, in the end, we disagree.  

 

Pro-gay-marriage folks feel that giving our gay brothers and sisters a legal foundation for their relationships, and treating them equally in the marketplace, is the best way to build the intact and loving families that create a strong society.  Anti-gay-marriage folks disagree.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

You have all been doing pretty well.   :mellow:  Some of you are repeating the same things again and again...and may need to walk away...there is bound to be sugar somewhere in your house that needs to be addressed...

 

SWB

 

Susan, I want to say thank you for being patient with us and for letting these discussions, circular as they are, continue. I know it makes extra work for you, but we appreciate the light rein you're giving us. 

 

[Tanaqui]

I am curious about whether those of you who oppose gay marriage realize that you are on the losing side. The writing is on the wall. In 20 years, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/future-us-history-students-its-pretty-embarrassing,19099/