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

[Jane in NC]

The upshot of this thread for me is the apparent importance that some place on a cake--as though a confectionery treat is a religious symbol. It also surprises me that there are business people who apparently survey potential clientele before entering into sales or contracts with them.  I have never been asked my religion by a business person--assuming that these Christian business people only deal with Christians from a list of which they approve (perhaps not those wild and crazy Episcopalians?)

[Firefly]

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.

 

 

Totally agree.  I have two teens, and when I look at them and their friends, I am filled with hope for the world.  Huzzah!

[Love]

 

.  

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Jane in NC]

I think this is true, and it's the same with legalizing marijuana.  It's a floodgate that's been opened.  

 

I think American culture will look back on these things they way they currently do on women not being able to vote, or prohibition of alcohol.  

 

I gave you a "like" PlainMom to welcome you aboard.  You are a brave soul as a newbie to these boards to participate in this thread!

 

[TranquilMind]

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.

Well, I'm not always that impressed by what I see out there in millenials in general,  though I'm impressed by MY teens (most of the time). 

 

Seems to be a lot of troubled people out there today, on a lot of medications, with fewer ties to the world, though they may have 5000 Facebook "friends". 

[TranquilMind]

The upshot of this thread for me is the apparent importance that some place on a cake--as though a confectionery treat is a religious symbol. It also surprises me that there are business people who apparently survey potential clientele before entering into sales or contracts with them.  I have never been asked my religion by a business person--assuming that these Christian business people only deal with Christians from a list of which they approve (perhaps not those wild and crazy Episcopalians?)

No, no...it is not about the CAKE.  It is about the ceremony it plays a role in celebrating.

 

That's like saying that communion/Eucharist is about "some people placing importance on crackers".   

 

As a business person, I think one should be able to retain control over which events one wishes to do. 

[Amira]

No, no...it is not about the CAKE.  It is about the ceremony it plays a role in celebrating.

 

That's like saying that communion/Eucharist is about "some people placing importance on crackers".   

 

As a business person, I think one should be able to retain control over which events one wishes to do. 

 

I don't think the company that makes the wafers/bread/whatever is used is participating communion/Eucharist.

[Love]

 

.   

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Muttichen]

From Romans 1:

 

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

That's the key.  Baking a cake for a homosexual wedding signifies approval of the event.  As a Christian, I can't do that.

 

And yes, if I knew that baking a cake for some other person/group was giving support for something sinful, I'd refuse to do that as well.  For example, I strictly keep the Sabbath as a day for rest and worship.  If I had a cake business, I wouldn't sell cakes for Sunday events.

[*Lulu*]

No, no...it is not about the CAKE. It is about the ceremony it plays a role in celebrating.

 

That's like saying that communion/Eucharist is about "some people placing importance on crackers".

 

As a business person, I think one should be able to retain control over which events one wishes to do.

So let us say we have a baker who is from a Christian sect that believes Catholics are on an express train to hell. (I say that a bit tongue in cheek, but I have met Christians who believe this.)

 

A mother comes in with her daughter and wants a large white sheet cake with a cross. If, in the course of conversation, the baker discovers that it is for a celebration following the girl's first communion should he be able to refuse to make the cake?

[TranquilMind]

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.

 

1. Fine, this works. 

 

2.   No.  It isn't about judging sins, repentant or otherwise.  Only God judges; that is no one's realm here on earth.  It is about adhering to scriptural beliefs that declare something is right or wrong; one wishes to support things that are neutral or right, and not support things that are deemed scripturally unacceptable (regardless of one's own feelings about it). 

 

3.  No one is forced to "restrict interaction with gays."   Everyone interacts with every kind of person every day, and it is a non-issue.  You buy your coffee.  You get your groceries.  You order cable TV.  All of these are very different from being engaged to prepare something unique for a celebration of an event.   This is really limited to this instance, from what I can see, as marriage has a very specific meaning to the Christian. 

 

4.  I think this is kind of a non-issue, as here we are talking about marriage and its meaning and limitations.

 

5.  You really misstate this, a common fallacy. It isn't about "the homosexual being a sinner". It is about behavior.  Certain behavior is good; certain behavior is proscribed.  Period.  It is about the action, not the person.  I can vehemently argue that any person's ACTION in engaging in (angry outbursts, gossipping, , adultery, fornication, etc) is scripturally proscribed and wrong behavior for us, without arguing that the person is going to hell.  We can say X BEHAVIOR IS WRONG according to our faith.    You are equating the person to the behavior here. 

 

6.  That's fine, though I think few would object to "making kids comfortable at school", unless you mean by that, "Advocating anti-Christian views".   I think everyone wants everybody comfortable at school and able to focus on ACADEMICS, not indoctrination of any kind.

 

7.  Families indeed should consist of the mother and father that are required to have the children, and those children should get the benefit of the security of a stable family.  This doesn't happen in practice for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean that every kid does not deserve a mother and father who loves him and each other. 

 

So while you have grasped the basics, you misstate them slightly in a way biased against Christian belief. 

[TranquilMind]

So let us say we have a baker who is from a Christian sect that believes Catholics are on an express train to hell. (I say that a bit tongue in cheek, but I have met Christians who believe this.)

 

A mother comes in with her daughter and wants a large white sheet cake with a cross. If, in the course of conversation, the baker discovers that it is for a celebration following the girl's first communion should he be able to refuse to make the cake?

Is First Communion biblically proscribed behavior? 

 

I'd say scripture is pretty silent on that, unlike sexual behavior. 

[Firefly]

But isn't it true that some Christians say homosexuality is proscribed behavior and some say it isn't?  So who gets to decide what is right for everyone, including other Christians?

[Frances]

Is First Communion biblically proscribed behavior?

 

I'd say scripture is pretty silent on that, unlike sexual behavior.

Please tell us what it is you want. Do you want sexual orientation not to be a protected class? Or are you fine with it, but you want an exception to it for people that interpret the bible as you do? Or something else?

[Cammie]

 

 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.32 

 

That's the key.  Baking a cake for a homosexual wedding signifies approval of the event.  As a Christian, I can't do that.

 

And yes, if I knew that baking a cake for some other person/group was giving support for something sinful, I'd refuse to do that as well.  For example, I strictly keep the Sabbath as a day for rest and worship.  If I had a cake business, I wouldn't sell cakes for Sunday events.

 

 

Who would be LEFT to do business with?  Envy?  Gossips?  Arrogant and Boastful?  Honestly, it looks to me if bakers started really living their faith they would have no business.  So it is easy to pick on the most identifiable minority.  Seems an awfully easy way out of dealing with what people claim are religious mandates.

 

That is why people see what the Baker did as bullying.  He didn't take a stand that he was not going to do business with anyone that falls in that Romans list....he picked on group he didn't like.  That doesn't sound religious.  It sounds mean.

 

[swimmermom3]

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.

 

This in bold came to my mind to when I saw that post. There are really few circumstances where I think it's okay to dismiss someone's concerns, especially if one has not taken time to get to the roots of those concerns. Perhaps because I believe that fear is a the bottom of so many of the really bad episodes in human history: fear for one's life, fear of losing control, fear of simply losing, fear of physical injury, fear of corruption, fear of damnation,  and at the end of a long list, the fear of losing control over one's own self-determination.

 

(skipped)

 

 

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.

 

Julie, the above is why we all need to keep talking. I am truly sorry for your experience with your family. I like to think of myself as a bold person at times, but really militant anyones, Christian or atheist, straight or gay, or homeschooler or nonhoeschooler, kind of  freak me out and send me running for a calm, dark corner. I am definitely one of those "make love, not war" types of liberals and no, that doesn't mean I burn flags while sleeping around with whoever appeals to me at the moment. :D  It means I am not particularly keen on violence, hatred, and confrontation. Although I'll do confrontation if I think it will do any good and try to ignore my shaking hands.

 

I have had the good fortune not to meet any atheists in real life like those you are describing, and please believe me that not all that many of us are like that. I know of no one IRL that believes teaching about faith is abusive. Many of us still try to make sure our own children are culturally literate with regards to religion, we just probably don't approach it with reverence, but respect is definitely a component.

 

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.

 

Do you think that when we are truly afraid of something, we always imagine the worst that can happen?

 

So for you, you are afraid that you will lose the right to practice your faith and to instruct your children in it, right? This is a viable outcome for you if we as a country begin to put restrictions on speech?  Given your personal experiences, I can see how you get there.

 

I'm not positive what you mean by the loss of control over one's body.

 

This is where we come to my greatest boogeyman. When someone tells me that we need to pass a law banning abortion, my mind immediately goes to how this would be enforced. What I see is perhaps at first financially penalizing any woman who balks at going through with an unwanted pregnancy, one that she has no choice in, and that someone else has told her she must go through with, no matter her health, her finances, her mental state, or the fact that she lives with a man who would be happy to punch the heck out of her stomach. I can't see that there is any way around not having to jail those who are refusing to comply. If they are mentally fragile, we'll have to commit them to an institution. If they are drug abuser or functional alcoholics, we'll need to put them in something akin to the much discussed gestational crates. What I see is a prime opportunity to commit atrocities against a significant portion of our population. What we gain in babies, we will lose in women who for the most part have probably been law-abiding, productive citizen all of their lives and many of them will be Christians. We might as well eliminate property ownership for women so they do not have the means to flee the country.

 

 

Many Christians might not think I am close to rational on this fear, but it's mine and it's freaking me out, just like yours is disturbing for you.  

 

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 ;)

 

 

Somewhere in the midst of all of our fears, we need to go back and talk. We have to drop our assumptions and stereotypes. When someone tells you they are "pro-choice," what does that really mean? I don't know any pro-choice person IRL who goes out and celebrates with goat's head soup every time an abortion is performed. Pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion. I could be naive, but I think many women, probably at least the majority in this country would agree that decreasing the number of abortions here is a major goal. We just disagree on the methodology.  That's a way more reasonable place to work from than from my "It's gonna be a holocaust against women " freakout.

 

I hope this makes some sense. The abortion example is a hot topic and my use of it is to try and illustrate my point. If anyone wants to put some of my nightmares to rest, please do so by pm so we don't derail the discussion.

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

People have to be comfortable with possibly not needing to be afraid of something, before much can be done to erode that fear. Lots of people are afraid of not being afraid of something.

[Caroline]

No, no...it is not about the CAKE. It is about the ceremony it plays a role in celebrating.

 

That's like saying that communion/Eucharist is about "some people placing importance on crackers".

 

As a business person, I think one should be able to retain control over which events one wishes to do.

What role does a wedding cake ever play in a wedding ceremony? I have been to weddings with communion, but never where the cake played a role in the ceremony.

 

Communion is completely different from a wedding cake.

[LucyStoner]

I understand the baker's perspective. Something like this, I would imagine:

 

I don't believe gay marriage is right. Redefining marriage is not something I am comfortable with and I believe it is detrimental to society. My religious beliefs are very important to me and it is clear to me that in my understanding of the bible that gay marriage is not God's plan for marriage. I bake for a living. This is what I do. I bake a lot of things but my biggest and most complicated product, with my largest profit margin, is wedding cake. Each cake takes a lot of time and energy. I am proud to help couples celebrate by baking them their cake. This couple has come to me to bake a cake and I can't in good conscience participate in a wedding celebration I consider to be morally repugnant. They are nice men but this is not something that I can be a part of. My wedding cakes are special parts of my customers' weddings and I just can't bake a cake for a gay wedding. I can't violate my religious beliefs.

 

----

 

 

No one made this man make a wedding cake. He was required to find a way to comply with the law in the day to day operations for his for profit, non-religious business organization. If there came a day that this man was physically forced to bake a cake or that he was required to stock gay themed wedding supplies in his bakery (2 groom and 2 bride figures?) I would be the first to defend him and say that such force or mandate would be wrong.

 

If I own a bakery I can't refuse to sell lemon petit fours to men just because I think men shouldn't eat lemon petit fours. I can opt not to sell lemon petit fours but I can't say "no petit fours for dudes, sorry dude!"

 

Edited to make the bakers view less redundant and more persuasive.

[swimmermom3]

People have to be comfortable with possibly not needing to be afraid of something, before much can be done to erode that fear. Lots of people are afraid of not being afraid of something.

 

Fear and the resulting anger is a time-sucker and a distraction. Sometimes it gets us moving in the right direction, but often it keeps us from moving in the right direction.  It's highly profitable for certain moguls, too. :D

[Amy in NH]

Fear and the resulting anger is a time-sucker and a distraction. Sometimes it gets us moving in the right direction, but often it keeps us from moving in the right direction.  It's highly profitable for certain moguls, too. :D

 

Yes, IMO there are many wealthy (I'm talking super-rich) and powerful individuals in this country who stand to gain from keeping people fearful in order to manipulate the masses into doing things that will perpetuate their elite/privileged status.

 

[Tanaqui]

Fear and the resulting anger is a time-sucker and a distraction. Sometimes it gets us moving in the right direction, but often it keeps us from moving in the right direction.  It's highly profitable for certain moguls, too. :D

 

 

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

 

[Susan Wise Bauer]

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

 

Frank Herbert, DUNE.

 

Citations are always helpful.

 

s

[Chelli]

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

 

As a member of a conservative Christian church and as someone who once studied to go to law school (didn't go, but would like to go back!), I'm going to tackle his perspective and the state of Colorado's perspective.

 

His: I believe that homosexuality is a sin, therefore making a cake to celebrate this sinful act is against my conscience and my beliefs. I refuse to make their cake now that I know they are using it to celebrate a homosexual marriage in another state.

 

Colorado: Homosexuals are a protected class of people here in the state. You cannot choose to not provide them a service since you are a public business based upon their protected class status just like if they were a different skin color, gender, etc.

 

His: But my religious rights say that I don't have to violate my beliefs because of separation of church and state.

 

Colorado: That is true. You don't have to, but if you choose not to make their wedding cake, then you can no longer make wedding cakes for any one because choosing to make wedding cakes for everyone except homosexual couples would violate their protected class status. Or you can shut down your public business and bake cakes on the side. Or you can leave the cake business altogether and do something else. Or you can go to another country where homosexuality is not a protected class. You have choices. We are not asking you to violate your beliefs; we are asking you to uphold the law.

 

His: But I want to make cakes, including wedding cakes, and I don't think it's fair that I have to make cakes for gay couples since my religion says it's wrong.

 

Colorado: I'm sorry, but since you are a public business you must abide by state and national laws that govern  what a public entity can and can not do. People that meet protected class status are NOT allowed to be discriminated against. You will have to find a way to mesh your beliefs with what the law says.

 

His: Well, I don't think that's fair.

 

Colorado: Well, too bad. It's the law, and in the United States your religious beliefs are perfectly acceptable until they violate the law at which point the law reigns supreme.

 

I know that you will not like this dialogue, TranquilMind, because I can see it from both viewpoints. It doesn't seem fair to cut out a highly profitable part of your business, because if you don't, then you could go to jail, pay heavy fines, and/or lose your business due to legal costs. But here's the rub, the Supreme Court has designated homosexuals as a protected class. They have determined that it is not fair for their rights to be denied based upon their sexual orientation. So whether you like it, the baker likes it or I like it, they cannot be denied services and goods because of who they are any more than a minority, a woman, etc. could be. So now as a Christian you must either comply with the law or change your business model, and that's that. You can view this as religious discrimination or you can view it the way the state of Colorado views it, it's the law of the United States. Period. No ill will meant towards Christians who believe this way, but the law is to protect everyone, Christians, homosexuals, Muslims, atheists, blacks, whites, etc. And sometimes that protection means that you have to give a little of your freedom up (such as making wedding cakes or always getting the choice seats on the bus) to comply with the law and protect someone else even if you don't agree with them. Honestly, that's about the most Christian principle there is: Jesus, others, and then yourself.

 

And now, I'm going to watch How to Train Your Dragon 2 with the kids.  :gnorsi:

[lionfamily1999]

Somewhere in the midst of all of our fears, we need to go back and talk. We have to drop our assumptions and stereotypes. When someone tells you they are "pro-choice," what does that really mean? I don't know any pro-choice person IRL who goes out and celebrates with goat's head soup every time an abortion is performed. Pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion. I could be naive, but I think many women, probably at least the majority in this country would agree that decreasing the number of abortions here is a major goal. We just disagree on the methodology.  That's a way more reasonable place to work from than from my "It's gonna be a holocaust against women " freakout.

 

I hope this makes some sense. The abortion example is a hot topic and my use of it is to try and illustrate my point. If anyone wants to put some of my nightmares to rest, please do so by pm so we don't derail the discussion.

In all fairness, I don't know anyone who celebrates with goat's head soup :lol:

 

As far as angry/militant/hateful people go...  I have learned in the past few years that if you are related to someone they, for some reason, feel they don't need to pull punches at all.  :shrug: Other atheists I know in real life may go so far as to trivialize what I believe or brush me off, but they're never as raging as those I'm related to.  And the ones I related to tend to be all sunshine and lollipops to everybody else, go figure.  

[mom31257]

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.

 

Definitely, and that is why I think Christians should have been focusing on exemptions instead of fighting it altogether. 

[Cammie]

Definitely, and that is why I think Christians should have been focusing on exemptions instead of fighting it altogether. 

 

NOT "Christians"...just your brand of Christian.  Please, if only one thing comes out of this thread can we stop pretending that certain Christians represent the entire scope of Christianity??

[swimmermom3]

Frank Herbert, DUNE.

 

Citations are always helpful.

 

s

 

Thank you. I was going to ask.

[Vera]

nm

Edited December 10, 2014 by Susan Wise Bauer
While you can certainly disagree, a one-line put down as a response to a long and thoughtful post doesn't advance the discussion.

[elegantlion]

Conversely, if a gay baker was asked to make a duck dynasty cake, he could not refuse, even though DD doesn't approve of their lifestyle.

[*Lulu*]

NOT "Christians"...just your brand of Christian. Please, if only one thing comes out of this thread can we stop pretending that certain Christians represent the entire scope of Christianity??

This is one of the more frustrating aspects of any discussion where there is an intersect with Christianity. While I have not felt it strongly in this thread, I have run into it plenty IRL, there are Christians who judge anyone closer to the liberal end of the spectrum than them as not being "real" Christians.

 

Often those poor misguided lukewarm souls are lumped in with whatever other groups are on the outs of God's salvation and what the more conservative think or believe is the "truth" leaving the other self proclaiming Christian liberals beliefs doctrinally insignifigant.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Speaking to Christians here:   I see this as this culture/generation's "meat sacrificed to idols" issue.  If it makes  you stumble to supply a cake to gay couples, then don't, but recognize that bakery businesses that supply wedding cakes don't get to choose.  Just like back in Paul's day it seems like butchers didn't get to choose to have non-idol meat sources.  So what others have said about your choices to drop wedding cakes from your business or to do it as a hobby or a club etc. is correct even from a Scriptural perspective.  But if a Christian realizes that a baked good is simply a mixture of flour, eggs and milk etc. then it isn't wrong either.  In fact, Scripture actually comes down on the side of the person who doesn't stumble while asking them not to push it in the face of the person who does.  Paul didn't advocate boycotting butchers that sold idol meat and he didn't try to change the laws or customs.  

[Tanaqui]

Conversely, if a gay baker was asked to make a duck dynasty cake, he could not refuse, even though DD doesn't approve of their lifestyle.

 

Wait, why is he refusing? If it's because he doesn't do that theme of cake, he's in the clear, I should think. "Fans of TV shows" are not a protected class.

 

[Muttichen]

Who would be LEFT to do business with?  Envy?  Gossips?  Arrogant and Boastful?  Honestly, it looks to me if bakers started really living their faith they would have no business.  So it is easy to pick on the most identifiable minority.  Seems an awfully easy way out of dealing with what people claim are religious mandates.

 

That is why people see what the Baker did as bullying.  He didn't take a stand that he was not going to do business with anyone that falls in that Romans list....he picked on group he didn't like.  That doesn't sound religious.  It sounds mean.

 

You're missing the point.  It's the difference between baking a cake for someone who has gossiped and making a cake for a convention celebrating gossips.  No baker is asking the sexual orientation of his customers when they come in to get a cup of coffee.  He's just not baking cakes for their weddings, which would be approving of them.

[texasmama]

This is an issue that I reversed my stance on in my 40's, and I'm still in my 40's. As a conservative-ish Christian (whatever that means), I struggled internally and mostly silently with gay marriage. I have known and loved gay people since my teens so being gay has not ever been an "issue" I struggled with juxtaposed to my Christianity. But gay marriage was. Then I suddenly realized that the state is not Christian and not obligated to reflect any Biblical views. In fact, I don't want this.

 

Also, I have more in common with gay Christians than with non Christians.

 

When I read the hard line stance of those posters against gay marriage who are quoting scripture, I really understand you. Lived there myself for a long time.

 

I changed my views. I always loved me some gay folks. But I now have no conflict with gay marriage. And let them eat cake. :)

[Cammie]

You're missing the point.  It's the difference between baking a cake for someone who has gossiped and making a cake for a convention celebrating gossips.  No baker is asking the sexual orientation of his customers when they come in to get a cup of coffee.  He's just not baking cakes for their weddings, which would be approving of them.

 

Sorry it doesn't hold up.

 

When someone orders a cake do bakers routinely inquire as to what the cake will be used to celebrate?  What if it is to celebrate a divorce?  Or to celebrate the success of someone who built his empire on greed?  What about birthdays??  Birthdays are just as much an approval of the birth and life of the person being celebrated as weddings are.  I think bakers should really get out of the birthday cake business.  Because who know what kind of person your cake might be celebrating?

 

How far are business people willing to pry into the private lives of their clients?  Not very far it seems.  So again, it comes down to people wanting to pick and choose which people fall within their comfort zone and which people don't.  Honestly, I would have more respect for a baker who went through that list in Romans with every single client to make sure everyone lived up to his standards than I do for someone who picks one issue and hyper-focuses on that issue.

 

Because people do this (selectively discriminate) is why we have "protected classes" of people in the US against whom discrimination is specifically prohibited.  They get protection because groups of people have decided to target them for discrimination.

[Tanaqui]

He's just not baking cakes for their weddings, which would be approving of them.

 

But he's not interrogating all the brides and grooms either. "Okay, before you purchase a wedding cake I need you to fill out this simple questionnaire:

 

1. Are you actually dogs?

1a. Monkeys?

1b. Any other species of non-human?

 

2. Have either of you ever been divorced?

If yes, please state the reason on the following line.

 

3. Are you getting married in a church?

If yes, please name the church.

If no, please write a brief explanation.

 

4. If you answered yes to question 3, are you members of the church? Why or why not?

 

5. Have you had sex or cohabitated prior to this marriage?

 

6. Have you had sex or cohabitated in another relationship prior to this marriage?

 

7. Do either of you gamble? Drink?

 

8. Do you intend to have an egalitarian marriage? If so, please explain.

 

9. How do you feel about so-called "open marriages"? Do you intend to have one?

 

10. "Marriage is for procreation." Agree or disagree? Why?

10a. How many children do you plan on having?

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Baking a cake as part of a business is a neutral action. It implies neither approval or disapproval. It simply means someone purchased the service you are offering.

[mom31257]

NOT "Christians"...just your brand of Christian.  Please, if only one thing comes out of this thread can we stop pretending that certain Christians represent the entire scope of Christianity??

 

By Christians, I meant the conservative right that is fighting it. Sorry. I thought that's who this thread was about.  I just think that would have been a better political strategy. 

[Jane in NC]

You're missing the point.  It's the difference between baking a cake for someone who has gossiped and making a cake for a convention celebrating gossips.  No baker is asking the sexual orientation of his customers when they come in to get a cup of coffee.  He's just not baking cakes for their weddings, which would be approving of them.

 

This is totally perplexing me.

 

That same baker buys flour, sugar, etc. from a distributor.  Does the distributor ask for whom the baker bakes cakes?  There are soft drinks being served at the wedding (I presume).  Does that mean Cocacola is placing a seal of approval on the marriage?

 

Business is business.  It is not religion.  Now I do hope that businesses take a moral high ground by following laws, i.e. paying taxes, not polluting.  Which would also mean that businesses would serve all customers--not discriminate among them.

 

Sorry it doesn't hold up.

 

When someone orders a cake do bakers routinely inquire as to what the cake will be used to celebrate?  What if it is to celebrate a divorce?  Or to celebrate the success of someone who built his empire on greed?  What about birthdays??  Birthdays are just as much an approval of the birth and life of the person being celebrated as weddings are.  I think bakers should really get out of the birthday cake business.  Because who know what kind of person your cake might be celebrating?

 

How far are business people willing to pry into the private lives of their clients?  Not very far it seems.  So again, it comes down to people wanting to pick and choose which people fall within their comfort zone and which people don't.  Honestly, I would have more respect for a baker who went through that list in Romans with every single client to make sure everyone lived up to his standards than I do for someone who picks one issue and hyper-focuses on that issue.

 

Because people do this (selectively discriminate) is why we have "protected classes" of people in the US against whom discrimination is specifically prohibited.  They get protection because groups of people have decided to target them for discrimination.

 

To the bolded I wish to add:  How far are customers willing to have business pry into private lives? 

[Muttichen]

In the other tread (I think), I asked if a baker should be forced to bake a cake for an FRC fundraiser and people agreed that he shouldn't be.  Or maybe I asked if a venue should be forced to rent their space to the FRC for a fundraiser.  Either of these activities is showing approval in the way that buying flour or providing soda is not.  You might have to write "Congratulations Bob and Steve" on the cake.  You might have to put a little figure of two guys on top of it.  Someone might post a photo of the cake on their blog saying you made it and how wonderful it was.  This shows your approval of the wedding.

 

I'm done here.  If you don't see it, you don't see it.  This conversation has inspired me to make a big donation to the FRC.  Seriously.  We need to fight against having sexual preferences included along with race on list of protected groups.  

[LizItaly]

For the sake of curiosity, would anyone care to explain why the complaint is leveled only at Christians?  Orthodox Jews, some of whom are bakers and photographers, etc., would also likely wish to decline providing services for a gay wedding.  Suppose two gay Muslim men wish to get married.  I have a hard time imagining a religious, halal caterer agreeing to provide food for the event.  I don't know much about the religious views of Hindus and Buddhists; they may also have objections.  

 

My family is Jewish and Christian and Muslim.  That may some surprise some.  In my family, there are some religious people and some mostly secular people.  Several are atheists.  A great many of us are concerned over what we see as the limiting of hitherto protected freedoms in this country.  I see a lot of people on this thread arguing that this is not happening in the States.  Or rather, they state that it is not happening without making the argument.  I beg to differ.  

 

A frequent response to differing opinions even on this thread has been disbelief, assertion of feelings of nausea, shock, etc..  I disagree with many of you, but I can still treat you as people of good intention.  Can those of you who disagree with me do the same?  Or do you believe I am out to harm you?  Are we so afraid of diversity of thought that our only response can be, "No, you are wrong."  Or, "I hope this country never has to find out how wrong you are."  Or, "I have to leave this thread because I think I am going to vomit."

 

For those who deny that freedom of speech, which is intimately connected with freedom of religion, is being limited in new and unprecedented ways in the U.S., may I respectfully suggest you take a look at thefire.org?  Greg Lukianoff, the president of that organization, worked formerly for the ACLU and is a self-described "pro-choice liberal." He has written several books on in the increasing efforts to shut down free speech on the American college campus and elsewhere.  

 

ETA: Here is one of Lukianoff's articles on free speech.

 

Edited for typos. (I think I got them all...)

[Joanne]

 

 

I'm done here. If you don't see it, you don't see it. This conversation has inspired me to make a big donation to the FRC. Seriously. We need to fight against having sexual preferences included along with race on list of protected groups.

Being gay (or straight) isn't about "sexual preferences".

 

That trivializes marriage in general. Is YOUR marriage about sexual preferences?

[justasque]

Conversely, if a gay baker was asked to make a duck dynasty cake, he could not refuse, even though DD doesn't approve of their lifestyle.

 

The circumstances under which the gay baker must bake a cake vary by jurisdiction.  It depends on what the protected classes are in their state and municipality, as well as of course the federal laws.  The classes generally include race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.  They may or may not include sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression.  

 

If the gay baker doesn't want to do a Duck Dynasty cake because of their beliefs about homosexuality, it would be a bit tricky.  Are these political views, or religious ones?  It is legal to discriminate against someone because of their politics, but not because of their religion.  Back in the day, it would be fairly easy to say "religious" and be confident that the courts would support this, as Christian belief was unilateral in this area.  However, Christians are no longer largely in agreement over this issue.  It is, in fact, something that many congregations are struggling with, as good, thoughtful members start with the same values and come to different conclusions.  If the DD family challenged the baker, the courts would have to tease out whether the baker was discriminating  because of politics or religion, and a good case could be made that these are now political views rather than strictly religious ones.  (A good case could be made for religious beliefs rather than political, also.  It would be one for the courts to decide, I think.)

 

Now, if the baker wanted to discriminate because they felt that all-cammo, all-the-time, was a horrible fashion statement that they wanted nothing to do with, and they only baked cakes for people who were fashion-forward at all times, then they would be free to do so, as it is not illegal to discriminate against those who are unfashionable.

[elegantlion]

 

Now, if the baker wanted to discriminate because they felt that all-cammo, all-the-time, was a horrible fashion statement that they wanted nothing to do with, and they only baked cakes for people who were fashion-forward at all times, then they would be free to do so, as it is not illegal to discriminate against those who are unfashionable.

 

I'm pretty sure I'd be on that list as I have a thing for yoga pants.  :coolgleamA:

[Joanne]

 

 

If the gay baker doesn't want to do a Duck Dynasty cake because of their beliefs about homosexuality, it would be a bit tricky. .

I sure hope fans of DD never become a protected class!

[Jane in NC]

For the sake of curiosity, would anyone care to explain why the complaint is leveled only at Christians?  Orthodox Jews, some whom are bakers and photographers, etc., would also likely wish to decline services for a gay wedding.  Suppose two gay Muslim men wish to get married.  I have a hard time imagining a religious, halal caterer agreeing to provide food for the event.  I don't know much about the religious views of Hindus and Buddhists; they may also have objections.  

 

 

I presume that an Orthodox Jew would not do business with anyone on Saturday so if the wedding is to be held on a Saturday, then I presume the business would decline the opportunity.  That to me is reasonable in the same fashion that the chicken sandwich place with a weird spelling does not sell chicken sandwiches to anyone on Sunday because they are not open on Sunday.

 

Do you have any legal cases to point to regarding other religious groups?

[LizItaly]

I presume that an Orthodox Jew would not do business with anyone on Saturday so if the wedding is to be held on a Saturday, then I presume the business would decline the opportunity.  That to me is reasonable in the same fashion that the chicken sandwich place with a weird spelling does not sell chicken sandwiches to anyone on Sunday because they are not open on Sunday.

 

Do you have any legal cases to point to regarding other religious groups?

 

Are all weddings held on Saturday?  Mine wasn't.  I assume there are some Orthodox Jewish people who are gay.  They would be more likely than others to seek a kosher baker.  What would be the result of this?

 

Any thoughts on the halal caterer?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

For the sake of curiosity, would anyone care to explain why the complaint is leveled only at Christians? Orthodox Jews, some of whom are bakers and photographers, etc., would also likely wish to decline providing services for a gay wedding. Suppose two gay Muslim men wish to get married. I have a hard time imagining a religious, halal caterer agreeing to provide food for the event. I don't know much about the religious views of Hindus and Buddhists; they may also have objections.

 

My family is Jewish and Christian and Muslim. That may some surprise some. In my family, there are some religious people and some mostly secular people. Several are atheists. A great many of us are concerned over what we see as the limiting of hitherto protected freedoms in this country. I see a lot of people on this thread arguing that this is not happening in the States. Or rather, they state that it is not happening without making the argument. I beg to differ.

 

A frequent response to differing opinions even on this thread has been disbelief, assertion of feelings of nausea, shock, etc.. I disagree with many of you, but I can still treat you as people of good intention. Can those of you who disagree with me do the same? Or do you believe I am out to harm you? Are we so afraid of diversity of thought that our only response can be, "No, you are wrong." Or, "I hope this country never has to find out how wrong you are." Or, "I have to leave this thread because I think I am going to vomit."

 

For those who deny that freedom of speech, which is intimately connected with freedom of religion, is being limited in new and unprecedented ways in the U.S., may I respectfully suggest you take a look at thefire.org? Greg Lukianoff, the president of that organization, worked formerly for the ACLU and is a self-described "pro-choice liberal." He has written several books on in the increasing efforts to shut down free speech on the American college campus and elsewhere.

 

ETA: Here is one of Lukianoff's articles on free speech.

 

Edited for typos. (I think I got them all...)

Honestly? No, I don't believe those that are in favor of allowing public businesses to discriminate have good intentions.

[Jane in NC]

Are all weddings held on Saturday?  Mine wasn't.  I assume there are some Orthodox Jewish people who are gay.  They would be more likely than others to seek a kosher baker.  What would be the result of this?

 

Any thoughts on the halal caterer?

 

I gave an example of what I thought was a legal exception--a business that chooses to serve no one on a particular day.

 

Are you presuming that there are people who discriminate with approval of posters here?  As I read this thread, most are asking that the law be honored by all. 

 

You are saying that there must Orthodox Jews or Muslims who are choosing not to follow the law. I am asking for specific legal cases.