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

[TranquilMind]

You are being actively offensive. The arguments that we have evidence that same sex marriage has existed in many different societies across the course of history are not stupid. That argument isn't stupid. My personal ancestry and traditions are not stupid. You are rude.

Um, what?  The law HAS limited marriage to a man and a woman, always, since the beginning of this country and far before.

It is too bad that this is offensive.

I'm not required to consider extreme variations of practices in ancient societies to speak to the law in this country, but they are always trotted out. 

[TranquilMind]

Because non-traditional weddings has no exact meaning.

The baker should be permitted to do opposite gender/traditional weddings. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Then why can't the cake maker just say that he doesn't do non-traditional  (or we can call them opposite sex= which is the default, go to position, and has been since far before the beginning of this country) weddings, since he can obtain the result anyway?

Nope, you are dead wrong and being offensive, rude and dismissive *again*. People lived here BEFORE white people got here. They had traditions. Some of those people had a very different understanding of sexuality than we do today, and some of those groups were fine with what was (in essence) gay marriage. People have already explained this to you.

 

The purpose of the hoops is twofold: To "shame" him for not adhering to liberal orthodoxy, and to negatively affect his business, if possible.

Wrong again. The purpose is to take away tax and civil benefits that businesses which are open to the public receive through tax dollars.

 

If you think this is fine, simply because it is a religious traditionalist at stake instead of someone in a category you like better, I don't know how to fix that.

Well, that isn't why, so the logical premise of this statement is wrong.

[Mrs Mungo]

Um, what?  The law HAS limited marriage to a man and a woman, always, since the beginning of this country and far before.

Whose laws? Which laws? Which traditions? Which societies? You are factually and demonstrably wrong and people have already explained this to you repeatedly.

 

I'm not required to consider extreme variations of practices in ancient societies to speak to the law in this country, but they are always trotted out.

Extreme? Now considering gay marriages is extreme? You are being very rude and inflammatory.

[hornblower]

  If some gay guy declared that he was running a bakery that would ONLY do gay weddings as a statement against traditional Christians, most of you here would be cheering, and not see it as the violation that this case is. 

 

I'm not Christian & yet, no, I wouldn't be cheering.  It would be a violation of human rights & it would be wrong.

 

I said many posts back: doing business with the public means NO discrimination. NONE. Do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, language, ethnicity, disability, age, country of origin, caste etc. If you provide a service to the public, you provide it to everyone.  It's that simple.

 

If someone doesn't like what that means for their business, if they cannot reconcile their business & private lives, then change careers/develop a different business.

[TranquilMind]

Whose laws? Which laws? Which traditions? Which societies? You are factually and demonstrably wrong and people have already explained this to you repeatedly.

 

 

Extreme? Now considering gay marriages is extreme? You are being very rude and inflammatory.

Really?  Now you are just being silly.

 

Whose laws?  The laws we are discussing here; United States (and State) laws.    In U.S. and state laws, there has never been any such thing as "gay marriage" recognized...until now.  It did not exist.  It was not possible.  It was not "marriage".   Of course it is extreme in the context of history.    It was unthinkable a mere 50 years ago. 

 

Saying I am wrong over and over to even defend the right of the Christian baker to operate his business as he chooses (like Hobby Lobby) doesn't mean anything. 

 

Don't worry.  We are all getting the government we deserve, and things are steadily declining economically, ethically, and in other ways, over time.

[Shahrazad]

I guess I'm a bit confused here. If non-religious marriages (or civilly conducted marriages) aren't "real marriages" yet you aren't trying to ban men and women getting married at the courthouse, why is there a need to get involved in the gay marriage issue here? I mean, theoretically, you could just think to yourself it isn't a real marriage and doesn't count and go on your merry way.

The US is not a theocracy. If, as others have commented in one of these threads, you're living in the Christian equivalent of Iran and your legal code is based on a very specific interpretation of Biblical scripture, then you'd have an argument to make. But as it is, religious views do not a law make in America.

 

 

The law of this country (we will limit it there to avoid the stupid, "Some gay guy could possibly have been  "married" in ancient Greece" arguments) defined marriage as between a man and a woman since the beginning, which dovetailed with the religious beliefs of all major religions.

Here is a typical state law (most have been on the books since statehood):

 

"A marriage is prohibited and void between a person and his or her ancestor, descendant, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, first cousin or between persons of the same gender";Del. Stat. Title 13 ' 101

 

The feigned shock over this history is flummoxing today. 

 

That is a bit presumptive. There are PLENTY of Christians who don't believe marriage is exclusive between a man and a woman. There are probably many Jewish people who feel the same. I imagine there are many Hindus and Buddhists who are cool with gay marriage as well. Gay marriage doesn't exist in my faith but the US government is not founded to make laws off of my personal religious beliefs so that is not my place to have an opinion.

 

Laws change all the time. So the existence of a law from the past is not always an indicator it shouldn't be changed. Otherwise, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be allowed to vote...

 

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm done. Being told that I am "silly" and "stupid" for pointing out historical facts is over the top. You are a rude, offensive person, no WONDER you think bigotry is FINE.

[Joker]

Do it!  Invite me.  ;)  I like cake.

There wouldn't be any conflict with the strictest of traditional cake makers in that instance, as he isn't making a cake for a ceremony which violates his faith.  Nowhere in scripture is one prohibited from celebrating a tea party with stuffed animals. 

 

Neither was the baker that keeps being discussed here. He was asked to make a cake for a party celebrating a wedding that had already taken place. He wasn't asked to bake a cake for a ceremony.

[Tanaqui]

I'm not required to consider extreme variations of practices in ancient societies to speak to the law in this country, but they are always trotted out.

 

Many of those societies exist today, as I'm certain has been explained to you.

 

And when your argument depends on "That's always been the case", then yes, you need to consider all the times and places where it hasn't been the case.

 

If some gay guy declared that he was running a bakery that would ONLY do gay weddings as a statement against traditional Christians, most of you here would be cheering, and not see it as the violation that this case is.

 

Why do you say that? Where is your evidence? Which people would be cheering?

 

[TranquilMind]

I guess I'm a bit confused here. If non-religious marriages (or civilly conducted marriages) aren't "real marriages" yet you aren't trying to ban men and women getting married at the courthouse, why is there a need to get involved in the gay marriage issue here? I mean, theoretically, you could just think to yourself it isn't a real marriage and doesn't count and go on your merry way.

 

The US is not a theocracy. If, as others have commented in one of these threads, you're living in the Christian equivalent of Iran and your legal code is based on a very specific interpretation of Biblical scripture, then you'd have an argument to make. But as it is, religious views do not a law make in America.

 

 

 

That is a bit presumptive. There are PLENTY of Christians who don't believe marriage is exclusive between a man and a woman. There are probably many Jewish people who feel the same. I imagine there are many Hindus and Buddhists who are cool with gay marriage as well. Gay marriage doesn't exist in my faith but the US government is not founded to make laws off of my personal religious beliefs so that is not my place to have an opinion.

 

Laws change all the time. So the existence of a law from the past is not always an indicator it shouldn't be changed. Otherwise, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be allowed to vote...

The was no reason to get involved in the gay marriage issue.  You are totally right.  It was pretty much simply ignored by those whose faith doesn't recognize its existence; no problem, live and let live. 

 

Not a problem, until the Christian cake baker is sued directly because of his religious belief when  he declined to do a cake for one of these "impossible" weddings.   He is not allowed act in accordance with the religious belief that marriage is limited to a man and a woman in the wedding industry

. 

It is where religious freedom conflicts with new laws subverting their religious beliefs that it becomes at issue.  And only there, from what I can see. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Neither was the baker that keeps being discussed here. He was asked to make a cake for a party celebrating a wedding that had already taken place. He wasn't asked to bake a cake for a ceremony.

There is no Christian marriage ceremony that involves The Holy Cake, at least not one that I'm aware of. Anyone?

[TranquilMind]

Neither was the baker that keeps being discussed here. He was asked to make a cake for a party celebrating a wedding that had already taken place. He wasn't asked to bake a cake for a ceremony.

Before, after...it doesn't matter.

It was still to celebrate a specific event that is prohibited in his faith and he should not be forced to do it. 

[Tanaqui]

 

Whose laws?  The laws we are discussing here; United States (and State) laws.    In U.S. and state laws, there has never been any such thing as "gay marriage" recognized...until now.  It did not exist.  It was not possible.  It was not "marriage".   Of course it is extreme in the context of history.    It was unthinkable a mere 50 years ago. 

 

And 75 years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in much of this country. 100 years ago, coverture was the law of the land, and women gave up many of their rights upon entering marriage. In the world of marriage, things have only improved since then.

 

Don't worry.  We are all getting the government we deserve, and things are steadily declining economically, ethically, and in other ways, over time.

 

Can you cite this? In which ways can you show that we are steadily declining "ethically"?

[*Lulu*]

Neither was the baker that keeps being discussed here. He was asked to make a cake for a party celebrating a wedding that had already taken place. He wasn't asked to bake a cake for a ceremony.

Did anybody here actually have a cake at their CEREMONY?

 

I have NEVER seen a cake at the ceremony.

 

I've seen dogs as ring bearers. I've seen the bride walk in to Star Wars music. I've seen communion, candles, mini brides, male bride's attendants, and a flower girl that tried to eat instead of throw the petals.

 

I have never seen a cake.

 

The cake is for the after party.

 

If gay parties are okay then bake the damn cake. The cake has ZERO to do with the ceremony.

[Tanaqui]

The was no reason to get involved in the gay marriage issue.  You are totally right.  It was pretty much simply ignored by those whose faith doesn't recognize its existence; no problem, live and let live.

Did you seriously just type that with a straight face? Because that's not true. Not even a little bit. I can show you the evidence if you've been living under a rock.

 

[Shahrazad]

The baker was asked to do his job and bake a cake for a celebratory party, not officiate the wedding. He acted as though creating a dessert for a party is facilitating the marriage and he couldn't be a party to that. I will say that a close friend went to a privately-owned store and the owner refused to sell to her because of her faith. She was shocked and didn't think that could be legal and she had grown up in that town and knew the owner since she was a little girl. When she told him this, he said that as far as he was concerned she is a traitor and doesn't deserve to live and she could get out or he could come throw her out. But since, in his mind, he had his religious reasons he couldn't sell her a coke, I guess he should be excused.

[Shahrazad]

The was no reason to get involved in the gay marriage issue.  You are totally right.  It was pretty much simply ignored by those whose faith doesn't recognize its existence; no problem, live and let live. 

 

Not a problem, until the Christian cake baker is sued directly because of his religious belief when  he declined to do a cake for one of these "impossible" weddings.   He is not allowed act in accordance with the religious belief that marriage is limited to a man and a woman in the wedding industry

. 

It is where religious freedom conflicts with new laws subverting their religious beliefs that it becomes at issue.  And only there, from what I can see. 

 

So then some conservative Christians have not been trying to prevent/ban gay marriage based on their religious beliefs?

 

If the 'marriage does not exist' and the wedding is impossible, then he is just making a cake for people to eat at a party.

 

And 75 years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in much of this country. 100 years ago, coverture was the law of the land, and women gave up many of their rights upon entering marriage. In the world of marriage, things have only improved since then.

 

 

Can you cite this? In which ways can you show that we are steadily declining "ethically"?

 

You don't know about the good old days? The ethical days? Back when depressed women were lobotomized, children with Autism were institutionalized, and Black Americans were treated as second third class citizens. How did we wander so far astray?!

[Tanaqui]

Autistic children still get institutionalized, and it's not pretty.

[Shahrazad]

Autistic children still get institutionalized, and it's not pretty.

 

Progress. We may yet return to the good ol' days. 

[Chelli]

Really?  Now you are just being silly.

 

Whose laws?  The laws we are discussing here; United States (and State) laws.    In U.S. and state laws, there has never been any such thing as "gay marriage" recognized...until now.  It did not exist.  It was not possible.  It was not "marriage".   Of course it is extreme in the context of history.    It was unthinkable a mere 50 years ago. 

 

Saying I am wrong over and over to even defend the right of the Christian baker to operate his business as he chooses (like Hobby Lobby) doesn't mean anything. 

 

Don't worry.  We are all getting the government we deserve, and things are steadily declining economically, ethically, and in other ways, over time.

 

There was also no such thing as voting for women less than 100 years ago. My mom was only allowed to play basketball half court when she was in high school because females were told they were too delicate to run full court and that was in the '60's. Not to mention some of the laws on the books for African Americans in our very recent past. The law is a living organism it changes, and should change, as society changes and what we recognize as the proper way to treat our fellow man changes.

 

Look, I totally get what you are saying. I understand. I follow the argument. But what everyone is trying to tell you is that in the state of Colorado, where this incident occurred, what this baker did was illegal and unconstitutional under Colorado state law. You can disagree with the law, you can try to change the law, but you cannot say that the state did the wrong thing. The law is on the books. The state followed what the law said to do. In a different state, there could very well have been a different outcome, but each person must abide by the laws of the state they live in and the laws of the United States.

 

The state of Colorado deemed that the baker's freedom of religion did not override the gay couple's protected status under the law. You don't agree with that decision and that's totally within your rights, but you cannot say that the state was unfair to the baker. You cannot say that they would not do the same thing to another baker who was refusing to serve Christians. The law is supposed to be blind meaning that you look at the case based solely upon the law versus the circumstances of the case. As a judge you are NOT to let your personal views interfere with a decision (yes, it happens, but we're talking a perfect scenario here). In this case (no matter how I personally believe) the state did exactly that. They looked at the law, they looked at what the baker did, and they determined that he was in the wrong which he was according to CO state law.

 

The problem that I find with a lot of my fellow conservative Christians is that they want to view the law through the Bible, but the United States determined long ago that the Bible was not the law of the land. The problem is that for a very long time in this country a lot of the sins of the Bible were on the books as being illegal in states and in the country. Now that is changing. Laws are moving away from following the Bible and moving more into just the realm of law. Those two spheres of Biblical sin and law are no longer overlapping as much as they once did. That is what has Christians in a tizzy, but at some point we have to be able to separate our personal Biblical beliefs to the laws on the books. That doesn't mean that you don't have the right to try to change those laws by who you vote for. It doesn't mean that you don't have the right to protest and picket those laws. You can even choose to break those laws in protest of them, but you have to be willing to take the consequences that come with that choice. What you can't do is try to force the law to conform to the Bible. It was never intended to do that. The Founders didn't establish a theocracy. God only established one theocracy in human history and the USA ain't it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The baker should be permitted to do opposite gender/traditional weddings. 

 

First, he isn't doing any "weddings"...he is baking a cake. 

 

And he is allowed to do those.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think a bit much is being made out of baking a simple cake.

 

[Rosie_0801]

Then why can't the cake maker just say that he doesn't do non-traditional  (or we can call them opposite sex= which is the default, go to position, and has been since far before the beginning of this country) weddings, since he can obtain the result anyway?  The purpose of the hoops is twofold: To "shame" him for not adhering to liberal orthodoxy, and to negatively affect his business, if possible.  If you think this is fine, simply because it is a religious traditionalist at stake instead of someone in a category you like better, I don't know how to fix that. 

 

Nup. The purpose is to make him use his in public manners in public.

[*Lulu*]

Nup. The purpose is to make him use his in public manners in public.

Here is the problem....

 

Some of us believe in a higher standard of public manners than others.

[elegantlion]

 

The US is not a theocracy. 

 

 

 

I feel like this needs to be repeated in large bright shiny letters in comical font:

 

The US is not a theocracy  

[elegantlion]

What if they are gay stuffed dogs having a dog wedding ???

 

If dog wedding is code for having a drink, then this should be code for having a drink along with a handful of M&Ms or something. 

[texasmama]

This thread has jumped the shark.

 

But it has not been locked.

 

:D

[Pam in CT]

 

...Look, I totally get what you are saying. I understand. I follow the argument. But what everyone is trying to tell you is that in the state of Colorado, where this incident occurred, what this baker did was illegal and unconstitutional under Colorado state law. You can disagree with the law, you can try to change the law, but you cannot say that the state did the wrong thing. The law is on the books. The state followed what the law said to do. In a different state, there could very well have been a different outcome, but each person must abide by the laws of the state they live in and the laws of the United States.

 

The state of Colorado deemed that the baker's freedom of religion did not override the gay couple's protected status under the law. You don't agree with that decision and that's totally within your rights, but you cannot say that the state was unfair to the baker. <snip for brevity> They looked at the law, they looked at what the baker did, and they determined that he was in the wrong which he was according to CO state law.

 

The problem that I find with a lot of my fellow conservative Christians is that they want to view the law through the Bible, but the United States determined long ago that the Bible was not the law of the land. The problem is that for a very long time in this country a lot of the sins of the Bible were on the books as being illegal in states and in the country. Now that is changing. Laws are moving away from following the Bible and moving more into just the realm of law. Those two spheres of Biblical sin and law are no longer overlapping as much as they once did. That is what has Christians in a tizzy, but at some point we have to be able to separate our personal Biblical beliefs to the laws on the books. That doesn't mean that you don't have the right to try to change those laws by who you vote for. It doesn't mean that you don't have the right to protest and picket those laws. You can even choose to break those laws in protest of them, but you have to be willing to take the consequences that come with that choice. What you can't do is try to force the law to conform to the Bible. It was never intended to do that. The Founders didn't establish a theocracy. God only established one theocracy in human history and the USA ain't it.

 

Chelli, thanks for this.  It's actually helpful-- I've truly been struggling to understand why we seem to keep going around in the same circles...

 

and I think this distinction you're making, between the abstract principles on which civil laws are based on in order to be applied universally; vs. biblical mandates within a particular religious context.. it's not just different views; it's a different way of thinking.

[TranquilMind]

 If you provide a service to the public, you provide it to everyone.  It's that simple.

 

Baloney.  You provide it to everyone who fits the appropriate category.  You do not provide alcohol to children.  You do not provide bungee jumping to pregnant women, elderly or frail people, children, people under a certain size.  You do not provide cigarettes to anyone under a certain age.  You do not permit men in your Curves gym.  You do not rent housing to people with bad credit. 

 

Here, the cake maker was not making cakes for same sex weddings since they did not exist in his jurisdiction. They didn't fit the appropriate category.

 

This was fine for the 30 years he was in business...until it wasn't.

[Slartibartfast]

Um, what? The law HAS limited marriage to a man and a woman, always, since the beginning of this country and far before.

It is too bad that this is offensive.

I'm not required to consider extreme variations of practices in ancient societies to speak to the law in this country, but they are always trotted out.

Native Americans are alive now. It is offensive and racist to talk about them as if they are some extinct, obsolete culture. They are alive now.

[zoobie]

Baloney. You provide it to everyone who fits the appropriate category. You do not provide alcohol to children. You do not provide bungee jumping to pregnant women, elderly or frail people, children, people under a certain size. You do not provide cigarettes to anyone under a certain age. You do not permit men in your Curves gym. You do not rent housing to people with bad credit.

 

Here, the cake maker was not making cakes for same sex weddings since they did not exist in his jurisdiction. They didn't fit the appropriate category.

 

This was fine for the 30 years he was in business...until it wasn't.

It's illegal to provide cigarettes and alcohol to children, so that's not ageism. You couldn't tell an old guy that he's too old to buy them. The bungee jumping would be a safety issue. There's no law against selling a wedding cake to anyone. If the state wrote one, the baker could abide by it until it got overturned by the court because it would be unconstitutional. There's no law requiring the baker to ensure people who buy a wedding cake be allowed to marry. That's absurd.

 

Also, hasn't it been established that they were buying a cake for a commitment ceremony which is perfectly legal even in the most backasswards of states?

[Joker]

Baloney.  You provide it to everyone who fits the appropriate category.  You do not provide alcohol to children.  You do not provide bungee jumping to pregnant women, elderly or frail people, children, people under a certain size.  You do not provide cigarettes to anyone under a certain age.  You do not permit men in your Curves gym.  You do not rent housing to people with bad credit. 

 

Here, the cake maker was not making cakes for same sex weddings since they did not exist in his jurisdiction. They didn't fit the appropriate category.

 

This was fine for the 30 years he was in business...until it wasn't.

 

Not really accurate. His website says he's been in business since 1993. A quick Google search tells me sexual orientation has been protected in Colorado since 2007. That would be about half the time you're claiming. If I'm missing something, please let me know.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Baloney.  You provide it to everyone who fits the appropriate category.  You do not provide alcohol to children.  You do not provide bungee jumping to pregnant women, elderly or frail people, children, people under a certain size.  You do not provide cigarettes to anyone under a certain age.  You do not permit men in your Curves gym.  You do not rent housing to people with bad credit. 

 

Here, the cake maker was not making cakes for same sex weddings since they did not exist in his jurisdiction. They didn't fit the appropriate category.

 

This was fine for the 30 years he was in business...until it wasn't.

 

Wedding cakes aren't eaten at weddings.  They are eaten at receptions.  And guess what...gay receptions are legal everywhere.

[hornblower]

Baloney.  You provide it to everyone who fits the appropriate category.  You do not provide alcohol to children.  ... snip

This whole thing though is quite different from the baker because the alcohol vendor is acting within the laws.  Even when there was no legal recognition of same sex marriage, there weren't any laws on the books saying a service provider COULDN'T provide a service to a gay couple (if say, they wanted their own private commitment ceremony or whatever...)

 

PLUS, & I wish some American lawyers would wade in here because now we're really not in my realm of expertise -  I know that there have been challenges to drinking age laws, claiming unconstitutionality & they were struck down. http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/SupportingResearch/Journal/wagenaar.aspx

 

"The first case challenged, in federal court, the constitutionality of Michigan's increase in the drinking age, one of the early states to raise the legal age back to 21 (Guy, 1978). The court ruled, on the basis of scientific evidence that linked lower drinking ages to increased traffic crash involvement among youth, that the drinking-age discrimination was reasonably related to the state objective of reducing highway crashes. Thus the higher drinking age withstood the constitutional challenge on three key legal issues: (1) drinking alcohol is not a "fundamental" right guaranteed by the Constitution, (2) age is not inherently a "suspect" criteria for discrimination (in contrast to race or ethnicity, for example) and (3) using the drinking age to prevent highway crashes has a "rational basis" in available scientific evidence. The court mentioned additional reasons that a higher drinking age is not unconstitutional. The higher drinking age does not cause a permanent disability, but is only a temporary postponement of a specific behavior for the young person's own protection. Furthermore, states have broad powers to regulate the distribution and use of beverage alcohol under the Twenty-first Amendment, which ended Prohibition. Therefore, the drinking age, like other alcohol-control regulations, has a "strong presumption of validity," according to the court."

 

I think SCOTUS is looking at something called the Rational Basis - "The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government."   So the kinds of discrimination such as not letting children have access to alcohol, cigarettes, driving, etc are quite different & have to meet a certain standard that indicated overall societal good.

 

You'd have to a ) pass a law saying that gay people shouldn't be sold cake & b ) convince scotus that this was required for the overall good of a society (which I know certain religious tracts would fervently agree with but then as we've said, the US is not a theocracy...)

 

Refusal to let a pregnant woman bungee jump is a liability issue  - it's not a discrimination issue if the service provider cannot ensure the person's safety in the activity.  This is certainly not parallel to refusing to sell a cake to a member of the public.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

 

Baloney.  You provide it to everyone who fits the appropriate category.  You do not provide alcohol to children.  You do not provide bungee jumping to pregnant women, elderly or frail people, children, people under a certain size.  You do not provide cigarettes to anyone under a certain age.  You do not permit men in your Curves gym.  You do not rent housing to people with bad credit.

 

Children should not have large quantities of hard alcohol because it can be harmful to them, ditto letting certain parties go bungee jumping and providing cigarettes for minors.

 

Curves gym is a private club and can set its own standards for membership.

 

"People with bad credit" is not a protected class, furthermore, renting to them could be fiscally harmful.

 

None of those are the same thing at all as selling tiered cakes.

 

See, when you sell a tiered cake, it shouldn't matter to you whether it is going to a wedding or a birthday or a food fight. Your job is to sell the cakes, not to interrogate the customers.

[Love]

.

 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Dmmetler]

You can as long as your stuffed animals are not gay.

 

Come to think of it, in my house over the last few years, we've had weddings between Animal Trainer Barbie and Toy Story Barbie, The Disney Princesses divested themselves of the princes and were living happily in Cinderella's castle, the My little ponies had some sort of Lesbian commune in Ponyville, and various not even on the same branches of the phylogenetic tree Littlest pet shop animals had families.  Toothless and Roarer have cast off the traditional roles their BABW birth certificates say they should hold, are wearing tutus and heading to prom. And Cecil the sea serpent, who was male when I gave him to DH as a present years before DD was born, has apparently transitioned to female and is now the single mother of a clutch of baby stuffed dragons.

 

 

Probably a good thing that none of them want cake....

[Cammie]

Um, what?  The law HAS limited marriage to a man and a woman, always, since the beginning of this country and far before.

It is too bad that this is offensive.

I'm not required to consider extreme variations of practices in ancient societies to speak to the law in this country, but they are always trotted out. 

 

Um, no.  If you are willing to look outside your own restrictive idea of what constitutes valid history many societies throughout history had a wide variety of what constituted marriage.  And the laws and traditions of those societies supported those marriages.  These are not "extreme variations" when they occur in large segments of the society.  They are not "extreme" just because they are different from what you perceive to be the "norm."

 

Seriously, do you think we need to take a Puritan or other early settler definition of marriage and use that for ALL Americans for the rest of time?? That wouldn't make sense.  Most of us have descended from ancestors who travelled to American much more recently. 

 

You have an extremely limited view of what is the appropriate history to consider and what is the appropriate cultural context to consider.

 

I get the feeling that you believe that there is this invisible thread from the present day that you can trace back to the beginning of the US, to the beginning of Christianity and that if you follow only that narrative your definition of "marriage" will be supported.  But other people don't believe what you believe.  We just don't.  And there is no reason that we should have your beliefs dictate what other people's rights are.  You are free to marry who you think is appropriate.  Others should have the same freedom.  You are free to open a business, or not.  Others have the same freedom.  ALL people who open a business have to follow the same rules and regulations and laws.  That is just the way a healthy, functioning society should be.  I live in a place where a bribe to the right person gets you out of all sorts of rules and regulations.  Believe me when I say we do not want to go down that road.

 

I was wondering the other day, why we can't view the term "marriage" as we do in a dictionary - as a word with multiple meanings.  One meaning is a union between consenting adults.  Another meaning can be whatever "traditional, Biblically sanctioned" meaning you want.  Why can't the term be seen to have facets and shades of meaning.

 

Another question I have is that there seem to be a lot of people willing to fight pretty strongly about the word "marriage."  But, that is an English word.  Wouldn't the word that Jesus used have been different?  Wouldn't the word in the original texts that became the Bible have been different?  But the English word is NOT that word.  It is a translation.  As such it also has other meanings from other sources.  So arguing that the term "marriage" has specific, Biblically sanctioned definitions doesn't seem right, does it?

[Cammie]

DP

 

[Leav97]

The was no reason to get involved in the gay marriage issue.  You are totally right.  It was pretty much simply ignored by those whose faith doesn't recognize its existence; no problem, live and let live. 

 

Not a problem, until the Christian cake baker is sued directly because of his religious belief when  he declined to do a cake for one of these "impossible" weddings.   He is not allowed act in accordance with the religious belief that marriage is limited to a man and a woman in the wedding industry

. 

It is where religious freedom conflicts with new laws subverting their religious beliefs that it becomes at issue.  And only there, from what I can see. 

 

He opened a business to bake cakes.  He was asked to bake a cake.  He wasn't asked to marry the couple.  He wasn't asked to join the couple in a three some.  Just provide the service he personally chose to provide to the public.

[TranquilMind]

It's illegal to provide cigarettes and alcohol to children, so that's not ageism. You couldn't tell an old guy that he's too old to buy them. The bungee jumping would be a safety issue. There's no law against selling a wedding cake to anyone. If the state wrote one, the baker could abide by it until it got overturned by the court because it would be unconstitutional. There's no law requiring the baker to ensure people who buy a wedding cake be allowed to marry. That's absurd.

 

Also, hasn't it been established that they were buying a cake for a commitment ceremony which is perfectly legal even in the most backasswards of states?

No, I believe it was a wedding cake for a reception.

 

At any rate, another perfect example has arisen in the media:

 

Barbershops.  This case is in the UK but I can easily see it happening here.

 

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/11146737.Woman_denied_haircut_in_barber_s_shop/

 

She was denied a haircut because the barber only cuts men's hair.  That's what barbershops do.   Exact words:  "I don't cut women's hair".    Of course she is complaining. 

Barbershops have always been the purview of men.  Why should women be able to force them into cutting their hair?  If you are consistent, you would have to agree that the barbershop can no longer limit itself to discriminating against women, even though barbershops serve only men and have always done so. 

 

I took my son to a barbershop for awhile and asked the WOMAN barber if I could get my hair cut because I was already there.  Nope.  They don't women's hair.  Fair enough.

 

(P.S. She does have a point about the cost...why DO women's hair cuts cost more?  And their shoes cost more too, even though they are smaller?  Inquiring minds want to know - but this is not the thread for that). 

[TranquilMind]

He opened a business to bake cakes.  He was asked to bake a cake.  He wasn't asked to marry the couple.  He wasn't asked to join the couple in a three some.  Just provide the service he personally chose to provide to the public.

He provided wedding cakes for over 30 years, as I recall.  Wedding cakes by definition are for a bride and a groom. 

 

The couple in question requested a wedding cake but could not be married in the jurisdiction,nor did the relationship constitute a marriage in his faith, so he declined to do it.  Another baker would happily do it, who did not have the same religious constraints.   

 

Again, you are elevating one protected class over another.  Not ok. 

[TranquilMind]

I would probably agree with everything Chelli said here, except this last sentence.

I really think God made two. The Jewish nation in the Old Testament, under the old covenant, and the Kingdom of God/Heaven now in the New Testament, under the new covenant.

 

The Bible says a person must be born again to see the Kingdom of God, and I believe once you are truly born again, you *can* see it- you are in it. The ones in God's Kingdom are the ones called to follow His rules, not those who choose to be outside it. God is the one who gave us all freewill to decide for ourselves.

 

Jesus never told His followers to make His laws the laws of the land and force everyone to follow them. He said our battle is spiritual, not against flesh and blood. He told us to do quite a few things, and I don't see worldly politics in the list.

 

I don't understand the idea of the U.S. being "Christian." Only humans with souls can do that.

 

 

Chelli- this was certainly not all directed at you! : )

 

It's just my humble opinion.

 

 

Here is a link to a book, on the U.S. not ever being a Christian nation:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0924722258/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/176-4313799-7540837

I agree that the U.S. is not "Christian".  However, Christian beliefs, where expressed, should retain First Amendment protections, just as other beliefs should.

[TranquilMind]

Not really accurate. His website says he's been in business since 1993. A quick Google search tells me sexual orientation has been protected in Colorado since 2007. That would be about half the time you're claiming. If I'm missing something, please let me know.

Sorry...21 years, not 30.   I was thinking about some other baker, I think. 

[hornblower]

There are barbershops here that DO cut women's hair.  There have also been a couple human rights commission complaints about this in other towns where women have been refused....  Hair cutting establishments should not discriminate on the basis of gender. It IS illegal discrimination in Canada under the Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
They are in the business of cutting hair. If the cut I want is one that they are capable of doing, they need to do it, regardless of what genitals are between my legs.

 

 

[elegantlion]

No, I believe it was a wedding cake for a reception.

 

At any rate, another perfect example has arisen in the media:

 

Barbershops.  This case is in the UK but I can easily see it happening here.

 

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/11146737.Woman_denied_haircut_in_barber_s_shop/

 

She was denied a haircut because the barber only cuts men's hair.  That's what barbershops do.   Exact words:  "I don't cut women's hair".    Of course she is complaining. 

Barbershops have always been the purview of men.  Why should women be able to force them into cutting their hair?  If you are consistent, you would have to agree that the barbershop can no longer limit itself to discriminating against women, even though barbershops serve only men and have always done so. 

 

I took my son to a barbershop for awhile and asked the WOMAN barber if I could get my hair cut because I was already there.  Nope.  They don't women's hair.  Fair enough.

 

(P.S. She does have a point about the cost...why DO women's hair cuts cost more?  And their shoes cost more too, even though they are smaller?  Inquiring minds want to know - but this is not the thread for that). 

 

Really, my dad took me to a barbershop a few times when I was a kid. They cut my hair without issue. I've never heard of a barbershop turning down women before. Of course, I cut our hair now, so it's been years since I've paid for a haircut. 

[kiana]

Well, I actually *don't* see why a shop should be able to refuse to cut women's hair, so yes, that part is consistent.

 

If they say "we don't do perms" that's something completely different and totally permissible.

[Love]

.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[TranquilMind]

Really, my dad took me to a barbershop a few times when I was a kid. They cut my hair without issue. I've never heard of a barbershop turning down women before. Of course, I cut our hair now, so it's been years since I've paid for a haircut. 

How do you cut the back of your head?  I'd love to do this but simply do not possess the skill!